/meta/ - Board Discussion

>>3057
Yes. 150 or 100 would be fine.

>>3057
I'm in favor of same length threads, but less threads per a board. Things are only hard to find in the catalog do to unreasonably large thread counts, and possibly people not understanding how to use the search function.

will the archive be public?

>>3057
>making new threads all the time even though the old ones weren't even close to full
The thing is, wouldn't/doesn't this happen anyway? The catalog doesn't even have a search function for people to check whether a thread about their chosen topic exists.
In general I feel like shorter threads would be fine. How often do people really reply to months-old posts anyway, even if such posts are present in the thread that's being used? There's not even a guarantee that that poster is still reading the thread to see the reply.
Longer threads like we have now, for perpetual discussion, wouldn't be such an issue either if the boards themselves were restricted in size. If there's a giant thread that's still used regularly and keeps getting bumped to the top, why delete it? The issue arises when we have giant threads where discussion dies out and no one posts in them for months, yet they still exist on the board and can be necrobumped for no reason, or just exist in limbo forever and my personal OCD demands I keep them open just in case someone ever replies to one of my posts. Or as I presume happened in a recent /feels/ vent thread, the post limit gets hit and everyone moves to a new thread, but the last thread never falls off the board and so if a mod deletes a moid post or two, it frees up a slot for someone to necrobump a thread that no one's even using anymore, and that no one really CAN use because it's so close to the post limit anyway.

>>3065
All web browsers have a search function. This is irrelevant.

>>3067
What, Ctrl+F?
That may technically work, but since the catalog previews don't show the whole OP post, if the words you're searching for are in the cut-off portion, you can't see them being highlighted by the browser and have to potentially check multiple threads among the 8 or so that the browser auto-scrolls down to in order to find the one you're actually searching for.
It's not very user-friendly.

hi admin, can we have a watchlist/watchthread feature on the site? i do reply to a number of threads in a day and sometimes i forget which threads i replied to hours-days after coming back to see other replies

having this feature would also mean threads would get more active as we get to see if the thread we "watched" updated and replies would get quicker this way. however, if there's already a feature like this on the site, please let me know how, thanks guys. <3

>>3074
I second this request.
On other imageboards I can post in a thread for a while and then it hits bump limit and falls off the board, and I no longer have to worry about not seeing new replies. Here the site is so slow that threads persist for weeks or months, and I can't just keep every single thread that I post in open to check for new posts every day.

>>3074
>>3077
The 4chan x beta version works for this purpose. It will give you some errors and you won't be able to use most of its features, but the thread watcher seems to work just fine.

https://www.4chan-x.net/

To make it work on crystal.cafe, you'll need to install the userscript, not the browser extension.

Make sure to follow the instructions in the FAQ to add crystal.cafe:
https://github.com/ccd0/4chan-x/wiki/Frequently-Asked-Questions

>>3086
Will it screw up anything if I already have the extension installed?

>>3088
The userscript and extension both do the same thing, except the userscript lets you modify it to add crystal.cafe. You can probably run them both, but it would be pointless.

What happened to the old threads? I have been here since the start. This is a slow site so I check the threads every few months?

Also, there are poster that are autistically irritating. They make these know-it- all post. The site will always suffer into those people leave.

>>3378
They should still be there unless the OP got their post history removed. Recently I've been sparing thread OPs from mass-deletion though, for the sake of contributing anons.