Lower /a/'s bump limit to only 300 posts

What would kill a lot of cancerous circlejerking is all the fags who are filtering and ignoring those fucking generals to stop doing so (and see how awful they are).

Yeah sure but don't /q/ post on /a/

Now, show me your statistics.

Please. only 10% of the posts have 500+ replies, 75% have <100 replies, and only 5% have 300-500 replies.
Change the bump limit changes nothing

File: 1446438594220.jpg (67KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 640x480px

Just bring /L/ back

>>133778022
But they'll just make another thread. Just ban generals

>>133778337
It makes general threads shit up the board 67% more often because they migrate to a new thread earlier.

>>133778022
Keep this shit on /qa/

>>133778337
The best threads are often the ones that never hit the bump limit. The fanbases that hit 300-400 are optimal, not circlejerking, not forcing generals.

>>133778413
And there'll be even 3 threads on the board at their bump limits at the same time for each general. Praise the lord.

>>133778420
If the threads are good people can easily make 25% more posts to keep it not being archived, it can make the threads last 20 more hours. It just not enough people thinking those threads are "best"

>>133778022
You're stupid.
Don't bring meta shit here.
Don't jerk off in front of others about a thread you made.

Can people try to stop those fuckers thinking Overlord should be a new general?

>>133778337
>>133778413
>>133778483
Make it so that eternal generals are disallowed and can only happen two times in a row.

>>133778541
>implying threads being alive for the sake of being alive is good

>>133778637
It doesn't look like the moderation has any will to do it. Or if they did, they came back and they gave up.

>>133778022
You're an idiot, lower the bump limit will not stop them from making general threads. If anything they'll just make another once the bump limit is reached. Stay in /qa/ or whatever hellhole your stupidity came from.

>>133778575
I didn't make that thread and occasional meta discussions are good for the board.

If the point is to cut down on general threads then just ban general threads. I don't see why you have to be so roundabout.

>>133778022
Fuck off, meta threads aren't /a/ and the bump limit is fine.

>>133778730
Nope.

>>133778022
That would make them make two times more threads retard.
>oh no we're at 150 posts better make a new fucking thread

>>133778730
There was a thread regarding this topic a month ago. In fact, the OP said pretty much the same thing as you, and everyone also said he was retarded. I guess every post really is a repost.
>364 replies & 64 images omitted

>>133778730
>>>/ANN/
>>>/MAL/

What's stopping them from making another one?

File: Makise.Kurisu.full.146800.jpg (210KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1280x720px

>>133725954

Example of a non-cancerous thread that died naturally without reaching the bump limit.

>>133737390

Example of a shitty Narutard thread that will probably stay up for days.

Yeah, I think lowering the bump limit would do some good in cases like this. It's not like there's a 24/7 general for Naruto, so they would fuck for a while.

Plus, /a/ isn't a very fast board. so lowering the bump limit wouldn't do any damage.

>>133780082
>>133737390
this shit its still up?, what the hell happend /a/?

If /a/ were fast enough, lowering the bump limit would harm new, small topics.

But since there aren't really a lot of new threads created per hour, I don't see the harm.

So far I'm not seeing any downside.

File: 1424835764744.jpg (15KB, 323x350px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 323x350px

>>133780082
>Example of a non-cancerous thread that died naturally without reaching the bump limit.
Except both of those threads are extremely shit you mongoloid.

Why wouldn't they just make a new thread like they already do?

>>133780082
>days
Naruto threads don't usually stay up for days. You know why? Because people actually discuss and/or regularly shitpost. Which is better than I can say for some of the actual generals.

>>133778022
Or would it just mean more threads?

One of the major reasons for the 500 limit is because of airing threads where a show will air and you get a lot of discussion without having to chain threads/as often.

Reducing the limit isn't really going to change anything in regards to what you want to accomplish.

I support this.

It's very annoying to see threads that are over 3 days old here. /a/ isn't as fast as it was a few years ago. There would be no downsides to lowering the bump limit. I don't even care about the generals very much, but even if they made new threads after the old one died it would still be better than seeing a single thread staying up forever on the board.

>>133780873
It's because of necrobumping, not because of the bump limit.

>>133781048
Lowering the bump limit to 300 would cut down necrobumping significantly. Duh.

This is either done because of:

>faggot OPs who don't want to let their precious thread die ever
>idiots who don't know when to let a thread die

>>133781316
Why? The bump limit applies equally to every thread. What if everyone starts posting slower, then necrobumps have to be less frequent. Therefore the thread still lasts 3 days. No difference.

>>133780873
>I don't even care about the generals very much, but even if they made new threads after the old one died it would still be better than seeing a single thread staying up forever on the board.
I don't understand how, unless you just have some personal autism about seeing the same OP too many times.

>>133781428
You're stupid. The speed of the board will remain the same.

>>133781495
>unless you just have some personal autism about seeing the same OP too many times

Yeah, I don't like it. It goes against the always changing and always renovating nature of imageboards.

>>133781552
But nothing's actually changing if they make a new thread, it's just placating you by making it seem that way. And if they get in the habit of making new threads faster, they're more likely to just keep spamming them. I'm not sure why you want /a/ to be so fast, either.

/a/ is dead only imaishi can save it

>>133778022
No. The stuff that actually has discussion easily gets to 500 and it would only incite people to make more new threads which end up being de facto generals

>>133781501
Great conjecture. But that's all it is. If the last several hundred posts of bump limit threads really are just for the sake of keeping them alive without anything to contribute, why can they not be just done away with? With a conservative estimate of the statistics given in >>133778337 with 75% on average having 50 posts and 500+ having 550 (which are both quite clear over/underestimates), about half of all discussion is happening in these threads. As of right now, they're already tailoring them to the size of the post limit, why not when the post count is lowered?

>>133781501
And? we have extensions that tell us when necropost.