Journal rho's Journal: The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout-Discussion continues 61
Last Chance to See! The final opportunity to discuss this before the lights go out
The Original Accept No Substitutes!
------------------------------------------
I'm hoping here to dispose of some misconceptions and answer a few questions I've seen asked and been asked. I will probably cause a whole new set of questions and a new set of misconceptions, here. Such is life. I should preface this by saying that I speak only for myself--others have different reasons and different desires, and they can speak with their own voice.
Why do you hate Slashdot?
I don't hate Slashdot. I've said it before, I love the community. If I thought this would destroy Slashdot, I wouldn't have started it.
Then why boycott Slashdot?
First, it's not a boycott. A boycott implies a continued non-use of services until a goal or demand is met. This is, as I called it, a "blackout" of a temporary (and short) duration.
I felt that the best way to demonstrate the importance of comment posters was to become part of the "other 97%".
82% read 10 or fewer pages a day. 15% read 30 or less. 3% read more than 30 a day.
That 97%, while providing page views and eyeballs, mostly do not contribute to the site. The other 3% are the ones that do "cost" more in DB and bandwidth resources, but they are also the ones that provide 99% of the content here. That content gets spidered by Google (that leads to search engine hits), builds a stolid community (that leads to press attention), and feeds the churning machine of story submitters and review writers building and bringing more comments and visitors daily.
But I (income) - C (costs) = P (profits)...
If you believe you can reduce a socio-economic dynamic such as Slashdot into a simple profit and loss statement, there are hundreds of surviving dotcoms who would pay big money to see that equation.
If it were that simple, Slashdot could remove comments altogether and be more profitable. The problem with that scenario is that Slashdot would fade away soon after.
How do you know that?
I don't. It's my contention that is the case. That's part of what I wish to show with the blackout.
So how will you know if you succeed? What is your standard of "I won!"?
That's a hard question. I will never know what the internals of Slashdot are doing or thinking. They could be printing out my amateurish screeds and using them as toilet paper.
If it is never said again that "half the visitors don't care" about comments, that would be a win. The fact that half of the visitors to Slashdot don't click-through to read comments is irrelevant--without those comments, Slashdot wouldn't have that other 50% visiting at all.
Mostly, I will see if the attitude I perceived in the past continues into the future. If so, I'll know that my small protest was lame and ineffectual. If it seems to have generated some positive attitude changes, I'll consider it a win.
I guess you think Malda hates comment posters?
No. Malda and the other "editors" read and reply to comments quite often, considering their busy schedules. They obviously care about them: do they fully appreciate their value, however? The impression I get is that the comment sections are a gift bestowed upon the laity from the High Priests of Slash. My contention is that the reverse is more true.
However, sometimes I wonder.
Frankly we doubt that 3% will really pay us at all. Notice the venom posted in this discussion: this comes largely from that very 3%. Its ironic that those who profess to hate us the most also load the most pages
;)
You hate Malda, huh?
No. I don't know him. The handful of emails I've traded with him over the years have been cordial.
I don't like their appropriation of the title of "editor" for themselves, I admit freely. That is why I usually scare-quote "editor" when speaking of the Slashdot team. If they are editors, I'm a duck.
So you want Malda to be filtered through a PR zombie?
No. I quite enjoy being talked to like a regular person and not a consumer. It is refreshing.
The flip side to that coin is, if you're going to be honest in your feelings, don't be surprised to find your feelings challenged. Copping a wounded attitude because everybody doesn't agree with you is kind of silly.
Do you just want free subscriptions to Slashdot?
No thanks, I have a subscription already.
Then are you looking for an apology?
The mental image I have of Malda doesn't allow for him to apologize. At least, not a real one--"I'm sorry you're such a dork. Get over yourself! There, I apologized!"
In addition, I'm not an apology-type guy. Some people may have been happy that Bill Clinton apologized for slavery, but I think it's stupid. Words are important, but apologies are words without meaning.
Really, this isn't about assigning blame--it's about fixing a problem. I believe that the Slashdot crew have a misplaced notion of the importance and true cost of comments. They don't hate or dislike them, they simply misunderstand their purpose.
I had a similar experience on E2--I did a writeup for a node that I happened across. I did not go through the "Writing a perfect node" procedure--I saw a hole and filled it. For my efforts, one of the E2 "editors" lambasted me for not jumping through their hoops. I responded that to jump on the heads of casual noders is probably not a good plan. They (casual noders) are not the bulk of the E2 community, but they are an important part of the "ecosystem" there. He responded with a "love it or leave it" statement.
There is a choice to be made--is the core community important or not? If not, then spare us the trolls, flooders and PWPs and dump the comments. If so, then walk and talk like you know it.
Boy, your ego is sensitive.
Perhaps. We can talk about my ego some other time, though. That is (at best) a side issue.
If you don't like it, why don't you just leave? Or start your own community?
The same reason I don't leave the US to start another country if I don't like what's going on here--it's easier to try to change the system than to start anew (most of the time).
And who's to say that another community won't gain my audience, rather than Slashdot? Perhaps, if Slashdot continues on its path and doesn't improve relations to its community, I will go. And perhaps others will as well. Not in a bunch, mind you, but in dribs and drabs, until only the trolls and crapflooders are left. As more people feel marginalized, they will contribute less and less, feeling that since "half the visitors don't care", they may as well not give their opinions or ideas a voice.
At that point, Slash will have excellent triggers for detecting crapflooders and bots, scripts and lamers; and somebody will take that and use it to build a more stable (and more attuned) community.
I'd rather that not happen, myself.
So you maintain that comments and comment posters have value? Why don't you go sell it, then?
Corn has great value. But not to another corn farmer. The comments are a product of the value-producing community. I suppose you could equate the community with the land, and comments as the crop. It's a bit of a weak analogy, but let's run with it.
The land is filled with potential value--but in and of itself, it is worth little. The comment community, which makes up the heart of Slashdot, isn't worth much if they aren't producing. What they produce, you can't shop around to other web sites--they have their own land and corn stalks already, thank you.
(I thought about extending the analogy to the community equating to corn farmers, but then I figured somebody would say, "But corn farmers wear overalls and drive tractors! Your analogy stinks!", or something equally pointless. So I'll just leave my pointless analogy where it stands.)
I still don't get it. Why are you doing this, and what do you want?
I've done my best to explain. Read what I've written again and then once more. If you still don't get my position, just ignore me. If you do get it and disagree, don't participate. If you get it and agree, remember to stop posting on Apr. 21-27th. Don't post comments, don't submit stories; just visit the front page for the links. Become as the other 97-percentile.
And, if you send me $1000 via PayPal today, I'll send you a real prayer cloth that I used to ritually clean the sacred scrotum. Put your hands on the screen, and let me heal you! Hallelujah!
I still think you're an idiot.
Enjoy yourself.
Oh, and fuck you, you prick.
Knock yourself out.
vi or emacs?
Emacs, you peasant.
------------------------------------------
Last Chance to See! The final opportunity to discuss this before the lights go out
The Original Accept No Substitutes!
------------------------------------------
I'm in (Score:2)
Re:I'm in (Score:1)
What is the blackout going to accomplish?
CmdrTaco: "Uh, sorry, we were wrong. And now we'll be giving free subscriptions to frequent posters like rho."
Yeah, right.
Also, after reading some of rho's [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org], I realized I don't much like the guy. And I'd rather not support his 'movement'. I'm actually a little ashamed I thought it sounded like a good idea at first, and even briefly had a link in my sig. But now I've come to my senses though and realized rho is just another whining slashbot asshole.
