Comment And now with linebreaks... (Score 2, Interesting) 146
Sorry, I figured Slashdot automatically converted linebreaks...
I can say that this "article" is quite off base. I own a fairly busy political debate forum. We're a moderated forum by choice. We have a clear set of rules in place aimed specifically at maintaining quality and discouraging quantity, regardless of whatever opinion someone may present, and we have a group of moderators who cover the entire political spectrum.
We've been around less than six years (compared to the 8-9 years in the article), and we sit at just short of a quarter million posts. Who cares? Post count only matters for those who believe quantity is more important than quantity. I see all these forums that are proud of their massive volume of content, yet it is clear they haven't placed nearly as much emphasis on ensuring that their sites offer anything resembling quality.
The "censorship" claims are a load of bushwa. Censorship is silencing at the hand of government. On a privately owned and funded website, there is no such thing as censorship. A person has just as much right to espouse the positive aspects of polygraph testing at an anti-polygraph website as a person who stands at the front door of a Ford dealership and tells everyone walking in that Chevy offers a superior product. And a member at any forum has the right to find a different forum to post their dribble.
What he have here is a moderator at a website-- one who as an individual has over 15% of the total post count of the "uncensored" forum and who single-handedly is only 300 posts short of the total post count at the opposing forum-- trying to make his site of choice look good with the forum-equivalent of a press release. And as we all know, you can't post it on the internet if it's not true.
My site has been on the opposing side of this type of situation. We've been accused of everything: They're too strict. They're biased. They censor. They ban people for disagreeing. They take the fun out of political debate.
I've heard it all. I've been at it long enough to know that my site-- much like these two polygraph sites with radically opposing positions-- is not a perfect fit for everyone. Some people like moderated forums, some like the unmoderated forums. If someone leaves our site for another site because the other site is a better fit, so be it. It doesn't mean we're in competition with the other site. It simply means that one particular person is more comfortable at a different site.
But I like quality. I would rather have 10 members with 10 good posts apiece than 1,000 members with 1,000 posts apiece that consist of nothing buy smilies. But wow would a post count of 1,000,000 sure look better than 100. Looks, of course, can be deceiving.
BTW, I've been lurking at Slashdot for years and this is the first headline that got me to comment. Please be nice.
Mike
I can say that this "article" is quite off base. I own a fairly busy political debate forum. We're a moderated forum by choice. We have a clear set of rules in place aimed specifically at maintaining quality and discouraging quantity, regardless of whatever opinion someone may present, and we have a group of moderators who cover the entire political spectrum.
We've been around less than six years (compared to the 8-9 years in the article), and we sit at just short of a quarter million posts. Who cares? Post count only matters for those who believe quantity is more important than quantity. I see all these forums that are proud of their massive volume of content, yet it is clear they haven't placed nearly as much emphasis on ensuring that their sites offer anything resembling quality.
The "censorship" claims are a load of bushwa. Censorship is silencing at the hand of government. On a privately owned and funded website, there is no such thing as censorship. A person has just as much right to espouse the positive aspects of polygraph testing at an anti-polygraph website as a person who stands at the front door of a Ford dealership and tells everyone walking in that Chevy offers a superior product. And a member at any forum has the right to find a different forum to post their dribble.
What he have here is a moderator at a website-- one who as an individual has over 15% of the total post count of the "uncensored" forum and who single-handedly is only 300 posts short of the total post count at the opposing forum-- trying to make his site of choice look good with the forum-equivalent of a press release. And as we all know, you can't post it on the internet if it's not true.
My site has been on the opposing side of this type of situation. We've been accused of everything: They're too strict. They're biased. They censor. They ban people for disagreeing. They take the fun out of political debate.
I've heard it all. I've been at it long enough to know that my site-- much like these two polygraph sites with radically opposing positions-- is not a perfect fit for everyone. Some people like moderated forums, some like the unmoderated forums. If someone leaves our site for another site because the other site is a better fit, so be it. It doesn't mean we're in competition with the other site. It simply means that one particular person is more comfortable at a different site.
But I like quality. I would rather have 10 members with 10 good posts apiece than 1,000 members with 1,000 posts apiece that consist of nothing buy smilies. But wow would a post count of 1,000,000 sure look better than 100. Looks, of course, can be deceiving.
BTW, I've been lurking at Slashdot for years and this is the first headline that got me to comment. Please be nice.
Mike
