/qa/ - Questions and Answers

>>6462
Trust me. It's fine.

>>6463
Okay, but what's good about it?

>>6464
For one, they prevent the few pseudo-enerals we do have from having to post dozens of 'old bread past bump, new edition', which also avoids wanton 'same images from last thread' posts.

So, are we ever going to do anything about the fact that threads on /vx/ don't slide?
Bump limits exist for a reason, and extending them I feel has contributed to a detrimental departure from the flow of fresh ideas that make chan-like boards attractive in the first place. 300 would be enough, 500 would be a lot. We're a slow board; we shouldn't need absurdly high bump limits.

>>7221
Bump limit set to 2,147,483,647

>>7225
Whats the catalog page limit set to?
>2 billion bumps of flat earth nonsense
Gee, surely that wont be exploited ever

>>7227
100.

>>7225
Can we please actually fix this?
>>7227
It's not about exploitation. It's about board quality.

>>7228
Clearly to satisfy the overwhelming cries of "/vx/ is too smol"

Let this be a lesson to any remaining oldfags. All that remains of Mlpol is a skinsuit, worn by staff to exercise tjeir degenerate fantasies.

>>7230
Forgot pic

>>7230
Dude, can you stick to the topic? This is counterproductive.
>>7231
A serious response would be appreciated.

Pooper said the archive for this board didn't worked properly, so they had to come up with a way to preserve old threads for the time being.

>>7235
>for the time being
Until when?

>>7236
He can probably fix it in a couple days at most.
Meant /vx/ Btw

>>7232
>A serious response would be appreciated.
KYS

>>7235
The reason historically /vx/ didn't have an Archive was because when the site was using vichan/NPFChan there was no Archive, and threads that slided off the catalog were gone and lost forever. So the high bump limit and catalog size was kept to keep the board canon to its older self when we moved to new codebase.

>>7240
>to keep the board canon to its older self
So...you mean it's actually a technical issue, right?

>>7241
There is no techical limitation that prevents us from changing the bump limit, catalog size etc. in the board config. But many RP treads on /vx/ enjoys and benefits from a high bump limit and changing it would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation.

>>7230
Okay, retard.
>>7239
No u.
>>7240
I know that, but that was also kind of a long time ago. Are there any plans to fix it?
>>7242
It wouldn't be a major issue if the threads at the bottom of the catalog slide.
>See, I asked for this back in the day, and I am now recanting that request. Truth is it doesn't actually help roleplay go more smoothly.
That decision was also made when 80-90% of the posts on /mlpol/ were in roleplay threads on /vx/. It's not like that anymore, and I don't think it would be that much trouble to ask roleplayers to make new threads every 500 posts instead of every 1000-2000 posts. I've roleplayed on /vx/ long enough to know that it takes no mental effort to transfer roleplay from one old thread to a fresh one.
>would alter the style of the board that it have had since its creation
I really don't think it would significantly change, but that's just my opinion.

>>7246
Fucked up the greentext on that, but whatever

I would like to once again raise the issue that the bump limits are way too high.

>>7661
Counter point: no they're not.
That means the bump limit is good as it is right now.

>>7662
I disagree. I think it's way too high. Bump limits exist for a reason.

>>7663
That reason being data storage and processing power.
The core argument being made of lower bump limits is to produce more CONTENT. That is threads and posts.
The issue being people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over.
This is good for image board sites that have lots of users all the time even bots and shills and shit. Because the content per 1,000 users per board is about half that with much of it junk, some of it interesting, some meta, some decent, many bad, and a few great posts (which then spawn meta and more posts).
Right here and now this website doesn't have that kind of traffic. You don't need to dive through many multiple piles of garbage to find some awesome things.
Other sites 'made' generals to hold up something for longer, because it was somewhat 'important' somehow.
>b-but generals a shit?!
Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.

Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time. That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
Consider a hypothetical larger userbase that posted once every three seconds.
The flow of threads increase to a large degree, the most important/entertaining/bait stick around with more time because of more shit posts while other lesser threads fall off.
Not every thread is a hit, nor do they all stand the test of time, sometimes they run out of steam due to lacking CONTENT.

If you made threads with bump limits of three posts we would be speeding by like any other site. But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
Now if this site had the same to roughly the same bump limit as other places you find similar issues cropping up still.

Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
Some topics last nearly forever, which is also a containment 'thread/forum/discussion'. How do places like that survive?
By users posting new shit. Just like other image board sites much of it is crap.

One other thing other image board site(s) have is inducting newfags into the fold, which means reposting the best of the best content and arguments and images and ect. Yeah there's lurk moar newfag, but at some point the newfag is going to post something and it'll be ripped apart.
If too many newfags aren't properly assimilated a 'newfag' culture emerges. This occurs with shills and glowie posters as well. They are distinct.

<What about this website?
Due to the roughly consistent nature of interests there isn't monsoons of newfags and redditors and shitbags.
>Oh boy let's go get all those faggots so they can shit up the place and content will happen!
Not so fast, see the various boards have varying interests, but usually have a userbase that spans them all (more or less) leading to a total website culture of /mlpol/.net
Having people pour more time and energy and effort leads to diminishing returns, as new things sprout from new stuff (even if it's crap). Which is why specific boards (/tv/ /pol/) on other websites produce more stuff.
Now that mlp:fim ran its course there is fewer new stuff, especially fewer external new stuff.
>What about /a/?
Everyone would have to also be interested of the same content for more meme like content to properly sprout.
Which is the whole nature of /mlpol/ in the first place.
The whole thing with /pol/ boards is dealing with both newfags and shills and glowies. Which means recapping posts and education by entertainment.
Because common false truths are ripped apart again and again. The content is in the variety of ways falsehoods are ripped apart.
Until the whole monsoon of bots, newfags, shills and glowies.
Even then it's retreading the same ground over and over.

