Most posting on /qa/ think 4chan is treated nowadays as low 'quality'

>>415592
I love 4chan, don't know what you're talking about

>>415592

-Anonymity and not having any sort of account

-There really aren't any better general-interest forums/boards on the internet.

The basic appeal of 4chan hasn't changed.

>>415592
>Most posting
The vocal minority should never be mistaken for "most".

>>415592
I'm too used to the casual atmosphere of this site and have trouble posting on normal forums now, I really don't like having to manage a reputation or have my opinions at all attached to a username.

>>415592
Most *OPs* think that 4chan is a low quality forum. Most posters are telling them that they're a faggot.

Try actually reading the threads.

>>415592
hey problem sleuth i love that webcomic

>>415592
>(Please give honest answer, im not baiting)
OKAY OP. I'M TRUSTING YOU THAT YOU REALLY WANT HONEST ANSWERS.
There are a number of different ways to respond to you and tell you that you're wrong and I'm going to try to outline as many of them as I can.

>Most posting on /qa/ think 4chan is treated nowadays as low 'quality' forums like reddit or gamefaqs, but why are they/you still here?

The part about thinking 4chan is a low quality forum has nothing to do with why a person might still be here, especially if nowhere better exists.

>Most posting on /qa/ think 4chan is treated nowadays as low 'quality' forums like reddit or gamefaqs

No it doesn't. If you read the threads, most people disagree with OP and defend 4chan. Sure, they get called mod shills but everybody doing this is an idiot and does so because calling people reddit has started to fall out of favor.

>We cant unfortunally fix everything by sheer rage

Fixing something doesn't have to be the goal of complaining. Fixes also don't have to come immediately. Voicing your concerns and feeling like you're part of a community is the goal sometimes. Would you be in favor of shutting down every political discussion forum other than Change.org? I should hope not.

>there are sure other communities with less cancer/shitposting/circlejerking on the internet.

Like what? 4chan is a balkanized place where if you don't have anything unkind to say, you don't say anything at all about anywhere. Everywhere that you could possibly list that might be better than 4chan would be either so small I've never heard of it, or a place that I've heard more negative things about it than positive things. Hypocrisy about a place being worse than 4chan by having qualities that are similar

You've inadvertently made a thread that is the epitome of baiting/nerd sniping such that my post exceeds the 2000 character limit. Continued in the next post. (Adopting a trip for this thread only.)

Continuing where I left off:

>We cant unfortunally fix everything by sheer rage

Sheer rage isn't necessarily what we're doing and it's defeatist to assume we can't fix anything. Many 4chan users view /qa/ as a "Meta" board that the "Mods" lurk so they think speaking on behalf of some viewpoint may some day reflect change in 4chan's policy. So far this doesn't appear to be the case, but they have hope, which is a good thing to have in my opinion.

>Most posting on /qa/ think 4chan is treated nowadays as low 'quality' forums like reddit or gamefaqs

What exactly is the matter with reddit or gamefaqs? Hating on reddit is petty hot right now, so let's discuss Gamefaqs. Gamefaqs is not a bad place. There's a rich ecosystem of users. While the vast MAJORITY of them is terrible, the same is true of any place with a sufficiently sized population and "raw" discussion, where Raw translates to a lack any programmatic generated filtering. According to the Pareto Principal (also known as the 80–20 rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity) 80% of the posts are going to be made by 20% of the users, anywhere you go. There will always be more lurkers than participants, and then likewise, 80% of the GOOD of a forum is also going to be contained to 20% of the posts. In most communities that are well moderated and well factored where most people are obeying the rules and aren't using scripting tools to help shitpost harder and faster, this is going to hold true. This relates to 4chan in exactly the same way as it relates to Gamefaqs, but let's discuss some aspects of Gamefaqs that make it unique.

- Individual forum communities are smaller.

If you go to discuss Metal Gear Solid 5, you're going to run into thousands of idiots, sure, but if you go to discuss Arc the Lad, or something else, you're going to find smaller, more like minded groups of people, and then Gamefaqs contained LUE. http://wikifaqs.net/index.php?title=Life,_the_Universe,_and_Everything

(Continuing on again)
>but why are they/you still here?
4chan could be the worst place in the world and there would still be many people who aren't leaving. 4chan users could be like the frog from Al Gore's global warming metaphor, where if the water is heated quickly it will jump out, but if the water is heated slowly, the frog won't notice individual changes in temperature over time and keep thinking whatever heat is present is normal, and will sit there until it's saved.
>but why are they/you still here?
Many Anons lack the self control to leave. It's a similar process that leads to a person having sex with their ex-boyfriend. When you become bored your brain looks for something to do that is less boring, so it craves a place that, traditionally and in the past, has provided you with an escape from monotony. When we're motivated, and full of gumption, we can leave 4chan, find something else to do, and stay away. It is when we're low, down, and lazy that we give in to our brain's faulty suggestion engine and return to psychological addictions like 4chan, Video Games, stalking our ex on facebook, etc.

