[ home / bans / all ] [ qa / jp / cry ] [ sum ] [ f / ec ] [ b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new / tab ]

/qa/ - Questions and Answers

Questions and Answers about QA

New Reply

Options
Comment
File
Whitelist Token
Spoiler
Password (For file deletion.)
Markup tags exist for bold, itallics, header, spoiler etc. as listed in " [options] > View Formatting "


Nen Refugee Thread Please be kind and welcoming to nen friends!

[Return] [Bottom] [Catalog]

File:e0aeccb623e810c5d6ca031aaf….jpg (30.95 KB,500x501)

 No.92701

Nowadays people that are new to the internet immediately go to social media, because that's where everyone is, right?
But, before the rise of social media there were already plenty of other sites with established communities. Why didn't people go to those sites?

 No.92703

because those sites are dead

 No.92704

They did? How do you think forums formed otherwise?

 No.92705

>>92703
>>92704
I think you are both misunderstanding OP's question.
>>92701
Because the appeal of social media back then was that your real friends and acquaintances, not random internet strangers, were using those sites too. You added them on MySpace and you could talk to them outside of school/work hours on the computer without paying an expensive phone bill or clicky-clicking tiny buttons three times to write one letter.

 No.92706

>>92705
Yeah, and after enough people got together they began to group up in ways closer to that of other communities, that's the point where people did start to regularly talk with strangers.

 No.92707

Not scared of social media

 No.92709

facebook became popular because it was targeted to old people

 No.92716

File:[MoyaiSubs] Mewkledreamy -….jpg (312.12 KB,1920x1080)

Well, in the old days I guess you'd start on your ISP's homepage or yahoo or something, at least by default for most people. These days a fresh Windows installation would bring you to Microsoft's bing, but after that I guess you'd start with google.
I really don't know where a fresh person new to the internet would first go, but social media links from their friends seem the most likely, yeah. Hmm... but then again there's a lot of "apps" these days that try to replace browsers so they can harvest the data themselves.

 No.92727

My first (and only) AOL keyword was PBS kids.

 No.92728

People used to just try typing in URLs. www dot (whatever) dot com. I bet old people still do that and fall for scams.

 No.92730

Social media is much less elitist, in terms of appeal for a newcomer you can't really compare an established forum and its culture to a social media platform whose business model is to accommodate everyone on the planet. Also for better or for worse social media grew along smartphones while everything else didn't adapt as fast.

 No.92743

>>92730
funny since Reddit's phone interface is kinda suck

 No.92753

>>92730
Established forums also do also typically practice gatekeeping for better or for worse. And in terms of smaller forums and chans today, they tend to be much more fringe groups. Whether you got the spermers on this board, the fashs on leafchan, so on and so forth. (Not to say these group don't exist on mainstream social media, but they aren't given much "freedom of expression" for better or for worse).

 No.92754

>>92743
it's quite euphemistic, it wouldn't be too much to call it absolutely disastrous. These pop ups are some of the most annoying I've ever seen on a mobile site.

 No.92771

where is (you)r myspace, /qa/?

 No.92777

File:[LoopSubs] Machikado Mazok….jpg (241.73 KB,1920x1080)

>>92771
Had one for a week when a classmate told me to make one, but never did anything with it.
Probably for the best. It seems like older stuff was deactivated judging by the very rare myspace link I see on older sites.

 No.93126

File:UI - forum vs twitter.png (32.25 KB,942x834)

The importance of phones can't be understated. There's a number of advantages social media had over forums in this regard:
¥Putting out apps early on
¥Having a simple interface
¥Unsuitability for discussion

You'd normally need to visit multiple sites if you were interested in multiple varying topics, as anyone who's a regular of more than one imageboard can attest to, but as social media began to snowball and communities were somewhat established within them, a single platform became able to supply all of those disparate topics. You didn't need any new boards, people formed a network around a topic and that could freely expand. Then, enter apps. The new sites made an effort to create applications dedicated to their platforms, while forums did no such thing. There's Kuroba/Clover and Tapatalk which function as platforms for platforms, but they require you to know the sites you want to browse, it's not something you get easily inducted into. That's the first major point.

The second point is their interface. Not only did they make an effort to expand into phones, they accomodated them. As illustrated in the attached picture, their design is exponentially simpler, which is much more palatable. Forums have too much shit going on in their UI. In this sense, imageboards are a lot more mobile-friendly.

Third, overlapping the second point but oriented towards text instead, mobile devices' small screens are inherently crap when it comes to participating in any discussion. It's very normal for a longform post to fail to fit in there, being unable to read it as a whole means it takes more effort to properly reply to it. But we mustn't forget, Twitter and Facebook are blogs. The OP is faaaaaar more relevant than its replies. Even if their average posts reached the length of an actual article from Blogger, Medium, or Wordpress, it'd still be easier to digest since it's a simple progression from start to finish rather than the parallel and no-so-parallel back and forth of simultaneous chains of replies. It's crucial to notice: in social media (also Reddit), chains and branches get hidden by default. Twitter's the worst offender, most sub-replies are capped at one in terms of visibility, if they even appear at all. That's gotta be one of the most anti-discussion features ever, it shows that their idea of "engagement" has a different meaning than what you'd expect.

Above many things, I believe these in particular had a huge impact on how things played out.

 No.93127

>>93126
>That's gotta be one of the most anti-discussion features ever, it shows that their idea of "engagement" has a different meaning than what you'd expect.
Interesting point. By design since the big three social media platforms(Twitter, Facebook, Reddit) and many others are a space for advertisements. I don't think this says anything about phones as used in social platforms, rather a way that the companies with the most money chose to create their features

 No.93128

Hobbyist sites couldn't handle the kind of focused traffic that we see today. Even back then
, the /. effect was a known thing.

