Actually, we judge olympic high-diving. I always score 7.6, but that's because I lost the other cards.:)
Seriously, there are several factors can make a post go higher. In this case, I imagine it is because this is a common question/complaint: the term weblog has a meaning that is entirely separate from what it is being used for here. The mods are giving a 'me too' sort of vote here because it is recognized as an on-topic, serious question.
As for what a 'weblog' is 'logging'... for some sites it is a log of places visited, when the weblog is a reflection of the 'web journey' of one person (or a small group). I know some people that would call the 'history' feature of their browser a 'log' in this same manner.
It is still a rather bad name, I think. I would prefer weblog to maintain its older meaning and a new term for places like/.
I'd want the mechanism to be slightly different myself: give 5 mod points and x opinion points, where the opinion points could be used to either write and submit (to the voters only) a piece, or to vote on the pieces to get them submitted on the main page.
If it took, say, 3 opinion points to submit a piece, and 10 opinion votes to 'push' it to the front page, that should be enough to prevent abuse, and by not sucking the mod points directly wouldn't harm the current system, IMHO.
Some impressions: For the people who care, though, it's a must-visit place, almost addictive in its drawing power. And in the process Slashdot has become an archetype of the Internet-led communication revolution.
This is an important point, but doesn't go far enough. Slashdot is constantly improving, especially with the feedback from users. It feels more like Usenet (Usenet of about five years ago -- today's Usenet is much noiser, but that's another topic...) than a 'weblog,' 'portal,' or whatever neologism is being hyped.
[Weblogs] are the model of convenience: digests that take you directly to the original, expanded material if you care to learn more.
I often get "look at this" emails where friends of mine try to keep me informed on interesting things. Sadly, most of them tend to be of the urban legends I heard of three years ago, and/or even older 'joke lists'. The only ones that catch my attention are articles culled from one weblog or another, and usually I've already seen them here on Slashdot or Memepool, etc.
Reporting in newspapers today is usually not much more than copying things from the Associated Press (AP). As such, the dozen or so newspapers I could look at in a day are generally useless, as 90 percent of the info in one is duplicated in another. Weblogs are the closest thing to the AP the web has, but because there is no one standard yet it is still worthwhile to visit many sites, especially when they focus on one area or genre.
readers can set up the forums to show the most relevant -- or, if they prefer, the newest or oldest -- comments first.
Half the fun is configuring Slashdot to our will. We're a bunch of feature junkies.:)
I've heard Slashdot called a form of journalism, which seems a bit of a stretch apart from its homegrown essays. But I'm not willing to say it isn't journalism, either.
Again, the AP is relevant here as well -- most of the news in the local paper, especially the 'front page' is pulled from the AP, and the local reporters do little. Perhaps in larger cities this isn't true, but in Smalltown, USA, reporters don't do a lot of reporting.
However, it would be nice to see more 'original content' on Slashdot though, if only to avoid giving Jon Katz a monopoly.
when it is source, even open-source, just wait quietly until it IS available.
That doesn't sound like a bad idea, on the surface. However, look at Apple: they *did* "wait quietly", working with people in the background, and when they announced, the source was there.
And a lot of people were upset with this.
If Macromedia makes an announcement now, before the source is released (and more significantly, before their *license*), then interested parties can step forward and say under what the best terms are for the release.
It would be nice if this was an explicit intention of the announcing party: "Macromedia will relase the source on (enter date here) and anyone interested should send comments to (insert name of organizer here)."
What about people who, like myself, keep their threshhold set to +1 or +2 or higher? They'll only see the posts that are higher-rated already, and not the lower ones that might be worth a promotion.
Reread the moderator guidelines, such as they are right now. It requests that you browse at -1, to watch out for abuse. This also gets you to read the lower ones that might be worth a promotion. Once you spend the mod points, switch back to your standard setup.
Of course, no one is forcing you to browse at -1 if you are a moderator, but you have the *choice* to moderate. If you don't want to moderate, switch that option off on your User Preferences Page.
It works well for me when I sort by score, threaded, with a low spill. With that setup, my whatever-I-want-it-to-be threshold (I tend to be between 0 and 2 depending on time of day, etc.) will make the threaded view 'nested' to include the higher scored replies.
