Slashdot Mirror
The 10 Tech People Who Don't Matter
TopShelf writes "Business 2.0 recently ran a feature on the Top 50 People Who Matter in the business world, but perhaps more interesting is their list of the 10 People Who Don't Matter. Leading off the list is a Slashdot favorite, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer..." Given, Rob's in there as well, but I'd say his company in the list is pretty decent.
The last post. On slashdot. Ever. Poor Rob!
I don't agree with the article at all, and I definitely don't agree with the top 50 article. In the long run, nothing matters in history. The consumers have been, and always will be, the only important unit or group in any market transaction. Without demand, supply matters little. Even if demand is created because of a new supply of a new item or service, it matters little as that demand is fixed -- it would have gone elsewhere.
Slashdot is definitely slowing down. So what? Digg is a mess, too. All I see on various blogs lately is "Click my ads!" and "Help me digg up my submission!" Nice.
I'm a free market believer because I believe in ultimate freedom for the consumer. The only way that can happen is if the producers are given the chance to compete without favoritism, preferential grants or subsidies, or anti-market entry taxes, tariffs and regulations. It doesn't matter WHO the person is that discovers a new market or makes it better, it matters that the consumers are given the ability to voice what they want, no matter if it is immoral or even considered illegal by the previous generation.
Slashdot will be gone in years or decades. So will Digg. So will Business 2.0. Who cares, as long as consumers consume, and producers can create what new consumers desire.
Right, I'm sick of this. The one article where I deserve a mention and they leave me out. Guess I just don't matter.
Meta will eat itself
Hey, at least you got there in the first place. More than most of your readership will ever accomplish!
John
This article is complete fake, and you know how I know...
Malda knows his subject, and he's a good editor, but in the end, he's just no match for the power of the multitudes.
Only kidding, slash is home I won't believe its dying until netcraft confirms it.
liqbase
#11 - Cowboy Neil
Fsck the millennium, we want it now.
Millennium Crisis Line: 0890 900 2000 [calls cost 50p/min]
Real list:n tmatter/frameset.exclude.html
http://money.cnn.com/popups/2006/biz2/peoplewhodo
Leading off the list is a Slashdot favorite, Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer..."
Even though the list says "In NO particular order"
But hey, I think Ballmer is a tool even though I'm not a big MS hater...
An innocent bypasser was killed in Redmond today by a mysterious falling chair...
João Pinheiro
Slashdot - News For Nerds Stuff That Doesn't Matter.
To err is human. To forgive is not company policy.
Just ouch. They put extra sand in the vaseline for slashdot in that little article.
It's a list from Business 2.0. I'm afraid I'd have to put them on my top 10 list of "magazines that don't matter"...
Wait what is that I hear - the sound of a continuous stream of chairs being violently
thrown in the general direction of Business 2.0 Magazine offices.
So I went to look at the list, and it wasn't in the article. There was a link to it, though. So I middle-clicked the link, to open it in a new tab, and... oops. The tab's empty.
Oh, I see, it wasn't a link at all, it was a pointless bit of JavaScript that merely looked like a link. So I go back and click on it the way they were expecting, and... oops. There's still no list: just an empty window with a title at the top.
Okay, fine, their online article won't work in Firefox. So I'll use the print version instead. No JavaScript there, right? Wrong. The print link takes you to... the same article, formatted for printing. Complete with lack of list, complete with stupid JavaScript non-link.
Sorry, guys, but if you've gone to such lengths to make sure I can't read your damn article, I really don't see why I should care who you think matters. If you can't write plain HTML, you have no business talking about the web.
Aside from /. I still disagree with some of the nominations. I use FaceBook several times every single day, whereas I do not actively use MySpace. Also, I much prefer Netflix's low rates and ease of use to having to deal with the hassles and DRM of on-demand services. My girlfriend is considering switching from Comcast On Demand to Netflix so she can have more choice over what to watch.
Information wants a fueled airplane waiting at the hangar and no one gets hurt.
I see stories on Digg, Wired, and Drudge hours (sometimes DAYS) before they are on /.
Granted, I can't live without the flamewars and discussions I've come to know and love in this moderated world of slashdot (at least since 1998), but I think the article may have a point...
