Catalogs are great on fast imageboards, but on slow imageboards they only enable necroposters.

>>104315
Necroposters are great magicians that keep good threads from dying.

I've always held the belief that as kissu grows bigger we'll pick up posters that align more with a single board than the entire site, and I think that's fine as long as people are aware of what board they're on. To that end I think that usefulness of the overboard is probably determined by who's using it. For people more heavily aligned with a certain culture that can't really fit in with the other I'd say using the overboard may not be the best idea. But, for people that know how to act across the boards there's no issue and only benefit to using the overboard as it allows for them to more easily use kissu.

The overboard lets /jp/ work well as a place to put lower effort threads that people can see without bumping stuff off /qa/

If you're going for the zero moderation approach then you'd best imitate ota and have no technological innovation and keep it simple. Otherwise you require moderation to offset the problems of convinience

>>104315
I think it's the opposite. On fast imageboards they encourage ctrl+fing, which leads to sterilized OPs and fragmentation of the community, and constant necroing of threads to combat the relatively high thread turnover rate. On slower imageboards they can help you see where the new activity is more quickly as long as there's a proper preview of the last few posts on hover.

Overboards are kind of silly on sites with lots of different hobbies on them, but being able to customize it with just the ones you're interested in is useful and helps the broader community stick together. It doesn't really matter on kissu since boards aren't separated by hobby and the content of the OP will guide you to the proper kind of reply.

Flipping nerds talking about "necroing". A thread is only dead once it falls off the catalog.

Catalog definitely feels that something that can be innovated upon, but no one has ever managed to do it in a way that is sufficiently satisfactory that everyone sings its praises and switches over to it. Kissu's [Article] thing is an interesting hybrid, and ccd0 did a thing with 4chanx that lets you hover over a thread to see its recent replies in catalog mode on 4chan, but something is still missing. Index just feels so much more natural and I don't know how you'd make catalog feel as good.

>>104327
Fully agree. People can and should reply to older threads

>>104328
People should reply to threads because they have something to add to them, not because they're on the last page.

>>104342
Nobody said otherwise. They're refuting the idea of necroing applying to imageboards. If a thread is good, and someone wants to reply, they should, no matter how how old the thread is.

>>104343
>>104327
It depends on the situation.

I think we can all agree that posting something like "I agree" or "bump" in an old thread is not adding anything to the site. But there's nothing wrong with making an on-topic post to expand/restart discussion.

And depends on the board to some degree - it's not that bad when people bump old threads on kissu because there's not too much serious/lengthy discussion here, but on certain other places you get these massive walls of text from years ago being bumped back up to the top from time to time when half the people involved probably don't even post there anymore.

>>104343
When people talk about necrobumping in the context of imageboards, they are referring to the practice of bumping a thread for the sole purpose of preventing it from falling off the board. Forcing threads in which discussion has concluded to stay alive past when they should have naturally been replaced by new ones clutters up the board with zombie threads that add nothing. On fast boards, this reduces the effective board space and timeline for new threads to take off. On slow boards, it's the same annoyance as on forums when people dredge up years old threads without some substantial update to warrant it.

>>104327
There's a difference between bumping an older thread because you have something to add that could revive the conversation, and bumping an older thread for the hell of it. If there's nothing worth adding, let the thread die. Sending it all the way back to page 1 means you have this dead-weight thread that nobody's replying to taking up space.

>>104344
>>104350
>>104355
but "people involved in the discussion isn't here anymore" is the exact reason that these old threads need to be bumped, because new posters won't see the thread otherwise
discussion in these threads stopped because the posters initially posted in it lost interest or had left, and bumping them enables new posters to continue discussion
your alternative is to make a new thread with the exact same op as the original one, only without the original replies which can contain valuable information

>>104315
>>104325
I don't think it makes for much of a difference in terms of necro'ing. Not having a catalog doesn't make any difference in a case like ota's, their forum-tier necrobumps rely more on having a stupidly high number of pages than anything else. What matters is not how you reach dead threads, it's having a pile of dead threads to begin with.

>>104326
I agree with the ctrl-f, people always end up complaining about how they end up missing the thread because OP didn't include the proper keywords. I just checked 4/a/ to look for an example, and found a Kage thread whose full subject was:
>The eminence in shadow/ kage no jitsuryokusha ni naritakute!
But I don't think an index makes this any easier, if you had three general-esque threads instead of one for each popular series, you'd also see very high turnover rate. Ctrl-f'ing at least makes threads on pages, say, 4 to 9 trivial to find, and they give you a snapshot of the entire board at the same time instead of multiple slices that refresh each time you visit a new one.

