New imageboard /lit/ features

[Anonymous No.16205105]

Certain boards on 4chan get custom features (drawing, unique posts, etc). If /lit/ could get custom features or even a new imageboard just for /lit/, what would you want to see/use?

Not asking about rules. I mean feature sets.

[Anonymous No.16205118]

>>16205105
Personally, I'd like to have no tripcodes or names. But, show unique poster IDs in threads so you know if someone is samefagging.

Also, no deletion of posts. Just hiding. Also, all jannie actions should be publicly viewable.

[Anonymous No.16205122]

>4 new boards in one month
>not /incel/ - Ecelebs, the containment board we actually need

[Anonymous No.16205147]

>>16205105
a way to post things longer than 2000 characters
>>16205118
unique ID's would be nice
>>16205122
a /phil/ board would have been good

[Anonymous No.16205233]

>>16205118
>unique poster IDs in threads so you know if someone is samefagging.
That's retarded for a literature board. Case in point, Flann O'Brien wrote letters both complaining and praising his own newspaper column under pseudonyms as inside jokes to the intelligent reader, and wrote so many that the editor stopped taking letters about his column for fear he would publish something Flann had written as a joke and not know. The same thing holds for any author with a pseudonym or heteronym. If you want to be able to see who's samefagging, pick a less challenging discipline.

[Anonymous No.16205238]

>>16205105
People on this board have no imagination lol. OP was asking for FEATURES.

How about collaborative writing features? Let anons make a thread where people can post normally but also let them type into a simple live "document" at the same time. Ofc with things like limited text deletion etc.

I'd also like to see basics polls as well. Selecting options and maybe even adding your own.

[Anonymous No.16205251]

>>16205233
Less work for OP to not add that feature, so I'm all for it.

>>16205147
>a way to post things longer than 2000 characters
Seems easy desu

>a /phil/ board would have been good
I will one up you: a fiction board, non-fiction board, phil + religion (combined), manga, and that's it.

[Anonymous No.16205261]

>>16205251
>Less work for OP to not add that feature, so I'm all for it.
Should we really make features for people who will be pleb filtered by Nabokov?
>>16205105
Infinite post count for threads.

[Anonymous No.16205268]

>>16205105
A sticky with debates in it, if your ideology loses (by poll) then you can't shill it for a day in any new posts

[Anonymous No.16205277]

>>16205251
that ain't a bad split tho

[Anonymous No.16205280]

ITT: Reddit

[Anonymous No.16205281]

>>16205251
>fiction board, non-fiction board
So do we split up authors who do both? Where do romans à clef go?

[Anonymous No.16205287]

HOW ABOUT REAL MARKDOWN FORMATTING?

So we can make fucking page headers, bulleted items, tables, and so much other kinds of shit. People will be able to organize their autist book reviews in a more coherent manner.

[Anonymous No.16205294]

>>16205268
>let's sticky the cancer
No

[Anonymous No.16205314]

All of these are terrible but none are worse than fucking usernames, you redditors are retarded it’s like you don’t even know why your here yourselves.

[Anonymous No.16205316]

>>16205281
>So do we split up authors who do both
Don't. Just let them post to either and if the discussion is too towards one side you can always move the thread.

>>16205261
>Infinite post count for threads.
Oh yea, what's the point of archiving and deleting threads? People here seem to make the same exact shit over and over again with the same image + OP post anyway. Never archiving will at least let you hide posts and keep them that way instead of having to hide them each time.

>>16205268
>A sticky with debates in it,
Well, if /phil/ has their own board + threads never get archived, then we don't need this. People can filter threads more easily then (see reply above).

[Anonymous No.16205318]

>>16205294
I think putting all the shitposting in an area is better plus it promotes better debating.
A sticky of a book of the month is cool too

[Anonymous No.16205322]

>>16205314
Yes, I'd like 100% anonymity. No trip codes. No usernames. Absolutely no way to identify you're a samefag or have an identity of any kind.

[Anonymous No.16205326]

>>16205318
>let's pretend keeping the cancer is the right idea
No

[Anonymous No.16205335]

>>16205316
>Don't. Just let them post to either and if the discussion is too towards one side you can always move the thread
The fiction/nonfiction split makes no sense once you start reading enough. It would basically only help people who shouldn't post in the first place.

[Anonymous No.16205336]

>>16205316
>/phirel/
We could start w a mascot in Pharrell

Yeah I think a /phil/ board would be good but I like a mechanism with consequences and energy

[Anonymous No.16205338]

>>16205261
>infinite posts
Are you fucking kidding, nobody wants to sift through 8 months bullshit and off-topic bickering every time they want to discuss Hemingway. General threads are all cancer run by wannabe subreddit mods

[Anonymous No.16205342]

>>16205326
what's wrong with debating? You're sorta shitposting w up replies

[Anonymous No.16205351]

>>16205322
That's one tasty-looking tofu pot, care to share the recipe ?

