Thread 6485

User self-post deletion should be disabled in /qa/, and after that somebody should check on the board from time to time and ban all the open proxies that are being used by bots to make upwards of 500 self-deleting posts per day.

There was a time when /qa/ was a deliberately ignored trash heap forgotten by everyone, and therefore it didn't actually matter that /qa/ had transformed into a bot-moderated chatroom for users banned one thousand times over, but now that there's a global announcement redirecting everyone to /qa/ to discuss 4chan it would be nice if the first thing they saw on arrival wasn't a bot-managed junkyard.

you'll get better/more productive feedback if you email the manager about it

>>6485 (OP)
/qa/ is just a cesspit of shit. Personally I think it should be locked unless there is actually a staff thread going on.

>>6562
>/qa/ is just a cesspit of shit.

This x1000

Why was it ever allowed to get to this level? We already have several boards dedicated to 'random' discussion (b, trash, s4s), why turn a board with a potential use for user interaction with the 4chan team into another board filled with anime memes and shitposting?

Tbqh surley there should be a few more rules and some ammount of moderation on /qa/, it basically does not serve the purpose it was made for.

>>6562
In my opinion, the problem with /qa/ isn't the shitposting; it's that the board is posited as the place to post comments or concerns about other boards (or the site as a whole). That stance would be fine if the board were moderated, but it's not. At any given time, there *might* be ~5 threads about the board, site, moderation, and rules, most of which will be flippant complaints about the janitors and moderators.

If /qa/ is intended to be the black hole for meta threads or input/criticism that it currently is, I'm not understanding the point of wasting bandwidth on an extraneous social board that exists under the pretense of giving users a say when judicious use of a GR8 warning would reach the exact same end.

>>6485 (OP)
can we at least get a rule against soijacks

>>7856
>he doesn't use GR6 - Ironic Shitposting correctly

>>6562
/qa/ is just sfw /b/, which is weird considering that the protocol is to move often decent meta threads into the hell hole of /qa/

>>7858
>the protocol is to move often decent meta threads into the hell hole of /qa/
This is something I've never really understood. Why move meta threads to a board where:

>most of the content is not related to discussing board meta
>moved meta threads lose steam because people don't want to visit a board that's prone to spam and other off-topic posting

At the moment, /qa/ is a meta board in name only, which strikes me as a lost opportunity to solicit viable feedback for the site. As it stands, it would be more pragmatic to keep meta threads on the original board rather than dumping them into the sea of soi.

>>7856
>can we at least get a rule against soijacks

>>7859
I agree. I think moving meta threads to /qa/ is one part that contributes to everyone thinking the mods hate the users since those threads are moved to such a literal shithole. I genuinely don't get the reason why they are moved since meta threads would be far more effective if they are seen by their native user bases. It doesn't help that other direct forms of communication like the feedback form don't get a response at all so it ends up feeling like there's no way to actually talk to moderation about board problems.

>>7856
i clean up the spam on that board constantly
even if a rule like that specifically banning it were to be implemented, they would never, ever stop
if i miss a single day of cleaning up the schizophrenic spam, it just goes right back to the way it way the day before
if it's something that's important to you guys, then i can try to do it more regularly, but when i'm busy with lots of other stuff it hardly seems worth it when it appears that the vast majority of users actually *want* the board to be filled with spam and shitposting

>>7864
I appreciate you taking care of the board, even in its current state.

>it appears that the vast majority of users actually *want* the board to be filled with spam and shitposting
I can't really speak to the volume of unique users on /qa/, but it's apparent that opportunists have taken advantage of relatively lax moderation to shitpost to their hearts' content. However, I'd wager that this attitude is not representative of the rest of the site's users, who would probably prefer a place where meta discussion can be conducted in an orderly fashion over having another pseudo-random board.

