Reduce /a/'s bump limit number

I agree, I can't think of any valid reason to have ot be 500

File: 1441321653762.png (473KB, 660x720px) Image search: [Google]

473KB, 660x720px

They should make it so a single IP can only bump a specific thread twice.
Or make it so once a thread reaches page 7 (or any other arbitrarily chosen page) it starts to autosage and can no longer be bumped by anyone.
Or make it so a thread only gets bumped if it gets two (non-sage) replies from different IPs in the last 20 minutes (or any other arbitrarily chosen time period).
Or make it so any thread older than 3 hours (or any other arbitrarily chosen time period) starts to autosage and can no longer be bumped no matter how active it is.

It's pretty annoying to see some threads stay up for literally 6+ hours after all discussion in them has died because one person keeps bumping them whenever they reach page 8-9.

>>353952
Ps: I'm not targeting any specific totally-not-a-General. This happens to almost every thread.

>>353952
>The remaining 200 posts are circlejerk shit
If you are lucky. Normally it is usually spread out through the whole thread to force it to be kept alive. Especially in the general threads.
The idea is nice in principle, but it wouldn't solve the problem. Someone would just make a new thread as soon as it hits 300 posts and the quality would still be the same shit as before.
>>353963
>Or make it so a thread only gets bumped if it gets two (non-sage) replies from different IPs in the last 20 minutes (or any other arbitrarily chosen time period).
I like this idea the most out the rest as it doesn't kill genuine slow threads(if the time frame was set to be over the last hour). Just it is open to abuse as someone can just reset their router to get a new IP.

Just delete the generals about shows from yesteryear with only circlejerk and no real discussion.

>>353952
>>353957
>>353963
>>353967
>>353998
>>354026
But why any of this? Why bother? /a/ is slow enough that real discussions run their course and don't get pushed off the board by spam like on other faster boards

Why can't you just leave a thread once you're done with it? Why do you have to police other people's behaviour when it doesn't effect you?

Leave /a/ alone

>>354053
>Why can't you just leave a thread once you're done with it? Why do you have to police other people's behaviour when it doesn't effect you?
But that is the problem. Ignoring the non-discussion happening in generals doesn't magically make things better. If anything it generates more problems as people start to create their own shitty memes and thread culture as people treat the thread like a chatroom. Then the people who really want to talk about the show just don't bother with the threads any more, since they are so shit, making them even worse.
People need to learn to let a thread go if people aren't discussing anything. They don't need to image dump. They don't need to spout some meme. They don't need to shitpost.
Just allow the thread to die and have some time for anons to get new content to discuss.

>>354058
>But that is the problem. Ignoring the non-discussion happening in generals doesn't magically make things better.
I don't see the problem

> Then the people who really want to talk about the show just don't bother with the threads any more, since they are so shit, making them even worse.
The people in those threads would probably love to discuss the show with you if you actually try to strike up a discussion yourself. They are largely trying to keep the threads alive because they love the show and are hoping to talk about it more, but they have already talked about it so much that they don't have a subject to lead on themselves.

New shows get discussed plenty while they are airing. After that people don't just want to repeat the same discussions over and over again. The thing with anime is there's often just not that much to say about it other than "I enjoyed the hell out of this, how about you?"

>>354076
>They are largely trying to keep the threads alive because they love the show and are hoping to talk about it more, but they have already talked about it so much that they don't have a subject to lead on themselves.
>
>New shows get discussed plenty while they are airing. After that people don't just want to repeat the same discussions over and over again. The thing with anime is there's often just not that much to say about it other than "I enjoyed the hell out of this, how about you?"
So why does the thread need to stay up if there is nothing to talk about? Let it die and then when there is actually something to talk about then make a new thread.

Agreed, the higher bump limit isn't really that useful, most threads with real discussion that manage to reach 300 still have enough time before page 10.

>>353963
Too complicated, just wait until the autist stops or others pick up the discussion.

>>354077
But why? Those "generals" existing doesn't stop discussion from happening in other threads

I still just don't see where your complaint is actually coming from

>>354079
>stop discussion from happening in other threads
There is no real discussion in the general threads beyond content releases. Is all non-content outside of that or just image dumping which is not discussion either just low quality shit to keep a thread bumped.
>>>/a/rules/1
>>>/global/rules/6

>>354079
There can be only 150 threads alive, in order for those generals to stay up, other threads have to go.

>>354080
>>>/a/rules/1
>All images and resulting discussion should pertain to anime or manga.
>All images and resulting discussion
not
>All discussion and resulting images

>>>/global/rules/6
>Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.
>high-quality images and informative comments.
not
>informative comments with high-quality images

Looks like image dumps are allowed to me. I think you need to work on your reading comprehension

>>354081
Other threads that nobody has posted in for hours because nobody cares.

