[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vr / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Home]
Board
Settings Home
/qa/ - Question & Answer


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.



Are anonymous imageboards/forums doomed to decline after reaching a certain size?
>>
File: 61422678_p0.jpg (111 KB, 1000x1000)
111 KB
111 KB JPG
Yes, and it's not restricted to imageboards. I think at least part of it is related to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunbar's_number
>>
>>2643326
Huh, 150? That's a lot higher than I expected. Though I guess taking into account how many people there are on larger boards posting it isn't all that significant.
>>
>>2643348
Well, it's the absolute limit. It doesn't mean you have a personal relationship with them, but your brain can store social information about them and maintain cohesion
>>
>>2643326
Most interactions on anonymous imageboards are ephemeral. I'd say Dunbar's number only comes into play when you have to maintain relationships, like on name-based forums, or when you start making friends off-site.

The maximum size of an imageboard is probably constrained more by the following principle (from A Group is its Own Worst Enemy):
>The fact that the amount of two-way connections you have to support goes up with the square of the users means that the density of conversation falls off very fast as the system scales even a little bit.
>many to many interaction doesn't blow up like a balloon. It either dissipates, or turns into broadcast, or collapses.
That last line pretty much sums up the current state of /b/ and /v/, for example.
>>
I wonder if imageboards (and perhaps newsgroups/forums/mailing lists) would work better if there was a mechanism for naturally dividing communities when they became too large.
>>
How has ota's very large max number of threads affected it?
>>
all anonymous communities turn to shit eventually
>>
This is why good moderation that cares about the topic, is important. That includes reducing ban evasion to a negligible level.
>>
>>2644132
by being dead
>>
>>2644132
No but the large llcel population has
>>
>>2644132
How would it affect anything? It just means threads don't die nearly as fast technically, but they still "die" when people stop posting in it
>>
>>2644536
It might have more of an effect if they had a catalog; then people could more easily look for threads that are more interesting that whatever's on the front page.
>>
Maybe, but I wonder if there are ways to avoid it.
>>
On imageboards when the board is too fast people start provoking each other to get attention for their threads.
>>
Do they decline without reaching a certain size?
>>
>>2643315
yes
>>
I hope not
>>
>>2644172
Does it deserve it?
>>
everything declines
>>
>>2647748
Maybe I'm thinking of some other board. Or I'm confusing that with it not having a JSON API.
>>
>>2648311
unless there's a giant external energy source
>>
>>2644132
Kill yourself.
>>
>>2649795
we only the post rate of most places



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.