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Yeah, sadly slashdot is becoming less and less a part of my daily habit. I use to be sure to meta moderate and try to give meaningful contributions to the site but seeings as where the development end of things have been in a nose dive around here and the site has become more a Bush bashfest than a technical news source... eh... I just don't feel bad not being as much a member of the community anymore.
On another note about the top ten: I have to completely disagree with the "DVD is an endangered species" noise mentioned for NetFlix. While I'm not a NetFlix subscriber physical media like DVD is certainly nowhere near its endlife. I just don't know what people think is going to replace the physical aspect of DVD media in the near future. I've heard this boy cry wolf before and frankly it's gotten old.
Dedicated Cthulhu Cultist since 4523 BC.
In the thirty years I've been involved in IT I have to guess that we're approaching the point where hero-god-gurus don't matter much at all. Hasn't the industry matured to the point of being boring yet? When are we going to get past eccentric non repeatable brilliance and to the point of dull efficient execution?
Finally, an oppertunity for a Digg Sucks thread... while TFA may be right that Digg is "supplanting" Slashdot, this is not for the better. Digg posts inaccurate articles, tons of dupes, poorly edited articles, etc. on its front page. Slashdot occasionally does the same, but not like 20 times every day. Recently Digg seems to be up in arms about Scientology, as if this is some sort of new thing. I read "A Piece of Blue Sky" about 6 years ago...
Socrates said that democracy was the WORST form of government because it meant rule by the ignorant masses... the content of Digg is just proof of that.
Linus has the one entry that is really a compliment.
Dennis Ritchie gave a nice talk on the 21st(??) birthday of Unix about how it is like a child growing up, leaving home, being all grown up and an adult... He felt a little like a proud parent.
What better compliment for Linus than to have created something that has grown and matured to the point that it is beyond the creator? I can imagine few more satisfying accomplishments in life.
Yes, it bothered me. Because Linus is not only the creator of Linux. He also maintains the kernel and adds new features once in a while. The latest kernel release adds significant features and possibly performance enhancements.
It seems to me that whoever wrote the article, thinks that Linus' role is over and that he's nothing more than a decorative figure. He's not.
Slashdot could have easily had the equivalent of Digg if they had opened up the story queue for public viewing. I know that this is not how the editors want Slashdot to work, but I think it would have let Slashdot address the audience that wants the absolute latest stories and the audience that wants indepth discussion. I have read the FAQ and I understand the issues with spam, but I think those are all solvable problems.
:)
Oh well, too late now, Digg stole that thunder
The title of this article appears to be its major problem. This is not an article about People Who Don't Matter. This is an article about People of Whom We Disapprove or People Whose Current Operations Don't Impress Us Much or some such thing. One doesn't need to be justified or qualified to matter, in the grand scheme of things, and the fact that Business 2.0 is unimpressed by these individuals' current endeavours ultimately has no bearing on their importance to the world of business or to society in general. A powerful fool can change the world in a way that matters, whether or not we may think he's a fool.
Karma: Chameleon (comes and goes)
Alexa is spyware, is it not? If Digg is getting more visited by Alexa users than Slashdot, to me that signifies that more people that read Digg are unsavy enough to have spyware installed on their machine. To me, having a lower rank in the Alexa ranking system when you are talking about a tech news site means that the readers of the lower scoring sites have better spyware protection and are more tech savy. This lends MORE credence to slashdot than Digg, IMHO.
Although describing our esteemed head honcho as a great editor may be pushing things a bit, the comments about Slashdot miss an important point.
The challenge faced by many Internet sites is not to generate reams and reams of content, but to allow users a way to filter out only what they want or need. What with "citizen journalists" and plain old trolls and conspiracy theorists, there needs to be some kind of moderating hand to make information useful.
Peer review, like that created by Slashdot, is one way of doing that, but a firm editorial hand is even more useful. That's why my daily reading includes not just Slashdot, but other sites and blogs which cover specific topics and direct me only to the stories or posts that are of value.
Despite gripes - and I don't even bother trying to post stories any more - Slashdot does a reasonable job of that filtering.
Three Squirrels
That list is totally inaccurate. It's missing both Dvorak and John Thompson.
-Rick
"Most people in the U.S. wouldn't know they live in a tyrannical state if it walked up and grabbed their junk." - MyFirs
Slashdot.mil has demoted Malda down to LtTaco.
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
Business 2.0 confirms!