I see a lot of moderated replies with this setup, and sometimes the parent thread isn't to my threshold, which means I only see the informative replies without seeing the (perhaps) uninformative original post.
I do wish there was a way to 'up the thread to the parent' so that a thread with many worthy replies would get brought up higher than other posts.
Imagine two threads...
The first has this scoring: parent: 3, child 1
The second had this scoring: parent: 2, child 3, child 5, child 3
I'd want the second thread to be higher than the first when sorting by score.
Re:Good point, but re: value
on
Infinite Space
·
· Score: 2
In general, I agree with all your points, although I believe that identity/reputation is far more fragile when there is no tangible component. And I suspect most people don't realize this and are barely cognizant of the factors involved. All they know is x = cool, and they want that association.
Which is fine, if all you are doing is choosing a user name for your new internet account. You didn't pay anything extra for the name, so the consequences of devaluing the identity name (reputation) doesn't hurt you in the pocket.
It only works if you can 'do' the reputation. If you take the name Moriarty in homage to the Sherlock Holmes adversary, then those that get the reference may associate some of the characters qualities to you. This quickly fades if you act in a completely different manner.
It's a cute affectation to show a kind of membership in a particular subculture, but reputation must ultimately be earned and cannot be bought.
Futhermore, when you take on a name where someone else has the primary control, future reputations may be altered by the parent's use of the name.
You take the name Neo, then in the sequel to the Matrix find out he is simple a pawn and betrays everyone, and Trinity is the true savior. If you paid to have that name, how would you feel now? Ok, this is perhaps an unlikely situation, but my point is that one shouldn't *pay* for a name based on pre-existing reputations. The association between the name and what it represents is too easily broken, either by your own actions or anothers.
I'm not sure of the mindset of someone who would want a name already in use. Ok, I get the fact you liked -the Matrix-, but taking an *already existing* name at a place like Slashdot would mean you 'inherit' the history and reputation associated with that name.
If I were to buy 'slashdot.org', for example, the value would be associated with what this site has done. If I then removed all the news for nerds and replaced it with sermons for teletubbies or something, then I have devalued my new property.
So, when the next new thing comes along, there might be a rush on acquiring names and characters related to it (I imagine all the new characters in Phantom Menace got taken here in on AOl, etc. shortly after the first rumors and news came out), but trying to acquire a specific name@place that's already being used seems insane to me.
The coverage that Jon Katz is giving here needs to be understood by the traditional media. There have been so many angles played on this, scapegoats all around, but none of it is facing the truth.
The games, the movies, the subculture, is all an escape from the realities that hundreds of people are stating here. Is America blind to this?
I wonder what the take on this is in other countries. As I have seen a few people mention, you don't see this sort of thing in Canada, for example, and they have access to everything the kids here do.
The problem with Gore's "Open Source" is that it encourages growth in the disconnection between what those words mean 'here,' and what they mean to the rest of the world. Like it or not, open source, linux, etc. is gaining mindshare, and Gore is tapping into that.
Unless others continue to come forward to call him out on these issues, people won't understand what these terms are supposed to mean; instead, they will blindly accept media definitions.
Words mean what people want them to mean, and if the majority of people think Gore is 'open source,' then he'll have acquired the cachet of the phrase while diluting understanding --and acceptance -- of what it really means.
I really like the way Slashdot is shaping up, and I find I'm reading a lot more than I used to do. however, I'm concerned that with the different changes, I'm not sure how things are working at any given moment.
Further, a lot of this must be disconcerting for new readers, especially once you get your account set up. I realize all of this is in flux, but I think it would be a good idea to have a FAQ page on this with general information and a rough timeline of 'things to come / wishlist'.
The current FAQ page mentions we have 'a dozen or so' moderators -- time to update that, yes?
Slashdot Mirror
Actually, we judge olympic high-diving. I always score 7.6, but that's because I lost the other cards. :)
/.
Seriously, there are several factors can make a post go higher. In this case, I imagine it is because this is a common question/complaint: the term weblog has a meaning that is entirely separate from what it is being used for here. The mods are giving a 'me too' sort of vote here because it is recognized as an on-topic, serious question.
