This is the only good board cause only oldfags remember it

>>1552172
This and /f/, for the same reason.

File: 1435222229769.jpg (98KB, 378x485px)

98KB, 378x485px

It gets linked on boards like /pol/ and /bant/ pretty much daily. It's just that it takes a certain type of person to stay.
You need to be able to persevere through the various raids and attempts to disrupt the community, and I admit at times I question why I've put up with it for so long. I mean, just think of the people that come here asking for mods when they see a bad thread on their board survive for an hour or 10 "spam" threads made in a day.
We shouldn't have to deal with the psychos that stalk this place so obsessively, but we do and I guess it filters out most people and that's what keeps /qa/ small and cozy. Plus, we can self-moderate and I admit I've learned how to do various things in order to protect /qa/ from such elements. Mods help out occasionally too, of course, but not enough to be noteworthy.

>>1552194
>I admit I've learned how to do various things in order to protect /qa/ from such elements
Being vague just makes you look like you know you're wrong. Spamming isn't self-moderation, its self-destruction, and if you think it makes this board better or comfier you're mentally ill.
"psychos" could mean a lot of things, but taking it as it should be you're probably just as bad as them, hate breeds hate nigga.
>it takes a certain type of person to stay
Yeah, it takes a retard to stay. All the oldfags have left early 2016 and only come here for the happenings threads. And yes, i'm a retard, so are you, and so is OP.

>>1552194
>the psychos that stalk this place so obsessively
this is basically everybody left in /qa/

>>1552210
>>1552211
Didn't take long for the garbage to float to the surface, did it? It's a good board with a good community.

>>1552233
I see, you wern't here for frogspam #10293 this morning, or the weird cute spam yesterday?

>>1552233
There's a reason people call it /qa/rbage.
I like it here, it feels like I have more meaningful discussions than any other board

>>1552233
>It's a good board with a good community.
It's where the garbage of 4chan that was banned from /a/, /jp/, and every spinoff (how do you even do that?) comes to post pointless shit threads and blog about their lives.

>>1552237
While there is forced drama between two equally annoying sides I find that /qa/ has some of the most reasonable people on it, willing to actually discuss things and change their opinion

>>1552241
But I haven't been banned even once this year and /qa/ is my main board. Sounds like you're projecting.

>>1552246
Where did you post before you came to /qa/?

>>1552242
I've literally never ever seen that happen on this board. If you prove someone wrong you get one of two responses, a vague "you just don't get it" type thing, or a copy and paste "based X" type of thing. That isn't to say everyone on this board does that frequently, its to say everyone does it once in a while WHEN they are wrong because it happens so much if that makes sense. It doesn't, I explained it badly, i'm tired.

>>1552237
>>1552241
Don't flatter yourself. You are no one and you failed yet again to make a mark today.

>>1552239
Tell me who calls it /qa/rbage and why I should value their opinion over my own or fellow /qa/ users.

>>1552242
>forced drama between two equally annoying sides
>two sides
Tell me these sides. Let me guess, the "anime posters" and "frogs", right? Not the real grouping of /qa/ and non-/qa/?

It seems this thread has the attention of certain people already, huh? Funny how speaking positively of /qa/ brings out such a response.

>>1552251
>Don't flatter yourself. You are no one and you failed yet again to make a mark today.
You responded to different people. You are shit, and will always be shit.

>Funny how speaking positively of /qa/ brings out such a response.
It's because /qa/ is shit, but anyone who points this out gets their thread spammed into oblivion. So they have to come out in the threads you make to fellate your fellow shitposters and bot runners.


>>1552242
I don't remember the last time I saw anywhere here change their mind about anything.

>>1552248
/a/, /jp/, /vr/, /c/. I still use all of those boards regularly except /a/ which I only browse occasionally.

>>1552251
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman

>>1552253
>/a/, /jp/, /vr/, /c/. I still use all of those boards regularly except /a/ which I only browse occasionally.
What do you post here that you can't post in those other boards? Pointless blogshit? Memes that would you get banned from the topical boards? /qa/ - my friends are here?

