>>414068 When you say "Bring back noko" do you

>>414070
yes

also, bring back "sage" while you at it, moot2

As terrible as your choice in pictures is, I wholeheartedly support this idea.

Hello, I'm Noko.
Sup OP.

>>414073
sage still works. On /qa/ I have sage enabled by default using a script to put it in automatically. I only bump threads when they're past page 5 and I have information that I think's important enough to see.

I miss the email field outright. There was always a thing I did, if I was talking to known people (Tripfigs) and wanted to say things "under my breath," and hide them in the email field. The funny part was always, like, I'm talking to a Trip (and I was a Trip but I took my name off contextually) and I'd put something pertinent to the conversation in there, and yeah the funny part was people would just instant think I was saging. I'd get upset replies like "UGH, WHY REPLY TO A TRIPFIG IF YOU'RE SAGING?! THEY'LL JUST REPLY TO YOU AND UNDO IT!" Like saging "does" anything. Like there's some kind of counter on sages.

But it was always funny because it was just something like "mailto:Eric's dog is inside out, don't ask him why." UGH WHY SAGE THIS THREAD?!

>>414106
am i the only one who actually used the sage appropriately? Like actually using it when saying something off topic?

bump

File: 0002-IActuallyDidTryToCommitSuicideACoupleMonthsAgoButImAFuckingIdiotAndNaproxenSodiumDidNotKillMeJustGaveMeReallyBadHeartPalpitationsAndShitForSeveralDaysWhileIVomitedAndShitEverywhereButHeyIDontWantToDieAnymoreSoThatsGood.png (52KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 400x400px

>>414106
I use the image name for that.

File: 1343275123387.png (7KB, 385x306px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 385x306px

>>414113
No, a lot of people did. It was just an unknown to people what "sage" does/did. Even if it is written down in the FAQ and your tone was completely amicable, people always saw the little underlined name as an indicator of negativity and/or harassment. The underlined name was 4chan-shorthand for SHOTS FIRED.

I actually used the email field for my email address a few times. Weird right?

This image was passed around a lot in the year before sage went invisible. I wonder if it weighed heavily on moot's mind, that people had misinterpreted it so badly, for so long that it came down to spoon-feeding. The lurking and the moreing, it didn't work with sage (and maybe a few other things). Memery had to be stripped away and the facts presented in cold, unfeeling PNG format.

>>414075
welcome back!

How is sage not a negative/disapproving thing?
I'm aware that it's not a "down vote" but it doesn't do nothing. It allows me to reply to the thread without bumping it. Thus the thread will die quicker. And that's exactly the point. If I don't like a thread but still want to say something, I sage. Or I just post and sage to SHOW that I dislike the thread while contributing nothing of worth to a shitty thread.

Why are you faggots so dumb and unable to grasp this idea?

>>414160
>Thus the thread will die quicker. And that's exactly the point.
No, that's not the point.
A sage means "I have something to say, but it's not so important that everyone should read it." You want to get your comment down without bringing the thread higher.

>Why are you faggots so dumb and unable to grasp this idea?
And attitude like this is why you think of it to be a negative thing.

>>414166
Maybe that was the original purpose. That doesn't mean, that I can't use it like I described it, though.

Sorry for insulting. ;_;

>>414160
But the thread might not die quicker. The thread dies when it dies and lives as long as the people inside of it think it needs to.

I sage constantly, now that it's hidden. No thread I reply to is ever "lost" because of this. The concept of the "board" is lost these days. There is no "board." There are general threads. And people bump those CONSTANTLY. The idea of being polite and not cluttering the first page "old threads" when the topic therein is occupied by TWO WHOLE PEOPLE... this idea is as alien to 4chan now as it was in 2005.

Hell, on slow boards, saging a thread means even less than nothing, so in what way is THAT upsetting?

The threads falling off the last page are have passed their usefulness to the larger entity. The polyglot or lurkers. They didn't kill it, they stopped replying to it. That's what you're saying: If every sage "hurts" or "kills" the thread it happens in, then every person who doesn't reply to every thread is "killing" every thread that 404's.

Can you imagine it?

>>414171
A sage doesn't hurt the thread. But it doesn't bump it and that's the purpose. That's not so hard to understand.
While it might not be a huge difference, at least I can post knowing the thread will not be bumped so that more people see it and attracts more retards.

>>414171
>>414171
I also use sage all the time, in fact i even sage my own threads as well

>>414168
Okay, just don't let it happen again and I'll forgive you.

Or, you know, keep being Anonymous and I'll forget you ever existed.

Maybe sage should be the default, and "Age" in the Options field should bump the thread.

That might stop flamewar shitfests from staying alive forever and keep nice happy circlejerk threads alive.

>>414248
What if threads only bumped if they were past page 3 or so? That way the front page would display a wider variety of content and each individual thread might be less crowded? Your average fast board user, like /b/ or /pol/ or /v/ picks a thread and sits in it for a while, right?