>>93126
Agreed, there is much I miss about the old net, forums isn't one of them though. I didn't like the format even in the heyday of them. They could stay as dead as mice with those shitty rubber balls.
One downside though is how pestering modern websites are with notices and popups to use their app instead, just because they detect I'm browsing from a phone profile. I have an app already it's called my web browser!

>It's crucial to notice: in social media (also Reddit), chains and branches get hidden by default. Twitter's the worst offender, most sub-replies are capped at one in terms of visibility, if they even appear at all. That's gotta be one of the most anti-discussion features ever,

Ah, you mean how random other threads just get shoehorned in while you're trying to follow a discussion? Yes that's especially jarring coming from an imageboard minded person's expectations. The suggestors of that feature must be truly dead inside.

 No.93131

>By design since the big three social media platforms(Twitter, Facebook, Reddit) and many others are a space for advertisements.
>I don't think this says anything about phones as used in social platforms, rather a way that the companies with the most money chose to create their features
I wish that everyone pirated software, aggressively used adblock, and was a freetard who was happy to eschew services for ideological reasons. That would kill the profit motive for software like that.

 No.93136

>>93131
You're just as crazy as the marketting team for facebook. I wouldn't want either of you in charge

 No.93138

>>93136
I wouldn't be in charge, that's not the point. Kind of the opposite of the point.

 No.93139

>>93138
of course, websites grow on trees and are funded by the hopes and dreams.

 No.93142

>>93139
One thing's for sure, we definitely don't have enough websites.

 No.93143

>>93142
I like websites

 No.93146

File:sub reply visualization.png (Spoiler Image,45.42 KB,720x1262)

>>93127
The "simplification" of UI in favor of a mobile-friendly structure is not exclusive to social media, many other sites have also gravitated towards squishing their text into a smaller column and deleting all sorts of side elements. Take for instance Kissu's new UI, while in PC you have a sidebar loaded with stuff (the RSS, reply button, Controls, Nav, Similar and finally options), in mobile all of these things are placed either at the top or at the bottom of the page. Even here where there are no adverts, any side element is removed nonetheless, because that's what befits phones.
Gotta give it to Vern, it's well designed.

>>93128
>couldn't handle
Very much so, scalability is another incredibly important point. Message boards require top-down actions to be able to deal with growth, it's the staff that has to create boards, moderate, and recruit people. (I mean, yes, self-moderation, but the staff wields disproportionate power in any case.) If they do nothing, or do the wrong thing, the site could in the end implode, just because of growth. In contrast, blogs effectively create a new board every time a user signs up, their space can expand infinitely without ever getting to the point where a normal thread reaches the speeds of Twitch chat, we know from leaks that they're not even moderating their sites. Once more, it also applies to the pseudo-decentralized models of Reddit and 8gag, to a lesser degree.

I do like forums though, they have their place.

>other threads just get shoehorned in
No, no, that's invasive suggestions, a different thing. I mean that if you go to any celebrity's profile for example and select one of their posts, you'll only see the immediate replies. But, their branches are pruned. The replies to the replies aren't visible. Further illustrated in this second visualization, spoilered due to AIDS.

>>93131
Consider the following: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_least_effort

 No.93147

>>93139
Remember when ISPs provided homepages?
People used to pay for their own websites to make their stuffs to be seen without making profit in mind.

 No.93148

>>93147
Go make a homepage. No one gives a shit about your dorky profile picture doxxing yourself for the internet teens to harass you.

 No.93149

The reason why there are less websites is because making websites is an ass process that is no fun. People get paid 30-50$/hr or 30-50k/yr salaries to work on this sort of thing precicely because it's no longer a place about your HTML only websites.

 No.93161

>>93126
I disagree that phones are "anti-discussion". Discord, Reddit and Telegram all have popular phone apps, and tons of people phonepost on 4chan. Maybe it's looser and less wordy, but discussion-oriented stuff can definitely exist on mobile.

What really killed forums in the long run is that they sucked balls. On a given forum, 90% of the posts will be made by four or five obsessive weirdos who've been there for like a decade, with the remaining ten percent coming from random passerbys who show up once or twice and are never seen again.

 No.93167

File:b6dbb3893818c046367a881967….jpg (328.12 KB,1000x1100)

>>93148
I've never intended to do so, unlike you who projected your ego on me.
>>93149
Right, it's never about money and you knew it, vermin.

 No.93170

>>93161
Yes, people are able to chat and write posts using phones. No, that doesn't make them actually good. Relative to PCs, the problem still stands: they have too little space and everything is harder to do. There's no upside to it, it's straight up worse. Usable, definitely, but still bad.
>obsessive weirdos who've been there for like a decade
That's what you'd call a core community, as silly as it sounds.

 No.93171

>>93149
It's closer to 80 to 110k with a bit of experience, or even starting if you're smart.

 No.93173

>>93170
My point was less that it's good and more that it's viable; that phones had less to do with the decline of forums than people think.

>That's what you'd call a core community, as silly as it sounds.
You act as if I wasn't there. I used forums all the time when I was younger; enough that I can talk at length about why I use imageboards instead now.

 No.93183

>>93173
I agree that phones didn't cause the downfall of forums, but they do favor social media far more than they do forums.
>You act as if I wasn't there
I didn't mean to sound like that, it's that I don't like it when people complain about powerusers on forums but pretend like those people don't exist on imageboards, or even that Anonymous talks about forums' core community negatively but praises that of imageboards as a bulwark against newfags.




[Return] [Top] [Catalog] [Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]

[ home / bans / all ] [ qa / jp / cry ] [ sum ] [ f / ec ] [ b / poll ] [ tv / bann ] [ toggle-new / tab ]