It's not exactly normal, though defining a single normal would be difficult. I would say it's normal for a story about Mozilla. They've pretty much destroyed all the nerd cred they once had.
I agree that adding limits like that is just adding potential for abuse. However, that doesn't mean there is no possibility for an edit option that is both sane and relatively safe.
My favored option at the moment is to put an "Add Edit" button on a person's account page. (Where it shows your previous posts.) The "Add Edit" button would give you a box where you could type in updates, corrections or whatever as a clearly delineated separate addition to your post. It would look like what we see on featured articles from time to time when new information becomes available.
Edit 2016-07-19 18:57CDT: It wouldn't be easy to abuse as the original content would remain, but it would make it possible to correct or clarify when appropriate.
Edit 2016-07-19 18:59CDT: Maybe limit the number of characters to something small and the number of edits to a maximum of two or three.
This sounds like a recipe for saying something popular to get modded up to visibility quickly, then editing it to inject your particular spam or trolling preferences while you've got the greatest visibility possible.
I would rather see an "Append Edit" option which would allow you to add something to your post, within the post, but clearly delineated as a separate entry. We see these on the the featured articles all the time.
That's probably all it can run. Typically specially designed systems need the ability to configure the OS radically differently than has been done previously which requires source code. Microsoft provides source code, as does IBM, in some special situations, but mostly it tends to be Linux that is used first. Consider the reasoning behind the OS chosen for the fastest computers in the world.
Systemd? Probably because serious computer engineers don't have any trouble dealing with the irritation that systemd causes. (The rest of us may, but if you have enough smarts to handle building a specialized chip, then systemd isn't really a challenge.)
Hell, if Bill Gates is having problems giving away his chickens . . . I'll take a couple per week! Rotisserie, in a Burrito, or just plain Fried.
This is kind of my sentiment. Why would you refuse a gift that doesn't come with strings? I realize the gift is intended for a specific type of use, and not everyone agrees that the particular use is the best way to help, but even if it doesn't get used as intended or doesn't succeed in the intended goal, it's still useful.
If Bill Gates sends me a handful of chickens I don't or need, I won't refuse them. I will try to sell them or stock up my freezer and won't become a chicken rancher, but I'll take them. If he sends me a hundred thousand chickens, I'll go into business briefly as a chicken rancher until I can sell the business or maybe if it's profitable enough, my IT career will become my hobby and I'll take it on as my full time job.
So, yeah, maybe I wish Bill were using his resources a little differently, but he's willing to try to do something good and stopping him from even being allowed to try based on politics just irritates me.
I was a 'none of the above' because I don't exclusively use my real name or not use my real name, because I have two accounts, one with my real name and one without. I created the one without my real name with zero friends and zero likes because I am often presented with the option to log into something with facebook and don't trust the company with access to my real information.
On a related note, I like using Google+ to log into things because I can select exactly which circles (none) I want to give the company access to.
Nice wording. By phrasing it so that a link needs to quote him specifically saying something you specify, you narrow legitimate potential replies, but lets take a look at what the interwebs are saying:
And then there's this headline "5 QUOTES THAT PROVE DONALD TRUMP HATES MEXICANS"
Now, I don't think Trump actually hates Latinos but I do think he's trying to capture the votes of a lot of people who either fear or hate Mexico and illegal immigrants. I think he panders to the lowest parts of our society by carefully selecting rhetoric that gives them the idea that he agrees with them and feels the same ignorant hatred they do.
It's a politician's trick. You say something that sounds good to people you don't want to actually be caught agreeing with while carefully avoiding actually saying you agree with their opinions.
For most voters, sadly that's enough. People are flocking to Trump in droves because he represents the golden trinity of an electable candidate. 1 - He is running on one of the two parties tickets, 2 - He has a strong claim to being an outsider angered by the insiders, 3 - He stays in the headlines.
Say what you like about the man, but he's good at getting people to support him. The fact that he uses short small words to make emotional impact makes him sound silly and sometimes irritating to me, but it sticks in people's minds and gives them things they can quote and feel opinions about. He's being compared to historical villains who did the same thing, but really there have been all sorts of politicians who have done the same thing. To me he often sounds stupid, but when he's not pandering to the masses and actually speaking like a normal person, I've heard him sound like a sensible human being. That makes me think it has to be intentional.
People really don't care about the quality of journalism, they just want brand names they can pledge their loyalty to. The CSM is a highly respected organization that does good research and reporting.
Anybody who assumes the organization is as messed up as the religious dogma has no credibility themselves.
Open source the code. Allow code enhancement submissions. Don't be afraid of competition, be afraid of not keeping the quality high enough.
Never would have happened under Dice. I wouldn't have even bothered asking. I'm actually expecting no change on this front, but I can't help but ask.
I get what y86 is saying, but I think there should be some way to improve the system without sacrificing the drawbacks. Maybe additional votes for a 5 point comment only have a +0.75 option, then comments at 6 get a 0.50 option and so on, full on Zeno if that's what it takes.
There are times I want to skim the best of the best comments because I don't have time to go through 200 +5 rated comments. Toward that end, I'd like to be able to set my preferences to "top 10" or "top 50" or "top 100" instead of only being able to set the minimum ranking.
1) Remove the mobile version of the site. When I load it on my cell phone, I spend more time trying to find the link to the full site than scanning headlines
2) Make the slider bar to show more levels of comments work on mobile
Those two things seem a little contradictory. I second the second. I'd really like a good mobile site. Making it functional would be a good start, but I'd really like to see it go beyond merely functional and turn into the site I want to use on my phone rather than the one I'd need to.
Should we weight firehose voting more heavily so that highly voted stories make the front page regardless of an editor?
What I'd like is an option in preferences to have the highest firehose voted stories included on the front page. I already get preview stories highlighted in red, maybe have the five highest ranked firehose stories highlighted in yellow.
The temptation will be to push them as a default option, but resist that temptation. Advertise it like the firehose is advertised (and there ought to be a link on the footer all the time) but don't make it the default for established users and only make it the default for new users if adoption and feedback are consistently positive.
We cannot command nature except by obeying her. -- Sir Francis Bacon