Journal rho's Journal: The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout 192
Last Chance to See! The final opportunity to discuss this before the lights go out
Questions? There are answers here!
------------------------------------------
Saved for posterity, from a discussion about the new subscription system:
A statistic in the hand of the ignorant is more dangerous than a gun in the hand of a child. Malda's dismissal of the importance of comments reflects on the inability of Slashdot's "editors" to understand the way communities work.
For the record, my feelings on the Slashdot Subscription Embroglio rests firmly in the uninterested. I have almost zero opinion on the final outcome of subscriptions. I love Slashdot, and will probably subscribe at some point to support the site, but the details are dull (to me).
Says Rob Malda, "... while I don't mean to dismiss the value of comment posters, the percentage of readers that read comments is small. Yes comments draw readers, and keep them coming back. But half of readers don't care!" In that case, Slashdot would be much better served by dumping the flaky and irritating overhead of a DB server and filling the pipe with a longer "Favorites" list--which, essentially, is what Slashdot is once you strip away the comments and comment posters. This is where a meaningless SQL query puts dangerous statistics in the hand of the ignorant. If Malda thinks that he can divine real knowledge from a SELECT query, he is sadly mistaken. While I do not doubt the validity of the numbers, I seriously doubt the validity of his extrapolation of the data. The ebb and flow of a community cannot be read from the tea leaves of an Apache log file.
This easy dismissal of the value of the only providers of interesting and insightful content on Slashdot is offensive. Thus, I propose a small revolt. The (Hopefully) Great Slashdot Blackout.
T(H)GSB will be during the week of April 21 through April 27. Easy to remember, the full moon in April falls on the 27th. During that time, I will not be posting, nor will I click through to read the comments from the home page. I will become as Malda's idea of the typical Slashdot reader. I will provide no new content (neither comments, nor story submissions--although I'm not much of a story submitter).
During that week, I'd like to see if Malda sees Slashdot become a better place, or if it becomes the Hallowed Shrine of Troll. I'd like for the logs to be revisited and new queries run. And, I'd like for the "editors" to really see what the true value of Slashdot is--not the sum of click-throughs and page-views, but the sharing of knowledge and dissemination of information; the passing of experience from the more to the less.
This is where the (Hopefully) comes in. This is only meaningful if enough free content-providers (i.e., comment posters) agree to go along and participate. If there is only me and a handful of others who cease normal activities during that week, it will be pretty meaningless. Barely a dent will be made, and Malda and the other "editors" will never realize the incredible value they receive from comment posters.
To spread the word, I'm changing my sig to link to this journal entry. If you would like to help, you can link to this journal from your own sig, or you can simply resolve to enter into a voluntary one-week blackout. Pass the word. This will only work if a goodly number of comment posters participate.
To summarize, if you wish to participate, during the week of April 21 through April 27
- Do not click through from the home page to the comment page
- Do not post any comments to stories
- Do not submit new stories
A useful HTML link to this journal entry (69 characters, should fit in most sigs). You'll probably have to unfungle it after the lameness filter gets through with it:
<a href="http://slashdot.org/~rho/journal/5872">T(H)GSB</a> Apr 21-27
------------------------------------------
Last Chance to See! The final opportunity to discuss this before the lights go out
Questions? There are answers here!
------------------------------------------
This is a great idea. (Score:3, Interesting)
Good call!
Wouldn't it be more effective to not visit at all? (Score:2, Interesting)
During that time, I will not be posting, nor will I click through to read the comments from the home page. I will become as Malda's idea of the typical Slashdot reader. I will provide no new content ...
Now I don't really care about this crusade, and won't be marking my calendar to make sure I "don't post" during that week. But I find your idea interesting and have to make this comment: Wouldn't it be more effective if you didn't visit Slashdot's site at all?
Your problem is with Taco's assertion that the number of people who post comments and read them are insignificant compared to the number who just read the stories. If your boycott goes through as planned then what will they see from their end? They'll see a week where the site statistics support their theory even more than before! It will look like the number of comment posters is getting smaller and smaller, which does NOT help your cause.
