>>578007
No, it wouldn't.

>>578018
It would. A lot of people really miss public sage and admit the site got worse without it.

>>578007
Why?

>>578022
Unpopular or shitty threads got saged till it gets 404'd, back when public sage was a thing. Nobody sages anymore and a lot of anons don't even know sage exists. Hell, you can't tell anyone you've saged or they should sage without running the risk of getting banned.

>>578028
Sometimes I sage threads not because the thread is shit, but because my post is not contributing much to the discussion, like saying "thanks" for instance.

IMO sage is like an personal vote/decision not to bump the thread. You don't need to say to everyone "hey guys, i'm saging, fuck you OP", but the other posters should also sage themselves if they think the thread is shit.

I agree more people should know about sage though.

>>578035
That's why sage should be made public again so people know it's a thing again.

Invisible sage was moot's greatest gift to us before he left.
Most of my replies are sage (especially on slower boards) unless I think my reply is REALLY worth bringing the thread to the top, which it usually isn't.
I'd rather sage stays as a personal decision like that and not a proclamation, who does public sage even benefit apart from assholes?

>>578028
Sage is not a downvote and cannot be treated as one.