Oh yeah? Well, I have four words for you. *I* *love* *this* *website*! YEEEAAAHHHH!!!! [throws chair]
Similar to the upcoming US election results
Q) How do you get people to read your lame business articles?
A) Say something inflammatory about Slashdot so that it gets posted on Slashdot!
"...today consumers have been conditioned to think of beer when they see a bullfrog..."
Too many political topics have destroyed this site. Sad, really.
Slashdot isn't about news... everything that's on Slashdot has already been discussed in the blogosphere for a couple days. The value here is in the community and user comments.
What is so difficult for you in making voting system for stories?
The same thing that makes it difficult in Florida and Ohio. Even when it turns out that it was working, people who don't like the outcome say it's the system that's broken. When they do like the outcomes (because they've figured out how to perform the Digg equivalent of Karma-whoring or stirred up a bunch of traffic for their simpering Google-ad spam page), then, gosh, Digg sure is timely and wonderful!
Nope, just like the recent discussion here about how even the Washington Post web site is turning into a "conversation" instead of journalism - I fear that the droning of Digg will become the norm, and only people who appreciate some editorial steerage will populate sites that perform at least a little thoughtful editing. Which is not to say that Timothy counts.
Don't disappoint your bird dog. Go to the range.
"Today, the buzz has moved elsewhere. Slashdot's editor-driven story selection model is being supplanted by user-generated systems such as Digg. According to recent Alexa data, Digg already has more daily reach and generates more page views than Slashdot. Malda knows his subject, and he's a good editor, but in the end, he's just no match for the power of the multitudes." Wait, you mean 'multitudes' like the dozen or so Diggers who have hijacked the system and are responsible for 100% of the front page content?
Ok seriously, putting these two together in the same article and calling them both losers?? Ballmer has the ability to turn the biggest ship in history and while he has been lost at sea during his entire reign (and survived ongoing mutinees), I would not say he doesn't matter. He does matter. He's just ineffectual.
Linus on the other hand claims that he is an engineer and not a revolutionary and as a result, this simple statement makes him more of a revolutionary than even he would like to be. Linus has tried to avoid being cast as that and never once thought of himself in that way. In int5erview after interview, he always downplays that aspect and promotes Linux to meet the demands of consumers AND of business and not to have the OS dictates the rules of how the computer industry must move (unlike other monopolistic companies).
I think LInus's greatest ability is his ability to lead without leading. His actions and statements have often made me pause to reconsider my zealotry at times and made me understand why he supporets some of the things that he does. While I still disagree with him on some points, he still has alot of influence... to alot of people and alot of companies.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
So the article says Rob's not important - big deal. I RTFA and I know it slams the slash in the text, but it reality, it's a list of people. Just like the Torvalds bit, Rob isn't as important as what he created is. Basically, he's no more important to the process at slashdot today than any other moderator.
As others have already stated, what separates Slashdot from Digg is quality. The articles may be the same, similiar, delayed, dupes, whatever - but the moderated commentary from users is what makes Slashdot worth reading.
That said, Rob deserves a huge portion of credit for creating and maintaining this community. The man may be irrelevant, but the community is not.
"Adventure? Excitement? A Jedi craves not these things."
(Because CNN's site sucks worse than anything else I've seen lately; if you want to read the little blurbs on each, you'll have to suffer through their shit, because I can't be bothered to copy/paste it all...)
Allegedly in "no particular order:"
1. Steve Ballmer, CEO, Microsoft
2. Jeffrey Citron, Chairman and chief strategist, Vonage
3. Reed Hastings, CEO, Netflix
4. Ken Kutaragi, President, Sony Computer Entertainment
5. Warren Lieberfarb, Senior Consultant, HD-DVD Promotion Group
6. Rob Malda, Slashdot.org
7. Arun Sarin, CEO, Vodafone
8. Jonathan Schwartz, CEO, Sun Microsystems
9. Linus Torvalds, Creator, Linux
10. Mark Zuckerberg, Founder, Facebook
Here's the blurb about Malda:And just because I thought it was interesting, here's the blurb about Linus Torvalds:
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
Isn't that the whole point? To have many many others contributing to the project so that it can grow in such a way that is larger than just an individual?
