I've always had trouble defineing the difference between a website that is slow like 4-ch or tgchan, and a website that is dead like 99chan or 7chan
I feel like the unity of the community has a lot to do with it. 4-ch has a "core" group of dedicated users as well as a style of posting that is specific to itself. The threads all feel like they're a part of something greater; as if they were all connected in some way
7chan, whilst it gets more traffic, has no core userbase that consistently returns to it. All of the threads exist in a vacuum, and there's no specific flavor to the content
Pretty much any web site that's not one of the top 10 is "dead" by the standards of the modern web. This is because everything is considered to be in a constant state of ongoing development and updating, meaning if something isn't growing then there's a problem. This leads to people demanding daily uploads and constant validation, who of course means that to stay up-to-date with goings-on becomes almost a full time job. The idea that you'd only connect to the internet briefly has died, and a computer that doesn't have an internet connection is almost considered half a device these days.
This seems like a tangent, but I think it goes a long way towards answering whether something is dead or not because it demands that standards be set. I'm a "new" user to this site, having only been browsing and posting for about a month, but I have taken to its slower pace and that I don't need to check back in (even at a mental level) every hour.
I think such a usage of the web leads to the best experience for the user in the long-term even if its not as exciting in the short-term.
So I think the question shouldn't really be "is this (or any other) site dead?" and more "should it be like a site that's 'alive' at all?"
>>2
I don't think these are reasonable critiques of OP. 7chan, while more active than a site like sekai yon chan is absolutely "dead". What OP identified, I believe, could be better stated as complexity and engagement. It is not entirely requisite that an insular group of posters exist, but it is necessary that their exists some sort of mutual understanding. In a space where everyone is coming and going and there's nothing guiding the discussion the discourse never progresses beyond shallow formalities.
A community, I propose, is dead when new users cannot be added or make substantive contributions.
>>3
more like when the old users push newcomers away
then blame the new people rather than admit that they're too deeply ingrained in their old ways and it's off-putting to people who aren't in on all the numerous dumb in-jokes and bizarre expectations
why is this site dying?'' mixed with
fuck off, newfag''
adapt or die
I meant: "why is this site dying?" mixed with "fuck off, newfag"
I keep forgetting that this particular textboard has fucked up markup
I'm still thinking in terms of world4ch/tinychan
>>5
You can set no markup
This is why chatting like Telegram, IRC, and Discord is so much more popular. It is easier to tell if it is dead or not.
>>1
I think you had a pretty good handle on a definition in your OP.
The separation occurs between a [dead community] and a [dead website]. They are very different things. You can have an incredibly active website that has less of a community than Facebook. Or a very slow website like 4-ch that has a cohesive flavor and is used by pretty much the same people, or type of people, for decades. The relationships dividing them are simple mathematics.
>>10
Both the article and commentary are a good read and I find many of the insights to be very true. Many have a subconscious awareness of those mechanics, but having it put into so many words might help people grasping at explanations.
Old fashioned, brainy websites are now such a rarity that it's joy to find one sometimes.
>>10
I've always liked this essay bar one line
>At best you can charge them admission or a subscription fee, but they’ll inevitably argue that this is wrong because capitalism is evil, and also because they forgot their wallet.
The experience of the modern web convinces me that monetizing things is often worse for communities than the lack of funding that comes from not doing so. People unconsciously move towards creating what the market demands, rather than what they want to see for its own sake. Monetization creates a bigger incentive for the sociopaths to close in and grab the cash.