[Anonymous No.16205355]

>>16205287
This shit is interesting. We could have footnotes, references, dividers, tables, linkable header IDs, definition lists, task lists, bold, strike-through, and so much more. Anons can use these features to collaborate better especially in the writing threads and linking references without it clogging the main content of a post.

[Anonymous No.16205358]

>>16205105
you should be able to edit your post like on discord, maybe make it limited; I hate replying to fix small errors
>>16205251
that's actually brilliant, if you're meaning phil and religion go under non-fiction, and manga is classified as fiction
>>16205322
I like the idea of anonymity as default but also the option to make a name for yourself like butterfly has for example

[Anonymous No.16205363]

>>16205287
>>16205355
nice)

[Anonymous No.16205365]

>>16205335
So, a books board, phil + religion (combined), and manga? Wondering if it's worth having a sci/math (combined) board as well.

[Anonymous No.16205369]

>>16205358
>like on reddit
Ftfy

You have to ability to tripcode if you want. You can do it right now, nobody does it though because it will make you look like a tard and nobody will ever take what you say seriously

[Anonymous No.16205373]

>>16205338
Infinite posts helps because they're for popular threads. If the popular thread is off topic, it should be deleted, if the popular thread is on topic then it can stay up longer than the 310 (which is already a bigger bump limit than some other boards get). Infinite posts doesn't mean it stays here forever, because it'll wash off the board once it stops being bumped. Plenty of threads already die before bump limits get anywhere close to being reached. If anons want to clear the thread off, they can stop bumping it. I'm not saying we should have an eternal critique thread where you need to go through thousands, but atm if you're posting in a thread at 275, the chances of your query not needing a new thread are pretty slim. Plenty of discussions get a second thread within days right now, when they could be kept up longer. It would help the slow board ideal.

[None !7HYGxe5v5c No.16205378]

>>16205369

[Anonymous No.16205383]

>>16205342
Debating ideologies is not what the board is for: it's a cancer called by anons who cannot debate books but like sniffing their own farts.

[Anonymous No.16205393]

>>16205351
>>16205322
https://www.saveur.com/article/Recipes/Mapo-Tofu/

>>16205338
What should the limit be? # of posts or time? What should it be set to? I think 4chan is 300?

>>16205358
>that's actually brilliant, if you're meaning phil and religion go under non-fiction, and manga is classified as fiction
Why not just keep them top level boards? No need to put boards under another category.

[Anonymous No.16205395]

>>16205365
>a books board,
That would be the literature board
>phil + religion (combined),
That would be a shit fest and do nothing to the quality of this board, just like /his/ didn't
>and manga?
That's /jp/ along with visual novels
>Wondering if it's worth having a sci/math (combined) board as well.
That's /sci/

[Anonymous No.16205402]

>>16205383
well I think it works as a filter so we don't get a ton of shilling of any type of literature plus they don't get to hide behind being in their own thread just being a shill. It promotes better discussions and thought processes. Like a dosto shill vs Tolstoy etc

[Anonymous No.16205414]

>>16205395
I think phil+rel could be handled really well

[None !9zSJcvaXz. No.16205415]

>>16205378

[Anonymous No.16205416]

>>16205395
>That would be a shit fest and do nothing to the quality of this board, just like /his/ didn't
Just separating it out would at least let phil/religion have better discussions.

Not sure how to break up /lit/ further than that or if it's even a good idea.

[Anonymous No.16205420]

can we get a board for the discussion of literature?

[Anonymous No.16205426]

>>16205402
>I think it works as a filter so we don't get a ton of shilling of any type of literature
We don't have a ton of shilling of literature. We have a ton of shilling of ideological nonsense from people who don't read books, which is not something we should encourage. It's cancer. Dosto or Tolstoy don't need a death match and if that's your approach to literature, you're kinda retarded.

[Anonymous No.16205436]

>>16205395
we should morph sci with lit, I think they'd both benefit

[Anonymous No.16205451]

>>16205426
how do you think we should discuss literature then if you aren't at all into debates? I think it pulls everything out particularly if the debate is analytic.
I'm of the view dosto and Tolstoy represent an ideological split akin to plato/Aristotle

[Anonymous No.16205452]

>>16205426
I just don't know if it's even possible to stop people from making those kinds of threads. It feels like an ideological/thought problem rather than a board categorization problem?

If we add polls, maybe you could filter polls so it's easier to detect braindead threads?

