On the Subject of Slashdot Article Formatting

Every day we post dozens of stories on Slashdot. Every day we read hundreds of submissions. And as most of the people who work behind the scenes are in fact human, we occasionally make mistakes, posting typos, or grammatical errors. Today I address matters of article formatting. What I think matters before I click 'save', and what I don't.

I'm not talking here about "Should a story be posted" or "I have 9 submissions about the same thing, which is best." Today I'm talking entirely about what I try to do when I decide that some story is good for Slashdot. What changes I think matter before posting it. Picking which stories to post is a big part of our job, matters of style and formatting matter too. Today I try to address what things I think are important before I click 'Save'.

The most important thing is what I'll call my most-important-link rule. Often submitters submit stories with like 8 links. I try to remove any link that doesn't substantially add to the article. For example linking ZDNet.com directly, and then a second URL to an article on ZDNet is redundant. Or if your link is to Joe's Blog, where he essentially says nothing except "I found this article". I'm not opposed to having several URLs in a story, but I want to make sure that they each serve a real purpose.

Next is proper anchor texting. I fix the hyper text on the vast majority of submissions. People link the word 'Here' or 'Article' or 'CNN' and I find that very frustrating. I want the hypertext to be the most appropriate 2-3 words that tell you exactly what you're clicking on. I think that is absolutely essential. Every URL should matter, and every bit of hypertext should tell you exactly what it is you're going to get when you click that mouse button.

Another key component in Slashdot article formatting is to strip off the extra text in a submission. I have a mental image of how long a Slashdot story is. Many submissions are to long or to short. So I get out the scissors and start looking for sentences to cut.

Often a submission starts with a clause that says something to the effect of "Hey guys, I found this URL that says...". I'd much prefer to cut that out and get right to the meat. Likewise many submissions end with a call to action... "We should get those guys" or "Lets show them what Slashdot can do about it!". I yank those sorts of things. As a general rule, I want the story to be short, sweet, and direct. Anything that distracts from that, I want to chop out.

Likewise some submissions are simply a URL and a single sentence. Since I want my articles to be around the same size, this is my chance to put in my own words. I'll try to add a joke or opinion. Or just a fact that I thought was worth sharing from the article itself. It's often these phrases that comment posters get most up in arms about: irate readers commenting that I should not be allowed to post my views.

I consider this opinion to be simply ludicrous. Slashdot was spawned from what today would be called a blog. To be more precise, it came from MY blog. Where I posted almost nothing but my own opinions. But more blatantly, I could simply rewrite the entire thing, say exactly what I want to say, and post it as an anonymous reader. Or as a made up nickname. I don't do any of those things. I simply add my 2 bits at the end to the occasional story. Not only do I think this is desirable on Slashdot, I think it's essential.

Now let us talk about one of my secondary concerns: spelling and grammar. Let me be clear. As you are probably well aware, I don't think these are as important as the things I mentioned above. I want a Slashdot story to be focused, directing your attention to the URL in question. It needs to be not to long, not to short. Links should be clear. Spelling and Grammar are secondary issues.

Slashdot is not the Wall Street Journal. It is not The New York Times. Slashdot is an informal meeting ground. A town hall. A pub. A bulletin board in the quad on campus. Here people might not properly capitalize a proper noun. They might transpose letters in 'thier'. They might use jargon that isn't in oxford. And all of that is OK with me.

Now sometimes a sentence doesn't parse to me. I'm not opposed to correcting the grammar in a sentence if it just doesn't work. But I simply don't think that a typo or grammar error is a make or break problem for a Slashdot story.

Many users routinely email me to complain about such errors. I'm usually fairly flexible on these matters. If the error is blazingly bad, I will often correct it. Of course some users like to email me to tell me how much Slashdot sucks, how fat and lazy I am, and how the most terrible thing in the history of Slashdot is the fact that the 4th story down contains the word 'to' when it ought to contain the word 'too'. That missing 'o' is the greatest travesty on-line today! It's hard to take that seriously. Especially when people are rude.

As an aside, for awhile we actually had an editor reading Slashdot articles and correcting grammatical mistakes. Turns out it doesn't really matter much. People found other things to complain about. It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain. And they will find something to complain about no matter what. Perhaps by leaving a few typos on the site, I am making their day a little easier! Leave them some low hanging fruit I guess.