1. Articles by Business 2.0
2. Microsoft Security Updates
3. Digg
4. Opinions of Hollywood Actors
5. Printed Newspapers
6. Seatbelt Laws
7. Global Warmning
8. The National Deficit
9. SCO Linux
10. My Slashdot Posts
So when's Rob gonna roll with his crew and bust some caps in Business 2.0?
YOU GOT SERVED, bitch.
Does it make you happy you're so strange?
In other words, Digg fuels and exacerbates your ADHD...
Pretty much.
I've gone over to Digg from time to time, but I've never stayed there because I just don't enjoy it as much. Slashdot, to me, is a discussion site. The articles are really just prompts that get people talking; the real "content" isn't in the links / TFAs -- which are mostly just stuff you can find on Google News most of the time anyway -- but in the discussion itself.
Digg is the other way around. It seems like it's basically a news aggregator, and the discussion is mostly mindless drivel (even compared to Slashdot) and people voting. Maybe I just picked the wrong threads to read, but the S/N ratio was even lower there than it is in your average Slashdot thread, and that's really saying something. Yeah, Slashdot has bizarre trolling phenomena (FPs, the whole GNAA business, etc.) but there's almost always good posts as well; on Digg, quality posts seemed more the exception than the rule.
I can get my news anywhere -- there are tons of aggregators and newsfeeds and bloggers who sift endlessly through basically everything the internet has to offer, pulling out things to read. That, to me, isn't particularly interesting. The discussion (which comes from the userbase) is: that's something that has value to me, and why I think Slashdot still comes out on top of Digg.
If Digg draws the ADD-types away who are just looking for an endless stream of new links, all the better.
"Ladies and gentlemen, my killbot features Lotus Notes and a machine gun. It is the finest available."
I just had a peek at Digg for the first time in my life. It seems clear that I've been failing to appreciate how good slashdot actually is!
Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
The list is horrible. First, as much as I loathe Microsoft, Ballmer is integral to Microsoft's partnerships, which drives much of the technology out there. Second, Sun is setting the direction for energy-efficient computer clusters; something that the whole Energy Star thing could never pull off. Third, Slash as a content management system, was up and running in the frontierland, and is important because it is still a focal point for nerds (I have never visited Digg, Kiro5hun, etc). Fourth, Linus is still advocating Linux and keeping it on one development tree; both are difficult tasks, both he pulls off well (Linux is not out of control). Lastly, obsolence is not something to take lightly -- is the same true for Eric Allman, Richard Stallman, Bill Joy, Jamie Wazinski, Bruce Perens, etc? I think they form a foundation for future coders, computer politicos, and hackers.
Click here or here.
Slashdot is far from free and open. The editors exert great control, in secret, over what articles are posted. In exercising this control they have provided fertile ground for self-promotion and half-baked and outright crazy ideas. I cannot count the number of press releases and blogs and testimonials and deliberate misrepresentations they have reported as truth.
The mitigating influence of replies -- which are indeed free -- is overwhelmed by the initial selection bias.
I wish I could agree with the story that Slashdot's power had been supplanted by more open media such as Digg, but it ain't so. Slashdot is a powerful tool for internet demagogues, and the editors are complicit.
Whenever people proclaim that Slashdot is being beat by Digg, they drag out the Alexa pageview stats. However, people forget that Alexa's software only runs on IE. Considering that a large number of Slashdot visitors use browsers other than IE, the Alexa stats don't accurately reflect the number of pageviews that Slashdot gets.
Cue the UID comparison thread.
/. has really taken a turn for the worst in quality, and UID comparisons (where smaller seems to be better, for some reason).
You got it.
Oh, and I agree, too. The quality of the articles has turned into a gamers' report site, and the discussion threads always degenerate into "me, too" posts, talks about how
It's shameful, really.
Microsoft is to software what Budweiser is to beer.
I certainly don't matter, why am I not on that list?
Not to be matter of fact, but how much do you have to not matter in order to get on a 'People Who Don't Matter' list?
To make matters worse, you matter more just for being on that list.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
The thing that turned me off Digg was the lack of "see replies to my posts"
I like Digg's article mix and it's one of my clicks when I'm bored but the discussion isn't really there. My opinions are great and all that but what I want is responses. Some of the best posts I read are the ones telling me what's wrong in my own. Being challenged is one of the ways to learn, and often when one does some background research into one's opinions one finds that the world has changed since you formed the opinion or you were wrong all along.