I think a more accurate display of power would be to convince all the people who enjoy the comments to not visit slashdot at all (during that week). I personally will often come to the home page, browse for a few minutes for an interesting story, and then go read it. But the only reason I think to come to slashdot in the first place is because there are always funny and (sometimes) interesting comments related to the story, a feature that most other news sites do not have. I know that if I so desire, I can waste an almost infinite amount of time reading all of the comments and following all the sig links, and that makes me more likely to come back, even during the times when I only want a quick peek at the latest news.
The raw statistics for myself would show a large number of hits to only the home page, compared to the number of times that I sat and dredged through dozens of comment pages. But if it weren't for the comment pages, those other hits to (only) the home page wouldn't have occurred either! I think this is the non-obvious realization that you're trying to convey, and I think it would be better demonstrated by a REAL, total, blackout.
Re:Wouldn't it be more effective to not visit at a (Score:2)
If a huge number of people were to do this, the editors would see that you can't just ignore the comment-providers, as they are the most important part of the community.
It's like people at a department store. All the stores just try to get you in there and just assume that you will buy to your wallet's content. What if there was a huge push by the people to not buy anything from these stores, but not diminish the frequency of your visits. They could try to brag about how many visitors their store is getting, but they aren't getting anything from it. A full store that contains only people not interested in buying things is worse than an empty store, because they don't know what they can do better (other than improve their products). That is what this blackout is supposed to do. It is supposed to demonstrate what a full store with no buyers is like. Such a store is not good, and the owners will soon learn.
recognizing value (Score:3, Interesting)
Since the last year or so, we wrote the Journal code [slashcode.com] to give users more of a voice of their own. It's ironic that people are using that very platform, which represents a large investment in person-hours, to argue that we don't care about reader feedback.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Journals: Oh come on! That's half the fun of having a journal system. Wild rants, raging flamewars, tinfoil hat conspiracy theories, insane trolls, disgusting crapfloods, crybaby antics, and self righteous bullshit.
Then we have this. Slashdot blackout indeed. These trolls are among the best.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
We know the value of comments. A great deal of programmer time, not to mention hardware and networking support, has been committed since I joined the company to make comments work better.
However, according to Malda, half of the readers don't care. Why bother, if so many don't even notice? Save the bandwidth and programmer time! Not to put too fine a point on it, without the comment posters, Slashdot is a "Hot Links" with bad HTML and worse grammar and spelling.
I believe I adequately explained the reasoning behind a temporary blackout, and I stated unequivocably that I love Slasdot. Stow your bleating self-righteousness. I suppose you'd find it ironic that Thomas Jefferson's First Amendment was used to criticize him in the colonial papers. That's not irony--it's the whole point of the damn thing.
Re:recognizing value (Score:1)
I think the obvious answer is: because we feel it's important, it's what makes Slashdot what it is.
I'm saying you should look at actions, not just (out of context) words.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Consider it, then, a good reminder.
Of course, this could be entirely moot. Perhaps nobody will participate. If that is the case, you can consider that most commenters believe that they are appreciated, and that I am a complete nut.
I'm saying you should look at actions, not just (out of context) words.
Words mean things. Malda's words mean things (even if they're spelled poorly). He takes a statistic to mean something--half of the readers don't care about comments. His love of figures and statistics blinds him to the compexity of a community and the value of those community members. He thinks he knows something, when he does not. I would like to show him the truth.
So when did you become the Slashdot ombudsman?
Re:recognizing value (Score:1)
Quoth CmdrTaco:
"Again, I'm talking value in purely economic sense ;)"
http://www.slashnet.org/forums/Slashdot_03-06-2002 .html [slashnet.org]
Re:recognizing value (Score:1)
Taco has stated that the smallest percentage of slashdot users are the ones that reload constantly, comment a ton, and submit a lot of articles. These are the people that will require the most money to subscribe.
The problem is that these are the people that make slashdot a good community. These aren't trolls or crapflooders, but the people that generate the daily news, and good comments. Why should they be penalized the most?
Please note, that I'm not complaining, here. I'm just attempting to site the problem that some people have (including rho... I think).
