probably only 2.8% do but ...
the hypothese itself is kinda confusing since pages 3 to penultimate have all been, at some point, last. further, i don't think this is really supporting evidence since some threads are indeed virtually never ending, and all of them are killed eventually by some sadistic moderator or an expiration filter.
you are just describing how humans deal with boredom, emotions and attention span.
i admit pages first and last are my first checks of most threads. kinda gives you a snapshot of what the current situation of the thread is, where it comes from and where it appears to go. that snapshot might discourage you to follow up with it, but i have read (or at least skim read) through lots of threads in full, that depends totally on the content and participants. but apart from the content and whatever the topic, threads are also an exercise in human interaction and group thinking/behavior and when you look at them from a perspective high enough several funny patterns soon emerge, e.g.
the typical controversy thread:
- controversial topic/op
- immediate aggressive/snark group response, the rapid response zealot teams usually manage to fill up to page 1-2 or even further
- slowly some posts appear trying to rationalize, broaden views or highlight valid aspects of op
- some even might question the agressive response
- actual interesting discussion might happen (around page 3+) if the thread is not forgotten
- a few snarky comments keep trickling (from individuals that probably only have read the op) which is kind of poetic
generic rant, defensive praise, ragequit, criticism, open/solo, combat log etc are all variants of controversy thread. they all follow the same pattern. interesting information or opinions are usually only found from page 2-3 onwards. this is by far the most common thread pattern on the forum. they usually end up talking around subjects impossible to clarify, the whole point being to get attention or provide ranting space and opportunity.
unicorn posts fall into the same category, just without the controversy and with the notable exception that all of them lack post #1. it has become a minigame for me to identify them just by the topic, and predict the op's content until some glimpses of it appear in quotes. the content of these threads varies wildly and can actually be pretty interesting.
the informative thread
- highly specific op (about e.g. tech or otherwise neutral concerns affecting only minorities)
- smooth and productive discussion can go on through many pages, with even different 'generations' of posters taking part
the dumpster
- like e.g. the odd thread, nuff said. these long-lived marvels are the most fun of the whole forum
the nonsense thread
- similar to dumpster but ad-hoc created with just a nonsensical topic
- very fun to read but tend to be much more shortlived
the megathread
- any of the above can eventually morph into a megathread. the mechanics of this process still mostly eludes me, but the sheer vision of these new age monsters is something to behold! my theory is that it's a combination of topic nature and the visibility exceding a critical point, driven by the self-reinforcing illusion that if everybody is talking about it, it must be important or interesting. it usually isn't, these threads have no more value than average informative threads, and usually have very high noise levels.
the waiting thread
- announcement of imminent downtimes or releases
- constant stream of jokes and 'is it up yet?' short comments that are usually quite fun to read (and people just doesn't have anything better to do at that moment)
- sudden thread death when servers are up
some more patterns anyone?
what i almost never read are signatures, his is quite good though
