I kind of get the feeling that this sort of shift has been in the works for a while. The tag line "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters" has been missing from the banner at the top of the page since early last year. Yeah, it still shows up at the top of your browser on the main page, but if you're using Chrome, like many, many people do these days, you don't get to see that; you don't see the mission statement of the site for most of the past 15 years. I think that's telling.

As you say, they're going in the wrong direction, and I get the feeling they don't think that's a bad thing.

That site should have nothing to do with the /. name. The community of (more or less) like minded people is what has made this site special since its inception. "News For Nerds". That important little slogan disappeared from the banner at the top of the page early last year. Now this business improvement blog is aimed at helping executives make important decisions. It says so right in that poorly done video. That doesn't sound like /. to me.

I, like many others who post here have noticed the decline in the quality of both stories and comments over the last 8 or so years I've been coming here. Most of this hasn't been the site's fault. But with /.TV (which has a HUGE icon up on the top line, ever noticed?) and this B.I. site, the discussion appears to be less important. I don't even see an obvious way to join a discussion on the TV site.

I guess this is a long way of saying that I think this is a bad idea. You're changing the mission of the site, maybe in order to broaden your audience, but I think it will just end up alienating the loyal audience that has been around for a long time.

I disagree. Apple is contracting with Foxconn to churn out millions of iDevices. Regardless of what other Silicon Valley companies are doing, Apple is the one that is dealing with FoxConn. If they think that the workers deserve better treatment, they have it in their power to see that their demands are met; if they aren't, then they can contract with someone who will. "I'm just following the status quo," is a poor defense.

I work for a company that deals with a lot of contractors. If a contractor isn't living up to our expectations (usually safety related), we find a new company to do that work. If they're not living up to our standards, they don't come on our site. Our safety numbers reflect this. (I think our bottom line benefits, too, but those numbers are a little trickier to pin down.)

I think that a company's handling of contractors reflects their values. Apple (and I guess the rest of Silicon Valley) values money more than good working conditions.

After I posted I realized that I should have chosen a different "dissenting" post. There are a few on there, and they all have led to similar angry and insulting comments. I guess my point is that I do feel bad for these people in dire straits. I really do, especially those who are in a tight spot by no fault of their own.

The thing that bugs me is that they are claiming to speak for the entire 99% (implying it, at the very least). If you have a college degree and no job, yes, you are part of the 99%, but your sad story is more about the 5.4 percent than the 99. It drops to being 4 percent for all those on there who claim a master's degree (chart). So stop saying that you were lied to about education; those claims are demonstrably false. And stop saying you have no future. For the vast majority of those posting their stories, this is a rough spot, longer than most, but we'll get through. It is those sorts of claims on that blog annoy me greatly. As does the opposition to the people (like me) who are part of the 99% and are okay with life, for the most part.

Now, I recognize that there are many, many parts of our system that are beyond screwed up. Reforms are needed. But the people who are posting pictures of their stories do not represent me. I am the 99%, and I'm doing fine.

You make a good point about computers (generally) being good at finding related material. However, right now many library search systems don't bring up related titles. And even if you do have a system that displays related items, until these are digitized and you have sufficiently advanced algorithms to dig up relevant content, "related content" will be based on keywords, etc. This short circuits the computer's advantages in finding related content. My university recently completed a robotic retrieval system much like the one described, so I come at this with some experience.

I also think there's something to be said for browsing through the stacks looking for something that catches your eye, leading to unexpected discovery. I have yet to find a search platform that gives this kind of flexibility.

As a minor correction, most universities, at least in the US, use the Library of Congress classification system which does a good job of grouping by rather specialized subjects. If it grouped largely by author's last name, it would be pretty useless to see what's farther on down the shelf.