So fuck the blackout, and fuck rho too. Sorry, dude.
Re:I'm in (Score:2)
That's not what I'm after. I just want Cmdr Taco to see the importance of comments.
For his own sake before he mistakenly under values them.
Also, after reading some of rho's [slashdot.org] other [slashdot.org] posts [slashdot.org], I realized I don't much like the guy. And I'd rather not support his 'movement'. I'm actually a little ashamed I thought it sounded like a good idea at first, and even briefly had a link in my sig. But now I've come to my senses though and realized rho is just another whining slashdot asshole.
Well I'd agree with you on the first and last the, middle is gold.
You obviously never had to work with a marketing department or the idiots there in.
All I can say is count your blessings.
I'm still down with the blackout though.
This is not a anti (Cmdr Taco|Slashdot|Editors|Whatever). It's pro-comments and thats all.
By not commenting for one week we shall (Hopefully) demonstrate what slashdot would look like without them.
Re:I'm *NOT* in (Score:1)
Reign in the egos, gentlemen and ladies (if there are any ladies among you). Your participation on Slashdot is nowhere near the main reason that people come to Slashdot. Boredom ranks higher than you do on the reason that people visit Slashdot.
Re:Answer to the bandwidth problem (Score:1)
It's called transferring gzipped data... See Apache module, mod_gzip... and slashdot has it, just send a HTTP head request..
Server: Apache/1.3.20 (Unix) mod_perl/1.25 mod_gzip/1.3.19.1a
Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Have you been reading my posts on why this whole thing is useless? You're basically pissed at CT for telling you the truth about his business. I posted them in the previous thread. In case you didn't see them (you didn't reply), here's a handy list of quicklinks for you (and anyone just joining us) about why this is stupid and pointless:
My Summary of
My Initial analysis of
My Ridiculously long-winded but much more accurate second analysis of
And, finally A summary of how pointless this is [slashdot.org].
For those too impatient to navigate all that, I'll sumarize:
So, when Rob says, "the community doesn't help our business," he doesn't mean anything more than that. The community costs them money now and this boycott is basically threatening to cost them less money for a week, which I'm sure really has them reevaluating their priorities, let me tell you...You can boycott all you want, you're not going to change the economic reality that
The community costs them money? (Score:3, Insightful)
That reputation didn't come out of nowhere -- it was slowly built through thousands of comments, and without those comments, Slashdot would be just another weblog, one that would lose its lustre (and its audience) pretty quickly.
The Hopefully Great Blackout is just a way of reminding Slashdot management that the community isn't a cost -- it's what enables them to sell those 18% of ads in the first place.
I wish Rob and company would've posted an Ask Slashdot asking how Slashdot could become more profitable. It was the most logical place to start, and I think if they had some respect for the community, they would have. They didn't. And now that community is asserting its voice. If Slashdot's owners are smart, they'll listen to the community and ask how they can serve it better. If they're not, I'm sure we'll all continue to see more episodes like this, and Slashdot will slowly disintegrate.
Something to think about.
Re:The community costs them money? (Score:2)
The question of how much
Most of what I'm arguing against is the tendency to confuse Slashdot The Business (STB) with Slashdot The Community (STC) and assume that whatevever is good for STC must be good for STB. That's not necessarily the case. Based on the numbers I've seen, my opinion is that, in the fairly short term, STB would be best served by turning off comments. Longer term, it's possible that STB will be a bigger entity if it continues to nourish STC. But it's also possible that it would go bankrupt, first.
I don't have any objection whatsoever to a rational argument along the lines of "I think you're understating the intangible value of STC to STB's success." I'd disagree with it, but I think it's a reasonable way to have a conversation.
What I object to is all this talk about wanting STB to "Value you us as more than a market." I think the _people_ in STB do value STC MUCH more than a market. They are working hard to figure out a way to keep STC going, even though it may not be in STB's short-term interest. But STB is just that, a business. They provide STC a service, but that service is unprofitable. They can't keep doing that forever, and I think any discussion about whether STB "values" STC has to be had in the context of the understanding that if STB isn't profitable, STC isn't going to exist anymore, no matter how great anyone thinks it is. I agree that "slashdot wouldn't be slashdot without the community." I agree that I'd participate less (and wouldn't subscribe). But that's not really the question people like CT are trying to answer - they're trying to answer the question, "how can we continue to operate this business unit while trying to keep as much of STC around as possible?"
The other objection I have is that this whole blackout thing does not seem well crafted to actually get your point across. If, in fact, the argument of the blackouters boils down to "our intangibles are so good for STB's business that they should be happy about all the money they spend on us," one week isn't going to make a difference, even if you could make a significant percentage of slashdot posters care. You're not going to harm
Slashdot's future. (Score:2)
It's a great example of the kind of clever, innovative thinking that bubbles out of the Slashdot community. I think the Karma Beanie idea is whimsical and ingenious, but even if you don't like it, there's dozens more where this came from.
The creativity and web-expertise of the Slashdot community is legendary. And Slashdot is the world's biggest proselytizer of Open Source ideals. So why didn't Slashdot use this exclusive resource? Why didn't they ask the community to help them come up with new ways of becoming profitable?
Good question. I wish I knew the answer.
What I do know is that Slashdot, the business, could be wildly successful. The opportunity hangs before them like a ripe plum. If they would only pluck it, Slashdot could change the face of the web by being the first major site to work with its community to jointly determine a revenue-generating model that everyone loves.
(Along the way, we might even be able to tackle a few other problems, like taming the Slashdot Effect, or eliminating double-posted stories, or the calming the moderation mini-scandals which have alienated some of Slashdot's oldest supporters.)
But Rob and Company don't seem very interested in this. I get the sense that they would rather offer the Slashdot they want (and see it fail) than offer the Slashdot the community wants (and watch it succeed). There's a certain like-it-or-leave-it attitude that's become increasingly obvious in their communications with their readers.
And that's too bad. It's too bad because I love what Slashdot has become, and I respect what Rob and Company have done to get it here. I don't want to see it fall apart. I want to see it get even better.
I think it will fall apart if they don't listen.
That's why I'm participating in the Hopefully Great Boycott. I'm not out to hurt Slashdot's bottom line, or make Slashdot management feel bad; I'm just trying to tell them that we're here, and we can help them make Slashdot better. For all of us.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:3, Insightful)
I had a reply to you, but it was long winded, complicated (and probably filled with typos). Dan Crash replied to you and said it more succinctly than I did.
However, I doubt you'll listen to him, either. You, alone, have figured out the complexities of a socio-economic dynamic like Slashdot, and are able to reduce the intricacies and nuances into an easy set of simple equations.
Congratulations on your Nobel Prize for Economics. How's the weather in Stockholm?
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
I do not believe that I can convice you to join. You can only convince yourself. This isn't a Baptist revival--I'm not proselytizing anybody.
But, since you didn't read my post--I said that Dan Crash's response was in line with my own beliefs--I doubt you'll read this post either.
As for mockery, you brought it on yourself when you introduced your carefully crafted and arranged mathematical equations. You thought your simplification of a socio-economic dynamic such as Slashdot into a profit and loss statement was such a devastating blow to the blackout that we should all pack up and go home. It's narrow minded and ignorant.
Being indignant of mockery only displays a remarkably thin skin. I cannot convince you, nor can I protect your fragile ego.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Two say on average that 50% of users NEVER look at comments is stupid.
When what you are really seeing is that on average 50% of the users are not looking at comments that day.
I for one will sometimes go a day or two without looking at the comments But I still look at the front page.