As for the act of necro'ing itself, I agree with >>104344 but also >>104360 to a degree. Sometimes there really isn't anything to further add, sadly, though it's hard to get an idea a priori.

>>104360
Information valuable enough to be worth retaining long-term shouldn't be exclusively posted on imageboards. It should be on a site with content permanence and a quality filter of some kind. Imageboards are designed around the principle of tossing old threads into the abyss and starting fresh in perpetuity. Even if, for some reason, you remake the exact same thread instead of saying something new, there is value in starting from 0 to see if people reach the same conclusions or if something changes along the way.

>>104361
The high turnover rate is a natural result of high traffic, it's not a bad thing in-and-of itself. If you have six threads about a show that all finish their discussion and die within three hours, that still clutters up the board less than a single thread that is kept alive for a whole day. It also means there's no the thread to follow and missing some of them isn't something worth complaining about.

>>104360
Not really, if it was something people were actually interested in discussing they'd make a new thread about it. Imagine if someone bumped the Chainsaw Man thread back to the front page of /qa/ 3 years from now. Do you think that would be "enabling new posters" to discuss it?

>>104394
>if it was something people were actually interested in discussing they'd make a new thread about it
this isn't true
shortly after someone makes a thread about a topic which didn't exist on the board before, some other posters start discussing in it, clearly they have interest
however, these reply posters (which greatly outnumber thread makers) don't make the thread themselves, but wait until the thread is made by someone else

Every imageboard it's own little nation and every board it's own town

>>104395
There's a difference between replying to a new thread and replying to a thread that's years old.

>>104399
no, there is none if the thread is at the same position on the board (let's say the first page), which is achieved by two methods: making a new thread, or bumping an old thread
if the old thread has no replies, they achieve the same effect: the thread has no replies, and is at the same position on board
if the old thread has some replies instead, it offers the advantage that extra information are provided instead of none in the case of a newly created thread
in both cases, bumping an old thread has no downsides compared to making a new thread

bumping old threads just because they have replies in them is assuming that people missed them.

If you bump everything at once, an extreme case, then the first things people see will be things they've already thought about to an adequate conclusion. no new information will be added and the people who made new threads will be frustrated and leave.

This sort of necro kills creativity on imageboards and causes people to go elsewhere where their new ideas are appreciated. Inevitably necro posters will have to be banned for abusing the feature and killing a board

The only case where it kind of works is ota because they have zero creativity and threadmakers. It's a board of leeches and leeches need host bodies to suck off of.

Necro spam is the stages of a dying board with no one interesting left on it

so yeah. it's a thing that can be done with restrictions. If it's a common practice it just kills the fun of discussion.

how do you all feel about the "Similar" threads feature? I was always confused about why it exists when the community's stance on necrobumping is (broadly) that it is bad.

>>104407
The similar thread is not a tool for bumping old threads but a way to connect threads together in ways beyond the index/catalog. But it's somewhat complicated to implement meaning it tends to be a lot of older threads.

But if we're to treat it as part of the problem of necro then:
There's a distinction that's sort of hard to get here between bumping and replying.
I don't like bumping threads but I like people to be able to find things that get them interested.
The problem is dealing with the people who don't know the difference between a bump and a reply.
It's something that's impossible to do at a community level and has to be done from a moderator perspective. Also hard to explain in such a way that it would not devolve into the simplest idea "bumping is good" or "bumping is bad" instead of the more nuanced perspective about is this additive or is this causing a more active thread to die out.

>>104407
> the community's stance on necrobumping is (broadly) that it is bad.
I don't think that's true, but in this thread one side has been particularly vocal about it as it exists on other websites.
The similar threads thread is great and I hope people use it, but much like the catalog it's hard to get people to use it because it requires conscious effort, even it's an extremely tiny amount of it. The threads aren't necessarily similar, either, but it's a good way to "advertise" other threads.
It helps remind me that certain threads exist and I might have something to say in them. Really, I can't imagine anyone having a complaint about it being there

>>104409
Similar threads is the same idea as backlinks and crosslinks. They just connect multiple similar ideas together

In it's most perfect form, similar threads would be a straight up replacement to the catalog eliminating the problem of necro posting removing newer threads. Things would be connected based on the user's preferences and no one would need to hunt out content.
Like netflix or youtube or chatgpt abstracting out the issues of searching for content and giving it to you based on knowledge

The thing about similar threads is if I go in and read them, then I might be tempted to reply because I have something to say, but then someone's inevitably going to make hay about the "bump". So why even bother going into the thread.
I can use the feature, you just have to be ok with more threads being bumped. I think it's a cool feature. Roll the dice and see which threads it thinks are similar.