>>7664
>b-but generals a shit?!
>Yes, because most posts there are absolute GARBAGE.
It might be, but it is THAT garbage or nothing. So, I would bet on the undesirable shitposting all the way instead of rambling on a dead board.

>>7664
>data storage and processing power.
It's more than that.
>people who already invested time and energy lose their investment and have to restart over
After weeks or even months. That isn't that much of a bar to meet.
>This is good for image board sites that have lots of users
Not just that. Most other altchans have lower bump limits, some even slower than us.
>Longer bump limits does two things solidly coherent discussion and ideas arise and can span over time
It doesn't, really. A thread where "Last 200 posts" isn't nearly enough is often several dozen redundant and/or incoherent conversations that the users cannot remember the beginning or end to.
Look at the longest threads on /vx/: do they look like coherent conversations to you?
>That favors Better Posts inside of threads.
What is this even based on? The posts inside threads were not worse before the bump limits got this high. Are you saying quality was worse in the early days of this site?
>But it's three fucking posts before another post that is near identical has to be made again.
It doesn't need to be three, ffs. Why not 500?

>>7661
Not This Shit Again.
I would take you seriously if your post count would be even close to those you are complaining of.

>>7667
I'm not complaining about other posters at all. I'm saying that the bump limits were better before they were raised.

>>7669
>I'm saying that the bump limits were better before they were raised.
Why?
And How so?

>>7671
Because threads under to be coherent length on this site and were easy to follow and concise conversations, but then at some point for some reason it was decided that the bump limits needed to be doubled and then tripled, causing it to drift further and further away from the /mlpol/ I knew in terms of conversation formats. It was a decision that was made discreetly at a time when changes to the site were usually only made after long periods of user input. I can only assume it was done so because it was thought to be inconsequential at the time, but I think it really has been consequential, and I think tripling the bump limits was a hasty decision.

>>7671
>>7676
>And How so?
Because the natural lifespan of a thread is part of what distinguishes the conversation format of chansites, from both a meta standpoint and a psychological one.
From a meta standpoint, it ensures that a thread stays on topic with concise discussions, and doesn't devolve into hundreds of separate loosely-related conversations. It also ensures that there is a suitable timeframe for conversations, so users don't necro-reply to posts made weeks ago. This keeps threads on-topic, currently relevant, and ensures that all posters are speaking within a relevant timeframe to have a conversation. This is why threads have bump limits, including slow altchan sites, because having incredibly long threads doesn't lend itself to conversation quality, perhaps even moreso for slowchans. When a single thread lasts thousands of posts, all the conversations blend together, and content is buried in an avalanche of posts (and often cannot be reposted until due to duplicate files). I'm worst case scenarios it starts to read more like an endless subreddit or Facebook feed than a chansite, and that is not what I want this site to be, and I don't think anyone else wants this site to be either.
From a psychological standpoint, the bump limit gives a thread a natural lifespan, which effects poster participation in a number of ways. First and foremost, it means that users have an incentive to post to particular threads while they last, and not in two months. It also means that each thread has a length that means users who backread can confidently remember and reference the conversations in each thread. It goes for both one-off threads and the individual parts of generals. The blending of conversations and the burying of content quashes incentive for posters to participate in a particular thread or produce content, and that contributes to poster hesitancy. It's basically a dilution effect, where the first 300 posts of a 1000 post thread detract from all consecutive posts while themselves not getting any replies because they were made months ago.

Knowing all that, what did we actually gain from these changes? Changes that were made with little prior input. How did raising the bump limits increase the quality or quantity of content on our site? Did threads get better? Are we having more fun than before? I have seen no notable improvements in the past few years that can be attributed to the raising of the bump limits.

>>7664
>Now consider a forum that has 'no bump limit' they usually don't endlessly continue living for decades. They die when the topic is exhausted or killed.
That's missing the point. It's not about the topics themselves dying off, but the quality of discussion in a single particular thread being diluted over time due to excessively long bump limits, and for those threads experiencing conversation degradation as the thread goes on. If a topic is continued after the lifespan of a thread ends,

Forums with "no bump limit" generally aren't the same as chansites. Discord, reddit, Twitter, and Facebook all lack bump limits, but they're a very different format from us.

And you keep making this argument that having higher bump limits is better for a slow site, but I think the opposite is really true. A slow site can handle shorter bump limits easily, as it would still take a while for threads to fill up. If /mlpol/ switched back to lower bump limits, our most popular threads would still take weeks to fill up, just not months. Is a thread that lasts for weeks really not enough? Why exactly was it necessary to stretch the bump limits this far? Where did that need arise? Who was it that claimed that /mlpol/ was filling up its threads too quickly, when almost all of the posters were from /mlp/ and /pol/?

Another reason why I think raising the bump limits was a mistake is that it partly renders rule 10 ineffective.

Could for Celestia' sake anyone (or all of them) of the anons arguing about bump limits and conversation degradation start posting new threads? Because if they are only to give their opinion instead of shitposting hard, then all their rhetoric is hollow and void.

Less content>>>Shit filler content

Bump