1. Who are you "PerlJedi (2406408) who works for Slashdot" and what is your expertise since you are a brand new hire?
You are right, I haven't worked here very long. I am just a software engineer fortunate enough to have landed what I think of as my dream job. I have been a slashdot reader for much, much longer than I have worked here though. I created this account after I started here to use as my "official" slashdot account.
I love slashdot. I love being a geek. I am fortunate enough to work for a website that I enjoy, and I am hoping to use my position here to keep slashdot as a great website for geeks and geek culture. So I haven't been working here from the begining when it was just Rob and his buddies, but I'm here now, and I'm doing my best to keep slashdot going as a fun and interesting site for news and geek culture.
2. I am noticing the quotes on "Expert". Either the people really will be experts, or else they'll be Astroturfing "Experts" in quotes. That is, unless your grammar just sux and you put gratuitous quotes which then accidentally totally flipped your meaning
I put quotes on expert because these will be people that the sponsor considers experts, which does not necissarily mean that I, or slashdot, would call them experts.
3. I bet no one cross-referenced which of these
You are correct, there is nothing to stop the sponsor from having employee's go out and create non-official slashdot accounts to moderate things the way they want them to be moderated. Of course there is nothing to stop them from doing that anyway, even if they aren't sponsoring a question.
4. Companies don't care about "being made a fool of" with the top 25% if the Astroturfing raises sales with the newer 75% userbase. Sure, some companies will provide a legit expert, but we're watching like a hawk. Slashdot has seen our comments on editorial quality. We've made fools of you for years. Not like it really helped. (Probably some, far from enough.)
Really? You don't think that companies care whether or not they look foolish in the public eye?
The sponsor will not be given any special treatment with regards to comment score and moderation. The "expert" the sponsor will be providing to take part in the conversation will have an account which is "badged", meaning that it will be visually apparent when the a comment was posted by the sponsor. Beyond the visual treatment that will make clear which comments are made by a representative of the sponsor, they will have no special power. They will not be able to hide comments they don't like, or highlight those they do.
We want to offer a sponsor the chance to have a serious conversation with our audience, but we are not going to be giving them a soap box to stand on. If they want to engage with our audience, they will need to understand that means taking the good with the bad.
I come to slashdot to get answers not marketing BS. Now you are going to give some company "authority?"
I think an importantent distinguishing difference here will be that the "experts" the sponsor is providing have no special powers over the conversation. The sponsor will not be able to censor what the average slashdot user has to say. I believe that the average slashdot reader will not be fooled by a companies marketing BS, which will in the end force the sponsor to actaully engage in a serious manner with our readers lest they themselves be made a fool of.
Think of it this way: When a company sponsor's a question, and provides someone they classify as an "expert" to take part in the conversation, you will have the opportunity to get real answers to your real questions.
"The common wisdom in optics is that if you have a metal film with very small holes and you plug the holes with metal, the light transmission is blocked completely," said Chou, the Joseph Elgin Professor of Engineering. "We were very surprised."
Let the machine do the dirty work. -- "Elements of Programming Style", Kernighan and Ritchie