I am really open to any ideas... this seems like the hardest problem to solve. Breaking out /lit/ into other boards lets those boards have better discussions, but /lit/ still has /lit/ cancer but more distilled.

[Anonymous No.16205455]

>>16205414
>>16205416
It gives licence to the people who shitpost here already, and I have no faith they would suddenly start not shitposting if you gave them a whole board to endorse it. Same as /his/ it would just be foothold for retarded shower thoughts of people who can't tolerate a difference of opinions.
>>16205420
Not a bad idea, but obviously not a popular one.

[Anonymous No.16205458]

>>16205420
You act like the lack of discussion is about not having a place to do it rather than a lack of people to do the discussing.
Threads about well-known literary fiction authors slide through the catalogue every day, multiple times a day.
Idk why people think spinning off everything but fiction is gonna lead to a lot of literary discussion that we could already be having right now.

[Anonymous No.16205477]

>>16205455
if it had a mechanism to filter low effort posting it would be fine.

[Anonymous No.16205480]

>>16205455
>Same as /his/ it would just be foothold for retarded shower thoughts of people who can't tolerate a difference of opinions.
Unfortunately, this is just a masses/easy to post problem. Moderators can't review the content of every post and at the same time an upvote/downvote system is pure cancer.

PIC VERY MUCH RELATED.

[Anonymous No.16205483]

>>16205477
You do

[Anonymous No.16205485]

>>16205451
>if you aren't at all into debates
The fact you need it to be a debate and there to be a "winner" of the debate suggests that you're not cut out for debate or literature.
>>16205452
>we add polls, maybe you could filter polls so it's easier to detect braindead threads?
It's easy to detect them already. You just need to ask if there is a book involved and if anyone in the thread has read it. Giving more room to the people who can't do that and who need strawpolls and a YouTube channel to make up their opinions for them is just giving a foothold to cancer. We shouldn't be validating the opinions of people who cause the cancer.

[Anonymous No.16205486]

>>16205477
Problem is, what is this mechanism? Literally companies making billions of dollars can't even solve this so they implement upvote/downvote systems and let the community decide. Also, see >>16205480

[Anonymous No.16205492]

>>16205480
you could have a filter mechanism. Possibly no new threads and only 10 threads which you can reply into that are broad subjects

[Anonymous No.16205498]

>>16205486
Are seriously telling me you can’t identify a baitpost at a glance? Do you not use the catalogue view?

[Anonymous No.16205499]

>>16205485
>>16205477
How about something like what /r9k does? Same/similar posts are not allowed. Including shit like adding the word "original/oregano" at the end.

Could also add minimum post lengths as well?

[Anonymous No.16205505]

>>16205480
The mods not reading isn't the problem. The problem is intellectual three year olds who have a desire to "win" against their fellow three year olds because they have such low standards for themselves the fact that there's not a book under discussion doesn't faze them.
>>16205477
There is. It involves you deciding if you're going to post in shitposting threads or ignore them in favour of book threads. Obviously, for a lot of posters, that doesn't work since they don't know what books are.

[Anonymous No.16205508]

>>16205498
Yea, I can. But, I was thinking of individual posts, not OPs in catalogue view. I guess better moderation using catalogue view would be good enough?

[Anonymous No.16205510]

>>16205485
I'm not into synthetic debating. I don't cite shit, my arguments follow necessarily. Similar to how Swedish prosecutors work. That being said what's wrong with debating? We're going to have shills of every sort, so long as the posts in that sticky have enough reference to literature, and an auto ban on new threads of the losing side, we could get rid of nazis etc it's not a bad mechanism

[Anonymous No.16205514]

>>16205499
If you were going to add a minimum length, what would it be?

If you were going to add a similarity detector, what percentage should be the dropoff?

I think it would help a little.

[Anonymous No.16205515]

>>16205499
that ain't a bad idea bro

>>16205505
Yeah it doesn't work

[Anonymous No.16205520]

Footnotes

[Anonymous No.16205523]

>>16205499
Minimum post lengths don't help. A useful post might just be a book title. Minimum post length means you have bloat actual content. Robot filters don't help either because if you're discussing a work, then you can't have a lengthy discussion about themes/word choice without resorting to bizarre styles and euphemism for the subject at hand.

[Anonymous No.16205527]

>>16205480
The “dudebro” thing is probably not real. The person who made this visual representation of his own virginity definitely just got outdone by someone like 8% less autistic than him in a D&D group.

[Anonymous No.16205529]

>>16205514
Not him but what about your length is smallest. No need for similarity detector

[Anonymous No.16205535]

>>16205510
Maybe the admin can set up some keywords shit in their admin panel for nazi terms/common bait posts/pics/etc and highlight those posts in a place so they can respond to them faster/detect them without having to manually go through all the OPs?