I also hate it when stats are used. We all know there's a big +/- factor in there. IE - A ton of those "front page only views" are crapflooders trying to get FP for the next article.
Just my thoughts/opinions.
BTW - thanks for being rational and pleasant in your replies. I've seen other authors just get rude in their comments, but this is a mature thread, and I thank you for it.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
I was concerned about the problem of the hardcore fan burning 100s of points a day (trying to get fp?) but the enhancement, live today, of a daily limit on ads suppressed (default=10) makes the risk of inflated costs not so high.
(All you can eat would still be better .. but I can see how this is difficult to implement given shared accounts and so on.)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2, Flamebait)
He said to me, "Fuck you." I've been reading Slashdot since the beginning. I've purchased tshirts. I've met him IRL. If he wants his little club he can do it without me. I am also trying to find a way to block ads just from slashdot and no other sites -- any ideas?
I come to slashdot for the community, and the comments. Let Taco give me my mod privledges back and apologize for doing it and I may rethink my stance. But until then I view Taco as an evil that slashdot doesn't need..
I support the slashdot blackout -- I think Taco needs to see that a large percentage of his viewers do care about the community. A community he is doing as much as he can to destroy.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
OK, it is clear that you have something against CmdrTaco. That's your right. However, I will not support T(H)GSB for this reason. I like Slashdot and in most cases I agree with what CmdrTaco is doing. But I will support T(H)GSB anyway, because I think that it is nice from time to time to help everybody to re-evaluate the importance of comments in a site like Slashdot.
I think of it as an attention catcher and as a way to improve Slashdot in the long term, not as a protest against those who run this site.
Re:recognizing value (Score:4, Insightful)
Also, I moderated up a post that raised valid points, was well thought out and concise -- now I have the $rtbl flag. CmdrTaco told me in his actions to fuck off. I do like Slashdot. I like the majority of the community here. However, I don't like the fact that CmdrTaco has no clue how to run a community -- he wants it to be self sufficient, but if it disparages him he abuses his power. I'm not protesting against CmdrTaco by participating in T(H)GSB, I'm protesting against CmdrTaco by not subscribing and blocking ads.
I'd be more than happy to subscribe after he apologizes to me -- until then I don't care. I don't hold grudges, I just want to be treated fairly by trying to contribute to the community and make it a better place.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
This may seem overly simplistic, but if you don't like slashdot, go somewhere else. Unless you're subscribing, you're not paying for the service. If you're not paying for it, exactly what do you think you're owed?
Either use the site or don't use the site. Vote with your pageviews.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
I said nothing about disliking Slashdot. I dislike CmdrTaco (and a few other editors, but they do not make Slashdot).
Unless you're subscribing, you're not paying for the service.
Wrong, I pay with my time. Slashdot is a community site, it has a message board with threads to respond to geek events. The editors role is to choose what stories get posted, not to make sure Slashdot users post positive comments and nailing those who disagree with their stance and/or the communities sheep mentality.
If you're not paying for it, exactly what do you think you're owed?
Again, I am paying for it. I add value (questionable as to positive or negative) to slashdot with every comment I post. And, I'm not owed anything from Slashdot. The issue I have with CmdrTaco and the other editors is a personal one. They personally attacked me, yes they do run the site but I contribute a lot to this site. I like the community, and dislike some of the editors. So be it. Don't confuse Slashdot with CmdrTaco/michael/jamie -- they aren't the same.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
You volunteer your time. Twist it into whatever little blender you wish, it still doesn't come out that you're paying for it. If you believe you're adding value and you don't like the way those who own the site are treating you, then go away. Refuse your "added value".
The deal is this. You're allowed to have your opinion. You're allowed to express it. That doesn't mean that anyone else has to like your opinion. And if Rob/Jamie/et al attacked you, then they probably didn't like what you had to say. They didn't take away your acocunt. They didn't block you from posting your diatribes. They just modded a few of your posts down. If you're allowed to have an opinion, so are they. And if you don't like the way they express their opinion, if you don't like the fact that they own the site and can do with it whatever the hell they want, then stop "adding value". Stop contributing. Just go away.