Discussion does happen when it's warranted. If nobody replies to your thread it's because it's a shit thread nobody cares about

>>354088
>Looks like image dumps are allowed to me.
So no argument about the non-content?
Also.
>>>/c/1990691
>Finally, as much as /a/ is a discussion board, /c/ is a board for sharing images. Please respect the threads of other users and they will do the same to yours as well!
/c/ is the image dump board.

>>354091
About the non content I will refer back to my previous post >>354076
>They are largely trying to keep the threads alive because they love the show and are hoping to talk about it more
And equally, if people aren't bumping the thread at all it's because literally nobody cares about the subject

And regarding /c/
>/c/ is a board for sharing images
not
>/c/ is the board for sharing images

>>354088
>If nobody replies to your thread it's because it's a shit thread nobody cares about
Does that include the generals with some samefag image dumping to keep it alive?

>>354088
The image limit is 250, reducing bump limit to 300 wouldn't change much for image dumps.

>>354053
>Why can't you just leave a thread once you're done with it?
>>354088
>Discussion does happen when it's warranted.
This, why would you encourage useless bumping/circlejerking when you can politely leave a dying thread?

>>354094
At least that samefag is one person who cares about the subject, which is more than can be said about the threads that get bumped off as a result

>>354096
>why would you encourage useless bumping/circlejerking when you can politely leave a dying thread?
You can leave or you can stay. You can leave and start or join a legitimately discussion in another thread, or you can stick around and circle jerk. You don't have to force everybody to do one or the other. This is a non issue

>>354093
>>They are largely trying to keep the threads alive because they love the show and are hoping to talk about it more
>And equally, if people aren't bumping the thread at all it's because literally nobody cares about the subject
Just because they are bumping the thread does it mean they are producing worthwhile content.
So again the non-content goes against
>>>/global/rules/6

>And regarding /c/
>>/c/ is a board for sharing images
>not
>>/c/ is the board for sharing images
Doesn't make /a/ the board for image dumps either.
Pretty sure mods have deleted threads in the past just for being image dumps as well.

>>354098
>At least that samefag is one person who cares about the subject, which is more than can be said about the threads that get bumped off as a result
At the same time a dedicated shitposter can keep a thread bumped. Does that automatically make a thread good then?

>>354098
>You don't have to force everybody to do one or the other.
So why not delete this board?
Now it's unironically /q/ 2.0, with people forcing crap on almost every thread.

>>353963
>They should make it so a single IP can only bump a specific thread twice.
No conversations allowed
Stupid idea
>Or make it so once a thread reaches page 7 (or any other arbitrarily chosen page) it starts to autosage and can no longer be bumped by anyone.
Retarded idea over all
Might as well just reduce the amount of pages to 7
>Or make it so a thread only gets bumped if it gets two (non-sage) replies from different IPs in the last 20 minutes (or any other arbitrarily chosen time period).
So you want every second post to bump the thread?
seems like a stupid idea
>Or make it so any thread older than 3 hours (or any other arbitrarily chosen time period) starts to autosage and can no longer be bumped no matter how active it is.
Another completly retarded idea
As expected from a tripfag

>>354099
>>354103
Ok those are good points, but your argument relies on the assumption that new threads will always be higher quality than old ones

Considering it's gonna be the same anons posting regardless, it seems more likely that we will just end up with a higher quantity of essentially the same threads. My main point is that people are going to talk about what they want to talk about regardless of the bump limit. If people really have things to discuss then they will be discussed either way.

Ok if you disagree, I think I've exhausted my argument. Well met anons

>>354121
>assumption that new threads will always be higher quality than old ones
Well the assumption is more if the thread is allow to die off for a few days it will encourage more discussion in the next thread because new content will have come out over the time the thread was down or people aren't as tired of the same old arguments in the thread(since it wasn't always up) so will be encouraged to reply to them.
This point was proven during the time mods clamped down on generals 2011 after they over ran the board. They were purged and so the new threads that came up every now and again had a much higher quality to them.
During the past few years they have stopped clamping down on them though and we are getting back to that point again.
People still remember it though, as the word "general" in the OP on /a/ is still basically treated as taboo.

>Ok if you disagree, I think I've exhausted my argument. Well met anons
I can understand why people want a 24/7 thread, but I can't agree it is a good thing at the same time for reasons I have already stated. So yea we will have to agree to disagree.

>>354121
>higher quantity of essentially the same threads

Consider the following:
>500 bump limit
>someone makes a thread that fills up quickly
>another thread is created, but little discussion because everything was already discussed in the previous thread

>300 bump limit
>someone makes a thread that fills up quickly
>another thread is created, discussion is split evenly, possibly with new material

Why not secretly revert to 300 to see the reaction?

>>354139
The problem is you still get the same effect as we do now just drawn out over more threads since the post rate will probably still be the same between the threads. So in the time the two 500 threads are made three 300 threads are made and the last part of the second thread and the last thread would be basically as bad as the second 500 thread. All you achieved was spread it over more threads which is actually worse.
The better solution would be to somehow discourage the second 500 post thread with little discussion.

