>>9529
>But that might be off topic.
I suppose it's only fair to everyone that this question should be clarified in detail. Since you've brought the topic up and I'm motivated enough to, here seems as good a spot as any (we're generally already well off-topic ITT regardless).
-The subject of a thread is the first step in evaluating that Anon. In this specific example that would be:
How to invest in Robo Waifus?
-The second step to answering that question is the content of the OP. If it's a quality OP, then the subject will be properly expanded upon to help everyone else understand OP's intents better. Again, in this specific example, it's apparent the OP is interested only in stocks and the financials markets. Any secondary considerations thereto appear only, well,
secondary to him. The quality of a thread's OP is certainly not a given. Some are better, some are worse. Often, the quality of an OP is directly proportional to the word-count of the OP text itself, the longer the better.
-The third step requires more effort on an anon's part to decide; namely,
actually reading the thread itself. By following the flavor of all the other -- at least tangentially on-topic -- posts in a given thread, one can often discern properly where the general consensus is going, and if any given following post would therefore be along that trend or not.
>---
So, following this pattern in evaluating the on-topic context of your post:
1. Doesn't seem really concerned with 'Investing in Robowaifus' (actually, the stock market). A
No.
2. See above, since OP's idea of investing was strictly about the markets. Again, a
No.
3. Well, the thread itself was quickly derailed into ongoing discussions about RC'ing as a fun hobby, and being a field that has at least a tangential relationship to creating robowaifus. The investment aspect was plainly only a secondary consideration, if at all, in these numerous posts. The thread itself is therefore only a somewhat watered-down, off-topic thread at this stage. A
Maybe.
So, the score is:
-No, not in line with thread subject.
-No, not in line with OP text.
-Maybe, pretty in line with the already-corrupted thread.
Hope that helps clear the process up Anon.
>---
As far as my own personal evaluation of this thread goes; I'd say it's quite apparent that an Anon who knows exactly what he's talking about in the RC world should create a new thread here on /robowaifu/, one that touches on the crossover of that field as it relates to anons creating their own robowaifus (the overarching, fundamental topic across the whole board). IMO RC'ing is clearly a good, on-topic subject for /robowaifu/, and one often brought up here. But so far, apparently, I'm in the minority considering it a good-enough thread subject. I myself don't qualify to start one on it.
Additionally, that this OP himself should have been aware that 'investing in robowaifus' is a topic that extends well beyond just moving your monopoly, fiat money around in the markets. If he had adjusted the OP accordingly, then we might have easily had a thread where both the RC field and any of dozens of other fields would have been on-topic. As it is, this is a diluted thread now IMO, and basically not super useful in the board's catalog. Thankfully, we have
waifusearch so a vague memory of something about RCs, etc, a year from now that some anon is trying to bring back up can potentially still be located then. Certainly, checking the catalog and seeing
"How to invest in Robo Waifus?", and a cute but entirely-unrelated OP image won't be of much help to anyone in that scenario.
In an only secondary evaluation aspect of this (or any other) thread, I might add that an OP should be involved. Just common sense, actually. Up till now, this thread's OP himself apparently CBA to even revisit his own thread. This is definitely shilly, goony, glow-niggery behavior, and not actually welcome anywhere outside of a /b/. If he re-appears and takes the reigns of his own thread once again, then I will respectfully withdraw my specific complaint against him in this. Regardless, the point itself still stands.
I may try to turn this post into some kind of static advice page in the future.