Digg just doesn't have it.
plus the layout screws up when you force large fonts.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
In many ways I equate Slashdot with NPR, and Digg with a network news station.
With NPR (and Slashdot) there is more time for each story and a more in-depth study of the topic at hand. On NPR, the increased depth is through quality reporting and in-depth analyses. With slashdot, the in-depth analyses comes from user comments. I actually learn something from listening to NPR and reading slashdot.
With Digg, we have the nerd equivalent of "Thousands Die in Tsunami... and pictures of Britney's baby!!! More at 11:00!!!" It tells you something... in a very quick and sensationalistic manner. I suppose in many ways, it shows the difference between information, and providing actual useful knowledge.
This is a bit off-topic, but I wonder how many slashdotters listen to National Public Radio?
It's just frustrating, Jamie. We've been hearing about a "future moderation system" for a few years now. I call today's version absolutely, totally broken because it doesn't scale well. It only takes one moderation from one person to knock a post up or down an entire grade. A +5 Interesting just means 3 or 4 people who had mod points found it interesting, not everyone else. Also, it's far too easy to modbomb and ruin an account.
I'll stay tuned...
"Sufferin' succotash."
me2
/. is read the replies to my messages. It is cool to see how and why various people disagree or, occasionally, agree with me. I noticed you got a lot of replies to your Stallman messages, so I will have to go there next.
/. has more threads that are interesting including quite a few that are both stupid and interesting. Heiarchial threading (sp?) does a better job of displaying the conversation structure. Why don't more websites use it? It's not a new idea, it's also one of the things I like about usenet.
/. design: I have a harder time following the structure, children seem to be nowhere near their parent.
The first thing I do when I come to
I just went to Digg and checked a few threads, the Apple sweatshop thing and another which I forgot. The comments were stupid and uninteresting.
Minor complaint about new
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
... I mean, Business 2.0.
This is exactly the sort of pure fluff that masquerades for journalism now. Does Steve Ballmer, the man who runs the most powerful computer software company on the planet, suddenly have no power? Ask his employees. Ask companies that partner with Microsoft. Ask Scott McNealy. Sure, Microsoft is on a downward slide, but that doesn't mean Ballmer is suddenly a garden gnome.
Torvalds? Hastings? Both very, very smart guys with long roads ahead of them. I don't know about the rest of the folks on the list, but Schwartz could surprise a lot of people. If Sun is thriving in five years, ask the knuckleheads at People.. uh... Business 2.0 what they think of Schwartz.
The "what's the flavor of the minute" attitude of the article is made manifestly evident by the Slashdot v. Digg comparison. As others have pointed out, Digg may be hot, but it is absurd to suggest that the level of discourse on Digg compares to that found on Slashdot. Digg is oriented toward instant "hot or not" feedback, while Slashdot is about in-depth discussion of a smaller number of topics.
I suppose they have to come up with something to write about, but the world is full of interesting business and technology stories. This sort of crap is worse than useless, because at least some percentage of the people who read it actually think it is worthwhile information.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
I've been reading it faithfully since (circa) 1998, but it's not as hardcore as it used to be. It might be I'm getting older and wiser or that I'm not as militant about Linux as I used to be, or it might be a dilution of the nerd population to other discussion forums - I dunno. But the fact is I've seen contenders vie for /.'s crown before (Kuro5hin immediately comes to mind, maybe Plastic) and they've been trounced. Slashdot feels like home. It's a part of my life. I enjoy the readership and have made lots of friends and enemies here. And best of all, I've learned alot.
Malda may be irrelevant to the biz/tech world, but not to me and many other readers. I guess what I'm trying to say is "thanks Slashdot, for being a part of my life!"
SEO Copywriter. Just Say ON
I sorta like the slashdot system for moderation, but for some reason, I don't like metamodding.
My idea for a mod system would be sorta diggish, in that everyone who reads can give a thumb up or down at any time, but different users would have different weights based on their karma. Metamodding wouldn't be necessary because the system would be able to see whether your mods were out of whack. The more out of line your mods, the lowing your mod weight would become. Please no fat jokes!
If you must moderate, please moderate as irrelevent, not something bad, because I'm sure someone will find this interest
- Get rid of "Troll". There are relatively few genuine trolls compared to the number of people of simply express unfounded opinions. Not that we want to reward that habit either, but calling them "trolls" is rude.