>>354142
>The better solution would be to somehow discourage the second 500 post thread with little discussion.
That can't be done when most other boards encourage/are already filled with generals.

>>354142
>The better solution would be to somehow discourage the second 500 post thread with little discussion.
Not him but that it's almost impossible to make.

Sounds like you anons just have a problem with generals, rather the bump limit. Generals are cancer and need to be purged from /a/ anyway, but changing the bump limit wouldn't help that at all

>>354353
This, pretty much. Lower bump limit just means they will create a new thread more often. Just purge the cunts.

>>354079
They stop discussion happening for that series. And yes, they very well can stop discussion from happening in other threads? Why? Because the entire general mentality is spreading. People seem to think the only way to go is to build a general and so everything will be generals and nothing will have discussion.

People used to say that /a/ doesn't discuss good anime. And that's completely true. The reason they don't try to discuss old good anime is because no matter how hard they try, there's nothing to discuss and it's all just circlejerking over nothing. When a newfag comes along and has a reason for posting a thread, that's literally the only time anyone has anything new to say about the series. And that's how it should be.

>whining about board culture fails and you're ignored
>resort to underhanded technical whining instead
/a/ is perfectly fine. Go away.

>>354088
I don't care if people image bump a thread to keep it alive. But only if they're not doing it every thread for forever. Mangafags can do it just fine without it spanning threads and threads. And if their threads die, they won't just try it again anytime soon.

>>354414
So which circlejerk do you reside in?

Fuck off

Reducing the bump limit isn't going to stop circle jerks.
If people are willing to keep a thread bumped until it hits 500 then they'll be willing to create new threads as soon as the previous hits 300 if the limit is lowered.

I mostly browse the catalog sorted by creation date so I rarely see the day old threads unless I deliberately scroll down to see them. I'd rather they stay at the bottom for a full 500 post duration rather than have them be remade twice as fast.

Fuck off cancer, /a/ is fine as it is.

>>354432
Generalfag spotted

>>354432
Get rid of Kantai, /ai/, Precure and Monmusume and then we can even start talking.

>>354432
/a/ was fine when the bump was 300 too, and when you'd probably say the same thing in a thread asking to lift it to 500 back then it seems hard to take this seriously.

>>354425
>>354432
I see the cancerous circlejerkers who want a tumblr-like hugbox are butthurt.

>>354446
You forgot SnK and JoJo

What anime does /qa/ recommend?

>>354452
SnK at least has shitposters, they're self-imploding and I've seen them dead, briefly but they're not permanent. Jojofags seem to be migrating threads in a less general-like fashion recently. I did say 'start talking though'. Situation is similar for TG and a few others.

My point really is that, I don't think any of those four have any active shitposters.

Split /a/ into /a/ and /ma/. Too much black and white shit on the catalog

>>354455
Attack on Titan
One Punch Man
Dragon Ball
Sword Art Online, but only the first 14 episodes

>>354458
>/ma/
Mature anime? For mature people like me? Sign me up.

File: 1384380078695.jpg (138KB, 1280x714px) Image search: [Google]

138KB, 1280x714px

>>354455
Kaiji
>>354458
>complaining about Manga
Stop it, they don't even take up 20% of the threads

File: 1400800568695.png (105KB, 359x380px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 359x380px

>>354466
S3 never

File: image.png (9KB, 391x311px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 391x311px

Reduce the bump limit and the number of pages. That reduces the room for threads and applies pressure on those people who think it's ok to make pointless threads.

If threads are a scarce resource people will actually care and report the generals.

Was this linked on /a/?

>>354425
>>354432

>>354482
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nob_LzFNbX4

At least we still have Pachinko machines

>>354053
>Leave /a/ alone
This is a huge problem and is fucking us in the ass in the long run.

Everyone has this attitude against improving /a/ when their are objectively shitty aspects to it that could stand to be fixed.

>>354493

>>>/a/133778022

>>354502
I'm this thread's OP. I really didn't go after generals. Almost every thread, sometimes threads about ongoing shows, die at 300 posts (in the sense that those 200 posts are really just people stretching things out)

>>354507
The problem is that mentality of stretching them out. Not the post limit. That's why there are 24/7 generals.

Wouldn't this marginalize actual news topics?

>>>/a/133725954

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

>>>/a/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.

>>354510
How so? If people want to keep discussing the topic they can just make a new thread and keep going on. The problem is people keeping dead threads and shit generals up by bumping it with inane circlejerk and random imagedump

This is absolutely fucking stupid.

Just enforce the no-general rule. Just reducing the bump limit will not solve anything.
It will just mean more, and more frequent, generals.

>>354513
>If people want to keep discussing the topic they can just make a new thread and keep going on.
Including the generals.

This really isn't a well thought out idea.