That's really the only rational recourse that you have.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Right, I volunteer. I spend my time on Slashdot being part of a community. There is no twisting logic here, and the owners of the site have nothing to do with the community (unfortunately, if the authors actually cared about the community life would be much different).
As for their attacks against me, they did not dislike what I said because I didn't say anything. I moderated. A privledge setup for the entire community who has a decent track record. They didn't mod my posts down, in fact Jamie has modded a few of my posts up. They are allowed to have an opinion, and I am entitled to disagree or agree. However, they are not allowed to think that they can set the $rtbl flag on a long standing user of the site for no good reason. They killed about 500 moderators for that thread -- that is abusing the power of a community based system when they are not an active part of the community.
I have a lot of rational recourses actually - I can stay here and post about getting the $rtbl flag set on my account for no decent reason and get some supporters and hopefully Rob will decide that Slashdot is in fact a community and he should either participate or hand the project over to someone who cares. Or, I can still post and not mod. Which is what I do now, I'm fine with it -- but I still would appreciate an apology from Rob for doing it to me. Dont' worry -- I'm not holding my breath.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
The reason why I would be interested in paying Slashdot for a subscription fee is to keep the community going. I really don't care about moderating, I rarely do it anyway only if I see something that is actually well thought out or damned hilarious. The fact it was taken away from me is irritating. I'm trying to help the community, hopefully it will work out ok.
RE: your p.s.
Waiting to see their next action in the legal battle before going forward with more info. Another 30 days of silence and I think I can take it that they are backing down -- then I go to the media and such. However I am thinking of spending a sunday in a business suit picketing with a sign "Carr Chevrolet Lied to Me." -- And yes, I do realize I was really really dumb. My mother never lets me forget that
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
I was $rtbled too.
What really sucks is that they didn't even have the courtesy to send me a notice that it happened -- i just realized one day that i wasn't asked to metamod anymore.
So i asked Taco, and he ignored me. Same for Jamie and Hemos.
Finally i found Taco on IRC, and he said that they don't keep logs back that far of what the actual infraction was. All he knew was that i "moderated up a troll"
I never moderated up an actual troll, so i wanted to see what the post was. But like i said, by the time i actually found out that i had been rtbled, the logs had been destroyed so there was no way to defend myself.
I'm a good user. My karma's been at 50 for years. I never troll. I've been around Slashdot for a long time. But Taco decided that he didn't like the way i moderate, and so with no warning or even notice, he banned me from ever moderating or metamodding again.
And i don't even know what i did wrong.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Fuck that. Rob, kiss my royal white irish ass. At least I get the piece of mind that as far as cash flow goes, I'm a liability instead of an assett. Too bad I'm still adding onto this site. I posted in response to Jamie, I will be more than surprised if he responds back to me.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Any moderator (about 500) that gave a + score to any comment in the thread had the $rtbl flag set (Myself included) -- that is CmdrTaco telling me to fuck off.
That's the nutshell, not a troll.
Re:recognizing value (Score:3, Interesting)
Upmods were split up between insightful, interesting, informative, as you'd expect with human moderators (I forget if there were any funny mods) Look at the downmods - a couple of trolls, a couple of flamebaits, then several hundred offtopics. And this was the same story for any replies in that entire thread.
Human mods have different opinions - one thinks it's insightful, one thinks it's interesting. On the flipside, one thinks it's a troll, one thinks it's offtopic. What we saw was this expected distribution on the upmods, but the downmods were all the same.
Oh, and besides, the editors admitted it. Look for the reference yourself, I'm drunk and lazy.
BTW, I'm not entirely against the editors automatically modding the post as offtopic when it clearly was. Automodding the entire tree down was cheeky though. The worst part is the $rtbl-ing of upmoderators. You ask how we can be sure this wasn't done in metamod - well, how many mod points can one person expend on a post? How many unfair metmods are needed to $rtbl someone? I'll give you a clue, they don't match.
