What Your Favorite Web Sites Say About You

Jimmy writes to tell us that CNET is running an article on what your favorite Web sites say about you. One example takes a look at the possible origins of Facebook readers; "The typical Facebookers are what you'd get if YouTube and Flickr went halves on a baby. Yes, the site was created to help university students connect and have a good time, but connecting and having a good time generally involves unruly, drunken behavior, which is inevitably caught on film and posted for your entire friends list to see.'" The article also takes a look at eBay, Flickr, Slashdot, and several others.

Not very interesting....

[BWJones]

From TFA: The average male Slashdot user probably looks a lot like our model -- but has more acne and bigger glasses. Users are 23 years old but look twice their age and steadfastly refuse to accept the fact that Windows is actually not a bad operating system. Far from being lovable dorks, the Slashdotters have a vicious streak. They hunt like spiders, awaiting the arrival of an article from their victims -- usually a hapless news reporter. The second moderators accept a story, they pounce -- pedantry, suspicion and anonymity their weapons of choice.

If you read the other entries, it is less an info piece and more of a fluff piece for c/net to blow their own horn when you get to the end. How do articles like this get posted to Slashdot?

That said, while there are those of us that have been around since '98 or so, many Slashdot users that started participating in this forum back have continued to participate and additionally have created their own blogs. All in all, I'd have to say that whether or not I visit a website says less about me than the content that goes into my blog [utah.edu] does.

Re:Not very interesting....

[Jarjarthejedi]

Yeah, cause it's not like being a geek has little to do with appearance. Whatever happened to the recognition that stereotypes are usually wrong?

Re:Not very interesting....

[metlin]

Precisely.

The one thing that some of us who've been around long will remember is that apart from the dupes and the bad editing, Slashdot has changed a lot over the years.

When it started out, it was for geeks of a certain age and demographic. Over the years, those users have grown up, and with them, so has Slashdot.

Compare the number of actual technology articles from the older versions of Slashdot with the number of articles relating to business, politics and management of technology on today's Slashdot. Slashdot has broadened its horizons, and the discussions tend to be a lot more balanced (if you do not believe me, just go over to Digg and see the trolls and the flamebaits out there).

And yes, the average Slashdotter was (and is) probably a geek or a nerd, but I think that as they have matured, so has the website? Do we see the occasional crap posting and foam-at-the-mouth zealotry? Of course. But compared to the amount of actual, sane discussion, the percentage of idiocy is surprisingly less.

Secondly, Slashdot is not just about the main articles - it is also about the posters having their journals and having sub-communities of posters.

Over simplification and stereotyping has been the bane of many an analysis, and this article (if it can be called that) is no different.

Bleh.