As for what a 'weblog' is 'logging'... for some sites it is a log of places visited, when the weblog is a reflection of the 'web journey' of one person (or a small group). I know some people that would call the 'history' feature of their browser a 'log' in this same manner.
It is still a rather bad name, I think. I would prefer weblog to maintain its older meaning and a new term for places like
I'd want the mechanism to be slightly different myself: give 5 mod points and x opinion points, where the opinion points could be used to either write and submit (to the voters only) a piece, or to vote on the pieces to get them submitted on the main page.
If it took, say, 3 opinion points to submit a piece, and 10 opinion votes to 'push' it to the front page, that should be enough to prevent abuse, and by not sucking the mod points directly wouldn't harm the current system, IMHO.
Interesting article, ego stroking or no.
:)
Some impressions:
For the people who care, though, it's a must-visit place, almost addictive in its drawing power. And in the process Slashdot has become an archetype of the Internet-led communication revolution.
This is an important point, but doesn't go far enough. Slashdot is constantly improving, especially with the feedback from users. It feels more like Usenet (Usenet of about five years ago -- today's Usenet is much noiser, but that's another topic...) than a 'weblog,' 'portal,' or whatever neologism is being hyped.
[Weblogs] are the model of convenience: digests that take you directly to the original, expanded material if you care to learn more.
I often get "look at this" emails where friends of mine try to keep me informed on interesting things. Sadly, most of them tend to be of the urban legends I heard of three years ago, and/or even older 'joke lists'. The only ones that catch my attention are articles culled from one weblog or another, and usually I've already seen them here on Slashdot or Memepool, etc.
Reporting in newspapers today is usually not much more than copying things from the Associated Press (AP). As such, the dozen or so newspapers I could look at in a day are generally useless, as 90 percent of the info in one is duplicated in another. Weblogs are the closest thing to the AP the web has, but because there is no one standard yet it is still worthwhile to visit many sites, especially when they focus on one area or genre.
readers can set up the forums to show the most relevant -- or, if they prefer, the newest or oldest -- comments first.
Half the fun is configuring Slashdot to our will. We're a bunch of feature junkies.
I've heard Slashdot called a form of journalism, which seems a bit of a stretch apart from its homegrown essays. But I'm not willing to say it isn't journalism, either.
Again, the AP is relevant here as well -- most of the news in the local paper, especially the 'front page' is pulled from the AP, and the local reporters do little. Perhaps in larger cities this isn't true, but in Smalltown, USA, reporters don't do a lot of reporting.
However, it would be nice to see more 'original content' on Slashdot though, if only to avoid giving Jon Katz a monopoly.
when it is source, even open-source, just wait quietly until it IS available.
That doesn't sound like a bad idea, on the surface. However, look at Apple: they *did* "wait quietly", working with people in the background, and when they announced, the source was there.
And a lot of people were upset with this.
If Macromedia makes an announcement now, before the source is released (and more significantly, before their *license*), then interested parties can step forward and say under what the best terms are for the release.
It would be nice if this was an explicit intention of the announcing party: "Macromedia will relase the source on (enter date here) and anyone interested should send comments to (insert name of organizer here)."
Sorry, I didn't really read the article.
The article is only five sentences. Very short and concise.
I must learn whether the print had already been spooled on the platter.
The article was not that specific.
What about people who, like myself, keep their threshhold set to +1 or +2 or higher? They'll only see the posts that are higher-rated already, and not the lower ones that might be worth a promotion.
Reread the moderator guidelines, such as they are right now. It requests that you browse at -1, to watch out for abuse. This also gets you to read the lower ones that might be worth a promotion. Once you spend the mod points, switch back to your standard setup.
Of course, no one is forcing you to browse at -1 if you are a moderator, but you have the *choice* to moderate. If you don't want to moderate, switch that option off on your User Preferences Page.
It works well for me when I sort by score, threaded, with a low spill. With that setup, my whatever-I-want-it-to-be threshold (I tend to be between 0 and 2 depending on time of day, etc.) will make the threaded view 'nested' to include the higher scored replies.