>>104391
>The high turnover rate is a natural result of high traffic
Right, but generals are also the result of high traffic, to decrease turnover. We're also not talking about index vs catalog anymore, since either of our arguments apply to both formats.
>If you have six threads about a show that all finish their discussion and die within three hours, that still clutters up the board less than a single thread that is kept alive for a whole day.
That's assuming the latter is on life support, which it very often isn't. Every time the topic of activity comes up we always seem to agree that it's multiplicative, and there's no reason to think that this would be much of an exception. And when users are clever enough to only make a new thread once they've been reached bumplock and are sitting on page 9, it's hard to call that cluttering up the board.
>It also means there's no the thread to follow and missing some of them isn't something worth complaining about.
This I agree with.

>>104402
>Inevitably necro posters will have to be banned for abusing the feature and killing a board
This is true, plenty of forums have a rule against necrobumping for a reason. Spacebattles has a good description of it in its rules:
>https://forums.spacebattles.com/pages/site-rules/#message-anchor-gr15 (lol, GR15)
In short, regular threads demand a "thoughtful response" if more than two weeks since the last reply was made have passed. It's not the best criteria ever, but it's workable. Imageboards don't have such rules by default because two weeks means the board is pretty damn slow and chantards are commonly speed fiends.
While we're at it, it's worth pointing out that their board format, which is endemic to traditional forums, is an index. It lists like 30 OPs per page, and it's got literally thousands of pages of threads to bump. I think this example is good evidence against the idea that catalogs have a noteworthy impact on necro'ing, much like ota's case.

>>104413
>but then someone's inevitably going to make hay about the "bump".
Agreed, it makes no difference whether someone reached an old thread through the catalog, through the index, or through similar threads. What matters is that someone's replying to old shit, which can certainly construed as necrobumping even when it has a point, just because the reply is short. {Similar threads} may even be more suggestive than the catalog, given that the feature is throughout the internet used to recommend things rather than just list them like a catalog does.

also lmaoing@GR4A

One more thing I'd like to add, which I just thought of, is that "no necrobumping" is actually the same kind of rule as "yes generals". Both are aimed at limiting a certain kind of behavior to avoid substanceless threads taking up space, in one case because they're dead, in the other because they're duplicates. This isn't exactly part of the official rules, but Spacebattles also has plenty of "The X Thread", with two capital Ts, (see https://forums.spacebattles.com/threads/accidental-copy-thread.961642/ for an example of a dupe thread that got locked) and GR3 is specifically about not derailments to ensure things always stay on-topic, something that's anathema to the imageboard spirit (western one, at least) and part of the reason why people aren't fond of generals.

It's worth noting that when I say "general" I don't mean /vg/-style threads that are perpetual, have a fossilized OP, and house a specific compartmentalized community. I mean a thread that's designed to be a catch-all for a certain kind of topic, such as >>>/jp/48486. That's a general thread, merely because it's about a topic in general. >>>/jp/49982 COULD have been a new onimai thread, but since it didn't delineate a topic it went in a completely different direction. But I do not mean that in any kind of pejorative or condescending way, they're simply fulfilling different roles.

>>104402
people do miss threads unless they lurk on the index 24/7, or spend time reading the op text for every single post on the catalog, and the latter is flawed because the op text doesn't fully represent what's discussed inside
for example, some music by artist x isn't posted in the "general music" thread or "artist x" thread, but in "genre y" thread instead, making them harder to find
also why is "bumping" attributed to be the cause of the problem, instead of spamming (as said in the "extreme case")?

>>104416
the age of threads or posts is never a good criteria to judge whether a thread is "dead" or not, because you never know when a poster interested in the topic come to see the thread
all of these arguments lie on the assumption that the population of an imageboard is completely static, posters don't come and leave, with all of its members being avid users lurking 24/7 not missing a single post
i remembered a textboard i visited didn't display the timestamp of posts at all, which made me stop caring or speculating about the age of posts, and focus on the contents of the posts instead

>>104422
>you never know when a poster interested in the topic come to see the thread
I know, that's why I said before that it's hard to know a priori if it's going to go well or not.
>the age of threads or posts is never a good criteria
The issue with your argument is that even though this is sometimes true, it's also false a lot of the time, and you're not adressing this. Why would a myriad sites independently develop explicit rules against this specific kind of behavior, if it's such a shaky argument? Spacebattles as a whole is about as fast as a mid-sized 4chan board I believe, clearly it's true that most users won't be able to read everything that's posted but the rule is enforced nonetheless. GR15A goes even further in saying "Do not Bump Threads" outright. How do you explain that?
Plus, I'm sure you know well that those vtuber bumps over there are not exactly being made in good faith, are they? It doesn't make pure bumps look any better. That is to say, if substanceless bumps can and have been used as a tool of annoyance and trolling across all message boards ever, then there's something wrong there.

