Why is there no indicator that someone saged?
Like a big red SAGE! next to the post number?
There's probably the fear that people would use it as a downvote-ersatz if seeing if a post used the sage function was visible.
>>573842
There used to be and it was seen as rude.
>>573846
by retards and children
>>573842
There used to be, until moot killed the email field.
You could also covertly namefag by making your email say "desu" or whatever and 4chan X would even give you a little icon next to your name.
>>573849
that is the vast majority of 4chan's user base
>>573862
Well, you got me there.
It caused problems.
>>573842
There used to be. But it kinda defeats the point.
When you sage, it just means you wanted to reply to the thread, but you didn't want to bump the thread. Basically you will sage if you just want to let a thread die. It's not supposed to be a downvote. But it was often used as a downvote.
And it somehow makes others mad because they think it's a downvote, and gets them to reply to you angrily, which defeats the point of sageing in the first place.
I actually always sage in every post (^:
>>573842
>Why is there no indicator that someone saged?
Look at the page counter. You get a feeling for when someone is using sage.
>>574052
Hell, hover over the timestamp of the last post then check the page number. Or if using catalog mode, hover over the picture and you get both of them in one pop-up.
I sage in about a third of the threads I post in so that better threads can stick around for longer - I want to keep being able to do this without OP thinking I've down so because I thought their thread was completely terrible. The arguments about sage being seen as a downvote substitute here are good and that's probably the main reason I don't want sage to be visible. I do kind of wish more people on this site knew when to sage - for example, with console war threads on /v/ which are bumped until they hit the limit - but making the sage visible is just going to create more problems than it solves.
Why has there been something like 4 threads on sage in the past few days?
>>574218
Here's the reason. Tards thought it was a way for them to downvote threads so moot got rid of it. I still use it 100% of the time though.
>>574218
moot also clearly had no knowledge of what the purpose of sage was and was just getting upset because people didn't use it like how he wanted. It had tons of uses being visible and he could of just only disabled it on the big immature boards like /v/ and /b/ and the problem would be solved.
>>574095
>console war threads on /v/
Problem with threads like that is, even if 90% of the posters sage, the 10% (or even one person) will bump it.