What's the problem?
No news items that I'm interested that day.
In short this 50% is an average and not a constant.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
It's quite likely that the 50% is an average. Meaning that 10% - 20% never use the comments.
And the rest of the 50% is a floating average that changes per day.
I also know that if it wasn't for comments that I would never you this site.
Take away the comments and there is nothing of value.
That what we are trying to prove. The only way to do this is to stop commenting for a week.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Add on top of that the fact that the whole thing is based off of one comment made in the middle of a heated debate, and it just looks a bit silly to me. I've never felt threatened by the editors. I've never felt marginalized. I've never received a vibe from reading anything that Taco or Hemos or any of them have written that would lead me to believe that they don't value the comments people contribute to the site.
That is, of course, just me though. :) Getting back to the original point, I wouldn't be surprised if fully 50% of the unique people who visit Slashdot don't look at the comments, and the only way to really verify any of that is to look at the numbers themselves.
(I sound full of myself, don't I? <g>)
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
I highly doubt this.
I worked for a marketing company for like two years.
Most statistic reports do not even try to acknowledge that there are other patterns at work.
Like for instance once an idiot in marketing bought a whole mess of traffic to register on a site.
We increased the clicks to the regpage by like 1000% but for some reason the total number registrations did not increase much.
So there must be something wrong with the regpage. Never mind that most of these people already registered or came through a popup.
As Mark Twain said: "To tell real lies you need statistics.".
I am very skeptical of statistics as all they really tell you is how these people measure success.
Besides if comments are really useless like he says. Then nothing is going to happen when the boycott time rolls around right?
So what are they so worried about?
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Right, I'm with you there. That's why I said it'd be nice to actually get the numbers, because then we'd be able to find out how many returning slashdot viewers actually DO read comments.
This here is really my main point of contention, numbers arguments aside. I haven't heard any of the Slashdot editors say that comments are useless. And yes, I've followed all the meta-discussions that have been going on about how editors are evil and Taco doesn't appreciate anyone and all that. I just haven't seen it. I've seen him talking objectively about some numbers, but I've never seen anything that would lead me to believe that he somehow doesn't care about comments. If you've got some links to comments from the editors which would prove otherwise, please feel free to post 'em here (and no, I don't consider the original post that's quoted on rho's first journal on the subject valid).
Here's another point, too . . . Are they actually worried? If you could point me to some instances of the editors expressing genuine concern over the whole thing, that might be helpful, too.
I guess what I'm asking for is just some proof that the editors are really these mean, heartless brutes that everyone seems to be trying to make them out to be. I just haven't seen it yet. Give me URLs! (or give me death? Nah. That's a little extreme. <g>)
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
I guess what I'm asking for is just some proof that the editors are really these mean, heartless brutes that everyone seems to be trying to make them out to be. I just haven't seen it yet. Give me URLs! (or give me death? Nah. That's a little extreme. )
Well you can read the thread by Jamie in the rho's last journal.
But really I am not saying that the editors are mean or that they abuse there power.
I think they do a bang up job.
I do however want to show Mr Taco that perhaps comments are more
responsible for the popularity of slashdot then he thinks.
Just keep in mind that this is not anti anything this is pro comments.
One week is not going to kill them or even hurt them all that much.
I don't want an apology (he didn't do any thing wrong really).
I just want to show him that the 50% number is wrong.
Before he makes decisions based off of it and gets him self in trouble.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Not willing to slog through Slash to see what kind of logging is done, I'm going to make a broad statement based on my experience divining knowledge from logs.
When a site only gets a handful of visitors, you can almost watch a visitor's path with /usr/local/apache/log/access.log. When a site gets as many visitors as Slashdot does, it gets significantly harder to deduce real knowledge from a log. The noise is too great, and the performance hit normally causes a webmaster to reduce what is logged besides.
tail -f
I'm not sure the numbers would be terribly enlightening, but as I've said, I don't argue the numbers. I accept them at face value.
This here is really my main point of contention, numbers arguments aside. I haven't heard any of the Slashdot editors say that comments are useless. [snip] I guess what I'm asking for is just some proof that the editors are really these mean, heartless brutes that everyone seems to be trying to make them out to be. I just haven't seen it yet. Give me URLs! (or give me death? Nah. That's a little extreme. )
It's subtle. Malda has made similar comments to the original several times, both during the Subscription Embroglio and outside said discussion. I would argue that the famous Post of Death and the aftermath of same shows a certain level of arrogance towards the volunteer help. The equating of comments as a net loss to Slashdot really chafes my hide, and displays (to me) a lack of understanding of how a web community works by the "editors". The attitude that I've seen expressed before that comments are a gift from Slashdot, something to which we should daily offer thanks for is equally wrongheaded. Malda and crew fell into a good thing here--they are lucky to have a crowd of tireless volunteers to provide massive content and to help police the site from the lame and stupid.
Not everybody feels marginalized--you don't, for instance, see it as an affront. The only problems you seem to have are with the weevil posts :)
Those that participate feel marginalized in one way or another. Those that don't feel marginalized will ignore it--some, like yourself, seek to understand the reasons, and perhaps engage in a bit of discourse over the issue. Others simply take offense and turn nasty about it, like I called their sister a whore.
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
Well, I was suggesting something more along the lines of a Perl script that would go through and parse data and find trends, etc . . . I'm sure just walking through the access logs by hand would be a torturous and futile effort. :) Much of the user tracking is done inside a database, anyway, which would make it easier to construct some SQL that would do what you'd want. I'm an admin on a site that uses Slashcode, and they keep a LOT of information as to where people are coming from, so I still feel it wouldn't be too difficult to get a handle on how many people are reading comments. But, as (1) we could probably go back and forth on this for weeks without agreement, and (2) we're not going to get access to the logs anyway, we might as well abandon this line of argument. :)
On to more fun things!
Again, I'd really like to get some actual URLs to these comments. I was following the whole subscription thread pretty closely and didn't notice, so I'm gonna shift the burden of proof onto you or someone else who cares enough to go digging.
I don't entirely agree with you there, either, I'm afraid. I read the infamous Post of Death shortly after it was posted, and dismissed it as a poorly-written troll. Honestly, I thought it was a very bad, offtopic post, so the act of moderating the whole thread down to (-1, Offtopic) didn't bother me in the least. Now, the whole $rtbl (or whatever) fiasco that happened afterwards is a somewhat different story, I'll grant you. But that's more indicative of a different problem I've got with the moderation system, which is the extreme subjectivity of "Interesting" moderations . . . I run up against this while metamodding a lot; I personally don't find a post to be at all interesting, but someone else did. So was that a fair moderation? I suppose. Who's to say what someone else finds interesting? Back to the PoD, people who did find it interesting were smacked down pretty hard, which is certainly a shame.
So we've got all this backlash; I should dig through slashcode and find out exactly how the $rtbl stuff is applied. Is it an automatic process, or do editors have to manually slap it on whoever they feel deserves it? If it's automatic, then perhaps the whole thing was just a matter of poor implimentation. If it's a manual thing, we've got problems. I suppose then you'll bring up the editors' unwillingness to un-$rtbl people who probably deserved to have the Scarlet Variable removed from their accounts, which could probably be chalked up to a generally nasty environment that was going around at the time . . .
Regardless, I guess I'll give you the whole $rtbl thing as a point on "your side" of this debate. :P Point conceded.
Well, as it should . . . But again, I think that Taco was just speaking on a purely economic standpoint, and from the viewpoint of potential advertisers. I still haven't seen anything that makes me think that Taco+co don't realize the benefit of comments. They can certainly get grouchy when their site is under offtopic fire from a bunch of people, but I don't think that can be extended to all comments . . .