Unfortunately, /qa/ is in this weird middle ground where it's trying to support decent quality meta threads and shitposting at the same time. This simply isn't feasible. I'd be interested in seeing what others have to say about this, but I'll toss out some ideas for the sake of a springboard:

>leave /qa/ alone outside of the bare minimum moderation, but also leave meta threads where they originate (maybe even have occasional stickied meta threads like what was done on /mlp/ recently)
>tighten up /qa/ moderation significantly by throwing extra bodies at it to stem the inflow of garbage, and keep bringing meta threads to /qa/
>lock /qa/ and only unlock it whenever there is an actual Q&A session that is taking place
>as a variant of the previous line, prevent users from making new threads on /qa/, but move meta threads to the board so that they're the only ones that are present on /qa/

The sticky would also need to be updated in most of these cases, at least with respect to the following line:
>Outside of meta, this board has no specific theme and you are free to be yourself!

Sorry if this post comes across as rambling, but I figured I'd get everything down while this topic is still active.

>>7866
>leave /qa/ alone outside of the bare minimum moderation, but also leave meta threads where they originate (maybe even have occasional stickied meta threads like what was done on /mlp/ recently)
this has always felt like what should have happened after soijak spam took over desu

>>7867
Why does /qa/ continue to exist anyway? The way it has devolved makes it like a shitty offshoot of /s4s/ focused on like two memes alone. Does it even serve its original purpose of being a suggestion box or a voice of complaint?

>>7856
It's obnoxious as shit, but it's a Low Quality post or Ironic Shitposting, isn't it? Seems pointless to make a specific rule about it.

>>7864
It sounds to me like the board is not serving its intended purpose, and thus mods don't feel like it's worth the effort to keep clean. /v/ is commonly considered a dump, but at least people DO talk about videogames there, amongst all the crap, bu one can't say the same for /qa/.

Just tightening the rules so that OPs have to be about 4chan meta discussion would solve most issues. You could get a few jannies to review it. I agree with the guy above who says kicking them to a board full of literal spam feels pretty cruel. Even if meta discussion usually sucks, it doesn't deserve to drown in whatever current /qa/ is

Looks like we got a /qa/ meta thread going. >>>/qa/4236472

Has there been any further discussion on the state of /qa/ and handling meta threads in general? It would be disappointing to simply leave things as they are.

>>7870
this would be the most straightforward step. basedjak spam and things like "mass reply general" would probably hop ship to /trash/ and i don't think that's a huge loss

>>7870
I think the point of /qa/ was to make a ws random board that wasn't /vip/ :^)
Naturally it wouldn't make much sense to enforce that all discussion should be meta since who'd want to janny hundreds of "meta for this feel?" type posts of people trying to skirt the rules.

>>7880
>handling meta threads in general
Either ask them to be moved to /qa/ or delete/WR/BR them.

>>7883
Meta threads shouldn't be moved to /qa/ though because they have legitimate discussion about the state of a board. Why are these threads being moved to /qa/ when it's a known, literal shitheap where it will be spammed and ignored? All it does when they are moved/deleted is make it look like the moderation doesn't care about the site or it's users.
I know people can fill out feedback forms or go to the IRC but those both feel like awful options too. The feedback forms have no indication that they are actually read or addressed while the IRC requires anons to go offsite just to get a response. It just makes it seem like the moderation is purposefully trying to push away discussion about the site to places other than on the website itself.

>>7941
>they have legitimate discussion about the state of a board
Which is off-topic on the board itself and can be had on /qa/. I've never seen a meta thread get shat on after being moved either so I don't think /qa/ is a place where it's impossible to discuss meta.
If you actually do think about it, it makes sense that things are the way they are to some degree. It doesn't make sense to build a web chat client into 4chan for the sake of solving bans and meta stuff, it doesn't make sense to tell everyone that their suggestions from the feedback form were read nor does it make sense to try super hard to get anon-kun to notice that mod-sama-senpai still cares about him. Which isn't to say that there are things that could be done that aren't done.

>>6485 (OP)
sorry if this is a retarded question but is this dashed outline related to janny tools?

>>8020
i think that means you either have it hidden or pinned in the catalog