A a further side note to anyone who ever wants me to look at anything on Slashdot. If you e-mail me, include the URL. A comment mismoderated? A user who is misbehaving? A story with a typo? Include the URL. Don't say "The article about Novell" because there might be 3 in the last 2 days. Don't say "The last comment I posted" because it might be 2 hours and you might have posted since then. It takes you 3 seconds to cut and paste a URL. It might take me 3 minutes to find the content in question if you don't. That doesn't sound like much, but if it happens a couple dozen times, it adds up really fast. Do you want to stay an hour late at work today?

But back to the topic at hand, You are welcome to disagree with me on matters of grammar and spelling. And many of you do, very vocally in the forums. I would hope moderators would see such commentary as offtopic. A story about a new motherboard chipset has nothing to do with the proper use of "Its" and "It's".

The moderation system serves many purposes, but perhaps the most important is to provide a user, 24 hours later viewing at Score 2 or 3 an accurate pulse on the topic at hand. If the comment is not about the new motherboard chipset, that comment at least should not be modded 'insightful', and in many cases, ought to be modded offtopic of flamebait.

As with last week, I'm going to try to participate as best I can in the discussion. If major points arise I will update here. I think the real topic of this article is the formatting of Slashdot Stories: not moderation, the story selection process, and or story selection criteria. Please help by staying on topic so I can try to address these matters efficiently. And please don't email me directly- lets keep the discussion here in front of everyone so i don't have to answer dozens of you individually. Moderators, feel free to moderate good questions up to help me find them, and likewise if my answers are good, give those the thumbs up too so that readers can find them and save me from having to re-read questions i've answered already. Once again, I plan to do this as regularly as I can. If you have ideas for future discussions here, e-mail me... but I beg of you, wait until tomorrow!

Update Here is a further clarificatio on typo and grammar errors on Slashdot. I believe that Slashdot is a somewhat schizo place. A dozen voices stand side by side on the main page. Some of them will have proper grammar. Others won't. Just like a mailing list. Just like crappily written comments in some ancient piece of source code. Just like that email jotted out in seconds. Just like some bit of IRC chat you just read a few minutes ago.

Simply hiring a copy editor to purge these changes fundamentally alters the personality of the site, and my opinion is that alteration is for the worse. It might improve clarity to some percentage of readers who truthfully can't parse bad grammar or spelling. Likewise it might cut down on some offtopic meta threads in the forums. But the I think that it changes the flavor. The feeling. The tone of Slashdot.

Some people disagree with me. You are welcome to do so.

Another note about URL formatting. An interesting thread spawned in there about what text makes a proper hyper link. Given the example string:

CNN has an article about a sticky widget

What text should be linked?

There are 2 potential URLs in here, a CNN article, and the text 'CNN'. Some users think the words CNN should link to an article. Other users might link CNN directly to CNN, and the word 'article' to the article in question.

My stylistic preference is to only link 'a sticky widget' to the article. Not to link CNN directly to CNN.com (that link is redundant- I want only the most important links. And not 'article' because that tells you nothing about what you are clicking on.

Meta discussion on Slashdot is a substantial issue we intend to address in the moderation system redesign. Things like typos and grammar have a place on Slashdot, but today that place can only be described as 'Offtopic'. (And I think all moderators and meta moderators should keep that in mind). Our plans for dealing with 'Meta' discussion are best left for another editorial. In fact, I have one half written. Maybe next week.

Comments

don't short shrift grammar

[yagu]

Bravo Taco! Good points well made.

I would like to take slight issue about the importance of spelling and grammar, especially in the slashdot article itself. To your main point, the article is about something, not spelling and grammar. That is true. But correct spelling and grammar lend accuracy to the article and are not ancillary niceties. Too much carelessness around grammar and spelling leads to muddier thinking and sometimes requires extra interpretation from the readers.

Case in point from this very article, ninth paragraph, describing how long a slashdot article must be:

It needs to be not to long, not to short.

While it's mostly clear what you mean, the sentence could take on different meaning. For example, the "It needs to be not to long" could (easily in fact) be interpreted to mean the length of the article should be appropriate as not to leave the reader "longing" for more. And, the "not to short." could mean the article should have appropriate length to assure you have not "shorted" the reader. Nuances, yes, but appropriate (not perfect) grammar is important.

Again, thanks for the illumination of publishing policy. It really is useful!

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[gEvil (beta)]

Case in point from this very article, ninth paragraph, describing how long a slashdot article must be:

Good God, man! Didn't you read the article? Include the URL! : p

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[metlin]

You're right. It's hard for some of us not to look at grammatical or spelling errors and wince. Quite honestly, just how hard is it to read through something and check for the odd mistake? An occasional mistake or two is not a big deal, but the fact that Slashdot editors seem apathetical to this practice is what annoys me.

