Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

  • View

  • Discuss

  • Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

User Journal

KC7GR's Journal: Slashdot's double standard... 1

Journal by KC7GR

This post is mainly speculative, so I'm enabling comments for it.

Specifically, I'm wondering why Slashdot thinks it's OK to practice double standards.

Case in point: On Nov. 3rd, I submitted the exact same story as got submitted (and posted) here on Nov. 4th.

My submission was rejected. However, it's apparent that the second one, from someone else was, for whatever reason, considered worthwhile for posting.

I think any future goodies I run across will be sent to kuro5hin first. There, at least, they can be voted on by the entire readership as to whether they should be posted.

If I sound annoyed, it's because I am. I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, but I was under the impression that /. was a little more fair-minded than they've shown themselves to be to date.

Perhaps /. should let their readers vote on what is newsworthy and what's not? Lord knows this isn't the first time I've seen crap like this going on.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Slashdot's double standard...

Comments Filter:
  • Bruce: I'm guessing that there were two different "editors" involved. I think that you should just start your own board... I'd visit. I'm guessing that we wouldn't be seeing so many articles about games and TV and more about science and technology (and RADIO!) If you need a server and pipe to get started, drop me a line. When /. first started I give them a server at to serve the images (way back when they were not-profit.) 73, Joe

"All my life I wanted to be someone; I guess I should have been more specific." -- Jane Wagner