>hey guys I might have to delete some boards >makes a new board

>>109
But this is a premium board for very important posts.

>>109
it'll even out when he deletes /pol/

Don't bully the autistic Japanese man.

File: 1475445198263.png (94KB, 1100x1023px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 1100x1023px

Different boards use up a different amount of bandwidth. A standard board like this doesn't add that much, while a board with higher file size limits and a more of a culture of dumping images adds a lot more.

>>144
Except this chart doesn't show bandwidth, but diskspace the images occupy.

So it's only a snapshot. It doesn't account for turnover. It doesn't account for text and code, only files. It doesn't account for the amount of people frequenting the board, requesting content and consuming bandwidth. It doesn't account for archives. /wsg/ has about 60 threads in their 7 day archive. /pol/ always has over 25,000. Regardless of the metric - /pol/ vastly outnumbers /wsg/.

tl;dr: Your chart is useless and misleading.

You're correct that small boards don't add much though.

>>144
Why does /wsg/ and /hr/ even exist?

>>883
in /wsg/ you can post sfw random webms, and pics in /hr/, this is as simple as this.

>>225
Delete the archives and solve the problems

Seriously, 3rd-party archivers are doing the job well enough and the point of 4chan has never been to have archived discussion anyway

>>920
>in /wsg/ you can post sfw random webms
Which you can post in /gif/
>and pics in /hr/
But why does this NEED to exist?

Why the fuck do you people still insist that deleting boards or banning phoneposters or anything is going to change anything? It will still result in the same amount of bandwidth being used, only less spread out and with an angrier-than-ever userbase.

Likewise, archives don't contribute much towards bandwidth costs, because in the grand scheme of things whatever images are accessible from there are rarely viewed. Storage is cheap.

The true culprit is simply people not properly compressing their images. We don't need fags on /a/ posting their 3 MB pngs of whatever their flavor of the month waifu is when it could just as well be compressed into a <500 kB jpg.

Enforcing stricter filesize limits on non-image dump boards is the way to go.

>>109
Soon this will be the only board

>>1011
I am not against this, I compress all my images already.

>>1011
Advertisers will come back if we ban certain assholes who give the place a worse name than /b/ ever did

>>1011
I am heavily in favor of this. I understand that people want high quality images but they need to be properly managed. I feel that people are just too fucking lazy to compress their images and setting a file size limit could help force people.

File: 1380380684_1379187042050.jpg (69KB, 520x678px)

69KB, 520x678px

>>1123