Would reimplementing visible sage improve board quality?

Who knows. But it would be fun wouldn't it?

Make it so threads are saged by default and you have to manually bump them.

I'm pretty sure people would start using it as a downvote again.

>>1567134
I don't know. I think people would start saying "bump" more often just to bump shitpost threads.

what about visible bumps?

>>1567157
Wouldn't people start to use the bumps like upvotes?

>>1567148
>I'm pretty sure people would start using it as a downvote again.
See this is what I never understood.

We can clearly see that removing visible sage after all these years has done absolutely NOTHING to eliminate 1-line shitposts made just to be an asshole and insult someone or their thread in a completely contextless way, right?
We still see it all over the fucking place.

At least when people were using sage to insult each other it meant that the their stupid little insults and bickering wasn't bumping the thread. So where's the downside?
It was like a magic thing that made a good deal of posts like "go back", "fuck off", etc all not be visible on the front page.

>>1567159
I think most people want their arguments to be seen. They get attention, as well as the ability to keep the thread going so they can argue some more. One bump by anyone resets the whole thing. Visible sage is pretty pointless.

I think the sage function itself is what should be advertised more in banners.

I like saging my quality posts so only the people who matter can see.

>>1567165
So then who are you saying is using it as a downvote?
They use it as a downvote but at the same time they don't so their post can be seen? It's one or the other.

>>1567173
Some people would sage to downvote a thread, and other people would come back to bump the thread with garbage. It's so easy to get around someone using sage, that the function is almost useless.

>>1567169
And you can feel it when some who matters is in a thread, even if they haven't posted.
Those who don't matter make them selves be known very quickly, but the others take time to catch.

>>1567177
Right, but like I was saying at the very beginning of my other post, is that really any different at all from today?

As far as I can tell it changes nothing. But on average there will be some of those arguments ending with a sage and that's 1 less bump for stupid off-topic arguments to the front page.
Also you say a single bump makes it pointless anyway but I disagree there too. A derailed thread that gets bumped 10 times a minute is more annoying than a derailed thread that only gets bumped 5 times a minute.

>>1567183
>A derailed thread that gets bumped 10 times a minute is more annoying than a derailed thread that only gets bumped 5 times a minute.
Maybe, but saging for a good reason is almost a lost art. And visible sage adds a bit more of a visual insult to the OP of a thread, so it is something that will make some people mad. To effectively bring visible sage back would require an improved userbase.

>>1567217
I just had an idea

What if sage was only visible to you and anyone you're replying to, nobody else can see it?
Then it can't really be used as a downvote. But at the same time when it comes to proper usage the people who need to see it still will, for the most part.

>>1567229
Well, if you reply to the OP while saging, then they will see it. So then we keep the OP from being able to see sages at all, right? Well, that could certainly help. But then what about people who are clueless about the sage function? What if they don't care about saging? And what about the people who would sage just because they want to screw around with things? The system can work well if the userbase is mature, but that isn't going to happen.

>>1567240
I don't understand your examples. It just sounds like you're saying newfags would say "oh shit, what's this?" and mess around with it. Which is good isn't it?

Also who cares if the OP sees it, nobody else will, and anyone using it will know that too. Over time it would just completely lose its stigma as an insult, but even if for whatever reason the OP still took it personal it's not like he's going to just go around saying "hey everyone, this guys saged me" (and even if he did he'd probably just be unanimously called a faggot)

sage will never be used politely as long as threads are in a constant bumping competition to stay alive. If you want polite sage, you need to decouple it from thread pruning, or at least increase the number of pages on fast boards so that constant bumping doesn't matter so much.

>>1567247
>Over time it would just completely lose its stigma as an insult.
It helps threads die faster. This is extremely insulting to people who don't understand imageboards and people unwilling to admit that they made a bad thread. People who intentionally make and bump bad threads will try to fuel the fires of hate against saging.

>>1567252
Good point. I still can't help but think visible sage no matter how its implemented does more good than harm though.

I don't know, maybe just do like some people say then and add a sage checkbox just to increase awareness

Maybe mods should enable visible sage on /qa/ to test if it's a good idea to bring it back on other boards as well.

>>1567260
Of course shitters will do everything in their power to make it look as bad as possible. Myself included. Despite me wanting visible sage back, I could never pass up that opportunity for lulz.

>>1567254
A checkbox and a banner might be alright.

>>1567260
It would be ineffective for the most part. The spammers would have to go to even make it worth an attempt.

>>1567122
It'd increase negativity which is a good and a bad thing depending on how you look at it.

>>1567122

File: 1477218661076.jpg (64KB, 500x447px) Image search: [Google]

64KB, 500x447px

>>1567122
The question is not to reimplement sage or not, is to reimplement the e-mail field.