I see a lot of moderated replies with this setup, and sometimes the parent thread isn't to my threshold, which means I only see the informative replies without seeing the (perhaps) uninformative original post.
I do wish there was a way to 'up the thread to the parent' so that a thread with many worthy replies would get brought up higher than other posts.
Imagine two threads...
The first has this scoring:
parent: 3, child 1
The second had this scoring:
parent: 2, child 3, child 5, child 3
I'd want the second thread to be higher than the first when sorting by score.
In general, I agree with all your points, although I believe that identity/reputation is far more fragile when there is no tangible component. And I suspect most people don't realize this and are barely cognizant of the factors involved. All they know is x = cool, and they want that association.
Which is fine, if all you are doing is choosing a user name for your new internet account. You didn't pay anything extra for the name, so the consequences of devaluing the identity name (reputation) doesn't hurt you in the pocket.
It only works if you can 'do' the reputation. If you take the name Moriarty in homage to the Sherlock Holmes adversary, then those that get the reference may associate some of the characters qualities to you. This quickly fades if you act in a completely different manner.
It's a cute affectation to show a kind of membership in a particular subculture, but reputation must ultimately be earned and cannot be bought.
Futhermore, when you take on a name where someone else has the primary control, future reputations may be altered by the parent's use of the name.
You take the name Neo, then in the sequel to the Matrix find out he is simple a pawn and betrays everyone, and Trinity is the true savior. If you paid to have that name, how would you feel now? Ok, this is perhaps an unlikely situation, but my point is that one shouldn't *pay* for a name based on pre-existing reputations. The association between the name and what it represents is too easily broken, either by your own actions or anothers.
I'm not sure of the mindset of someone who would want a name already in use. Ok, I get the fact you liked -the Matrix-, but taking an *already existing* name at a place like Slashdot would mean you 'inherit' the history and reputation associated with that name.
If I were to buy 'slashdot.org', for example, the value would be associated with what this site has done. If I then removed all the news for nerds and replaced it with sermons for teletubbies or something, then I have devalued my new property.
So, when the next new thing comes along, there might be a rush on acquiring names and characters related to it (I imagine all the new characters in Phantom Menace got taken here in on AOl, etc. shortly after the first rumors and news came out), but trying to acquire a specific name@place that's already being used seems insane to me.
I mean, would anyone want the CmdrTaco name?
The coverage that Jon Katz is giving here needs to be understood by the traditional media. There have been so many angles played on this, scapegoats all around, but none of it is facing the truth.
The games, the movies, the subculture, is all an escape from the realities that hundreds of people are stating here. Is America blind to this?
I wonder what the take on this is in other countries. As I have seen a few people mention, you don't see this sort of thing in Canada, for example, and they have access to everything the kids here do.
The article mentions that songs may be put up in a streaming format, "that allows listening only on the computer."
Ok, I admit I haven't tried, but how hard is it to record a streaming song and convert it to mp3?
-- ravenskana
Seems to me apple has continued to improve the iMac since the first release, and the price/performance ratio looks pretty good to me.
The problem with Gore's "Open Source" is that it encourages growth in the disconnection between what those words mean 'here,' and what they mean to the rest of the world. Like it or not, open source, linux, etc. is gaining mindshare, and Gore is tapping into that.
Unless others continue to come forward to call him out on these issues, people won't understand what these terms are supposed to mean; instead, they will blindly accept media definitions.
Words mean what people want them to mean, and if the majority of people think Gore is 'open source,' then he'll have acquired the cachet of the phrase while diluting understanding --and acceptance -- of what it really means.
I really like the way Slashdot is shaping up, and I find I'm reading a lot more than I used to do. however, I'm concerned that with the different changes, I'm not sure how things are working at any given moment.
Further, a lot of this must be disconcerting for new readers, especially once you get your account set up. I realize all of this is in flux, but I think it would be a good idea to have a FAQ page on this with general information and a rough timeline of 'things to come / wishlist'.
The current FAQ page mentions we have 'a dozen or so' moderators -- time to update that, yes?
ravenskana