>less cancer/shitposting/circlejerking

I don't think it's logically possible to have no cancer, shitposting, or circlejerking at the same time.

-Cancer: A spread of an idea/meme (I don't like).
-Shitposting: Low quality and low effort posts (that I don't like).
-Circlejerking: People getting along and liking each other (that I don't like).

The only community you could possibly go to that doesn't have any of those three is one where the part in parenthesis doesn't hold true. In the event that it doesn't, then everybody outside your community is going to think your board is a circlejerk, cancer breeding ground, full of shitposters.

If such a site were possible, we'd have heard of it and shit it up by now.

-----

Alright. I think that's as far as I can go. Hopefully you won't need to make such a thread again, OP.

>>415698
>opinions at all attached to a username
This is the main reason I ignore all other social websites.

>>415731
Yeah, I too am afraid of consequences of my actions.

>>415735
The lack of a username allows me to voice my opinions without having 10 people getting on my back every time. It levels the playing field by making what I say more important than who I am. And my opinions can really get to some people.

>>415741
Having a username and having ten people get on your back every time are not related. If that were true then every comment on reddit would have at least ten replies, and that simply isn't true.

>>415743
Some of my opinions tend to rile a few people pretty hard. But It's not like I even try to make them upset.

>>415745
That has nothing to do with whether or not you have a username.

>>415746
I have opinions that greatly upset a few people. If I had a username I'm pretty sure at least one of them would act like an ass every time they saw me. I do my best to avoid it, so not having a name helps.

>>415747
Would you care to say what sort of opinion you have that people get riled up by? It's likely the fault of your community and/or your being in the wrong one than you having some sort of universally reviled opinion. I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a universally wrong thought.

>>415741
Man, I've seen some people with consistently shitty opinions on sites with usernames, and it's very rare that people regularly go after them for it. Hell, generally it's me who's tempted to get on their back but I restrain myself.

Perhaps this means that people on sites with usernames actually have self control, while people on 4chan are immature and childish.

>>415749
I don't think usernames make people any more or less conscientious, but rather small communities do. When you know every member of a website, or a chatroom, or something like that, the community more closely resembles a face-to-face group of friends.

On a side note, >>415741
People only get on your back for having a username on 4chan because people hate "different" people and tripfags make that difference clear.

>>415748
I don't trust people to not bother me about it. I'm not a very trusting person, and I take things at face value more often than I should. And again, it's also about how my words are the focus, and not my reputation or opinions that some people might want to hold against me.

>>415749
>people on 4chan are immature and childish.
Yeah, I think that much is obvious. I know I'm immature in many ways as well. Anonymity can be a good thing, but it often makes people believe they should act as dumb as possible just because they have no reputation to uphold. Anonymity can be a really interesting thing when people don't act like a complete fool half of the time they post.

>>415752
I have never wanted to use a name here. I came here because I can be anonymous. It's the main reason I stay here along with the fact that I believe the rules on every board I use, are good and very well thought-out. The userbase is really the only thing I don't like about 4chan because a lot of them think you're supposed to act like a fool here.

File: search_sleuth.gif (2KB, 250x250px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 250x250px

>>415607
>>415718
>nowhere better exists
See, thats the thing that cracks me. I have the impression you only visit the most popular sites and take it as the whole internet. I visit smaller forums with less meta drama and the admins are fucking teens. Lack of control really should be keeping most here.

>Pareto Principal
Neat.

>>415806
Oops. I meant "Principle". Sorry. If red underlines don't appear, I'm pretty much powerless.

Anyway:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zipf's_law

The Pareto principle is an interesting observation of the way just about everything works, whereas Zipf's law is a mathematical concept that details why the Pareto principle is an inevitability. Give them a read. They're great.

Also, for the record, whenever life gets better/worse than 80/20, something is wrong and needs to be fixed. The rulesets are inherently imbalanced.