The three archetypes.

>>108305
a simplification

>>108306
They're ideal types. These three examples are particularly pure, but a normal thread blends their aspects.

>>108307
I think I disagree with it being the ideal. Threads that function as a hybrid, assuming people are on the same general wavelength, shine the brightest to me. There's value in the "be smart in smart threads, be retarded in retarded threads" thing, but when threads go in unexpected directions and it can really be the best threads of all.
It's generally hard for an imagedump thread to become something else, though

Ah, alright then.
I've also got this one about the structure of threads, that is to say, the space in which replies are made. On the left you have a single string of posts that come one after the other (not necessarily in a chronological order) where users can typically freely quote each other or no one at all, in the middle there is the branching model where a reply must obligatorily be appended to a previous already-existing reply (e.g. Reddit and Twitter), and on the last there's a mixture of the two where you first have a continuous thread where a second sub-thread can be appended to a "main" post with no further branching (e.g. StackExchange, Facebook, 4taba). And of course, all of these require a primary OP to start a thread, marked in yellow.
>>108308
Oh, no, not literally ideal. It's a term, I meant it in the weberian sense:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ideal_type
They're ideal because they're the distilled, abstracted form of these three activities, which I see as the archetypal basics of imageboard posting.

Worth noting that I picked threads that exhibited the archetype not just in its OP but in its replies, however, the archetypes apply to individual posts, not entire threads. You can have a pure imagedump post in what is otherwise a funposting thread, the dump itself having no trace of funposting.

>>108311
Hybrid just seems like branching with a limitation on who you can quote. I would think the third would be chatroom/general style disjointed threads where posts are made that aren't responses to anything and essentially create a new, self-contained sub-thread within the existing thread. Maybe you're classifying those as hybrid, but I think they're fundamentally different from what StackExchange has.

>>108311
>I meant it in the weberian sense:
Oh, that makes sense. I think I would add at least one more thread type, and that's the "participation" or "creation" thread for lack of a better term. It describes threads centered group effort towards collages or edits or something else that produces something new rather than commenting on existing things. They are the rarest and most difficult threads for obvious reasons, but also probably the best.

>>108315
Quotes are actually irrelevant, the arrows on the left do the chart a disservice.
Framed in a different way, the structure is about whether a thread can "split". See pic, the color of a post/reply changes each time this happens. On the left are SE and Slack, which can only split once per main post to create a sub-thread, on the middle is Reddit, which can split with no limitations, and on the right is SpaceBattles, which cannot split.
Chatrooms have a special status where OPs don't exist, but we can easily treat the room itself as a single thread, it doesn't make a real difference.
>>108319
That's a good one, I'll add it to my notes.

>>108336
Small mistake here: red branches off of dark blue, not black.

>>108319
Would you say drawthreads are participation-oriented? The amount of people creating stuff is relatively small, but requests are oriented towards neither funposting nor discussion, and the imagedumping aspect is just a consequence of the creation process.

>>108319
I think participation threads are a subset of creation threads, but creation threads can still fall into the three given archetypes, albeit tending to have a lot of hybrid elements to them.

A thread where a drawfag pumps out a bunch of new art is an imagedump.
A thread where a template is posted and anons make variations is funposting.
A thread where people make a year-in-review collage is discussion.

>>108346
I guess that's somewhat right, but you can have all 3 in one.

Sometimes the similar thread feature receives a neat idea

>>118947
Ehh, what do you mean? This thread is a neat idea? Or the suggestion was good? I'm confused.

I am also confused

>>118961
My spellchecker corrected revives to receives. Probably because I typed recieves