- Get rid of Underrated/Overrated, or make it subject to metamodding. There is a very good reason to allow people to post Anonymously. By contrast, there is no good reason to allow people to moderate without being subject to metamods. Underrated and Overrated both allow that. As a result, Overrated becomes the scoundrel's refuge: "I don't like [Republicans|Democrats|atheists|Christians|your sig], so I'll ding you a spite point and hide behind the Overrated rule." And anyway, what could "overrated" possibly mean? Rated over what level? Well, obviously, my subjective assessment of the comment's ideal score. That's nonsense. Every mod point assigned should have some objective component to it, else it is meaningless as feedback for readers and posters. "Overrated" and "Underrated" encourage pure subjectivity.
- Allow for a "Useful Sources Cited" mod, which would reward those who take the time to provide useful references for the rest of us. Yes, Google can and should be used by all
... but effective Googling should be rewarded. This is different from Informative in that it rewards process rather than content. - Provide options to mark something as "Counterfactual" or something like that. Suppose Alice posts something that gets modded as +5 informative, but which Bob challenges. The moderator sees the challenge, checks the info, finds out that Bob is right, and wants to bump Alice down a bit. What are the choices? Troll, Flamebait, or Overrated. Troll and Flamebait do not fit the situation. Overrated is overly broad (leaving aside the issues mentioned above). A "Counterfactual" option could be very useful here to give specific content to the negative moderation. Also, a Counterfactual mod could be easily scored by a metamod.
- Ditto for a "Sound Argument" mod.
In general, the current mod system tends to reward those who think thoughts agreeable to the majority of moderators; that is, it rewards content instead of process. As a result, comments often become cheerleading for one side or another. A good moderation system would reward those whose thought process furthers the conversation at hand, not those who spout party line.Human being (n.): A genetically human, genetically distinct, functioning organism.
How do you have a list of tech people who don't matter with out leading off with John Dvorak?
"Things are more moderner than before- bigger, and yet smaller- it's computers-- San Dimas High School football RULES!"
I agree with your points however:
In general, the current mod system tends to reward those who think thoughts agreeable to the majority of moderators;
It is impossible to avoid this, it's a democratic process; only by giving some people more votes than others can you avoid it.
Then it's no longer one-person, one-vote. A meritocracy in other words.
Then how do you decide who has the merit? Democracy again.
You can put in various other feedback loops that attempt to encourage more "quality" but people aren't stupid, they adapt their articles and their moderation, and then you're back to square one. In extreme cases unethical people will use sock puppets to get what they want or trickery to fool the meta-meta-mod's.
Other down-mod's I'd add:
The biggest problems on slashdot are not flamers and trolls but commercial interests trying to drown out other points of view with their propaganda. We get way too much repetitive commercial propaganda in the mainstream media without encouraging it here as well.
---
Marketing talk is not just cheap, it has negative value. Free speech can be compromised just as much by too much noise as too little signal.
Cagel, while I agree with your post, I have to add as someone who regularly meta-mods, the troll mod is rarely used correctly at all. By "correctly" I mean posts like the GNAA crap and goatse links. Usually the troll mod is used by a mod who disagrees with the post, even though the post may be politely-worded and thoughtful. As a rough estimate, I'd say I see it used correctly only 1 in 7 times I see it used at all.
"Off-topic" and "redundant" are also over-used by modders. How is a post off-topic when it's about the subject of the article? Beats me, go ask the people who've modded such posts as "off-topic". I see that at least once a week, often more. And "redundant"? How is a post redundant if no one has has said what the commenter posted, nor is it in the article? Again, I don't know, but I see this one mis-used very often. All of these three, "troll", "off-topic" and "redundant", are most often used as "I disagree with you and are digging you down" moderations rather than how they're supposed to be.