That's for sure . . . I certainly wouldn't read Slashdot without the comments. Or I wouldn't read it nearly as much, anyway.
Yeah, that really ticked me off. :P
Re:Quick links to the opposition (Score:2)
This here is really my main point of contention, numbers arguments aside. I haven't heard any of the Slashdot editors say that comments are useless.
Not only did Rob not say that comments are useless, he, in fact, said nearly the exact opposite.
It's mind boggling how you can translate the above to "he says comments are useless".
Listen Dumbass (Score:2)
For those too impatient to navigate all that, I'll sumarize:
You just aren't getting the point. The only reason I come to Slashdot is to interact with the comments. I always go to the front page first. I go back to the front page multiple times to check out my slashboxes and new stories. So, I produce a lot of hits on the front page, and I result in Slashdot "selling ads" (whatever you mean by that.)
The BOTTOM LINE is: Take away the 50% of users that do participate with comments, and you take away around 95% of the ad impressions.
I'll participate... BUT... (Score:1)
I want to see editor moderation. That is ALL. I want to see which editor, and each one of their moderations.
Re:I'll participate... BUT... (Score:2)
I even think that offtopic posts consistently moderated up in defiance of the editors should stay on the page they were posted on. However, there should be a link to another comments page for all replies to that post.
EDITORS_PLEASE_MOD_ME_DOWN (Score:2)
I would like to test if it says editor for mods by editors.
Not that I really care that much I'd just like to know.
Why Everyone should participate. (Score:1)
My prediction: The Blackout will increase
So have at it! Don't post for a week! The only thing you have to lose is carpel tunnel syndrome.
Why I'll join (Score:3, Informative)
No, it's not because of the ads. The ads don't bother me. I don't even see them. Seriously, I can't remember the last time I saw an ad for something that actually prompted me to buy the product being advertised.
I read Slashdot for the comments. Most of the time I don't follow the links but only read the comments. I post here (karma around 50 for 1+ year) and what I post is valuable (I believe). I don't know how the admins measure the value of content but I suspect they are mistaken. (Maybe they mistake the ACs spamming reload to wait for a new article to get first post on as people interested in the articles).
I will join the boycott because I sense a lack of respect for the user community. It's like the loony ringmaster who's telling his actors "you're not the show, I'm the show. I'm who's important. You're nothing without me." Editor moderations and $rtbl'ing are just symptoms of this arrogance.
Uh...have you tried talking to them? (Score:1)
I wrote a little bit in my journal about what I think. There is a link in my sig. Like I said, I could just be too new to this all to understand what is going on, but I'd like to know more from both sides.
Maybe you all could just sit down and agree to disagree? *is an idealist*
Phoenix
What a waste of time (Score:2)
Why couldn't they just ask the community how to raise money instead of just deciding for themselves?
Because they'd get a hundred different answers, (including the one that they did eventually implement) they'd pick one or two and implement them. Then the people who liked the other 99 ideas would complain and raise a fuss and attempt a boycott like this one.
It's the community that keeps people comming back to slashdot.
<SARCASM>
No, it's the wide variety of articles and topics, from tech news to YRO, that keep people coming to Slashdot.
No, it's the open forum for trolling and humor that bring people to Slashdot.
No, it's all those kewl advertisments that keep people coming back to Slashdot.
No, it's the T3 that connects the Slashdot servers to the internet that keeps people coming back to Slashdot.
</SARCASM>
There are lots of reasons people come to slashdot. As Taco said, many people don't ever click through to the comments anyway. Do they come for the commuinity? Would you ignore or dismiss them out of hand because they do not support your opinions?
Taco's problem is that he can't make all the people happy all the time, no matter how hard he tries. When he does something, someone somewhere will find a reason to complain. This time you are the ones finding something to compalin about. Next time he'll do something you like, but someone else will complain. It's a no win situation.
Taco's only option is to do what he can to make Slashdot more appealing to more people and do his best to not let the constant stream of abuse and complaints get him down. There's always someone compalining. I personally think he has one of the strongest characters I've seen, because he takes your abuse and everyone elses abuse, and still he has a positive attitude about making Slashdot better. I don't always agree with his opinions on some topics, but at least I can see the difference between his opinion and his hard work and results. His hard work created Slashdot, not his opinion. I respect that hard work. That hard work earned him the right to post his opinion on the front page, whether I like it or not.
Maybe your hard work organizing this boycott will earn you some standing in the community. If it does, more power to you. I respect your hard work also. I just don't necessarily agree with your opinions. The nice thing about slashdot is that we both have the oportunity to express opinions.
Cheers.
With enough eyes, unprofitablility is shallow (Score:2)
The point isn't about making everyone happy, but about getting the best ideas; ideas that make Slashdot money and resonate well within the Slashdot community. The current subscription model doesn't do either very well.
Amen to that. That's what I freaking love and respect about Slashdot: That no matter how inane or inflammatory or trollish your comment is, it will still remain for everyone to view at -1. I think that's Slashdot's big contribution to web culture -- they were the first to invent a way for everyone to speak and be heard without censorship.
It's too bad they had to pooch so much of that goodwill with the recent $rtbl fiasco.
I didn't say... (Score:2)
Some people are boycotting now, some are not.
Change the situation, and different people will get mad and boycott and other people will not.
Rather than tell Taco how to make YOU happy, see if you can come up with a solution that everyone else on Slashdot agrees with and doesn't complain to you about. Make a journal about how to FIX slashdot instead of how to break it. Invite people to discuss solutions.
Then when YOU have the ultimate solution that everyone likes and noone complains about, you can present it to Taco on a silver platter.
Until then, you are just part of the precipitate.
clear channel communication (Score:2)
As for presenting ideas to Taco & Co. on a silver platter: Makes no nevermind if they're not interested in listening in the first place. The boycott's about getting them interested in listening.
Besides, I can't see why you wouldn't want to listen to the community of people you market to! If I were running a site like this, I'd be running a contest for the top 10 user-submitted ideas.
Re:clear channel communication (Score:2)
End user submitted ideas were taken into account. Taco gets hundreds a day in his E-mail inbox and random comments in most stories. What? You didn't send in your idea?
If I were running a site like this, I'd be running a contest for the top 10 user-submitted ideas.
Isn't that exactly what I suggested you do? Why don't you change that "would" to "will" and get to it.
Re:clear channel communication (Score:2)
As for presenting ideas to Taco & Co. on a silver platter: Makes no nevermind if they're not interested in listening in the first place.
Only problem I have with it is. . . . (Score:2)
I do think that some of the 'Old Greats' posting here is what keeps people coming back, (hey look, that dude is telling stories about the days of yore and punch cards! Lets all go run over and listen!) but I do not think that it is the most important thing in itself.
Of course the people who post comments are then the one who submit STORIES, and without those stories
Think for yourself. (Score:1)
What other people think about this should have little or no bearing on your own opinions. "Oh, no!! Because the hairy, smelly, slobbering, slovenly TROLLS (!!!) support the Blackout, it must be BAD!!!"
I am a troll, but I also...
- ...believe the DMCA and CBDTPA are horrible corporation-pandering bits of legislature that should die.
- ...run my computer without a single Microsoft product on it.
- ...write Unix software for a living.