>>1552255
>/qa/ - my friends are here?
Pretty much.

the weeb mafia is psychotic and is ruining it for everyone else that just wants random question and answer, light meta discussion and discussion about the internet in general

this board has been unusable for about a year now, buy for reasons that changed over the course or that year.

the latest crop of /jp/ rejects that coordinate to kill every thread are the most cancerous. they are the ones responsible for hundreds of inane posts a day. /qa/ is nearly as fast as [s4s] these days because of their constant shitposting

>>1552257
So the kind of retarded topicless clubhouse shit that belongs on one of the /jp/ spinoffs or a Discord channel.

>>1552259
But my friends are here.
Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that I also browse /e/ and /h/ but not too often because they're full of sauce/TL beggars, sample posters, and similar scum.

/qa/ is good when its slow, its kinda calmed down overall a bit lately except at a certain hour the board speeds up because people/bots bump threads into oblivion even though the board isnt getting spammed. I hate how the people who have stayed here after finding out about it are trying to drive eachother out too, still its recovering.

File: autism.jpg (93KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

93KB, 500x500px

>>1552252
>It's because /qa/ is shit, but anyone who points this out gets their thread spammed into oblivion.
Why would a "'/qa/ is shit" thread deserve anything better? It seems strange that you are upset over something so trivial, or at least it'd be trivial if you weren't doing things to try make "/qa/ is shit" into reality.

>>1552258
The concern persona appears. In the past it's been claimed that the frog or /pol/bait spam is a response to "weeb mafia" preventing meta discussion, but these people (who are certainly not you *wink wink*) never actually bump the meta threads when frog and other bad threads are bumped in bulk.
-It's the "weeb mafia" that keeps meta threads like the happenings thread, filters thread and so on alive, both through contribution and necessary bumps
-It was the "weeb mafia" that happened to know /qa/'s secondary boards and kept the culture alive elsewhere.
-It was the "weeb mafia" that talked with the mods and tried to get the board back
-When it finally came back, it was the "weeb mafia" that was here first because they were the most concerned with its loss and desired its return the most. When did you come back? It took you days if not weeks
-It's the "weeb mafia" that discusses things like other internet communities and imageboards, even with the admins of boards like desuarchive and 4tan and the 4chan X dev
-It's the "weeb mafia" that answers genuine questions and helps visitors use 4chan
-The weeb mafia also extends to the mods as well according to you because they sometimes hand out public bans against your "efforts" to disrupt the board.

Who is the weeb mafia? The weeb mafia is /qa/.

So who are you? You cried in the happenings thread among others about "weeb mafia" controlling /bant/ because of something as stupid as a GET. You cared so much that it caused two straight days of raiding against /qa/. I will not reply to you again.
One last thing: Tenshi eating corndog

>>1552289
>Why would a "'/qa/ is shit" thread deserve anything better?
It doesn't matter how you say it, why you say it, or anything else. If you say anything bad aboujt the avalanche of /jp/ clubhouse rejects who belong in their own sites or locked in some godawful general thread 4chan forgot, you get called "concernbro" and your thread is destroyed by a bot.

>It seems strange that you are upset over something so trivial,
I am upset because /qa/ is a burnt-out husk where where only "regulars" congregate and people from other boards have long stopped since visiting unless they made into regulars as well.

The rest of your post is simply a laundry list of lies.

>It's the "weeb mafia" that discusses things like other internet communities and imageboards, even with the admins of boards like desuarchive and 4tan and the 4chan X dev
Discussion of internet communities is at an all time low. When's the last time you saw someone post or discuss the list of chans?
>It's the "weeb mafia" that answers genuine questions and helps visitors use 4chan
By redirecting them to IRC, ensuring that nobody will hear their concerns after the mods laugh at him and ban him.

There is also a mod who enables your bot spam shitposting, probably because anything that turns /qa/ into a shitposting board means less work for the mods.

I don't really care about your testy culture war, I just wish there was a board to talk about meta of the site and the history of the internet since there's really no other place to discuss internet history.

