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
Of course, and as others have said, who choose to use and to read Slashdot in the first place. It is a very interesting community and I would believe, vastly more influential than what is suggested by the conventionally self-deprecating comments.
I love Slashdot so much that I often find myself worried about the possibility of organized attempts to manipulate the system. The next topic (the 100, 001st): Virtual Money For Real Lobbying, address this very issue, but about other discussion groups. I must say t
I noticed the same thing in one of the climate articles - the "skeptic" viewpoint was being modded up and others were being modded down, even when the skeptic was on a clearly losing side of an argument.
Even if moderation in that thread devolved to simple agreeing or disagreeing with the poster, I find it hard to believe that the majority of slashdotters who had mod points agree with the "skeptics" more than everyone (including scientists) who were posting logical rebuttals and better information. Browsing at +2 or higher means seeing only the "skeptic" side of the argument, and it's not because they are correct or made better posts!
Age and quality. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
I credit the moderation system.
Of course, and as others have said, who choose to use and to read Slashdot in the first place. It is a very interesting community and I would believe, vastly more influential than what is suggested by the conventionally self-deprecating comments.
I love Slashdot so much that I often find myself worried about the possibility of organized attempts to manipulate the system. The next topic (the 100, 001st): Virtual Money For Real Lobbying, address this very issue, but about other discussion groups. I must say t
Re:Age and quality. (Score:2)
I noticed the same thing in one of the climate articles - the "skeptic" viewpoint was being modded up and others were being modded down, even when the skeptic was on a clearly losing side of an argument.
Even if moderation in that thread devolved to simple agreeing or disagreeing with the poster, I find it hard to believe that the majority of slashdotters who had mod points agree with the "skeptics" more than everyone (including scientists) who were posting logical rebuttals and better information. Browsing at +2 or higher means seeing only the "skeptic" side of the argument, and it's not because they are correct or made better posts!