But OH MY GOD!! I'm a slimey, puppy-drowning, baby-kicking, veal-eating TROLL!!!!11 Those things must be REALLY REALLY BAD!!! I guess you better write your senator asking him to pass the CBDTPA right away, buy $1000 worth of Microsoft software, and quit your job and go work flipping burgers at McDonald's, so that you don't end up a dirty TROLL like me!Re:Think for yourself. (Score:2)
Your whining posting annoying TROLLING does NOT help stop these various illicit actions from happening.
Hell
Now then. If all of the time that was spent writing first post (fr0st pist, whatever, though that has mostly died down and smart trolls now days write tend to aim for karma whoring on the first post) scripts was instead spent working on writing speeches to get people involved in projects to stop the latest FuckThePublic legislation, or setting up REAL sites to send letters to congress
How many of you even REALIZE that there is software out there to FAX letters to congress and the senate, eh? Everybody complains about how useless e-mail letters are, well for crying out loud, start a fr*ggin collection and get an unofficial
Instead of spending time researching the latest ways to be a fucking smeg head and ANNOY other people you could be researching the various dirty deeds of politicians and be working on making those details private. It'd be rather nice if during the next election season in South Carolina if every major site branched off of the SC listing in the OpenDirectory project had a banner ad running at the top of it offering a link to a site with some well written information writer towards the everyday citizen that explained exactly why mr fritz (I refuse to capitalize that. . . . thing's name) is bad a bad choice for senator?
Or hell, just doing what Sllort is doing now and actually working to CHANGE
Get M1-failedfuckedupbeta implemented.
Get M1 implemented.
Get M2 implemented.
Get the
Hey, congrats, yah nice job you did there pals, great 'improvement'. Bah.
And the level of trolling! Oh my word, you guys SUCK. I mean it! Do ANY of you realize that you haven't managed to offend ANYBODY (worthwhile any ways.
In other words, FIND A BETTER FUCKING USE FOR YOUR TIME THEN POSTING PREMADE ALREADY BEEN THERE DONE THAT AND DONE TO DEATH BORING AS HELL LAME ASS OLD TROLLS.
(MAD TV) and I am through
Um... calm down! (Score:1)
Re:Think for yourself. (Score:2)
And what exactly is sllort doing? Enquiring minds want to know...
Re:Think for yourself. (Score:1)
as opposed to crap flooding or page widening posts.
Guess which ones call more attention to themselves? If you said crap floods that people quickly scroll over, then you are wrong
(and page widening posts just reduce the chances of others to speak out as people keep on upping their threshhold)
Retarded (Score:1)
I mean, what are you getting so excited about? Slashdot is a pretty pathetic site, and it always has been. The vast majority of the material posted to the main page is just a notification of an article at another site (and always from the same grab-bag of 10 sites) with a "gee whiz ain't it neato" comment tacked on the end. The original material is limited to (mostly) user-contributed reviews, and that thick-skulled moron Jon Katz.
Ok, so you're all about the user comments, right? well, tell me.. what is so great about them either? Let's see.. there's a large number of trolls, a large number of jokes, a whole wack of "me too"'s, blatant karma whoring (pastes of link content, or some git who has taken all of 10 seconds to look up other links on google). Filter all of that out and you have less than a dozen posts that are worth reading (and a dozen is only for the more controversial posts, such as ones in the "your rights online" category).
This is worth making a stink over? Is it really? It just seems like such a stupid waste of time.
Why don't you go petition for the release of political prisoners? Help out at a homeless shelter? Give blood? Be a big brother? I can think of dozens more things which would not only make you feel good inside, but would actually do some good, and.. last but not least.. would not be a tremendous, embarassing failure and waste of time.
So please, I beg of you, for your sake, if no one else's.. change your sig. Abandon this idiocy and go outside, do some good in the world.
G'nite.
Old farts? (Score:1)
I'm an even older fart, and I can wholehartedly agree with rho's sentiments. I don't want to throw my weight around (I hav none, im $rtbl'd), but I'm curious to know whether or not the current generation has the faintest idea how slashdot was 3 years ago?
Re:Old farts? (Score:2)
I remember when it was still Chips and Dips, too. Through the time it was like Usenet circa late 1980s-early 90s, high S/N ratio. And I remember the raucous fights.
It's been a long, long while in such a short time period. It's amazing.
Hey, an idea (Score:1)
I'm feeling evil already.
Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:1)
Corn has great value. But not to another corn farmer. The comments are a product of the value-producing community. I suppose you could equate the community with the land, and comments as the crop. It's a bit of a weak analogy, but let's run with it.
The land is filled with potential value--but in and of itself, it is worth little. The comment community, which makes up the heart of Slashdot, isn't worth much if they aren't producing. What they produce, you can't shop around to other web sites--they have their own land and corn stalks already, thank you.
(I thought about extending the analogy to the community equating to corn farmers, but then I figured somebody would say, "But corn farmers wear overalls and drive tractors! Your analogy stinks!", or something equally pointless. So I'll just leave my pointless analogy where it stands.)
Well, I agree with you that this analogy stinks. Where to begin?
First, corn has great value to corn farmers. It's the only thing of value that they produce. Seed, which is corn basically, is one of their most important raw materials.
Contending that there's no market for commentary because other "farms" already have their crop is fairly ridiculous. There's a tremendous market out there for good writing. You just have to take your portfolio and shop it to those people. There are even marketplaces that pay, like epinions [epinions.com] that pay real dollars for highly rated opinions.
I don't know what world you live in, but in my world, value is determined in markets. If something is unmarketable, for whatever reason, it doesn't really have tangible value. Now, there are things that are valuable to me that aren't marketable, but that's a very personal thing and I wouldn't expect anyone else to recognize or acknowledge that value.
Fortunately for you, you've already made fun of your "pointless" analogy, so I don't have to. That's a funny thing. Whenever you make an analogy, it pretty much falls on it's face at the first examination and you declare "No analogy is perfect!". Yes, well, some are less perfect than others.
Here's an analogy for you. Consider that Slashdot is like a Karaoke Bar. The owners provide the machinery, the bar and the atmosphere. Some people throw out song suggestions that the proprietors agree are worthwhile. First, a famous recording by a professional is played (links), then the song is rendered by their own semi-professional lounge lizard staffers (editors) who try to make it interesting. They have a house punk band that I don't particularly care for (Katz). Generally, the atmosphere is fun and everybody seems to enjoy it. People are invited to do their own interpretation and people vote on various renditions. The stage backdrops are beer ads. Sometimes, you hear grumbling that some people don't want the beer ads there, but mostly nobody minds.
Some people are known to favor rude and obscene takes. There are separate rooms for people who just want to be rude and obnoxious (trolls). Sometimes, a troll gets on the main stage and is booed off with the appropriate produce thrown in their direction, but they are welcome on the side stages. In addition, there are rooms where there's tapes and instruments and people can play whatever they want (journals), provided free of charge...
The proprietor one night comments, in a long and tiring discussion about how a bunch of punks tried to take over the place one night and insisted on singing their own song on the main stage - even though it wasn't the featured song of the night - that most people come for the lounge lizard's performances and the audience participation time is of limited value. The comment is "I like the audience participation time, but that's not what people come here for."
Word gets around and many of those who like to get up every other song, possibly multiple times for the same song are outraged. They get together and plan a boycott for a time 4 weeks in the future. That'll show the insensitive owners the value they produce.
Problem is... People really do come to hear hear the professional recordings (links) and the lounge lizard's ham it up and maybe to occasionally try their hand at Karaoke themselves. Part of the problem is that the trolls and less-than-stellar performances can get old. The best performances are recorded and people gravitate to viewing stations where these can be played again.
We'll see if this isn't a better analogy for Slashdot.
