Is an imageboard an inherently bad format to discuss history

>>3328684
If we actually had fucking mods it wouldn't be so bad.

>>3328684
no, it's only good when autism isn't involved.

>>3328684
It's still faster than your average forum.

>>3328849
Maybe speed isn't the only metric. Especially for those topics.

>>3328834
>The discussion will be much better if we just ban everything I don't like
Yeah, no.

This board is inherently bad because it is attached to 4chan.org.

>>3328684
Not necessarily, but this particular one is.

Many users here barely have basic knowledge of history.That's why 80% of catalog are boring, repetitive threads about same old subjects, mostly 20th century history. Add constant /pol/ raiding, bad moderation and you get what we have now.

>>3328863
This is likely the gist of it.

For these knowledge/subfield based boards, you get a huge bulk of people who have shallow interest, and then maybe 5% of the board has deep knowledge, interest, or curiosity. That 5% produces great book lists, good threads, diamond replies in a field if dirt, etc.

If you consider the characteristics of those 5%-types, how many of them are going to dick around on 4chan? Not many.

Just be thankful /his/ isn't /sci/. I do think things were better when /his/ didn't exist and these threads were on /lit/. I think /lit/ has (or had, I haven't been on the site in a while), the highest quality, most knowedgeable autists. There was a time when you actually had better discussion about mathematics on /lit/ than on /sci/ (usually logic and discrete maths, but still).

I think splintering the boards just buried the diamonds in more dirt and shit. There is a big feedback effect in having a lot of those 5%-types in the same board, as quality kind of scales exponentially when a topic is bounced between the brightest posters vs linearly when it is bounced around folks like me or even worse a bunch of shitposters from /pol/ as mentioned.

So I guess only thing I have to offer is that I think /his/ was better when it was deep inside the asshole of /lit/.

There's too much /pol/ bait posting.

>>3328863
I have the intuition that there can be institutions that can better bring forward topics with people knowledgeable about history. Of course, I don't know what those would be.

>>3328950
What is it then that makes heavily splintered boards such as /toy/, an offshoot of /a/, or /tg/ an offshoot of a theoretical board about all things related to gaming, good?

It seems to work there. Why doesn't it work here? Is it maybe because these topics are more "hobbyistic"? I posit that imageboards are at their best when the topics are only of hobbyistic nature and filled with people that actually engage in that hobby. The opposite would be people posting for the sake of ideology or monetary gain. Discussion about history and humanities can be driven by people engaging in it as a hobby, too, but it's hard to separate those engaging in the discussion for the sake of the discussion itself from those that only use it as a tool for ulterior motives. That's also why /pol/ was such a mistake.

>>3328684
No.
Its the culture of this website as a whole which developed over many years.

File: IMG_0082.jpg (95KB, 500x424px) Image search: [Google]

95KB, 500x424px

>>3328855

>>3329048
The culture of the website is heavily influenced by the format of the website. Think about anonymity and how it affects the tone of a discussion, for example.

>>3328855
100% unironically hang yourself

What we need is upvotes and downvotes so we can kick /leftypol/ off the fucking board. Compared to some of the right wing subreddits this place is shit.

delete /his/