[Anonymous No.16205539]

>>16205510
>. I don't cite shit,
That is cancer for a literature board. You always cite from the text or your argument is void. You can argue anything, so long as you support it from the text. I'm sorry books hurt you so much you don't want them to be on a literature board, but your feelings meaning nothing.

[Anonymous No.16205547]

>>16205535
You sound like a fag btw

[Anonymous No.16205561]

>>16205539
Kek, no you don’t
That’s literal reddit thinking, we’re not your research assistants. Anyone putting that kind of effort into an argument has already lost.

[Anonymous No.16205570]

Maybe force all discussions to include an ISBN or a link to wikipedia i.e. you need to include something like
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/978-0735605053

And with this info, the board software can auto grab the title, author, description, picture, etc and include it in the post.

This will also allow people to search for discussions on particular authors/books easier.

[Anonymous No.16205576]

>>16205535
that's not a bad idea either but I'm personally of the philosophy that the ideas should be debated with a clear loser not being able to shill them

>>16205539
I might read more than you buddy, I think it's not a debate if you're citing and if you read the book and you want to stress test it then you debate it. I mean you're debating me rn with no citations. That's twice you've contradicted yourself

[Anonymous No.16205580]

>>16205561
>I think the standards of literature were set by Reddit
So was Dryden a redditor when he came up with the standards for translation too? Good to know.

[Anonymous No.16205585]

>>16205580
Umm, source?

[Anonymous No.16205587]

>>16205576
>I think it's not a debate if you're citing and if you read the book and you want to stress test it then you debate it. I mean you're debating me rn with no citations.
It's almost like this isn't a literary discussion. What tipped you off, cancer?

[Anonymous No.16205589]

>>16205570
Even if this doesn't solve the problem, I'd like this feature anyway to enhance discussions. Maybe make it a bbpost/markdown thing as well.

[Anonymous No.16205596]

>>16205585
Preface to Ovid's Epistles ibid.

[Anonymous No.16205599]

>>16205580
not him, other fag you're debating but you can't take the thoughts past the book or author by citing

[Anonymous No.16205610]

>>16205587
So you're fine with a sticky to put it all in and a poll after each debate with topic filters based on it, 3 strikes you're out buddy

[Anonymous No.16205612]

>>16205318
>>16205358
>>16205261
>>16205570
holy shit go back, you have all you want at feddit there's nothing here for you

[Anonymous No.16205620]

>>16205539
>Do you have a source on that?
>Source?
>A source. I need a source.
>Sorry, I mean I need a source that explicitly states your argument. This is just tangential to the discussion.
>No, you can't make inferences and observations from the sources you've gathered. Any additional comments from you MUST be a subset of the information from the sources you've gathered.
>You can't make normative statements from empirical evidence.
>Do you have a degree in that field?
>A college degree? In that field?
>Then your arguments are invalid.
>No, it doesn't matter how close those data points are correlated. Correlation does not equal causation.
>Correlation does not equal causation.
>CORRELATION. DOES. NOT. EQUAL. CAUSATION.
>You still haven't provided me a valid source yet.
>Nope, still haven't.
>I just looked through all 308 pages of your user history, figures I'm debating a glormpf supporter. A moron

[Anonymous No.16205625]

>>16205612
wtf do you want? The point is it has to be higher engagement and promote literature more, some are more concerned with one over the other

[Anonymous No.16205647]

Honestly, I'd just like another vidya board, maybe /vmmp/ for mobile multiplayer games.

[Anonymous No.16205661]

>>16205625
I think you zoomers don’t understand what makes 4chan a novel experience. It’s the anonymity and the high post turnover and to an extent the lax moderation.
Before everyone consolidated into reddit, web forums looked exactly like everyone describes here, with usernames and mods shuffling around offtopic stuff and corralling them into proper threads of there were multiple posts on one topic.
No bump limit, no 404, etc. You can go to these niche boards and read people replying in 2015 to threads started in 2003.
If you want those things then just go to any other website; sure it’s common for us to just say “reddit” but really it could be anywhere except this specific website and maybe like one other imageboard. Because don’t forget it is an imageboard and not a forum.
The changes suggested here are so manifold and so markedly against the traditional layout of the site there’s really no reason you wouldn’t leave other than the fact that you know you like the kind of people that enjoy this kind of format more than literal redditors.

[Anonymous No.16205669]

We could have footnotes [1], that would be nice [2].

---------
[1]: If you use them, the bottom of your post would have a special layout for the footnotes so you could add sources and stuff. Maybe pointing on the footnote numbers could show a tooltip of the content.
[2]: In my opinion

[Anonymous No.16205678]

This thread was moved to >>>/qa/3406166