>>104424
forums make a terrible argument because they are different from imageboards
forum threads never expire, so making a duplicate thread isn't causing any harm as no thread is being "bumped off", the old thread with all its information is still there and can be mentioned in the new thread
in fact, the "do not bump threads" rules in forums deal exactly with this, to prevent multiple threads of the same topic from clogging the top pages

making a duplicate thread on imageboard with limited space inevitably kills an innocent thread (which isn't automatically a dead thread as i explained already) while not bringing anything new to the board

>>104308
The difference between user interaction with threads seems to be a bit complicated. Thinking about threads with probabilities, Catalog view evens the probability out between threads but places a lot of emphasis on the OP to "hook" posters. Index view increases the chance that a user will reply to the thread they are currently looking at but it favors bumped threads more so than Catalog view, as bumped threads not only appear first but since the latest replies are shown threads take up more space.

I'm not sure about which view promotes "quality posts" but it definitely seems that Index view promotes "discussion" as the reason users enter or reply to a thread are based off of the OP and the latest replies. So their post is likely to be a reply to the OP topic or to the latest posts. With Catalog view a user bases there decision to post initially on just the OP, So their post in a thread is more likely to a reply to the OP topic instead of to any of the posts in the thread.
There's some nuance that I didn't consider with the fact that the general Catalog view doesn't let you reply to a thread from with in the view, while Index view lets you reply to threads with in the view.

As for an extra example, I was looking into syntax for Fantasy Grounds and came across this thread:
https://www.fantasygrounds.com/forums/showthread.php?27367-Effects-the-Complete-Warlock-Package
The last reply on page 2 is from April 2019, while the first on page 3 is from August 2020. The interesting thing is that even though the guy posted a legit question, the admin himself called it a necro before answering his question, but it still generated some further discussion. To me, it illustrates the usual sentiment that it's a negative while also proving that justified necros exist.

>>104425
Ota's threads effectively don't expire either, it ends up working the same as in any usual forum. Again, the issue is having dead threads to begin with, and that holds for all message boards. The main 4chan boards are an anomaly in that they have no truly dead threads because of their small space and high speed. It's an exception, not the rule, and the concept of a necrobump pretty much doesn't apply to them but does apply to any board slow enough to have threads stick around for any range of time between a few months and a few years. In that regard, imageboards are fundamentally no different from traditional forums.

>forum threads never expire, so making a duplicate thread isn't causing any harm as no thread is being "bumped off"
I feel like this is contradictory. If it does no harm, why are people against duplicates anyways? If anything, it's in forums that the tendency to coalesce into a general is at its strongest. People simply don't like posts that they consider to be a waste of space, same as that retarded hatred against posts consisting of only reaction images which is present in both imageboards (does anyone have that particular guideline pic? an attempt at self-moderation) and forums, see Spacebattle's GR4:
>Spamming, that being content that does not contribute to a thread, is not permitted. Posts that add nothing to a discussion or can be conveyed via the Like button, such as "nice job" or "I agree", are viewed as zero content posts.
Then, in GR4A:
>SB is not a Chan site, so what is banned is using memes in the style typified on such sites. This includes using meme images/videos/gifs alone as reactions in place of comments and arguments
That's why people don't like substanceless bumps and unjustified necros, they simply don't want to see that. Here's the tangible, explicit, and codified proof.

btw
>GR4B: No Multi-Posting
take notes, v

>in fact, the "do not bump threads" rules in forums deal exactly with this, to prevent multiple threads of the same topic from clogging the top pages
The rule does aim to prevent clogging, but bumps would would prevent duplicates by redirecting people to an already-existing thread, and it's still seen as bad manners to do so out of the blue. Both bumps are duplicates are frowned upon because many folks don't want to waste their time reading them, yes, but this is in no way an argument in favor of substanceless bumps.

>while not bringing anything new to the board
It depends on how we define duplicate thread, but in principle I agree, duplicates needlessly pushing off other threads is something that comes up a fair bit when discussing whether to have generals or not.

>>104426
Fully agreed, the crucial difference between a forum's index and an imageboard's is that the latter gives visibility to developments inside of the thread. Queue those screencaps about total derailment after 200 posts.