Re:recognizing value (Score:3, Interesting)
Also, you could watch the thread. After it got modded up - the entire thread (every single post) got mod'd to -1 Offtopic -- at the same time.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Tell me, how do you get a 0-score post marked informative - it wasn't posted by an AC, and the user didn't start at -1!
Quite interesting there!
And many many more marked off-topic. I'd doubt that there were even that many total mod points given over that period of time.
Next, the mod's continued for days. You and I both know that people don't mod stories that aren't on the front page - and certainly not in these numbers.
Frankly, get rid of editor moderation or subject it to meta-mod. Sure, I'll have more trash to wade through, but it's be honest.
Editors need checks and balances too. Either remove the mod privs, or subject them to meta mods that then remove their privs when more than a few readers disagree - for more than a day or two.
Perhaps, disagreement in meta mod ought to be a employement metric too?
Cheers!
Some answers for ya! (Score:2)
Easy. A user mods up a 0-rated post, then decides he/she wishes to post in the same story. As soon as the post is made, the moderation is undone, and karma adjusted accordingly. But for some reason, Slashcode does not adjust the modifier when moderation is reversed. Trolls use this to mod down a (Score:5, Insightful) post as Troll or Flamebait, then posting in the thread undoing the moderation but not the modifier. So the post now reads (Score:5, Troll) or (Score:5, Flamebait).
Frankly, get rid of editor moderation or subject it to meta-mod.
Editor mods are metamodded just like any other mod. However, their moderation powers cannot be removed (not even by the $rtbl) except by adjusting the $seclev value. One must remember, in most cases, the editor status is earned, and there is a certain trust factor involved, although I agree with editor mods being limited to one per post.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
The original thread. [slashdot.org] This got me $rtbl'd for modding up a post.
and the K5 post. [kuro5hin.org]
I think final count of the moderations before Rob forced an archive of the thread was around 900.
Re: recognizing value (Score:2)
> entire tree down was cheeky though. The worst part is the $rtbl-ing of upmoderators.
Naw, $rtbl-ing the moderators, & not telling them why they were penalized was the worst part. I only discovered why this happened to me by accident. That there was a discussion between TPTB & the community I also learned by accident.
Cmdr Taco, et alia, shot themselves in the foot by how they handled this incident. I'd pontificate & state that this is the point where
Geoff
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Quoth CmdrTaco: ;)"
"Again, I'm talking value in purely economic sense
... which is exactly the wrong sense in which to think about comment posters. Ever. They are not an economic drain--period, not in any way. They are a net-gain, regardless of the bandwidth or hardware utilized.
You are falling prey to the same disease; thinking of the community in only two dimensions when their value is multi-dimensional.
You cannot think of comments and the posters in a pure economic sense. Or, actually, you can, but only if you include both sides. What is the sum total of man hours added to Slashdot by volunteer workers? What is the sum total of free advice given, if cast in terms of consultancy fees? Where are the economic figures for that? Add those into the mix, and you'll find that Slashdot likely owes a lot more to its hordes of volunteers than it spends on them.
Re:recognizing value (Score:5, Insightful)
There's a basic equation that has to be balanced, or
The simple version of that equation is:
S - C = P
Where S is Sales and C is Costs, and P is Profit. P has to be >= 0.
Arguably, VA would like that 0 to be some much larger number, but the simple version is that a number < 0 means (eventually) no more
Any points about the economic value of the comments system to the posters and readers are irellevent. That system could be making each of those groups literal millions of dollars, in actual cash, but if VA can't get a dime of it, it doesn't help the above equation and
Now, back to that equation. On the "S" side of things, we have dimininshing prices per page view. On the "C" side of things, we have more and more people reading SlashDot. Normally this would be a great thing, but right now
From a pure business perspective, their best decision might be to simply turn the forums off, frankly. They'd lose a big chunk of S, but they'd lose an even bigger chunk of C, which would make P bigger, maybe bigger enough to get over zero. Because they agree with you that the forums have some intrinsic value (and I'll agree that they make
Personally, I'd like to see them redesign the forums aggressively to remove the massive bandwidth they use. I think an intelligent system could significantly change the forum economics.