As a subscriber, there have been several times when I've pointed out mistakes, but they're seldom corrected.

The reason some of us hate errors is not because they are occasional, but because it's become a habit for Slashdot editors not to care about those errors.

Delay posting that article by five minutes - paste the content in a spelling and grammar checking tool, and you can eliminate a good chunk of the mistakes. How hard is that, really?

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[thewiltog]

And don't forget those readers for whom English is not their first language. What may be an obvious mis-spelling or grammatical error to a native english speaker may render the article (or reply) incomprehensible to someone who's having to look words up in a dictionary.

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[SIGFPE]

It's not just about wincing. The process of reading is pipelined. Humans can scan through text very quickly because while the eye is scanning one word you're parsing the sentence from a few words before and thinking about the meaning of what came before that. When you hit a grammatical or spelling error you cause a pipeline stall. If an incorrect word is used you can often continue for several more words before you discover that the sentence is impossible to parse forcing you to backtrack. Good writers intuitively know how to construct a sentence to lead you towards the correct parsing and make the process of reading as effortless as possible. The Slashdot editors often make reading a chore with readers being forced to scan sentences over and over again in an attempt to find a sensible reading.

People have been endeavouring to write well for centuries. It's funny how the Slashdot editors can suddenly decide that this entire tradition is worthless. Have they not noticed that writers have been trying to convey a message other than "I can spell" for aeons and yet still make the effort to spell correctly as a courtesy to their readers?

When you write text on a forum like Slashdot every minute you spend writing translates into thousands of minutes of reading. People would do well to remember that.

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[Golias]

Taco's comment here is quite telling:

As an aside, for awhile we actually had an editor reading Slashdot articles and correcting grammatical mistakes. Turns out it doesn't really matter much. People found other things to complain about.

So, what he's saying is, in his view, the complaints are the problem.

Headlines on his site which look completely moronic are only a problem because they generate complaints, not because they are a mess to read. Were it only not for these troublesome "Squeeky Wheel" users who dare to be critical of our piss-poor use and abuse of the English language, Slashdot would be perfect.

What a shitty attitude!

(But his attitude is only a problem in the sense that it provoked me to complain, of course. Clearly, I'm the real problem here, and if Taco ran this site like a professional, I'd find something else to bitch about.)

Re:don't short shrift grammar

[CmdrTaco]

Well what they are paying for is the ability to see the stories before everyone else. They are also given a window of opportunity to report errors- this system actually works quite well I think.

We have plans to solicit more feedback on accepted articles (good, bad, typo, dupe etc).

It's not a bad idea to give some random percentage of users a view of the future stories too, just to increase the amount of feedback we get before the general population gets it. The problem is that when you give users functionality "Randomly", it gets confusing. Witness the moderation system for numerous examples of problems with this randomness. Users constantly don't know that they have points or don't know what to do when they get them. And once they don't have them, they get ANGRY if they don't get them again. It creates a whole new class of problems!

Bloggers -- use this advice for your site!

[dada21]

Taco's "review" on article formatting is one that many of us should use and learn from -- especially anyone with a blog or an opinion site themselves.

The most important thing is what I'll call my most-important-link rule
I've actually been watching how articles are "formatted" for the past 2 months and tried to mimic it on one of my blogs. The result? More people clicking within that blog, staying on for up to 1/2 hour per visit. This is a good thing, it means that people like the content for whatever reason. If you're linking to other sites, make sure you find the link that really has all the information in total. Do some google searches before settling on the link you think is good. Don't link to 10 different sites all offering the same general information.

Next is proper anchor texting. I fix the hyper text on the vast majority of submissions.
I find that another of my blogs has better content than the previous, but it isn't read very deeply (if even past 1 page). I seriously believe this is because I would link to "here" or "article" instead of linking to "the housing bubble is about to burst."

Another key component in Slashdot article formatting is to strip off the extra text in a submission.
Of the 12 articles I've submitted to slashdot, the 3 that were accepted were posted almost verbatim -- I actually think it was because I left the editor with a good direction and a good article at link's end. The ones they rejected often were short articles, or opinion pieces with links to other sites with deeper information. I'm actually glad the editor at the time went to the link and read it (or probably did). Looking back, those submissions should have been rejected. I'd love to see an option on slashdot -- a checkbox saying "If rejected, show complete submission on user page as journal entry" so others can moderate our submissions on our journals. They won't moderate if this article is worthy, just comment on the submission. I'd love to know what others think about some of my submissions.