To clarify what I said in >>104355, there's nothing wrong with bumping a thread in general, no matter how old it is. People can and have successfully revived threads that have been dormant for years. What I take issue with is when people bump a thread without actually offering anything that could continue the discussion.

Like, let's say there's a thread about a show you're interested in that's gone dormant. There's a world of difference between bumping with a reply sharing your thoughts on the show or pointing out something that didn't come up in the thread, and bumping with a glib comeback to a post you disagree with or, worse, just the word "bump".

When you're bumping an old thread, the goal should be to revive it. If can't think of a way to do that, sage your post.

To sum it up, my stance (I'm >>104427, not ^) is this:
Interest in a thread naturally dies down, and people gradually stop replying to it. After enough time has passed since its last reply, the thread is widely considered to be dead. Replying to a dead thread is necromancy, no matter its contents.
It is possible to rise a thread back from the dead, but that's not what always happens. Because people are averse to certain kinds of "wasteful" posts, either in the form of pure bumps or duplicate threads, a stronger justification than usual is typically demanded of such a post, and newer users are not as likely to reply as the ones that were around when the thread was originally made.
That's basically it.

>>104401
There's a huge difference, it's like the difference between painting a new background on a blank canvas and painting a small addition to a long-running piece of collaborative art.

Imagine if the Kissumas image was continued from each previous year - you wouldn't see near as much activity because it would involve smaller and smaller edits to the picture, or if someone made a big edit and overwrote something from a long time ago someone might feel the need to defend their work regardless of whether they still care about it or not. This leads to pointless arguments that derail the thread.

Anyways, don't get me wrong, I'm not advocating for people who necrobump threads to be reported to the FBI, have their moms called, etc., just saying that it's poor etiquette to do so without some sort of substantial contribution to the thread. More or less I agree with what >>104428 said.

Probably. I can't deny that catalogs are convenient for navigation, but they have a proclivity for having people get "caught up in the flow". It's less noticeable here because of the comparatively more mature userbase to other image boards, but the meta aspects of the catalog format are certainly taken advantage of elsewhere much more routinely than an index page format.

As for the topic of necrobumping, I wouldn't consider it an issue on slow websites if the subject is still relevant. Image dump threads are practically made for necrobumping since new material of characters or themes will inevitably be made. If the goal is instead an obsessive desire to keep any old thread with no particular niche on the front page with insubstantial "BUMP!11" posts or the like, then it wouldn't contribute much to organic discussion.

love bumping shitposts from the abyss

come brave the shit abyss within my bumhole

>>104461
huhuhuh nice one Beevus huhuhuh

>>104918
NOT a necrobump as per GR15, merely a regular bump since only a week has passed.

Thread auto updating combined with the catalog are more responsible for the death of imageboard culture than any other technical contribution.
They are the great homogenizers, the harbinger of chatroomification.

even if i agree with the above point, the culture of a site is decided by the users and not the designers... and you would have to blame overboards and general threads more than anything else for what you say

(albeit there's a bit of a chicken-egg dilema)

>>105050
>Thread auto updating combined with the catalog are more responsible for the death of imageboard culture than any other technical contribution.
>They are the great homogenizers, the harbinger of chatroomification.
Now let's add an actual chatroom >8D

>>105050
What would you say the biggest impact of auto updating is?

When you apply socket programming to imageboards you remove the need to have an update button. You are actually directly replicating IM behavior on a technical level. But the user interface, latency and the requirements are still higher on an IB, so I disagree with that assumption.

Kissu's [Update-Thread] thing will become a legacy component soon because it will be doing this socket stuff with the HTTP method as a fallback and an [Option]. (Autoupdating not on catalogs)

Also another IM like thing that will happen is that everyone will be notified of new posts at the exact same second, so nothing staggered.
These are all very small aspects that don't really change anything on a UI level and therefore I don't understand why someone would feel this way about autoupdates

>>105050
Are you referring to generals on 4chan? I can't really see it mattering at most other imageboards because there aren't enough people to sustain it outside of the one-thread-at-a-time blog places, but that is their culture.

mm, i guess thinking about that opinion a bit more it's like...

Before there was auto-updating there was no reason to have general threads, but with the convenience of not having to press update to see new threads people started hanging out in singular threads.
I still disagree, but I see the argument a bit clearer now

futaba channel has no auto update yet there are tons of (4/a/ style) general threads

>>105073
It's not a general thread unless OP mention the words "general" or "edition"!

>>105074
the tsukuyomi moon phase thread on futaba has reached 151st edition
https://may.2chan.net/id/res/353079.htm

>>105078
What on Earth do they talk about all day?

>>105079
It looks like blogging

*replies to the /qa/ thread with a /jp/ style*