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
You mean the same moderating system that hasn't given me mod points in 4 or 5 years?
The slashdot system seems to be relatively hard on people who post one-liner smartass comments all the time. If we look back through your recent history [slashdot.org] then we don't see a lot that is likely to attract the karma-positive moderations. I suspect it also helps if you include a little context with <quote>s of what you're talking about. Otherwise it is too easy for people doing metamodding to not understand what you're talking about (no, you don't need to quote the whole lot. Just the relevant sentence or two).
Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Age and quality. (Score:2)
You mean the same moderating system that hasn't given me mod points in 4 or 5 years?
The slashdot system seems to be relatively hard on people who post one-liner smartass comments all the time. If we look back through your recent history [slashdot.org] then we don't see a lot that is likely to attract the karma-positive moderations. I suspect it also helps if you include a little context with <quote>s of what you're talking about. Otherwise it is too easy for people doing metamodding to not understand what you're talking about (no, you don't need to quote the whole lot. Just the relevant sentence or two).