Console:
X
CLEAR CONSOLE
/meta/ - Meta
Edit
yesking.png
(62.45 KB
1080x1669
)
I believe there is a mandatory checklist of general interest boards that must exist in all proper forums. They are as follows:
>literature / writing
>film
>music
>games
>art
In addition to this, I believe it would be a great benefit to have a board for internet culture itself. I propose the handle /www/. This will not only help preserve great threads covering these things but also encourage additional like-minded threads.
>/www/ - Internet History & Culture
>>471
I feel that there would be no real purpose behind a literature or film board, as both subjects already have robust threads that fulfill their purposes on other boards.
It's been discussed before here, but it bears repeating: There's no worth in having repeat boards when there are already substantial threads for certain subjects, as discussion of those topics are infrequent enough to function perfectly fine as a "general thread".
It's the reason as to why we don't have those boards, even if we do have boards for anime or art. Because those subjects are impactful enough for the general userbase of the past and present as to be spoken about in the large scale.
As a very small image board with a dedication to quality, I think that spreading many posts out with 2-3 minor replies and little discussion is less conducive to a consistent and high quality user experience than having few threads with many replies, as is already the case.
>>471
I like the idea of /www/, and given how many Japanese internet neta threads there are on /b/, it could benefit from its own dedicated board. Another thing I like is that it is not called /jp/, as if any people from the other site sees a /jp/ board, they'll immediately just start dumping a load of low quality threads and start waifufagging to oblivion.
It especially helps that its so broad that other online cultures can be posted, not limited to Japanese-related ones.
>>473
What is the threshold to qualify a topic for its own board? The userbase of the past and present does not account for the userbase of the future. These boards would be new ground that could be tested with a very, very small limit of total threads- perhaps 10- to measure if there is actual interest in said board.
As a new user, seeing the absence of a dedicated place to discuss a thing I care about would dissuade me from posting. "Random" as a board name, especially labeled /b/, carries an inherent expectation that is tinged by the /b/ of other websites.
Even if you say "Well, we aren't THAT website" it is hard to really make that sort of a claim when the foundational aesthetic, from nini herself being !Yotsuba to the use of the letter /b/ for the random board, is so plainly inspired by THAT website.
Past and present does not consider the future. The future is important too, especially with THAT website being offline at the time of this writing. The vagrants of THAT website are looking for a new home, and I really doubt the kind of people who would use /lit/ are without the capacity for quality threads.
>>474
I'm glad you understand what I really was aiming for with /www/. It's important to celebrate the collective internet and what it has given us. There is treasure from all over the net that each of us surely carries with us. I think such a board is a good fit for this site, moreso than even the above topic boards I was describing. There is a proven use-case for it and the threads from /b/ can be migrated to /www/ to populate it and set the standard.
>>475
I would argue that the "threshold of interest" would be an already existent and persistent use of existing threads for discussion that is robust enough to be theoretically grown into its own board.
We currently have a /lit/ thread, and it's seen very little use. If the /lit/ thread were to grow so used as to feel "bloated", then I would agree a /lit/ board would indeed be necessary, and help the site's ecosystem as a whole.
The same philosophy should apply to all subjects. You could not coagulate all of /a/ or /mu/ into a single thread, and as such; they have their own boards. The same should go for all potential 4chan-adjacent boards. It is that same logic as to why we do not have an /x/, or anything similar. Because those topics, as are discussed by the userbase, have their needs perfectly fulfilled by a single thread.
If one wishes to discuss film, we have a dedicated film thread. If the discussions related to film grow in such a scale to which they might need a board, then they will have earned a board.
Overcollection of boards is a legitimate concern I believe, as it can risk spreading out an already thin userbase between even more disparate spaces, which will result in a slow death of conversation. Keep things small scale until they grow too large for their britches
>>476
I would also mention that it would be wise to not just focus on a single thread, like if the /lit/ thread isn't working for me, i could make a new one focusing on a /lit/ topic or author, like i still haven't made a thread for lovecraft because i'm stupid and i keep forgeting.
>>471
>/www/ Yes please
and /hob/
>>478
I agree immensely, and I believe that having long threads with much discussion is largely better than having a board with mediocre to small amounts of discussion. It is too frequent that sites like this have a huge collection of boards with the most recent posts dating back several years because discussion is so spread out. We must avoid this as best we can, even with the recently increased population count
>>478
I also would like to add to this, that you can alter the bump limit when you go to make a thread, and if your unsure if your thread would get any attention, (and if sufficent attention is given then the thread can be remade, but with a highger bump limit) or perhaps you may want yours to expire faster then you can give yourself a low one. This is good because i like long threads but i might come up with a thread idea that is SUPPOSED to be short and quick. Thought it might be good to mention that feature because it's good to think about. The option is visible as "BL" which is right next to tegaki.
