Please bring back visible sage on /jp/. Using sage correctly has been an integral part of the board culture since the beginning.
As far as I know, it was removed because it was used as a form of insult on other boards but that has nothing to do with /jp/.
>>324760
It wasn't removed.
>>324762
That's stupid
Can someone explain why sage is needed? I don't get it.
If you reply to me then why the hell wouldn't you want the thread to bump? I don't get it, it's some sort of shitty combination of politeness and passive aggressivness.
>>324788
It is a Japanese-only concept.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_forum#Bumping
>>324795
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2channel#Software
>>324795
But why? I don't get it.
>>324802
OK so you are having a conversation or something maybe it's off topic. You don't need to put it on top of the board because there is no new content or input on the topic for people to read. The feature works much more on smaller, slower board and is just politeness to not put your trivial comment or off topic comment on top of the page.
>>324795
Sure it originated on japanese sites, but I hope you're not saying only japanese people have a use for it.
Hell, I even wish I could use it on other websites sometimes.
>>324808
But why even make the post in the first place if it's so meaningless? If you have posted something off topic then why not let it bump as well?
And it's not really polite. I've gotten "polite sage"-replies and I feel insulted. it's like saying that a reply to me isn't worth anything.
>>324833
Cultural differences, as already mentioned.
>>324833
It's not about you, it's about them.
Not every reply needs to be seen by everyone. I'm sure if you pay attenton you'll find tons of cases where your own posts just don't need to bump a thread.
It's easier understood when you see it yourself rather than being told.
as for shitposting a lot of people sage because they know they are shitposting so they don't need to bump. It can be fun and maybe people wouldn't get upset at shitposting so much if people saged more. Of course it doesn't work when idiots think sage is a personal attack and scream sage bomb, rather than an admission from that poster that their post is only relevant to a few.
>>324884
>I'm sure if you pay attenton you'll find tons of cases where your own posts just don't need to bump a thread.
All my posts are worthy of bumping threads. Why would I think otherwise?
Also, if you're already in a thread sage is pointless. You still see all posts regardless of sage.
>>324920
you're still looking at it as if it's just a matter of insult or some judgement call of which posts or threads are 'worthy'
So no wonder you keep thinking it's only a bad thing.
There are posts of yours that could be saged I promise you, and that doesn't mean they are bad posts, nor does it mean you think other posts in the thread are bad.
It's a powerful self-moderation tool if used properly.
>>324937
Perhaps people should ask Hiroyuki. After all, he created 2ch.
>>324920
Your way of thinking is mind boggling to me.
Do you just assume that everyone automatically cares about everything you say and that it should make the front page every time?
Learn a bit of humility.
>>324975
Humility my ass.
If I make a post then I obviously want people to read it. Why wouldn't I?
Gib it back
>>324983
Let's say you're on /po/ in a thread that's on page six, which means it's about 6 weeks out. You notice a minor factual error and you correct it, but it changes nothing in the thread. Bumping other threads off the front page that actually contained hefty posts that directly affected the content.
It'd be reasonable to use a polite sage in that situation. It mattered a lot more when the catalog didn't exist. Now it's mainly used as a downvote.
i fcuking hate those bitches who bump with their buttmad when i bait on page seven with a sage. if you were stalking the thread that hard, you are already an insane person and should not post at all.
>>324983
Are you some faggot who doesn't keep tabs open or something? Do you just have 1 tab open and switch back and forth between threads using the front page or catalog every time?
Whoever you were trying to talk to is going to see your post whether you bump the thread or not, and so will everyone else who is involved in the thread.
Bumping only serves to drag new people in to the thread, and if what you're saying isn't relevant to people not already invested in the thread then bumping is pointless and just takes up a spot near the top of the catalog that another more interesting thread could make better use of.
>>325360
you sure you're quoting the right person there?
>>325380
Absolutely
>>325388
Then I'm not sure how to make heads or tails of your post, because I never implied every post should bump a thread, in fact it's just the opposite, I was arguing against the guy who was saying that.
>>324788
If I want to tell somebody that they're being retarded, or the thread is some form of shitposting that I want to disappear quickly, I'll sage so that I don't keep the shitty thread going longer but still get to call OP a faggot.
saging this thread
>>325399
bumping your double for others to admire, good job
>>325279
>You notice a minor factual error and you correct it, but it changes nothing in the thread.
Why would that not be worty of a bump? It's a valid post.
>>325303
I don't understand what you mean.
>Whoever you were trying to talk to is going to see your post whether you bump the thread or not, and so will everyone else who is involved in the thread.
I know and that's why sage is pointless.
>muh precious frontpage
This is a dumb mentality
If you really feel the need to sage your post, then maybe it's actually an off-topic shitpost that you shouldn't make in the first place?
>>326447
>Why would that not be worty of a bump? It's a valid post.
For the reasons explained. Read the rest of the post next time.
>>326474
I did read your post and your reasons are not good enough. It's a valid post.
>>326447
>I know and that's why sage is pointless.
You're contradicting yourself here
Earlier you said:
>If I make a post then I obviously want people to read it. Why wouldn't I?
implying that people wouldn't read your post unless you bumped the thread.
>>326447
>>326503
>Why would that not be worty of a bump? It's a valid post.
Again you're starting by making incorrect assumptions about what sage (and even bumping) is for, so of course you're coming to these incorrect conclusions.
From that quote above it's obvious that you are still thinking a bump = "validity" or "worthiness" or "quality"
but that is a bad assumption. Bumping is nothing but a tool to help new people discover the thread, and saging is nothing but a tool to allow other threads that have content more important to everyone on the board to reach them rather than flooding the top of the catalog with comments like "thanks" or "shit thread"
>>326503
And again you demonstrate that you either didn't read it or didn't understand the post.
>>326649
As I said earlier:
If you really feel the need to sage your post, then maybe it's actually an off-topic shitpost that you shouldn't make in the first place?
>>327205
That statement has nothing to do with my post.
My whole point is that sage is useful even if the posts aren't bad posts.
Now you're replying with a conclusion you've literally drawn from the assumption that sage is only used on bad posts.
>>324760
Visible sage was removed because the email field was removed.
>>327484
pretty sure it went invisible before the email field was removed
I remember some people were still posting with blue names that would display "mailto: sage" at the bottom of the screen
but apparently it wouldn't actually sage when they did that so it was pointless but people were still doing it anyway as a statement
>>327525
You're right, my mistake.
>>327525
Check the blotter.
bump...