Anything that distracts from that, I want to chop out.
If you're a blogger, definitely listen to the part of Taco's "review" that talks about making generic comments like "I found this" or "Let's get these guys!" I hate blogs that write these little side comments. If I go to a site because of an opinion, I like to stick with sites that offer non-fluff text written by the opinion writer. I've seen newspaper columns that are all fluff content like that, and it drives me crazy.

It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain.
I believe that to be true. The more sites (/blogs) that I work on, mine or those of others, the more complaints I see from the same people, even between two totally different sites. I have one grammar nazi (I actually appreciate his e-mails even if I don't adapt) who has probably spent hours criticizing my grammar on different sites (and on slashdot). What is the old cliche about one's importance if others are criticizing you? By the way, Google Toolbar's spell checker is pretty amazing, I'm trying to make it a habit to use it on every textbox.

Side topic:
I tried Digg, but I didn't like the feel of it. Democracy, to me, is not a good solution for posting articles. I like having someone doing some work, and I completely understand the dupes we see (I've submitted a few in my life, thankfully none were accepted). Sometimes I'll post something insightful and end up with 100 e-mails in my Inbox from slashdot users, so I can completely understand how the average editor here is a bit overwhelmed.

My final remark is one question I haven't seen an answer to -- are slashdot editors paid, and is it reasonable compared to the amount of work they perform? If they're not paid (or if they're employees of the bigger picture), why do they put up with us?

Sorry, I couldn't help it...

[FalconZero]

Paragraph 5 : Many submissions are to long or to short.
Paragraph 11 : ..the fact that the 4th story down contains the word 'to' when it ought to contain the word 'too'. That missing 'o' is the greatest travesty on-line today!

I don't care too much for exact spelling either. (I spawned an entire thread about my misspelling of segue.), but I couldn't resist pointing this out. :)

I clicked too quickly...

[lbrandy]

I must have come to the site instantly as this was posted, beacuse the first time I clicked on "On the Subject of Slashdot Article Formatting", I got "Nothing to see here, please move along". I gave it a +5 funny.

Spealing n Grammer

[ergo98]

Now let us talk about one of my secondary concerns: spelling and grammar. Let me be clear. As you are probably well aware, I don't think these are as important as the things I mentioned above. I want a Slashdot story to be focused, directing your attention to the URL in question. It needs to be not to long, not to short. Links should be clear. Spelling and Grammar are secondary issues.

Slashdot posts, what, maybe two dozen "stories" a day? To support this Slashdot has a crew of paid, therefore professional, "editors". Is it really that much to ask that rudimentary spelling and grammar rules are obeyed?

Re:Spealing n Grammer

[CmdrTaco]

Amusingly enough, a professional editor DID read my editorial and correct the typos before it was set to post. I chose to keep my typos to prove a point.

Re:Spealing n Grammer

[Cutriss]

Who gives a shit about whether this is a professional business or not?

The point is that your audience is filled with people who are generally regarded as "above-average" in terms of intelligence. If you want them to take you seriously, you need to play the same ball that they do.

When you refuse to acknowledge our intelligence by ignoring spelling and grammar, you basically disrespect us as geeks. We went to spelling bees as kids, we got beat up for knowing big words in high school. If this is "News For Nerds", then treat us like we really are the Nerds you are supposed to be a member of.

Re:Spealing n Grammer

[AVee]

You do prove a point. Spelling errors distract from the content. It's happening right here...

"As a general rule, I want the story to be short, sweet, and direct. Anything that distracts from that, I want to chop out."

Thus spelling errors should be avoided. For that reason and that reason alone.

Disclaimer: English is not my native language, I really miss most spelling errors, I don't care about correct spelling, not even in my own language. But the only way to avoid spelling meta discussions really is to avoid spelling errors. Sad, but true.

Re:Spealing n Grammer

[CmdrTaco]

I should try to resummarize this and include this at the top just to end this since I'm tired of repeating myself.

I think that slashdot is stylistically more akin to a mailing list or blog than to the NYT or WSJ. We are informal. Which is what I want Slashdot to be. Casual. To hire a copy editor and purge all these things from Slashdot changes the tone of the site. It shifts us to another place. Some people think that change is good. I think that change is bad. This is a place where a dozen voices are heard on one page. Some will make a typo. Others a grammar error.

