>>819
>All they say […] someone once posted. You don't know if the latest post was made a decade ago or a minute ago.
5 pages, of relative content. If you reply to the top page, and people reply to you, you know it's alive and relevant.
If no one replies, it's dead, like stale water. Who cares if the pond of conversation is decades old, if the pond swims with activity again, it's alive.
>You don't know if the opinions are still relevant today because they could be about a topic that has changed drastically
Timestamps don't answer that, replies do. If someone lurking luckily responds at your necro'd thread, the likelihood of them replying you why it is or isn't relevant to contemporary opinion answers the question, not a record of time.
>responding in the threads would be beyond futile, but making a new thread would actually be useful.
So I take it you like duplicating threads? I already said the sin is not to post at all. You are excusing the fact there are no records of time in a post to
not post at all! At many time, your necro'ing is what allows others to view there's renewed interest in said topic,
revitalize said relevancy, for
Today's standard.
>Stop projecting anytime.
Ok I will.
Explain to me: how an agreed upon record of time, has any real use for an imageboard aligns conversations of interest parties decide to congregate for and discuss.
>All of this is simple common sense.
Times of records, are not common sense, in the slightest. They are the an innovation of mankind, to agree upon times to do things with each other. It's great if the thread or boards needs it: e.g. "MEET UP AT XX TIME XX LOCATION," "STREAMING THIS NEW VIDYA, LET'S JOIN AND SHIT POST HERE, NOW!" etc. etc.
But on regular conversations, like "New Game by X, link here!" "Censorship apologist BTFO!" "Q&A
>>>/operate/ log", barely a necessity.
Let the user make those judgements, not this site. IIRC, there are a ton of online tools to specifically schedule and deadline anything. They can do exactly t