Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Story Changes, without an update

Comments Filter:
  • Ooops!@
  • ... if they did that with spelling mistakes, nobody would cry foul ;-)
    • [Now] if they did that with spelling mistakes, nobody would cry foul ;-)

      I would... The best thing would be to have a perfect world and catch everything up front... but since we don't have that we need to realize that mistakes will happen. Now, how do we handle them? If we just cover them up then posts about what was there will be confusing (especially to those who come along later).

      What I'm on the fence about is should editors fix things in user submissions. Now, I know there are lots of people who blame editors for what appears in italics, but those aren't the words of the editor. When you're doing research and you quote something that isn't right, and you don't want people wondering if you did a misquote you use [sic]. So, part of me thinks if the editors just show "look, we know it's wrong, but since we didn't say it we're not altering it." But, then I realize that this is just a silly 'net site and given that these quotes are really just links to other things to begin a discussion I don't see the need to be as anal - just fix the damned things and improve life... if only a little.

      I would hope, however, no matter what side of the fence you are on that you believe conssitency is crucial - pick one and stick with it. Don't waver when it suits you.
      • I've only had one accepted submission, and that thing was heavily edited. Actually, only one sentence of mine remained after (I think) Michael posted it. I don't think it was written real poorly, but my name was attached to it, so... I dunno. I don't know how often that happens. Seemed weird, though. With that in mind, I think the editors *should* be fixing/reworking submissions. Otherwise, they could just let the submission queue work alone and put them out of a job. They are editors after all.

        Also, I've seen Taco correct some minor spelling errors on low traffic stories after the fact (usually after a first post spelling troll). I find it hard to expect too much journalistic integrity on a site that just links to other people's news, but bring on the consistency. I'm ready for it.
  • Bad journalistic practices anyone?

    You must be new here. Welcome to slashdot!

    (s'joke. laugh.)
  • I've thought for a long time that Michael is the weakest and most biased of the Slashdot editors. That's not really his fault -- ideally Slashdot would use collaborative filtering for moderation and story submission. Doing so would allow each reader to rate every post and submission. Over time, the system would learn to predict what posts and submissions each reader would find most interesting. CF does this by creating recommendations based on other users' ratings, good and bad.

    FK, I'm glad you're spreading awareness of this. If anyone can make the Slashdot community aware of Michael's sloppy journalism and inflamatory comments, you can.

    I should probably note that I'm aware that one can disable viewing Michael's submissions in the preferences. This would work if Michael never submitted a good article, which he occasionally does.

    I think it's also the case that Taco et al realize that a little flamebait and controversy provides a lot of free advertising to Slashdot, and that is why they don't improve the system by implementing CF, etc.
    • Every time I get close to banning Michael into my own personal oblivion, he posts a decent/important article. The 'news' portion of the TurboTax article is one instance.
  • I'm amazed how michael gets to keep his job. He fits the definition of a troll to a tee, he brings nothing to the table, just name-calling, knee-jerk bashing and mindless zealotry. He can't even bear to make any apologies or corrections when he is plain wrong. And don't forget how he'll abuse the moderation system to slap down anybody at a whim.

    It's not like slashdot is serious anyway, but they really lack any shred of credibility or seriousness with him on board.

    But I think its funny to see his idiotic words sometime, because he eventually has to eat them.
  • I've stopped reading anything posted by Michael. No offense intended, but he's simply a terrible editor.

    In addition, I submitted the Intuit story from CNet.com and was rejected some 4 hours before Michael decided to post. Interesting... :)

Them as has, gets.

Working...