/qa/ - Questions & Answers

Bumping is always acceptable, and saging is optional. And saging an on-topic reply is just rude.

>>114523
I disagree, I think even if the post is on-topic, if the thread is on page one it shouldn't matter. Unless you really want that post to move up to the front of the board. [If we are using bump order view]
But this is again predicated that the thread is on the first page, and that the thread is on a board that is for "high quality discussion" or serious discussion.
I'm not saying everyone should sage on the first page, but that's my rationale for on-topic sages.

>>114524
Perhaps I could be convinced that on-topic saging is acceptable if the thread is early in the order. The earlier the thread, the lesser the impact of the sage.

I just take it easy and dont bother with the options field in any case

>>114525
Well I'm of the opinion that treating sage as if it's a downvote is asinine, its a tool same as any other.
Again a lot of this is more concerning the front page then say, page 5 thread. If you sage in a page 5 thread and make a good post you're just an asshole.
In all honesty I think saging is important to imageboard environments and it should be used often, especially when a thread is moving fast and it's already on page 0 or 1.

>>114527
>Well I'm of the opinion that treating sage as if it's a downvote is asinine, its a tool same as any other.
That has nothing to do with my opinion of saging. If it did, then I'd think it'd be equally rude no matter what page the thread was on before.
>If you sage in a page 5 thread and make a good post you're just an asshole.
This is essentially my opinion.

>>114528
Well right.
We're in agreement.
I'm just saying that sage should be use even with good posts when the thread is already the first one/on the first page.
Or when you're making a double post to clarify something.

>>114529
But... why? Like sure, if it's on the first page it makes little difference whether or not you bump, but by the same reasoning why would you go out of your way to sage rather than just sticking with the default?
I see no reason why you would sage except if you explicitly want to avoid bumping the thread (either because you dislike the thread or your response is a low-effort shitpost).

>>114530
Well it's because there's no reason to bump it, it's already on the first page so it's a moot point whether it gets bumped or not. Again this is like a hyper specific case. If the board was being spammed with something unsavory, then it would be wise to bump the good threads instead of saging.

>>114522(OP)
I sage by default, a habit I picked up back on 4/qa/. When I bump threads, it's typically because I either a) want the whole board to see what I posted, as opposed to the people already in the thread, and/or b) because I was considering making a thread about a subject myself and discovered that there was already a thread with that topic in the catalog.

As an aside, I think sage should generally be hidden a-la 4chan. The whole point of sage is that you're trying to be discreet, and labeling a sage-d post as-such kind of defeats the point.

your post is always significant

i am insignificant

Whenever someone tries to tell me when to sage and not to, I do the opposite because I'm passive aggressive and don't like being told what to do.

>>114536
Oh this isn't one of those, its more like the philosophy and etiquette of imageboard posting.

>>114532
what do you think of the people who want to bring back visible sage

all this is telling me is that hunting on topic sagers like im the "most dangerous game" hunter from Jumanji is the right thing to do
I will leave alone the page one sagers

>>114545
How so?

I bump if it's on topic and sage if it's not.

It does not really matter if a thread is on page one, sageing it will still mean that no notification comes up and that if somebody refreshes the page they will assume no new post was made as the thread order will not have changed. So it will not be as likely to be seen.

if "sage" comes from "sageru" in japanese, then when using it as a present participle in english, would you still pronounce it as "sa-ge-ing", or would you pronounce it "saging/sageing", like how "sage" would normally be pronounced?

>>114551
English kinda deleted all the final -e's it had, just look at this festival of silent letters:
https://wordmom.com/regular-verbs/end-e
A conjugation actually being pronounced as -eing sounds very unnatural to me and I assume to other people as well, I suppose that's why it defaults to the more natural saydj rather than saggeh.

>>114576(Cross)
love the smell of fresh sage

>>114545
Come and get me.

on topic sager in the streets
off topic spermer in the sheets

>>114691
on topic sager

>>114700
someone has to watch the watchman

I also think sage is mostly useless on high/fast boards.
On slow boards, I think sage is a very important tool.
One that shouldn't be abused all willy nilly.

>>114698
usually i would say off topic bumper in jest, but this time it actually is an on-topic bump, omedetou.

bump

>>114522(OP)
You're supposed to feel it out. I sage on topic sometimes because I feel like my opinion isn't saying anything new or if the thread is already on page 1 or 2. I don't think much of it.
I'm only consistent with it when replying to old threads that I may or not want to necrobump out of politeness (bumping to not create a new thread for a topic I want to talk about or using sage to not necro it if my post isn't important or replying to another anon who saged, etc.)
I also sage blogposts like this one

never sage

never age

write long off-topic effortposts and misspell sage