As you say, we'll see what Slashdot is like April 21-28. Somehow, I think we'll see only people who really enjoy the atmosphere here, instead of people who feel that they make it what it is.
I hope that you'll find something about the week that will allow you and the other Blackouters to declare victory and go back to commenting, but if you don't, no big deal. You seem to view this as a static community, that the heart of it could leave and it would be dead. I've seen a lot of good commenters wander off to later be replaced by other ones. Seems like there's no limit to people's urge to get up on that stage and sing.
That's the real value of Slashdot to me. A place with a wide audience where I can try out my writing and reasoning skills and see the result of others doing the same. The rewards are in moderation. I don't need the editors to be stroking me all the time about how wonderful it is that I'm here. Rather, I feel grateful that they're providing the stage and that they seem to be working all the time to improve the place. Why, they even have provided complete blueprints for others to duplicate the environment at their establishment. What a bunch of great guys!
If you feel differently after your blackout, go find a community where the proprietors fawn over you. Good luck.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:2)
You've obviously taken it upon yourself to act as "Slashdot's Defender". More power to you, regardless of your skill at same. Unfortunately, you seem disinterested in reading what I write (or you deliberately misunderstand). You attack me personally and toss up the same argument over and over again. You refuse to acknowledge a point of view different from your own--even though several other Slashdotters seem to agree with portions of my statements--and when I throw up my hands in disgust, you accuse me of "not wanting to debate the matter".
Feh. Lame. And stubborn. Fortunately for you (since I think you're a troll), I'm a bit stubborn myself. I thought you would go for the "market" bit, since I was thinking of you when I wrote it.
First, corn has great value to corn farmers. It's the only thing of value that they produce. Seed, which is corn basically, is one of their most important raw materials.i.e, "But corn farmers wear overalls and drive tractors! Your analogy stinks!". Like I said, a pointless exception to the analogy. Worse, the point seems to have whizzed over your head, just out of reach. I won't explain it again--there's little point in reasoning with a rock.
Also, you're humor-impaired, or you wouldn't have reacted so gleefully to "So I'll just leave my pointless analogy where it stands". I know you think you made a Big Win, but I'm afraid most people would just see the humor and move on.
Your own analogy is subject to holes, vis:
People are invited to do their own interpretation and people vote on various renditions.
No. The discussion ensuing isn't an interpretation of a link. It isn't merely an aping of what was said: the discussion twists and winds away from the topic at hand quite often. Many times the link is Slashdotted--little "interpretation" can take place, but the discussion carries on regardless.
You also don't account for Ask Slashdot. This has no analog to a karaoke bar. People getting up and asking for requests? No. It's more like a guy getting up and asking the opinions of a wide audience, some of whom are professionals who can charge large for their advice. Some of whom, of course, are dolts. You takes your chances--but this is... not at all like a karaoke bar.
You also don't account for the fact that an unknown (but probably significant) number of new visitors to the "karaoke bar" come because they type words into a search engine, and come up with bits of the conversations, like... well, the karaoke bar analogy quickly starts to fall apart. I suppose you can put a ham radio in the karaoke bar and have random people all over the world scanning the ham frequencies to see if something interesting to them pops up, but I hope that you can see the ridiculousness of that.
Especially since there's no karaoke bar in the world like you describe--anybody can build an analogy with utterly fictional environs. "Slashdot is like an anthill where the ants have tiny ray guns and giant sneakers..."
For your own edification, the purpose of an analogy is not to perfectly mirror all aspects of the compared or contrasted entity--if it was, why bother constructing an analogy? Just describe the entity--it's less murky than duplicating the subtleties in analogs.
An analogy provides a different perspective on a limited range of points. Like getting a different view of a statue, to use another analogy. There, you've learned something new. The day isn't a waste.
However, unlike some, I choose to exercise my brain, step outside of stupid literalism and I see what you're getting at with your karaoke bar analogy. I'm able to look beyond your obsessive hatred of me and recognize your points. And I would agree with most of it.
The fundamental disagreement--which you've conveniently or idiotically ignored, I can't tell which--is whether the "audience interpretations" actually contribute more than is thought to the popularity of the "headliners". The only way to see that is for the audience to stop providing interpretations for a while.
I look forward to your next dose of blinkered vitrol.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:1)
As several other Slashdotters seem to disagree. That, of course, is irrelevant.
Let's see. Acknowledge. Hmmm... I suppose you mean in this context "to recognize as genuine or valid". Would that be what you mean? Would that mean that I couldn't violently disagree and point out flaws in your arguments? I don't know what I'm supposed to do here, sorry. Is there some sensitivity test that I fail if I don't acknowledge your view?
If I said soothing words about how I acknowledge your viewpoint as valid, would you debate me then? Of is the fact that I'm debating you at all mean that I somehow don't acknowledge your view?
I guess I'm confused about what my acknowledgement has to do with anything.
I got it. I noted that you were attempting to protect your fragile analogy by pointing out that all analogies were imperfect and that any criticism of your analogy was similar to criticism of it because "farmers wear overalls..."
I also note that you didn't defend your weak analogy at all. I also note that, while sometimes taking this civil tone, acting wounded that I would stoop to personal attack and accusing others of "vitrol" [sic], you yourself are not above comparing my acumen to that of a rock.
I neither conveniently nor idiotically ignored your point that the "audience interpretations" actually contribute more to the popularity of the "headliners". In fact, I explicitly acknowledged it:
I acknowledge your view and dismissed it.
What you don't seem to get is that, taken as a whole, the comments are a very mixed bag which offend as much as they enlighten. For Slashdot to explicitly reward commenters would just encourage meaningless commentary.
I believe that most who post comments here do it for the kick of it. They like to see their thoughts up in a high traffic medium and get them scored by the community.
They don't feel exploited, like you appear to, by the "editors". It's so bad with you, you can bearly bring yourself to spit out the word "editor" when referring to Taco and the gang. After all, what right have they to be called editors? They have infinite moderation points and they dare to pass judgement on my opinions of great value, eh?
Huh... and yet you insist it's not about your ego. Incredible!
Vitriol is in the eye of the beholder. If you find my criticism stinging, perhaps there is hope for you.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:2)
This is why I love the Internet:
Of is the fact that I'm debating you at all... It's so bad with you, you can bearly bring yourself..Be careful of what you mock, my friend. Mistyping happens, but spelling flames only display your intellectual vacuity.
As several other Slashdotters seem to disagree. That, of course, is irrelevant.
No, it is not. There are shades of gray between "I love Slashdot and all it does" and "I hate Slashdot and everything it touches", and both camps represented by you and me (using us as argumentative figureheads, not as titular Grand Poohbahs, which we certainly are not) fall into those gray areas. In fact, I'd say we are at the same level removed from the "I love Slashdot" pole rather than circling opposite poles.
Let's see. Acknowledge. Hmmm... I suppose you mean in this context "to recognize as genuine or valid". Would that be what you mean? Would that mean that I couldn't violently disagree and point out flaws in your arguments?
Sure, I mean "recognize as genuine or valid". And, sure, you can violently disagree. Thus far, between us, you are the only one who has implied that the other's point of view is wrong or verboten. When you started the "Boycott the Blackout", I expressly stated that I never expected everybody to agree, and indeed stated my respect for the opposing view [slashdot.org].
I noticed, too, that you've added a derivitive of "dictionary flame" to your earlier "spelling flame". So far, I'm not impressed.
I got it. I noted that you were attempting to protect your fragile analogy by pointing out that all analogies were imperfect and that any criticism of your analogy was similar to criticism of it because "farmers wear overalls..."