To be sure, one of the jobs of a traditional editor is to give a publication a unified voice. My decision with Slashdot is that our "Voice" is a little more schizo than the mainstream media.

You are welcome to disagree, and your points are all valid: some people can't see meaning through grammar error. But me, I'm used to mailing lists, bulletin boards, quickly jotted emails, badly written comments in source code etc etc. This is a stylistic decision.

Yes I could hire a copy editor. Yes every typo and grammar error could be removed. And I think that the tone of the site would be different. I personally don't believe that particular change to be an improvement.

Hey CmdrTaco

[tekiegreg]

Not meant to be critical, but I'm wondering if you're letting the flames and hate mail about posted articles get to your head. A good book to read is the 7 Habits of Highly effective people (ISBN: 0743269519 at your favorite bookstore). However in short from that book, I'm wondering whether or not you're letting outside factors you can't really control get to you. Unfortunately there will always be people who will simply not choose to read or ignore what you have to say and will always send you hate mail and flames regarding this. Don't let it get to your head, ever, or they've won.

Post the articles you enjoy, and others will follow; It's that simple really...

Re:Hey CmdrTaco

[smallpaul]

I think that what bothers us complainers is the claim that professionalism just doesn't seem to matter on SlashDot. It would be one thing for you to say: "I try hard on grammar and spelling but sometimes I slip up. I keep working on it and I'm getting better every day." It's another thing for you to say: "I just don't think that being a professional-quality editor is my job."

I make computer programs. People don't buy those programs for the spelling in dialog boxes. But I try hard to make the spelling correct. That's just professionalism, and professionalism shows respect for my customers. If a customer reports a grammar or spelling mistake in my software then I apologize and correct it. I don't try to say tht professionalism isn't my job. If you're providing a service for people then you should strive to do it right rather than claiming that it is good enough to get some aspects right and ignore others.

As an aside, for awhile we actually had an editor reading Slashdot articles and correcting grammatical mistakes. Turns out it doesn't really matter much. People found other things to complain about. It's almost as if some percentage of the population wants to complain. And they will find something to complain about no matter what. Perhaps by leaving a few typos on the site, I am making their day a little easier! Leave them some low hanging fruit I guess.

Nobody is asking you to be perfect and therefore shut up the complainers. They are asking you to acknowledge that professionalism is important and that perfection is something that is worth striving for. The frustrating thing is that your opening position is that getting things right (especially spelling, grammar and dupes) is not even a goal. Nowhere in your essay did you say that it is even something you are working on or concerned about.

If you started putting effort into these areas, then over time it would become just second nature. That's what happens with "real-world" editors. Being able to instantly notice spelling and grammar mistakes is a skill to be proud of, not to denigrate. (and no, I don't have that skill, editing is not part of my job)

Oh, come on

[ColonelPanic]

How would I react to a television broadcaster saying that lighting and focus weren't all that important? Or a radio station claiming that static was okay? Proper spelling, grammar, and usage are easy compared to the syntax of a programming language or shell. Get them right and I'll take you more seriously.

Re:clearly...

[jamie]

It reaks of amateurism when a story submission is rife with misspellings

You misspelled "reeks."

Arrogance so often claims to be humility

[ianscot]

Get them right and I'll take you more seriously.

Exactly. Dead fricking on.

Essentially Taco's argument here is that the site started as his blog, and that he wants to continue to regard it as the equivalent (to use your analogy) to a cable access talk show, rather than a polished source of news.

There's a middle ground, but the effort to clean up language would be so very, very beneath him. Apparently he wouldn't care how the picture quality was on his cable access station, and it's so very cool and informal of him not to give a rip, because he's really a content man.

I'm not a paying subscriber. Paying for a service entails certain expectations that Slashdot isn't meeting at the moment. The glaringly apparent laziness of the editors is the biggest mark against the site.

Proper attribution is key!

[geeber]

One of the things that drives me crazy is when the Slashdot article reads something like "Soandso writes 'blah blah blah etc etc blah blah blah'..." However, on closer inspection one sees that Soandso did not actually write the original text "blah blah blah" but rather pulled it directly from the linked article without paraphrasing.

This may seem a small thing, but I work in a field where one lives and dies by one's word and original ideas. It is anthama to take someone elses words and I would hope that the editors here try and correct the attributions whenever it is at all possible.