Anyway, I'm rambling from my point: Your idealism about the value of the forums is very quaint. You might even be right that they are extremely valuable (although I doubt it when you include the signal to noise ratio, and the time wasted slogging through trolls to get the good stuff). But the fact of the matter is that they are a DRAIN on
To put this in a much simpler setting: I run a Wolfenstein server, called The Quark's Challenge (TQC). It uses about a megabit of very high quality bandwidth. It has a devoted following, who REALLY enjoy playing on it.
A megabit of very high quality bandwidth at retail or near-retail prices costs about $300/mo (including rack space). I've been utilizing some spare capacity of my company's (bandwidth that came with some rack space we needed, but that we don't actually utilized). So, the equation above, for TQC has been 0 - 0 = 0. Break-even (not including my time maintaining it, of course).
Under this economic model, TQC has grown a community of hundreds of players who enjoy it very, very much. I'd be willing to wager that it's worth threee dollars a month to these people, in the value they get for wasting their time in an enjoyable fashion.
The contract my company was getting that rack space under is about to expire, and my company is not going to renew (we don't need the space there, anymore). So, my equation is about to look like:
0 - 300 = -300
So, I have here a community that is worth something like $300 to the community that uses it. And it's worth something extra to me - I get to have my name in lights and server where no one ever gives me shit (for more than a few seconds, anyway...). So, I'd be willing to chip in $20/mo:
20 - 300 = -280
But, that's still $-280 in my pocket, despite that $300 in value to the community you keep talking about. If I run that equation for any months at all, I'll decide that TQC isn't worth $300/month to me, and that'll be that for the community.
So, I've either got to reduce costs to save the community, or increase sales (a tip jar, perhaps? Or subscriptions...) But the point is, no matter how much I love the community, and no matter how much the community loves TQC, unless their dollars can pay my hosting bills, it's a losing situation.
/. is in the same boat. Vacuous arguments about the value of the community are great in a socialistic way, but they simply don't pay the hosting bill. And if the hosting bill doesn't get paid, you'll be writing notes to yourself about how awful it was that they killed
Re:recognizing value (Score:4, Insightful)
The root problem is that
Since
Don't fall into the trap of assuming that because we create valuable content that's what the lurkers are reading. It isn't. They're reading the stories, which I think would still mostly get submitted even if we weren't here.
All of that said, of course, I think CT and company love the community at least as much as you do and they want to figure out how to keep it going. But try to understand when they say, "The community doesn't help our business," it's not becase they don't care about the community - it's because the community doesn't help their business. And I think it's ridiculous and juvenile to get angry at them for saying that when it's true.
Re:Which makes me wonder... (Score:2)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
I support the basic idea behind THGSCB
Taco and some of the editors think that the value comments add to the system aren't worth reflecting in subscription prices. Some
Jamie quite correctly states that the attention given to comment features in slashdot's system shows they _do_ value comments. In other words, even though their values aren't showing up in the pricing structure, they show up in the efforts made on adding the features in the first place. The sole benchmark of attitudes doesn't have to be financial. They HAVE built a first class comment system, for which we only have to ignore ads in order to use for free, and which we can use to criticize slashdot editors. That should say something.
So join THBSCB (and yes, I think we should throw the word "Comment" in there, because it accurately reflects what we'd be doing) and politely encourage others to do so. Let the editors draw their own conclusions from it, and don't prejudice them with vitriol beforehand.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
But I think we need to be really quite polite about the whole thing. Phrases like "stow your bleating self-righteousness" don't really help the issue at all (not to mention the fact I don't think it acurately characterized jamie's comment).
You're right. My temper gets the best of me sometimes.
I've tried to tone down my accusations in my subsequent posts.
However, I did find that Jamie's comment, ...It's ironic that people are using that very platform, which represents a large investment in person-hours, to argue that we don't care about reader feedback. to be farcical. Should we only use that platform to adulate the "editors"? Or is that very platform the perfectly obvious place to work for a change, or reform, or to better the entire community?
