damn_registrars's Journal: Watch Slashdot Fix Their Code!

There has been a character limit for article headlines on the front page for ... well, I presume it's been there as long as slashdot has been in existence. For some part of that time, slashdot had editors who ... actually knew how to edit text (we long ago replaced them with people who randomly mash buttons in exchange for stock in dice.com).

Yesterday, there was an article that had a title that just couldn't fit under the limit. At least one comment pointed out that "rollout" was truncated to "rollo".

Now, we could have edited the headline to fit under the limit. Or we could have just buried the story as it wasn't relevant to the scope of slashdot anyways. Yet neither of those options were acceptable. So somehow a patch was devised to allow for this to make it to the front page with its full headline.

Don't try to tell me anymore that this site doesn't cater to a deeply conservative base. No sensible site would have gone to such lengths to get this crappy article up.

Patch?

[smittyoneeach]

I'm relatively confident that somebody opened the /. article table in phpMyAdmin and just edited the title field.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

just edited the title field.

If all they did was edit the field then it should have still not been able to make it through, as it still would have exceeded the length limit. The new title is longer than the original truncated version.

Regardless of how they did it, though, the point remains that slashdot was willing to go the extra mile to excite the conservative base and propagate another anti-Obama conspiracy theory on the front page of what used to be a tech news site.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Are you such an utter simpleton as to think that, for example, Lois Lerners emails just kinda went "poof"?
For this administration to stand there and just take a continuous piss in the public face,
and then you to mewl on, I want a pony [c2.com]-style about the logical consequences,
is so laughable as to invite the question of whether you need a diaper change.
Contempt, like respect, is earned. This is separate from the question of forgiveness.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Has there ever been a conspiracy against President Lawnchair that you haven't tried out for a while as a potential vehicle for impeachment? I don't recall any. This one isn't much less goofy than claiming his birth certificate to be invalid.

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Oh, you're still flogging that dead impeachment horse?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

If you're not still hoping to bring about an early termination to the Lawnchair Administration, then what is your ambition with attempting to whip up enthusiasm for all your favorite conspiracy theories?

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

Wait. You think that the IRS recreationally deleting email to obstruct justice, a crime, is a "conspiracy theory"?

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Wait. You think that the IRS recreationally deleting email to obstruct justice, a crime, is a "conspiracy theory"?

No, but your allegations of

• The IRS doing it for that purpose
  • and
• Your claim that it was upon orders from the white house

Most certainly are

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

It is a fact that Lois Lerner pled the 5th Amendment before Congress.
It is a fact that Lois Lerner said she did nothing wrong in her recent Politico interview.
It is a fact that an absurd number of IRS hard drives have just kinda crashed.
It is a sad, spineless simpleton that sits here,
in the face of overwhelming evidence that there is something seriously rotten on the Potomac
like a baby Alfred E. Newman in a crib
with a raging case of diarrhea
after having crapped himself to an obscene, green sheen
and

Re:

[smittyoneeach]

You're supporting foul liars. Think about that.

Re:

[damn_registrars]

You're supporting foul liars. Think about that.

You made two huge assumptions there, neither of which you can yourself support.

Well, one you might be able to support, although I doubt you will. The other you simply cannot support and you won't allow yourself to be bothered to make any attempt to do so.

Care to go for an assumption trifecta while you continue to wander further and further away from the discussion topic?

Re:

[Soulskill]

Sorry, didn't see this JE until now.

We didn't patch any code -- the annoying title length limit is still there. I just edited the headline to fix the cutoff. It works now because the original headline included the words "Obamacare Website", which I replaced with "Healthcare.gov" to make it fit.

As for the rest: no, we don't cater to any political base (though we get complaints daily about being too liberal/conservative/libertarian). That this story ran in the evening on a weekend should indicate its relative

Re:

[damn_registrars]

Sorry, didn't see this JE until now.

Thank you for finding this and offering your insight.

I just edited the headline to fix the cutoff. It works now because the original headline included the words "Obamacare Website", which I replaced with "Healthcare.gov" to make it fit.

I hadn't noticed that change, thank you for pointing it out. I find it interesting that the editor who posted the story didn't notice it before letting it loose on the front page.

As for the rest: no, we don't cater to any political base (though we get complaints daily about being too liberal/conservative/libertarian).

I respectfully disagree with that, based on two things in particular:

• The stories that make the front page, which frequently favor the American conservative viewpoint or frequently trash any other viewpoint (and the general absence of the opposite).
• The high frequency of conse