>Why was the older thread deleted?
Because op had a case of sour grapes. I archived it.
https://web.archive.org/web/20201021180202/http://tohno-chan.com/an/res/34964.html

Was it? Maybe OP got sick of the argument. I didn't post it in but noticed a lot of debate about the art and selling out ect.

>>34979
>>34978
Oh I see. I think it was still good discussion (since I didn't even realize that the art was done by the same person who did Lucky Star).

>>34979
There was no argument. The OP took my opinion as a personal insult and decided to hold the thread hostage. There are other websites to use if you expect the userbase to give blind praise to everything and don't want to see contrasting opinions.

>>34976
Quite a shame, I thought it had potential but I supposed they took the struggling comedian angle a little too realistically. I feel like there is too much tie-in with real life which takes away quite a lot of immersion and the SoL. The senpai konbi feels so out of place and their amateur voice acting is painful to listen to, at least they are semi-relevant to the plot in the latest episode for once. I like the RDeco duo though.

>>35056
>R-Deco
R凸 is a cool name, and that kanji is very neat. I also feel those two personalities play off each other better than Mafuyu/Fubiki.

A haruhi reference!

I feel really bad for this anime, no one even bothered to rip the blu-ray version. And there's only a handful of seeders left, so there's a chance it'll die out on public trackers within a few years. If you have spare disk space, this would be a candidate show to preserve.

>>36921
I haven't seen it, and it's got bad reviews. So, what's the value in preserving it? Honest question.

>>36922
It's precisely the unpopular shows that are at the highest risk of becoming hard to find. By comparison, no one is ever going to have trouble finding a copy of Haruhi. That being said, the bluray is still being sold (even if no one bothered to rip it), so for now I don't think it will ever become lost media. I just find it quite surprising that this anime is less seeded than even a relatively obscure ONA like Null Peta.

>>36923
>It's precisely the unpopular shows that are at the highest risk of becoming hard to find.
Maybe that's okay? Is it wrong to prioritize which things to preserve? You probably don't care if some children's show you never had an interest in gets lost, right?

>less seeded than even a relatively obscure ONA like Null Peta
I would assume it's because Null Peta stuck with the people who watched it more.

>>36924
>Is it wrong to prioritize which things to preserve
Prioritizing preservation of popular media is in a sense the worst thing you can do in terms of cost involved to reward gained. Take a concrete example: when what.cd got killed and they had to rebuild, do you think they had any trouble gathering up Aphex Twin albums? No of course not, probably every single nerd had a copy of that squirreled away. What about some obscure band which was being kept alive by only one seeder? There's a good chance that is now lost forever.

>You probably don't care if some children's show you never had an interest in gets lost, right?
Someone else certainly might. When acting as an archivist you have to put yourself in the mindset of a future someone trying to seek out that work – what is the chance they'll end up finding it. In that sense you can broadly classify material as "easily findable" where it's almost certainly guaranteed that copies will exist in the future, "functionally/virtually inaccesible" which is the case when a copy may exist, but you have to jump through hoops to access it and unlikely to survive for long (I'd put media that has few remaining seeders left in this category). The comes "unfindable/inaccessible" which is when something may technically not be "lost" as it could be squirreled away on someone's hard drive or on some private tracker, but it's not indexed so a person wanting to find it could not do even if they tried their best. Then there's completely lost media. I think most digital things would likely end up in the "unfindable/inaccessible" rather than completely lost. But for practical purposes, they're exactly the same, with the end result being a person who's trying to seek it can't do so.

I only know it through this.

(In practice time and disk-space are limited though, so the pragmatic solution is to archive unpopular things within your field of interest).

>>36924
Archival for posterity regardless of quality is something I strongly care about. You never know if someone, someday, might find some value in it. And since when was this a place that valued the opinions of the masses over the obscure interests of a single individual? For the record, I haven't seen it. I think it looks like shit. But I would want to preserve it for preservations sake. Just like any other image, video, or data I could possibly preserve. The importance is in the eye of the beholder.

>>36925
>What about some obscure band which was being kept alive by only one seeder? There's a good chance that is now lost forever.
I would assume that band sucks. Only the best of something being remembered, and the worst being forgotten, is normal. It's how culture has always been, since long before the internet and torrents existed. Sure, good things can slip through the cracks, or bad things can be given undeserved attention, but generally it works out like that.
>in terms of cost involved to reward gained
I don't see the reward in preserving something I think is bad. I'm not going to start seeding Katy Perry albums any sooner than I'll start seeding some hipster, garbage band.

>>36928
>I think it looks like shit.
So you're seeding it now despite that, right?
>>36927 has the right idea in my opinion. Archive stuff YOU like.

Post edited on 31st Dec 2022, 7:06pm

>>36930
>I would assume that band sucks.
That's a very narrow-minded and selfish view.
>It's how culture has always been
There's a reason the burning of Library of Alexandria is considered a tragedy. No one thinks "well it's ok, most of the good stuff was probably copied elsewhere anyhow".