>>1552319
The idea of a "culture war" here is a farce that you shouldn't be naive enough to fall into. Just post in good threads and that's it.

>>1552326
>The idea of a "culture war" here is a farce that you shouldn't be naive enough to fall into.
Literally anybody who visited last year, and this year, can see that the proportion of /qa/ threads about "meta of the site and the history of the internet" is lower than it has ever been outside of raids.

>>1552250
based tiredbro

>>1552334
If you feel a certain thread is missing then create it yourself.

>>1552341
The users who would participate in most of that conversation are missing. I do still wait for new users to come along who might want to learn more, but I have no interest in creation a discussion thread that needs to be necro'd fifty times so someone can post a halfhearted post near the bottom.

>>1552343
Did you think old /qa/ threads had dozens of posts per hour?
Let's just cut to the chase:
>I have no interest in creation a discussion thread
Everything else in your post is superfluous.

>>1552347
>Did you think old /qa/ threads had dozens of posts per hour?
Old /qa/ threads had cadres of people that could maintain a lively metadiscussion without being artifically kept alive for weeks.

>Everything else in your post is superfluous.
Conditionals are inextricable parts of the statements they modify.

>>1552339
grrr....

>>1552351
You won't make threads, but you decry the lack of the threads you want to see. You say that /qa/ doesn't have the numbers to create fast discussion, but instead of having slower discussion (which is generally better discussion) you'd rather none of it exist at all. What a dishonest and shameful person. More flotsam attracted to a positive thread so that it can try to disrupt it.
/qa/ is a great board and that such a simple remark brings out such ugliness from you people shows that you wish it weren't so.

File: inverse-meta-frequency.png (34KB, 889x480px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 889x480px

>>1552381
>You won't make threads, but you decry the lack of the threads you want to see.
I am at a point in time where there is very little any of you can teach me about 4chan or about the rest of the imageboard sphere.

>You say that /qa/ doesn't have the numbers to create fast discussion, but instead of having slower discussion (which is generally better discussion)
Spoken like someone who has only ever discussed topics whose primary problem is too many retards, and not enough interest.

>/qa/ is a great board and that such a simple remark brings out such ugliness from you people shows that you wish it weren't so.
/qa/ was never a great board. It used to be a decent board. You turned it into absolute shit, and spend all day fellating yourself and the others who made it this way. My favorite of all claims your retard brigade tried to push is how literally nothing happened in Feburary of this year, and /qa/ is still exactly the way it was before, and everyone who complains is a discordbro ponyfagging false-flagging outsider.

>>1552391
whose primary problem is too many retards, rather than not enough interest.*

>>1552391
100% right

>>1552391
Thank you for showing your true colors so I don't need to spend any time conversing with you. I'll go back to talking meta and having a good time and you can go back to formulating the next plan to totally subvert /qa/ and end it for good.

>>1552409
>Thank you for showing your true colors
I have been showing my colors the whole time. The one willingly blind to facts to you. The rate of meta dropped by a factor of FUCKING FIVE before and after. An 80% decrease. What happens to a community when 80% of it disappears overnight, and is replaced by 80% other things? Oh, that's right. It dies.

But nah, let's just keep on pretending that everything is exactly the same as it was before and claim that everyone who thinks they've noticed some sort of change is a false-flagging rabid conspiracy theorist.

>>1552409
You got fucking rammed dude, stop posting

>>1552409
>the next plan to totally subvert /qa/ and end it for good.
You already have.

>>1552415
>The rate of meta dropped by a factor of FUCKING FIVE before and after.
Could you please define "meta" and classify every thread that is "meta"? Your numerical claims are meaningless otherwise. Also I assume that your numbers come from the picture you posted, if so could you provide more context for it. The title "#of posts between 24 success mentions of 'generals'" seems to imply some sort of realtionship between the word "general" and post rate (on /qa/). The filename could use some context as well. What is "inverse meta frequency"? The picture again seems to be about the word "general" and post rate, how does that relate to "meta frequency"?