Re:His own example is a train wreck

[IngramJames]

I'm much more concerned about the fact that taco can't differentiate "to" and "too". Even assuming it's not very important - usually, I admit, it isn't - it does take some time to parse incorrectly formed sentences.

I half to disagree. Misuse off gramma, spelling and/or punctuation make's every reader waste a few second's while they work out what it actually mean's. Well all have to do a double-parsing, if you like.

So every reader waste's about as much time as it would have taken the writer to check that what they had written was correct in the first place.

Of course, some people just don't know the rule's; but that is the precise definition of an editors job; too correct. Too correct and amend exactly the sort of ambiguous things which mislead. Thats why these thing's annoy people; because they mislead, and say thing's they don't mean to say - not because off an anal demand that all rule's be obeyed without question and unerringly.

My favoutite examples of misleading mistakes:
    "I helped my uncle jack off a horse"
          -- which letter(s) should have been capitalised?

    "To my parents, Mary and God"
        -- an Oxford comma would prevent the author from claiming to be Christ

One editor to another, you've got backwards

[1369IC]

Let me start by saying I like the site, think you're doing a good job and don't care if you change it based on what I, or anybody, says. That said, I have been an editor of one sort or another for 25 years or so, and I must take exception to how you're defining your job if you're calling yourself an editor. You are, in fact, the first editor I've ever heard of who thinks spelling and grammar aren't of primary importance. I don't want to sound snippy, but if you're going to say spelling and grammar are of secondary or tertiary importance, you need to come up with a new title. It's as simple as that. Perhaps article aggregator.

In editing (and maybe in everything) you have functional obsessions and dysfunctional obsessions. Spelling and grammar are functional obsessions because they speak to clarity, which is central to good communication. They also help define how much credibility you have, which your readers use to decide everything about your site. As someone else already noted, if you can't catch to vs too, humans who know the difference will inevitably start to wonder what else you didn't understand or chose to overlook. There's no way around it. It's human nature. It's like asking someone to not question a meal served up by a short order cook with cigarette ashes on his shirt or snot dripping from his nose. You just have to wonder what else is going on.

Your obsession with link wording, on the other hand, sounds like a dysfunctional obsession to me. Unless you think your readers are reading the link text without reading any of the surrounding text, it doesn't matter much what the link text says (as long as it remains coherent and relevant, of course).

Think about how readers approach a story. They read the headline, which should tell them at least half of what they need to know. It certainly puts things in context. Then they read the lead sentence. I doubt anybody's clicking links before at least getting through those two things (OK, unless they're easily outraged and the headline is "MS disses Linux again!"). By the time they've read the headline and lead, they have enough context to know what to expect when they see the word "here," or "at CNN," or whatever as a link. It doesn't matter a whit nor a tittle if relevant words are used as link text or the phrase "the article" is. None. Not to the reader. It matters to you, so you spend time fixing that problem when you could be spending that time fixing the most egregious spelling and grammar mistakes. So it's dysfunctional. It robs you of time you could be using to do things that matter more to the quality and health of your publication.

Sure, it's a matter of opinion, and hey: it's your site. But if you want to be an editor and a professional, and you want your site to be as respected as possible, you'll value the fundamentals of communication over a pet peeve that most of your readers won't notice either way.

Now, all that said, I certainly agree there's almost always a better way to construct the sentence than to have it end "the article," or "here," or whatever, just so you can have something to link against. But to spend time rewording sentences because of the link text while ignoring glaring spelling and grammar mistakes is a poor use of your time.

Again, nice site. I'll be refreshing a dozen times a day either way.

Moderation

[DerekLyons]

The moderation system serves many purposes, but perhaps the most important is to provide a user, 24 hours later viewing at Score 2 or 3 an accurate pulse on the topic at hand. If the comment is not about the new motherboard chipset, that comment at least should not be modded 'insightful', and in many cases, ought to be modded offtopic of flamebait.

Taco; you brought up moderation last week, and again this week - in both instances complaining moderation is not being used the way you think it should be.

Moderation is the tool that a portion of the community uses to tell the remainder of the community which comments it feels are the most useful. The fact that R.P. comments get modded up, and so do grammatical comments should tell you something. Instead, both this week and last, we (the community) are told were are wrong because we don't share your vision.

Really you have two options; 1) limit the moderator pool to people who share your vision, or 2) live with the fact that the community and you disagree on fundementals.

The second one really is a key one - you want Slashdot to be a pub, etc... etc... The community wants a source of quality news.