>in terms of cost involved to reward gained
That's fine, no one's forcing you to start archiving random things. Only that if you do choose to archive things, it's a waste of effort to archive things that are already popular.

> >>36927 has the right idea in my opinion. Archive stuff YOU like.
That's me – and "archive stuff YOU like" isn't exactly what I said, the full formal statement coupled with its context would be more like the following: "In an ideal world where disk space is unlimited, we would just chuck everything into a metadata-indexed system to ensure all media has exactly N+2 geographically distributed replicas. In the real world however, we don't have a single unified system, we have a bunch of people all with their own independent archives and no communication between them. As such we don't know how many copies of a media exist at any given time. Nonetheless it is reasonable to make the assumption that the number of replicas of a piece of media is proportional to its popularity (and in many cases this assumption can in fact be verified by looking at e.g. number of seeders). Thus with the goal of ensuring redundancy, the best candidate media for a person to archive are those that are unpopular, as those have the highest risk of becoming unavailable. In the real world we also have the additional constraint that space, time, etc. are limited, so that it's infeasible for a person to just uniformly select a subset of the candidate media to archive. (Indeed, even determining whether something is a candidate for archival requires time and effort). Thus, pragmatically the best option is to try to at least select – out of the pool candidate (unpopular) media – a subset of those that you have/think you would enjoy. Then as time/bandwidth/space allow, sample from adjacent neighbors in that space." That is to say, it's not archive ONLY stuff you like, but "start with archiving unpopular/niche stuff that you have enjoyed/think you might enjoy, and if you can, try to branch out from there."

>>36931
>There's a reason the burning of Library of Alexandria is considered a tragedy
There's a difference between people not being interested in something, and information(that's difficult to copy, because its 48 BC) being destroyed. Anybody can effortlessly copy a file, so the dissemination of that file is a direct result of people's interest in it, or lack thereof.
>no one's forcing you to start archiving random things.
You said it was a candidate for seeding. I'm telling you why it's not for me.
>it's a waste of effort to archive things that are already popular
Seeding something requires next to no effort. It's automatic. Making a torrent is more involved, but I've never felt the need.

>>36932
Sounds like someone has never heard of the bystander effect.

>>36933
That's not an argument. Why should my actions change because they're an example of a behavioral phenomena? Okay, so? You haven't explained why I'm wrong. In fact, you could argue the bystander effect shows why you should still archive popular things, since most consumers of that thing are "bystanders" among many.

Post edited on 31st Dec 2022, 8:15pm

>>36934
>You haven't explained why I'm wrong
It's trivial to see that if you preserve only popular files, eventually the long tail of "unpopular" files will disappear. Maybe in your opinion you view anything part of this long-tail as not worth of preserving; that's a subjective viewpoint. Such a viewpoint is equivalent saying that you only care about popular media though, since in that world you had better hope that you never stumble across a file that's gone. Note that I'm not saying it's practical for this to be biconditional (archive iff it's unpopular) only that if it's popular there's little marginal utility to archiving an additional copy (logically equivalent to only unpopular things really need to be archived).

Post edited on 31st Dec 2022, 8:37pm

>>36935
>It's trivial to see that if you preserve only popular files, eventually the long tail of "unpopular" files will disappear.
You're making the assumption that people will only have an interest in popular files. If people distribute what they're interested in, even less popular things will be preserved. What will disappear is that which nobody has enough of an interest in to distribute.

>>36936
>that which nobody has enough of an interest in
Which is quite literally the definition of unpopular. The pool of people distributing is a subset (and likely not even a representative one at that) of the population at large, and has the obvious constraint of temporality. If you can guarantee that no person anywhere in the world in the future will ever have in interest in that file, then I agree there's no point preserving it. That's a very strong assumption to make, and under those odds the marginal utility of archiving an additional copy of a popular file is entirely dwarfed by the marginal utility of archiving an unpopular one.

Post edited on 31st Dec 2022, 8:43pm

>>36937
>Which is quite literally the definition of unpopular.
I don't agree. Death Note is popular. I would not call some of the things I've archived popular, but I archived them, because I'm interested in them, in an archeologist sort of way.

>>36938
> I would not call some of the things I've archived popular
That doesn't contradict my point in any way. All things that are at risk of disappearing are unpopular. Not all unpopular things are at risk of disappearing. I will admit that saying "is the definition of" implies a biconditional, not one-way implication (*), which is my bad for not being precise enough (I'd assumed it was self-evident enough that colloquial language would be sufficient, but I guess not). Either way quibbling over the definition of "unpopular" doesn't have any material bearing on the second (and more significant) aspect to >>36937


(*) I'm fairly certain the biconditional actually does hold, you just need to more precisely/formally define "unpopular" instead of handwaving it. But that's an orthogonal discussion.

Post edited on 31st Dec 2022, 10:45pm