The goal is to add more ways for people to have fun and interact with the site and each other and express themselves.
>twitter doesn't have that therefore it can't make imageboards more fun and appealing
Just listen to yourself.
But okay, I've got time.
>Why the fuck would you want inline images
<at first I was like
<but then I was like
You must seriously lack imagination if you think it can't be used in fun ways. Or useful ways if you're making a long effortpost. For example I could have replied to this particular thing right now with an image instead of pinktext, which is much more intuitive both to me and the reader than attaching it to the post and saying "pic related" at some point (which also starts getting confusing if there's more than 1 image).
>Reply to the post containing the image
People are significantly more likely to do something if there's a feature for it, than they would to mimick the behavior without the feature. Replying to images is similar to what moot's failed website was where you remix other people's images. You take someone's image and modify it. It could become part of the local imageboard culture to have back and forths modifying other people's images. If you reply to an image then it's more obvious that you're replying to the image and not the content of the post. It's a new way to respond to someone. I mean let's inverse this question: why would it be a BAD idea to have this feature?
If you couldn't sage and I was here right now suggesting an ability to not bump a thread when you post, you would be rejecting it and calling it downvoting. Do you also think backlinks are upvotes? I think you need to stop letting reddit live rent free in your head.
>Already a feature in various imageboard software
Which not a single one of the webring boards are using. I'm also talking about an oekaki that's more integrated to the website, for instance you should be able to REPLY TO AN IMAGE and get the oekaki in a popup and let you draw over other people's images without having to load it to a third party editor and then save it and upload it separately.
>This sounds like it just needs to be its own thing if you want that
Why are you so opposed to new ways of having fun on imageboards?
>You can upload a banner of any size you want
Yet almost literally nobody does it. The images could be huge banners that span the entire page. Imageboards are all about images, it's in the very name "imageboard", there should be more images. You can express a lot more if the banner is bigger, you could put huge collabs and compilations to the top to express the community. The traditional banner size is barely even visible on modern monitor resolutions.
>Imageboards are designed to not be persistent
Who's pulling shit out of his ass now? Most imageboard users these days want the boards to be archived, you'll get a horde of angry niggers attacking you if you claim that archives shouldn't exist. People are constantly obsessing over having quality threads in the catalog and not making "low effort" threads because it would compromise something else in the catalog.
>What does this have to do with imageboards?
It's like an extended version of a thread that's based on the OP being some kind of OC.
And here's your problem, you have way too narrow of a definition about what imageboards are allowed to be like.
>What does a wiki have to do with anything related to imageboards
How about all the projects people do and wikis people make for threads and/or boards? Why use some shitty third party wiki when you could organize the information directly in the imageboard? A wiki isn't complicated, it's quite literally just some static HTML pages that link to each other.
>Already exists on most imageboard software
No. There's only one kind of post you can make.
>They're all the fucking same