Jamie quite correctly states that the attention given to comment features in slashdot's system shows they _do_ value comments. In other words, even though their values aren't showing up in the pricing structure, they show up in the efforts made on adding the features in the first place.
I argue, however, that the "editors" make decisions without a full understanding of the value returned by the community. Malda's apples-to-apples comparison was (and is) a poor comparison. It is such broken logic it cannot stand on it's own.
I don't doubt the "editors" position that they care about comments and comment posters. I believe that they do not care enough. It shows in ways subtle, and sometimes not so subtle. Some might argue that it shows in how the subscription system was designed--I don't, myself, but some do.
Regardless, thanks for supporting this minor protest. I hope it makes some change, if only a small one.
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2, Informative)
Re:recognizing value (Score:2)
People suck.
I've added it to my sig... (Score:3, Informative)
Re:I've added it to my sig... (Score:2)
Good point. I'll do it as well.
Arggggh!!! (Score:1)
I now have a post it note on my monitor, I will make sure I post, comment, and submit more during the 21-27th. I like this site, and as soon as there are paypal alternatives, I will subscribe, /disable/ not viewing ads (whoa! who would have thought, someone giving money to a site without taking advantage of the benefits), and will continue clicking the ads. I appreciate this site, I use it regularly, and and I am not going to let a bunch of free loaders try and ruin it.
In other words, get off your high horse and stop being so damn hypocritical.
Re:Arggggh!!! (Score:2, Insightful)
You miss the point entirely. This has nothing to do with subscriptions. Read my statement again.
This is purely a reminder to the "editors" that Slashdot is what it is due to the contributed efforts of hundreds or thousands of readers. It has nothing to do with subscriptions. As I say in my statement, I will probably subscribe myself.
Read it again, then think about it again.
Re:Arggggh!!! (Score:2)
This isn't about subscriptions. This is about making a point to the people who run Slashdot about the value of the community.
Re:Arggggh!!! (Score:2)
Look, Rob has said, in effect, "Community, I love ya. You're why I built this thing and why I'm still here. But you cost an arm and leg, and I can't make my main revenue decisions to reward you, I've got to make them to keep the business open."
So, there are two possibilities: Either A) he's right. In which case all of these people threatening boycotts over getting dissed by the person paying the bills because you don't make any money need to slink back home with their tails between their legs. Or, B), he's wrong. In which case
I believe the bottom line here is that the community is a lot more valuable to you (collectively) than it is to VA. You care more about the community than VA does, since all they care about is money (that basically being the definition of a corporation). If your community makes them money, they'll care about it. If it costs them money, they'll want to ditch it. If it makes them less money than something else they're doing, they'd rather do the something else.
That doesn't mean Rob and company don't care about and value the community - I think they're the ultimate hardcores and will do whatever they can to keep it running, even to the extent of relieving VA of some cash to do it. But bottom line from all the folks at VA we've heard from is, while the community is of great value to itself, VA has been utterly unable to monetize that value. Since all VA cares about is money, the unwashed newsreaders (who value
Let's run some numbers. Costs:
$5k/month in bandwidth
$70k/month in personel (12 people, fully loaded)
Plus rent and various sundries. So,
On the Sales front, hemos says, "The CPM [is] greater than 5$ [sic] or so." He also says they sell for actual cash money "something like 18% of all pages." So, they have an inventory of 30 million pages, but they only sell 5.4 million of them.
5400000 * (5 / 1000) = 27000
So, their monthly loss (not including some other costs we didn't figure in, but also not including some non-cash income like ad trades) is on the order of $48k. I'm leaving aside subscription revenue at the moment because we have essentially no data on it at this time.
Leaving aside the single intangible of stories that are contributed by hardcore posters who wouldn't contribute if there were no comments and which wouldn't be contributed by someone else, it's easy to now start to get at the cost/benefit of hardcore users.
The real issue is programmer and administrative time keeping comments running. Rob has said that half the users never get past the front page. Let's assume that represents 1/3 of the daily pageviews. I've seen no data on this and would love to see it if anyone has it. But the assumption here is that hardcore readers and posters make up 2/3 of the pageviews.