I think the default bump limit for all threads should be lowered given that it is a slow moving board so that more older threads could be remade. I also think there should be another thread for bump locking irrelevant threads like "what are your hopes for 2023" since seeing old posts like that getting bumped is honestly pretty discouraging and just makes the board feel dead. Even if users have the ability to manually change the bump limit of their thread that only goes for new threads and there is a 100 percent chance no one is actually going to use that feature and everyone will just leave it at the default bump limit of 250.
>>483
Also please a big red indicator in the catalog and index view saying that the thread is bump locked.
After visiting /server/ I find the argument against /lit/ and /film/ to be very weak. If four threads are enough to justify that board existing when there's already /vg/, it's a poor litmus of viability.
>>485
/server/ was basically made because posters kept bumping threads announcing server opening sessions, and it got rather annoying to the point of offshooting to its own board to combat against other general discussion threads from being bumped down. It appears though that anon is no longer active on this site, which is why /server/ has a lack of activity now.
Although, if we want a /www/ to be a thing, I suppose we have to prove it to the 22staff that if there's enough activity, we'll eventually earn a dedicated board for Internet Culture, is what I'm getting at from this conversation, so far; although I haven't seen anyone outside of those interested talking about /www/ and activities against it, other than the reasonable argument that we should earn it if user activity justifies the creation of a new board for a specific purpose and interest from flooding the random board.
>>489
I'm willing to compromise not having the other boards, but /www/ is the main one I want given that most of the internet culture stuff are taking up a rather decent sized portion of /b/ and would benefit just being in its own containment board to make it easy to find; especially newcomers who aren't used to or have no clue about tags, or find it unintuitive compared to just having everything consolidated to a special board.
>>489
>>490
That being said, it's reasonable to want to see more user activity in order to fully justify adding a new board just for a specific interest like Internet Culture. Should probably get to work on contributing to those threads and hopefully that will convince 22staff to find reason to justify its existence.
Below is my drafted sticky for /www/.
=================================================
Internet Culture & History
Welcome to /www/, the board for Internet Culture and History. Threads and topics on this board should pertain to discussing various forms of internet culture, including but not limited to content that celebrates, documents, reports, or shares the history of internet culture, communities, and user generated content (UGC) across the internet.
>What sort of topics should be discussed?
Videos, music, blogs, animations, web-based games and media, forums, and other topics such as legacy communities that fit into the general description of "Internet Culture and History" are suitable. However, these should all be tied to a proper thread rather than randomly posted without a broader context. While there is no concrete format that absolutely must be followed, please refrain from making generic posts without the broader purpose of this board in mind.
Random uploads unrelated to the general topic always have a home on /b/.
>What are some examples of historical UGC hosting sites / communities?
Sites such as Nico Nico Douga, YouTube, Newgrounds, 2ch, 4chan and so on are examples of websites that have hosted user generated content of historical merit. There is a great deal of internet culture and history that has been formed from sites such as these. Likewise, they each hosted unique communities that became distinctive enough to have their own sense of culture and identity.
>Supported Formats
/www/ supports the following formats: (Insert formats here)
>Wayback Machine & Archive.org
Many websites of yesteryear have been lost to time or are no longer hosted by their respective administrators. Many of these sites may be found as snapshots using Wayback Machine. Additionally, some older content may have been saved on sites such as Archive.org. This is particularly useful for archiving and saving previously lost media. Please make use of these sites when applicable if other options are no longer available.
>Flash content
General SWF content made in Flash can be hosted on /f/, however posts pertaining to the discussion of this sort of content are highly encouraged on /www/ due to their overall relevance and impact within the broader context of internet culture and history.
===============================================
Please feel free to amend or modify this accordingly. As for the appropriate image for said sticky, I have attached some examples for consideration.
>>500
Do you think /www/ should also include threads that dive into the internet? Stuff like >>>/b/305/ or >>>/b/4503/ for example. The internet is so filled with stuff, that most of it is only ever going to be seen by a few people. Sifting through it in search of the cool bits is quite interesting, and shows a different side of internet culture than usual.
>>501
it wouldn't make sense if it didn't
>>500
I really want this to be made, what's the hold up, 22staff?
Some other examples of threads would be a geocities general, or even a dead/inactive communities general, similar to the current trend of exploring dead malls, only its dead communities and websites like LiveJournal or YTMND.
>>505
in the meantime, why not make banners for the board or a css theme
Can you guys figure out what other threads should be moved to /www/? Also I'll add flash support soon.