No, you didn't get it, as evidenced by your retort. I also notice that you still think an analogy has to be a perfect mirror of the subject of the analogy. This shows a fundamental misunderstanding of analogies.
Though, I'm not upset. Your arguing about the weakness of my analogies demonstrates the nit-picky nature of your attacks and weakens your position.
I also note that you didn't defend your weak analogy at all. I also note that, while sometimes taking this civil tone, acting wounded that I would stoop to personal attack and accusing others of "vitrol" [sic], you yourself are not above comparing my acumen to that of a rock.
Neither am I above postulating your mother's proclivity for swimming after troop ships. Once the juvenile in me is released, little can reign it in.
Your finding a weakness in the analogy is of no import. All analogies have weaknesses. Poking holes in analogies is a fine excercise for the small-minded, but I was hoping for a more substantial debate.
I neither conveniently nor idiotically ignored your point that the "audience interpretations" actually contribute more to the popularity of the "headliners". In fact, I explicitly acknowledged it:
No, you don't acknowledge it: you parody it as the ravings of a group of purile imbeciles. You acknowlege it in the same fashion as I would be acknowledging your viewpoint if I stated, "The people opposed to the noble aims of the blackout to improve Slashdot are the servile factotums of the status quo, who would prefer to go down on the 'editors' than to stand up for their rights".
You dismiss the other side's viewpoint. While I'm no friend of Relativists, as elsewhere, there are alternative viewpoints that are fully as valid as your own. I believe mine to be one.
We fundamentally disagree on a single point: that the community built around the comments on Slashdot are the primary reason for Slashdot's success.
Once we agree, pro or con, on the above issue, the other branch points fall (nearly) into line. We would agree on the danger of misunderstanding that issue and how that misunderstanding can lead to the weakening of the community.
If we agree that comments are just a frill, then yes, Slashdot is providing a community service with the comment code it writes.
If we agree that comments and their community are a primary reason for Slashdot's success, then we can agree on the importance of making the "editors" themselves aware of that stance.
You have not to my satisfaction acknowledged the point of view that comments are a (if not the) primary success of Slashdot. Instead, you dismiss it and focus on "debating" the sub-points of that point of view. Taken in that light, of course the sub-points are wrong and stupid. If their root is ignored, then they are obviously out-of-line with reality. This primary misunderstanding of yours is the fundamental reason I find "debating" you to be pointless and fruitless.
What you don't seem to get is that, taken as a whole, the comments are a very mixed bag which offend as much as they enlighten. For Slashdot to explicitly reward commenters would just encourage meaningless commentary.
What? There is an example of pure horseshit--please show me where I say that Slashdot should explicitly reward commenters.
Or are there new rules? Can I make up stuff about you as well?
I believe that most who post comments here do it for the kick of it. They like to see their thoughts up in a high traffic medium and get them scored by the community.
...and you can write that up as the cover story for Duh magazine. I post comments because I like to share my opinion. I post because I'd like to help somebody. Hell, I post just to piss people off sometimes. Individual reasons vary, but equal in their importance to the subject at hand. The reasons are unimportant--the value therein is the point.
They don't feel exploited, like you appear to, by the "editors".
Some do, and they are joining the blackout. Some don't, and they will ignore it. Do you see how it works?
It's so bad with you, you can bearly bring yourself to spit out the word "editor" when referring to Taco and the gang. After all, what right have they to be called editors? They have infinite moderation points and they dare to pass judgement on my opinions of great value, eh?
What? Huh? Crikey, you've got me confused with somebody else. Infinite mod points are not my bugaboo. Go troll another pond for that one.
I disparage their appropriation of the title of editor because they aren't editors. I've known and worked with real editors (and even, way back in the day, used to be one) for magazines and newspapers. First, they know and understand the rules of grammar and spelling (cheap shot, maybe, but a fact nonetheless), or at least have somebody who does understand them check their work. Second, they mold and direct the direction of their publication (and therefore take responsibility for same). Or does your paper print every letter to the editor it receives? Third, they are a hard-nosed, thick-skinned lot. They don't cop a wounded attitude every time somebody criticizes them. They certainly don't subscribe to or parrot the notion that they are "providing" the paper at no (or a nominal) cost, and thus deserve adulation for their benevolent goodness. Fourth, they listen to their readership. If a columnist is a complete idiot, or one of said columns is a piece of shit, they send it back for a rewrite or dump it. If a comic is terribly offensive, they axe it and replace it. Fifth, they somehow manage to control the workflow enough so that, to name one, the NY Times doesn't post the same story two days in a row.
They can call themselves webmasters or story approvers, or any damn thing, but editors they are not. However, this too is an opinion I don't expect everybody to agree with, and I'll accept that somebody might hold a different point of view.
Huh... and yet you insist it's not about your ego. Incredible!
My ego is beside the point. You are deflecting the argument from the weakness of your position by mentioning it. The reverse could be argued: your ego knows no bounds if you think that everybody on Slashdot agrees with your opinion on the value of comments to Slashdot.
Actually, since I recognize that others may disagree, and you do not, I'd say that of the egos manifested here, mine is dwarfed in comparison.
Vitriol is in the eye of the beholder. If you find my criticism stinging, perhaps there is hope for you.
Stinging? Hardly. Vitriol does not imply stinging--criticism is stinging, vitriol is bitterly abusive. Which, in case you missed it, implies a weaker position than criticism does.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:1)
Be careful of what you mock, my friend. Mistyping happens, but spelling flames only display your intellectual vacuity.- I would stoop to personal attack and accusing others of "vitrol" [sic],
Of is the fact that I'm debating you at all... It's so bad with you, you can bearly bring yourself..Was there a spelling flame there? None was intended. I always put an [sic] where I note that the text is literal in a quote and others might be confused by the usage.
I'll remember that you don't like to have your errors pointed out in the future.
I'm not sure of the rules here. I thought that to explore analogies you point out how they don't apply and how they do so that you can understand the subject in terms of a different model. Some of this will involve poking holes.
I always thought that was the nature of debating with analogies. I guess you think that analogies are religous experiences or children's craft work, to be appreciated as they are without logical analysis.
Sure, all analogies have weaknesses. Your's are so weak you spend no effort in defending them.
Gee, what a facile understanding you seem to have of my positions. Funny that I explicitly acknowledged the view that no analogies were perfect in this very thread when I said in in this comment [slashdot.org]:
Since you won't propose any substantive result for your protest, I have to attempt to divine it is that would please you. Others who support the Blackout have proposed this sort of thing. It may not be your position, but it is on-topic for a general discussion about the Blackout.
I think the community is the primary reason for Slashdot's success. This community is built of many things. The attitude and atmosphere, the story selection, Slash and a commitment to Open Source and yes, even the comments. Comments aren't a "frill", they are an important part, but not the "primary reason for Slashdot's success", I feel. I note that a lot of communities, even one's very similar to this one, have comments, but few enjoy the same success.
I don't think you can view the comments in isolation as the reason for the success. Further, I do think the editors have repeatedly shown a commitment to supporting comments and those who comment. If you want to take one quote from Taco and blow it's significance way out of proportion, well, you can focus on what you choose, I guess.
Setting editorial policy and selection of stories from contributors is the primary function of editors in most media. If you want to focus on their failings and insist that they can't really be called editors, you're welcome to your view, I guess.
You can call them what you like, but I think by not calling them by their chosen title, you intend it as an insult. And you wonder why Taco doesn't respond to your criticisms? It's sometimes difficult to respond to people who are so openly disdainful of you.
