hiro-approved meta thread

>>9923015
We beg some of the older posters on Goodreads to come back.

delet

virgin death camps

File: 1502632075204.jpg (32KB, 333x499px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 333x499px

>>9923015
>Start threads about books
>Reply to threads about books
>Allow but contain public intellectual threads (Peterson,Zizek)
>Make a required entry level reading list and meme it more than the "start with the greeks" chart, which is overwhelming for new people

>>9923015
I think we should enforce a "No Low Quality/Low Effort Threads" rule. You need to provide some thoughts, not just a question (and certainly not just bait questions).

>>9923139
Perhaps one thread for "should I read this/what's this like" questions, like the old "questions that don't deserve their own thread" one?

>>9923015
Why do people make these threads on every single board? I know hiro said you could, but I don't understand what motivates you to actually do this. The only bad content on any board I look at are these retarded meta-threads.

enforce the age rule

These threads do not work. Give up. You're not achieving anything by complaining.

Can we cut down on the Peterson threads, please?

>>9923172
This. All threads like these do is get rid of threads that are actually about literature.

>>9923162
You should have to post a scanned receipt for a pack of cigarettes. This would keep the american posters 18+ and would effectively get rid of most australians.

File: lit audit.png (4MB, 3672x3045px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3672x3045px

>>9923139
Here's what I'm talking about. I looked at the 150 posts that were up as of like 15 minutes ago.

>66 Bait Threads = 44% of the board
These threads open with inflamatory bait, they're generally created by someone who wishes to shit on the topic they've selected. These threads rarely go anywhere good, though occasionally the troll depart and actual fans have a meaningful discussion. For instance, the current Nick Land thread has some... almost decent discussion, even if OP probably intended to troll his fans.

>36 Low Quality/Low Effort Threads = 24% of the board
These threads fall into a few archetypes. "Redpill me on X". "What Am I getting into?" The OP brings nothing interesting to the table, other than naming the topic. I think most of these threads are made in good faith, so I don't call them bait. But they tend to be really shitty threads.

Also included in this category are posts like "3x3 Thread", "Univeristy Thread" and "10/10 thread". These threads have almost zero discussion, they encourage an anon to signal something about themselves, and then the anon usually departs. When someone does comment on another anon's post, that anon is almost always departed and never replies to the person engaging him.

>48 Good Threads = 32% of the board
There are 48 threads in which the OP had the right idea. Some of these are containment 'generals' like the critique thread and the sci-fi general. Others are well thought out posts that can (hopefully) engage other anons.

So yeah, these numbers are sad. I think enforcing a hard 'No Bait' and "No Low Effort" would help the board.

>>9923307
also, my counting could be off. Maybe I've misjudged some of these threads. But I'm guessing these numbers would only slightly change if another anon performed the same 'audit'

>>9923307
Excuse me, my Alex Jones thread is not a bait attempt, you intellectual dumbass

>>9923307
>For instance, the current Nick Land thread has some... almost decent discussion, even if OP probably intended to troll his fans.


those are viral marketing threads, no one gives a shit about psuedo-academic youtube e-celebs other than the people paid to post them

>>9923307
>>9923328
You are right though, I wouldn't make a thread like that if there was a rule against it.

>>9923336
Well, I'm interested in his writing. We've had some good threads, one anon even put together a big fat Land reader of pirated e-books. Also, he doesn't do youtube, doesn't do patreon, doesn't have any online monetization. He publishes and sells books, that's it.

Nothing up today screams of blatant viral marketing. Sometimes I think the icycalm threads are just alex self promoting. The Goonan threads are blatant self promotion.

>>9923328
Ah see, I could understand wanting to discuss conspiracy literature. But when you post Jones, and then fail to mention him in the post, I assume you're trying to incite some kind of pro-Jones/anti-Jones flame war.

Regardless, your thread qualifies as 'Low Effort'. You've given us nothing than "Conspiracy Literature, Go!" and a picture of Jones. Low Effort.

IMO, I feel like an autosaging "public intellectual general" would be perfect for /lit/. Yes, /lit/ gets by with pretty much one notable general (/sffg/), but the theoretical /pig/ would be decent because 1) the board is slow enough that it'd stay up for hours even if every post saged it, and 2) it'd contain the autism.