>>1552437
>Could you please define "meta" and classify every thread that is "meta"?
Threads that are about the discussion of specific boards or imageboards, or something along those lines.

>The picture again seems to be about the word "general" and post rate, how does that relate to "meta frequency"?
There is no good way to come up with a search net that hits every metathread or meta post in /qa/. However, one very popular topic of meta discussion is general threads. The frequency of the term "generals" in /qa/ is used as a proxy for the frequency of metadiscussion becauase we can get numbers on it. Numbers were extracted by searching for all posts with the term "generals" occuring before the date listed (before the first of the month, rather) and subtracting the post count between the first and last post on the first page.

If general threads are mentioned 80% less often, it strongly suggests that the amount of metadiscussion has fallen by 80%. This is not a perfect proxy. I could do others. I would expect them to show the same thing.

lots of concernbros in this thread

>>1552447
I don't think it will change much but your dates on the graph are in no way consistent and some are just plain wrong. Why do you go by the first of the month initially then switch to the last of the month? also not every month has a 31st the obvious one here is February. Did you mean to have every 30 days be a month?
Also all the percentage mentions of generals seem to have dropped in January not February so the landmark raid from the /jp/ sphere would be better represented as a symptom not a cause of the drop in the percentage of posts mentioning general. Adding onto to this the month of February also saw a drastic increase in the mention of generals in relation to post numbers. What archive did you use to get these posts numbers? I don't intend to discredit the archive but still it would be nice to know if there are any technical reasons that could have influenced your results.

>>1552458
>Did you mean to have every 30 days be a month?
I was using quick and dirty internet graphing software and wanted two charts of different scale side by side; I was going to change them all to */31 but that fused the two "identical" points for 8/1 // 7/31. My search query was for posts before the 1st of the month and I manually labeled the graph with 31s (since that's when the last posts in the query were made) because I forgot that all months don't have 31 days.

>Adding onto to this the month of February also saw a drastic increase in the mention of generals in relation to post numbers.
That's 2/31-3/31 (well, should be 2/28-3/31), which is March. I used desuarchive. I agree that there is a drop in January, but that's not even close to what came afterwards. Just this month the mods dropped a great big general-based bombshell on /a/ and you'd have expected it to cause a huge shitstorm rather than the few tepid threads we actually got. Very few people on the rest of 4chan discuss meta here anymore.

>>1552471
>you'd have expected it to cause a huge shitstorm rather than the few tepid threads we actually got.
This could be me misreading your graph again but from 7/31 to 8/31 there was a ~8k drop in posts between mention of "general". 8k is almost half of the peak number of in between posts. I think it's a bit of a stretch to say that the /a/ mention didn't have a large impact on what is posted on this board.

If you assume that /qa/ actually got a larger more diverse user base as time has gone on you'd reasonable assume that the percentage of overall posts that talk about generals has gone down as time has increased. The more obvious culprit for the increase in posts between usage of "general" is spam of course. Maybe, it is the case that the total number of posts about "generals" has remained constant as time has gone on but the spam has driven post rate up and therefore the percentage of posts using "general" has gone down but the gross number of posts hasn't? Assuming there is a correlation between usage of "general" and "meta" threads then the preceding theory might imply that spam has had no effect on the overall quantity of "meta" threads and only affects the appearance of the board. I should say that one would need to look at the rate of growth of "meta" threads as well to make any meaningful determination.

>>1552484
>Maybe, it is the case that the total number of posts about "generals" has remained constant as time has gone on but the spam has driven post rate up and therefore the percentage of posts using "general" has gone down but the gross number of posts hasn't?
The population graph for /qa/ has remained reasonably steady over the course of this year, certain catastrophic events aside:
http://desuarchive.org/qa/statistics/population/

That's including spam, incidentally. So without spam it may be that the population has simply gone down.

>I should say that one would need to look at the rate of growth of "meta" threads as well to make any meaningful determination.
I agree that this would obviously be the best metric but that requires someone to look through hundreds of threads by hand, and I don't have enough autism saved to do that right now.