Talk about strawmen! When have I ever said that "others may not disagree"? What would it matter if I did? I guess I don't always acknowledge a position that I violently disagree with, but that doesn't mean that I don't recognize the position. In fact, I have to "recognize" it to debate it, I would think.
My Random House Dictionary of the American Language, 2nd Edition, Unabridged, lists "stinging criticism" as one of the definitions. I always thought that's what vitriol meant, coming from it's chemistry roots. I can see where it has other definitions that you intended in this case.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:2)
I thought for a moment that you had revealed yourself as an ordinary, though clever, troll with that statement. A reasonable person would see that your quoting of "vitrol" and adding the [sic] to indicate my error would indicate a mocking tone. Your excuse is lame and grasping. I figured I was in for Round 12 of the Mutual Mental Masturbation Tournament. However, from all your dross, I gleaned a spoonful or two of silver, down below.
I'm not sure of the rules here. I thought that to explore analogies you point out how they don't apply and how they do so that you can understand the subject in terms of a different model. Some of this will involve poking holes.
When you lose sight of the main point and spiral off into la-la land, the debating of the correctness of analogies becomes pointless. You cannot find a hole in an analogy and declare the point dead because of it.
This is mere semantics however. We have different styles of argument that ne'er shall meet.
I always thought that was the nature of debating with analogies. I guess you think that analogies are religous experiences or children's craft work, to be appreciated as they are without logical analysis.
That's a fair-ish description. An analogy can shed light on misunderstanding; it can provide an alternate viewpoint; it can even be used for humorous effect. An argument can never be built entirely on them, because they are unsturdy things.
Sure, all analogies have weaknesses. Your's are so weak you spend no effort in defending them.
Because defending analogies is the quickest way to spiral into the aforementioned la-la land. I'm like the fat guy in the Death Star trench; "Stay on target! Stay on target!" (another analogy, I'm afraid--or is that a simile? Whatever.)
Gee, what a facile understanding you seem to have of my positions....
Since you won't propose any substantive result for your protest, I have to attempt to divine it is that would please you.and then
Physician, heal thyself.
Others who support the Blackout have proposed this sort of thing. It may not be your position, but it is on-topic for a general discussion about the Blackout.
I have expressed my position repeatedly. And with short, one syllable words, too. It is not germane to our discussion, because it is not my position. I've stated elsewhere that others are joining for reasons of their own, and that they can speak with their own voice.
I will admit to cowardice, here. I cannot open that door of speaking for others on the matter of rewarding comment posters, because that leaves me with the (admittedly) unenviable position of defending all participants (or, at least, adherents) to the blackout. If I speak for the Reward the Posters crowd, I would be obligated to speak for the Malda is the Anti-Christ Crowd. I ain't going there, brother.
I think the community is the primary reason for Slashdot's success. This community is built of many things. The attitude and atmosphere, the story selection, Slash and a commitment to Open Source and yes, even the comments. Comments aren't a "frill", they are an important part, but not the "primary reason for Slashdot's success", I feel. I note that a lot of communities, even one's very similar to this one, have comments, but few enjoy the same success.
And here, finally, something real we can argue about, rather than swinging our dicks about.
I do agree the community is complex--that is why I openly mocked the_quark's easy and simplistic equations showing Slashdot profitability forcasts. It's too complex (and too new) for that.
I would posit that the comments and the culture are one--a perpetual machine, feeding itself. To remove the comments is detrimental to everything (not that I'm suggesting they intend or even consider doing that). Even--and I'm stretching here, I know it--the trolls have a place in the ecosystem, if only to provide color and contribute to the community's sense of self. "Slashdot? The goatse.cx/penis bird/Alan Thicke is dead place?"
As to other communities and their comments, what you say is true. However, Slashdot has been around a long time in comparison with most other sites, and thus has a more developed culture (both in the "native culture" and "yoghurt culture" sense) than most web sites. Plus, Slashdot has the (questionable?) priveledge of attracting a smart and discerning demographic. That's a valuable commodity (and a huge pain in the ass, as evidenced by me, you, and others who rail endlessly about matters) that few can lay claim too. stileproject.com has a thriving comment culture, but who gives a shit about scat afficionadoes? *rim shot*
Slashdot is also unique in it's value-add: Motley Fool might have a swell community, but really, the community can go *pffft*, and the column will continue to be a success. I would argue that Slashdot, whose value-add to the community is the conflux of a community's Web discoveries or Hot Links in a single point of contact, would be irrevokably harmed by the dismissal of comments.
I don't think you can view the comments in isolation as the reason for the success. Further, I do think the editors have repeatedly shown a commitment to supporting comments and those who comment. If you want to take one quote from Taco and blow it's significance way out of proportion, well, you can focus on what you choose, I guess.
To a point, I would agree that comments are not the sole reason for Slashdot's success. Neither is air the sole reason for my continued existence on this earth, yet without it I wither and die.
I do extrapolate a minor comment into a larger picture, but that is because it represents to me a dangerous attitude--that comments and the community are placed in a "cost" column, rather than an "asset" column. It is dangerous, too, to assume that people who visit Slashdot don't care about the comments. Whether they view them or not is irrelevant--the producers of content for the site cannot be so dismissed as unimportant because without them the flavor of the site is damaged, and can spiral the overall quality of the site downwards. It is more complex than (cost of bandwidth) + (cost of DB CPU power) - (revenue from eyeballs).
From your user id, I can assume that you've been here a while. Do you detect a downward trend in overall quality? Is there too much YRO, not enough Hardware? Too many Microsoft, not enough It's Funny, Laugh? Whatever the trend, it is a reflection of the community that feeds the Beast. It may be that the community is moving in a direction that will become distasteful to me--an endless cycle of "MS-sucks-Linux-rules-Yet-another-case-mod" repeats. Perhaps that is the inevitible direction--entropy wins again. I cannot say, but I can make an attempt to nudge it back to the Way It Used To Be.
You want a hard-and-fast good outcome for me? Here's one--assuming the blackout is of some success, Malda acknowledges that perhaps he missed the whole point of Slashdot. He opens a non-closing, ongoing thread on improving Slashdot's (comments|profitability|looks|whatever). A different thread than the normal Slashdot fare--something where stupid trolls and crapflooders are tossed and the polls can have a real meaning, rather than CowboyNeal options.
Malda has complained that he gets a hundred of the same suggestions--this is because we cannot act as a community on this matter, and Malda doesn't scale. He gets frustrated and we get shortchanged.
The previous probably has a multitude of problems, of that I'm sure. Perhaps that's a good value-add for Slashdot subscribers? They get a place on the Improve Slashdot Server, where we can discuss things like this? I dunno, but that shows where my feelings lie a bit better.
Re:Producing confusion, not consuming servers! (Score:1)
Yeah. I have to regretfully admit that I've been more than a bit of an ass in all these discussions. I've generated way more heat than light and I do apologize.
I do feel strongly about all this. I did try to apologize for the tone in our first discussion over in my Journal, but the rhetoric spiraled out of control. I've been posting at 1 to spare most people this, but somehow I think that's a bad idea... Better not to post at all.
Things always seem to go downhill, everywhere. The one constant has been the Malda. He is a real, warts and all, Linux advocate with an attitude. I'd hate to see it all replaced by VA plain vanilla corporate robo-editors, even if they didn't have duplicate posts and their grammar was Chicago Style Guide quality.
Well, there are these Journals.
Boring week.. (Score:2)
What on earth will I do with all that extra time?
It'll never work! (Score:1)
Join my cause! [slashdot.org] There's a whole lot less work involved.