>>9923186
>t. underage australian

>>9923015

Put it on a different website

>>9923359
???
Cigarette laws are harsher in Australia, not laxer. I think they won't even be able to buy cigarettes ever no matter how old they get if that grandfathering law gets passed and they're born 2000 or later. Plus it costs like $40 a pack or something crazy like that. How did you parse that post to mean the opposite?

>>9923356
yeah, that could work

>>9923157

meta-threads are by far the most productive trolling threads
just watch
this one will get to 200+ replies and there will be some huge spergouts

>>9923307
desu those numbers are pretty good

I'd kill a man to see 32% actual film discussions on /tv/

Get rid of those threads where someone just posts a picture of a book and

"what should i expect" or "what am i in for"

Read wikipedia if you want a plot summary, read the book and come back with some real thoughts about it if you want a discussion

>>9923015
Mods should delete more bait threads. A low quality rule could work.

Make a separate board for philosophy.

>>9923124
This

>>9923409
>I'd kill a man to see 32% actual film discussions on /tv/

I'm not familiar with /tv/ but I'm very sad to hear about that. The only other board I frequent is /tg/, where everything is contained in generals pretty much.

Ban generals for fuck's sake hiro

>>9923496
wrong board m8

>>9923346
You strike me as someone who actually wants to see this board improve, which I respect. Unfortunately, these threads function more as a containment general for complaints than a source of ideas for the moderators to actually consider. Keep in mind that there is only rule in effect right now that is specific to this board (that all discussion be related to literature, excepting fan-fictions), whereas the average board on this site has at least three rules. The chances of changing or adding any rules are slim then, which is a shame considering there are some proposed worthy of experimenting with. Realistically, we need a meta-thread for the meta-thread where we can discuss ways to make the mods listen to us (or else!).

>>9923307
>>9923015
Imagine being so autistic to believe there is something wrong with /lit/ lmao

Sad!

>>9923542
Maybe "Realistically" was a poor choice of words.
>>9923545
>implying Trump was content with the status quo during his campaign

>>9923124
>Make a required entry level reading list
Suggestions?

>>9923496
Actually, some generals would help clean this board up a bit. Think of how much of this board's catalog is just throwaway questions (that have usually been asked within the last month or less) with only three or four replies.
I tried to start a translations general about two weeks ago but it didn't really take off, but I think something like that is sorely needed and could also be a great resource.

>>9923124
We already have an entry level reading list, newfriend.

Personally, I'd like more platforms for long-form, open discussion on academic topics. Anything that's low effort to respond to should be ignored (re: every response is <5 words), anything that's blatant bait for shitposting should be ignored.

I'm aware that by its nature /lit/ has a ton of egos, but most paragraph-length posts I see are more argument than debate. Being able to have discussions (and admit to being wrong) can help interesting dialogue flourish. It's not about who is right or who is wrong, it's about presenting ideas and discussing the merit of those ideas. I acknowledge there's no easy answer to that (mod can't enforce) and that relying on users' discipline is questionable at best (eternal september), but I do appreciate where /lit/ stands today with respect to the rest of 4chan, and hope it continues its standard level of discourse going forward.

>>9923483
For a while 20% of all /tv/ threads were just a photo followed by "AHAHAHAHA".

>>9923583
I think generals would help also. A lot of the low effort threads are simple questions that don't deserve their own thread. A /bookrecs/ general would cut out:
>what are some books on (specific topic)
>I want to do x, what are some books for me
>books like x
Half this board is book recommendations at some points. Other generals like /classics/, /religion/, or a constantly maintained /qtddtot/ would cut down on a majority of repeated topics.

>>9923732
Definitely agree with /bookrecs/. Not so sure about /classics/. Most of the throwaway threads there could probably go in /translations/; beyond that I don't see a need. If some anon wants to talk about Aeschylus I'm fine with him making a new thread about it. If that type of post belongs in a classics general then we may as well start having /postmodernism/ and /Russian writers/.

>>9923015
>take all /pol/ posters
>take all /leftypol/ posters
>take all Jordan Peterson posters
>put them on a island
>grab popcorn
>enjoy

>>9923732
Do not encourage generals. They sound good, but they basically ruin everything unique about a board and turn it into reddit where you're allowed to use the n-word. Just look at /sp/.

