What's amazing to me isn't that/. has carried on this long, but rather that the comment quality on here hasn't gone the way of most social new sites. It seems that in general as a social news site ages, matures, and grows, the comment quality follows an inverse pattern. Or more simply, as the number of users approaches infinity, the comment quality approaches 4chan. Digg used to be a decent site for discussion; now you'd be laughed at for even suggesting that the comments might be notable. Reddit is quickl
As do I. Having comments separated by funny/insightful/etc, capping them at +5, and only letting a select few upvote is a surprisingly effective strategy.
Also, the ordering of comments. Sites where the most recent comments come first encourage repetition, circling around the same arguments and bad quality, whereas a thread you can follow allows picking up an existing conversation on top of arguments already made.
Actually, Slashdot has just the opposite problem. If you want people to read your post, you're better off replying to the GNAA First Post versus making a root-level post at the bottom of the page.
A whole lot of slashdot discussions are really only one or two root-level threads
Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Also, the ordering of comments. Sites where the most recent comments come first encourage repetition, circling around the same arguments and bad quality, whereas a thread you can follow allows picking up an existing conversation on top of arguments already made.
Re:Age and quality. (Score:2)
Actually, Slashdot has just the opposite problem. If you want people to read your post, you're better off replying to the GNAA First Post versus making a root-level post at the bottom of the page.
A whole lot of slashdot discussions are really only one or two root-level threads