>>1552506
>The population graph for /qa/ has remained reasonably steady over the course of this year, certain catastrophic events aside:
I am not to familiar with how archive sites collect their respective statistics but the population chart and post chart for the year interval appear to be the same in their graphical representations. My question being, does one anonymous on the population chart mean one new post with the name anonymous or one new IP with the name anonymous?
I believe your conclusion would be more sound if you instead used http://desuarchive.org/qa/statistics/activity/ instead as your conclusion can be applied but without questioning the legitimacy of the graph.
One also needs to ask when months begin and start on the desu graphs. Does the label "December" correspond to the beginning, middle, or end of the month? Looking at the April-May gap I believe they correspond to a month's beginning.

Assuming that a month begins where the month is labeled, I am still not entirely convinced that the gross number of "general" posts have gone down. The times in which the percentage of posts that mention "general" decrease correlate with times of increased post rate. On your graph 1/31-2/31 (Febuary) has a decrease in the percentage of posts using "general". On desu the time between February and March has a sharp increase in the number of posts. The percentage of posts that mention "general" for 2/31-3/31 (March) on your graph has a increase and this lines up with the drastic decrease in post numbers during the month of March on desu. Notice that March begins during a time when the February post numbers have fallen considerably. Looking towards the month of August there is again a noticeable drop in the percentage of posts that mention "general" on your graph. On desu July and August have roughly the same post numbers until just after the middle of August and the number of posts almost half (a bit above 1/3 less I think) for the rest of August.

>>1552506
>>1552534
For clarity's sake, I say post number but I am using the population graph you linked because it has each month marked

>>1552534
>Does the label "December" correspond to the beginning, middle, or end of the month?
Looking at the spike at the beginning of April, this appears to be the case. I would attempt to correct frequencies with population, but there is a simpler way to get the direct result: see how long in days it takes for people to mention general 24 times.

2016
May 30-31 (~1 day)
Jun 29-30 (~1 day)
Jul 29-31 (~2 days)
Aug 27-31 (~4 days)
Sep 28-30 (~2 days)
Oct 30-31 (~1 day)
Nov 30-30 (<1 day)
Dec 30-31 (~1 day)

2017
Jan 28-31 (~3 days)
Feb 25-28 (~3 days)
Mar 27-31 (~4 days)
Apr 24-30 (~6 days)
May 25-31 (~6 days)
Jun 23-30 (~7 days)
Jul 21-31 (~10 days)
Aug 24-31 (~7 days)

I lose some daily granularity here by throwing away hours, but I was too lazy to do timestamp math there. It would also be more accurate to plot rolling statistics but I haven't yet gotten around to hitting desuarchive with automated queries and don't think I will any time soon.

In any case: it's clear that for whatever reason, even if you want to point to Jan 2017 to say that 2017 was a bad year for meta or something, that compared to last year there's far less meta than there was before, both comparatively and in absolute numbers.

As long as /q/ type posters think this board is a safe zone to complain about 4chan meta will never be as prominent as it once was. It's the nature of things to die off on a board. Meta had it's phase until it was infected by /q/, /jp/ nice posting had it's phase until it tried to be integrated with from /r9k/.
Current era /qa/ is at the moment budding into a /g/ spinoff.

>>1552556
>ven if you want to point to Jan 2017 to say that 2017 was a bad year for meta or something, that compared to last year there's far less meta than there was before, both comparatively and in absolute numbers.
You still haven't shown the absolute numbers. You propsed a method for maybe finding data with a relationship to the absolute numbers but gave no data.

>>1552574
The data I gave was approximately rounded to the nearest days: "days required to make 24 posts about generals." I could subtract the exact timestamps if you really think the daily granularity would help, but the difference between 2 days and 6 days is fairly obvious.

Actually, after making an initial post about this, I suspect that you are saying that the proxies that I am finding are not absolute numbers for meta - which is true - but there is really no way to go about that without doing hours of research, and even before that you'd need some sort of methology for what can be considered an active meta thread. These proxies certainly SUGGEST that there's much less meta than before.