>>9923732
I like /bookrecs/ but I also believe no one will read it. Which is fine. No one responds to these threads anyway. Forcing it into a general and deleting the single posts would be great.

>>9923758
I go to /sp/ too and generals do concern me. /bookrecs/ is the only one I'm solid on as a general. I think /sp/'s problem is that because it's based on events, seasons, and sports there's not a lot of crossover between users. /hoc/ is a cesspit because no one goes to other generals and the off-season is awful. There's no off-season for books and /lit/ users seem less bound to a single topic.

>>9923769
I"ll concede book recommendation and QTDDTOT generals, but it's a slippery slope I warn ya

File: 1502564138954.jpg (193KB, 1440x1080px) Image search: [Google]

193KB, 1440x1080px

>>9923758
>>9923772
>never been to sp, guess I'll check it out
>why are these normies on 4chan
This board confuses me. These people could be talking about sports on facebook or reddit or twitter, like healthy functioning citizens. Why do they come to 4chan to talk about sports?

If I had any interest in sports, I'd milk it for all it's worth and hang out at sports pubs and watch ESPN with my bros.

Instead, I'm shitposting about human extinction and william burroughs like a crazy man.

>>9923786
Spee used to be great. Generals completely destroyed that board.

I think /lit/ could survive bookrecs and QTDDTOT pretty well, but limit the generals to just those and the sci-fi one that everybody seems to hate

>>9923786
>>why are these normies on 4chan
In this respect, /sp/ is the most bizarre board on this site. /cfb/ is frequented by frat bros.
>>9923772
Let me shill my idea for /translations/ just one more time, then I'll go way.

>>9923786
The formatting works better for sports discussion in my opinion. Since posts are chronological in order and not based on upvotes/likes it's better for events/games. The cultures are also a lot better than Reddit because it's not pandering to upvotes and your uncle isn't posting his shit memes on a Facebook page. Both Reddit and Facebook don't breed good discussion either way. And ESPN is absolute garbage now a days since it's more focused on sports gossip and things athletes do off the field.

>>9923808
well, let me know when they bring back gladiatorial games and human sacrifice. Until then, its only spectacle unless someone is intentionally killed.

>>9923811
Have you heard about the developments with CTE?

>>9923805
Okay, I'll allow /translations/, but with /bookrecs/, /QTDDTOT/ and /genrefiction/ or whatever its called, that's four generals. We are really pushing it.

Range ban Israel so hasbara shills can't post cuck porn anymore.

>>9923799
/bookrecs/ and /qtddtot/ cut out most of the stuff that's been answered over and over and over again. Leave real threads to actual discussion.
>>9923805
/translations/ could be folded into /bookrecs/. The fewer generals the better.

>>9923772
Why are you talking as if anything is going to actually happen.

>>9923818
I don't think /translations/ would work that well teebeeaych

>>9923816
>CTE
yeah, the main stream news has been all over it.

I recently watched the reboot of Battle Bots. I don't have TV, so I didn't hear about it when it aired. Neat to watch robots destroy each other.

>>9923821
You could literally go start these generals right now. I don't give a shit desu senpai

>>9923827
Yes but the mods need to prune threads that would fall into those generals to force people to use them. It's harder to create a general and maintain it without mod support.

>>9923837
who needs mods
this is a classless society

>>9923588
I've seen it, it's a highschool reading list + meme books. Need's atleast one greek

>>9923820
>/translations/ could be folded into /bookrecs/
My hope was that the scholars that visit this board would go straight to /translations/ when they're feeling generous the way that some people go to /r/ or /wsr/ just to help someone else out. Conceivably, questions about translations could go into /bookrecs/ without any issue, but I think that there are enough translations threads and that they're different enough in spirit from "rec me a book about x" to justify a separate general. Another consideration is that questions about translations are narrow enough in scope to be enforced by a mod and/or by a simple ">>>/translations/". But so far I appear to be the only one who thinks this way, so if /bookrecs/ takes off I'll post my questions about translations there.

>>9923139
>>9923307

Problem is there is a fine line between bait and good discussion. A well meaning OP can lead to shit while bait can lead to something good. It's up to us to use our discretion

>>9923545
Got to agree. /lit/ is great

range ban north america and uk

>>9923147

Yes please. I think this board seems more and more awash in low effort questions about particular works that don't generate any interesting discussion.