I have no advice to give here, because frankly I'm sick of the moderation systems everywhere, even though I have mod points right now. I'm sick of everything I say being subject to the approval of others. It's that way everywhere on the internet; forums, chat, comments at various sites, you name it. It was nice to get back into having an actual social life simply because I could say what I wanted without my statement being modded. I understand the need for moderation because of actual trolls, but the moderation system creates more trolls by pissing people off -- and often enough they are quite justified in being pissed off about it, just not how they choose to act on it. But then they have no other recourse, do they? Meta-mods can't do anything about posts that were modded badly when they see them, only those they are given when they meta-mod. I suppose that could help, giving those who have meta-modded well the ability to "spot" meta-mod every once in a while. But as long as you have a moderation system on large site you will have those who abuse it freely. Go read the posts at -1 (all of them) to several articles and you will see what I mean very quickly. You will also see many, many posts about the moderations themselves, which almost invariabley get modded down as well. That's why I set my threshold to -1 with 0 for redundant and off-topic; after meta-modding I soon saw that I was missing a lot of good comments that were modded down for spite.
I dream of a better world... one in which chickens can cross roads without their motives being questioned.
I think one of the problems is that the mods system tries to do in one dimention categorization that is in multiple dimentions - Topicality, abusiveness, quality, humor. A post can easily be funny and flamebait, or insightful flamebait, or interesting and offtopic.
I would like to see the mod system as a series or radio buttons that go like
[Funny | unfunny], [on | offtopic], [redundant | overrated | underrated], [flame | tame], [insightful | interesting | informative | incorrect]
with the ability to customize your view to rank comments based on humor, topicality, etc. instead of just the numerical ranking.
"It's just frustrating, Jamie. We've been hearing about a "future moderation system" for a few years now. I call today's version absolutely, totally broken because it doesn't scale well."
:)
:)
The reason that it doesn't scale well is because it was created in a simpler time, and geared toward the nerds of that time. While Slashdot ostensibly remains "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters", the majority of people that post here now aren't what would have been considered nerds, back when Slashdot started. The technical insight here has dropped as the population has grown... has anyone besides me noticed the preponderance of "Funny" posts? I suspect that that is a symptom as well: Having nothing to contribute, and not being willing to take some time to at least learn something about the matter at hand, and then perhaps contribute, but nonetheless feeling the need to say something, they go for the "easy post", which is to say something that others of their ilk will find amusing.
The fundamental nature of Slashdot has changed, because the definition of "nerd" has changed, I think.
That, in turn, has driven all but the most committed "old school" Slashdotters to either leave, or stop posting... as it's really not worth it. Consider any given Slashdot article: Run an analysis of the UIDs of all of the posters. I suspect that what you will discover is this: Your oldest people are FAR under-represented, even when you consider them as part of Slashdot's total user population.
And, that's not even a bad thing, I think, unless you're mired in the past: Time passes, and things change, most especially on the Internet... and Slashdot is, after all, a commercial venture now. So, they need to cater to their largest population, so as to generate the most revenue.
So, I submit this: It isn't possible to fix the moderation system, because of the assumptions made when it was created, which were based upon the idea that true nerds appreciate truth in all matters, first, regardless, and would use their moderation privileges accordingly.
That changed: So, you introduced Metamoderation, to try to fix that... but, you can't fix the fundamental problem, which is this: The day of the Nerd has passed, at least, in the sense that we knew it, back in the day when it took some knowledge to get online, back when the 'Net was new, and the people you met there were smart and knowlegeable, because it took that, to get here in the first place. Back when there were mostly only nerds online, and knowledge was passed, because we could, to help each other, and a lack of knowledge on the part of one person was considered something correctable, and not a character flaw.[1]
And THAT, IMHO, is why there's no way to fix Slashdot's moderation system programmatically. It's not broken - the people that abuse now it are [2]... and, they are, for the most part, the ones most active now on Slashdot, simply because they are the in the majority now.
But, there's really NO reason to change! After all, Slashdot is a commercial operation now, and you need to appeal to them, so as to continue to generate revenue [3], here's my advice:
You NEED to post more "Your Rights Online" articles, most especially ones that threaten, or seem to threaten, the ability of your posters to be able to get their entertainment for free via copyright infringement. These generate a LOT of traffic, as most of the current generation of "nerds" here get most vociferous, when they think that they will be cut off from that.
You SHOULD encourage your "editors" to not correct spelling: That generates many posts, too.
You should also do the same with regards to grammar, but, I don't think you have to worry all that much about that - they'll miss it on their own, I'm sure
Oh, and be sure to throw in the over-hyped headlines - that helps to lure 'em in, and then post to bitch about how incorrect the headline is
Hell, all you really need to do otherwise is figure out how to consistently