They have a staff of 12 - a lot of them have to be spending a lot of time on comment scalability, database maintenence, etc. If we dumped comments entirely, I'd bet we could lay off at least 2/3 of them - equivilant to the pageviews we just lost. So, that's -8 headcount.
So, our new commentless
$2k/month in bandwidth
$23k/month in personel (4 people, fully loaded)
$24k/month total cost
Sales - this is the tricky bit. We reduce inventory from 30M per month to 10M per month. But we still have more than we can sell! So, we can still sell the same number of pageviews:
5400000 * (5 / 1000) = 27000
Or, a net profit of $3k per month by eliminating "the most valuable" part of slashdot.
Just for the sake of argument, let's do the reverse - let's get rid of news and assume all the posters would still hang out in their valuable community.
That cuts PV down to 20M/month, and headcount down to 8:
$4k/month in bandwidth
$47k/month in salary
$51k/month in total cost
But, the same above logic applies on pageviews, so that number is still $27k per month, for a net loss to VA of $24k/month.
The problem is that the assets comments consume are not proportinal to the amount of income they bring in.
Now, you can make a lot of arguments about the intangible value comments bring, in attracting advertisers, getting stories, etc. But the bottom line is that comments don't make enough money to justify their current expenditures.
There are two ways to fix this: Cut comments or increase sales.
Given the numbers above, if they can raise that blended CPM (including subscription sales) to $15 CPM, they'll be profitable. Or, if they can sell 50% of their pageviews (including subscriptions), they'll be profitable.
Bottom line: You want to show Rob how important comments are, you should subscribe, or stop blocking ads. Anyone who is not either looking at and clicking on ads or subscribing has absolutely no right to complain about the decisions VA makes to keep its doors open.
Re:Arggggh!!! (Score:2)
Your response is to threaten to cost him less money, for a week, so he'll understand how important you are.
Uh...OK...
I think the fundamental issue is that "The Community" is pissed off that Rob and VA don't value "The Community" as much as it values itself. I'd argue that, if you want to correct this, the way to do it is to increase the value of "The Community" to Rob and VA, not threaten to show them exactly how much money you cost them every single day.
It was asked above, but I'll ask again: Why on earth do you think that boycotting posts for a week is going to cause the
In short, you're Br'er Fox threatening to throw Br'er Rabbit into the briar patch. That's why Jamie is so sanguine above when he says have fun, and we'll see you in a week.
Re: (Score:2)
Not a troll, just an opinion (Score:2, Interesting)
>(i.e., comment posters) agree to go along and participate. If there is only me and a handful of
>others who cease normal activities during that week, it will be pretty meaningless. Barely a
>dent will be made, and Malda and the other "editors" will never realize the incredible value
>they receive from comment posters.
And this is what will happen. To think otherwise is to fool yourself. I have never seen a single boycott that works, and the pool of lazyness that is slashdot is not precisely a militant's dream.
Still, good luck.
>T(H)GSB will be during the week of April 21 through April 27. Easy to remember, the full
>moon in April falls on the 27th.
Whoa, man, not everyone is that aware of when the full moon falls, and I'm not sure knowing it by heart makes you more trustworhty
Re:Not a troll, just an opinion (Score:3, Insightful)
So Rosa Parks and the ensuing boycott failed?
Hrmmm. (Score:3, Funny)
So you got lucky.
Re:Hrmmm. (Score:2)
See how my troll of a post on karma abuse got +1 mod? That's the true measure of a kw.
And being mod is overrated...it just means you can't post to a thread and you have to read all the dumb shit ACs and neg ones post to get a few missed gems.
The boycott should last only one day. (Score:2)
The boycott should last only one day, in my opinion.
Re:The boycott should last only one day. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The boycott should last only one day. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And the point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should not get rid of them?
I do not think that Taco has ever even considered doing that.
Do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should force people to post?
Do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should wake up and smell the coffee?
Do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should turn Slashdot over to someone who will work to keep Slashdot comments valued?
Do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should stop looking at server logs?
*OR* do you want to show CmdrTaco that, indeed, the comments are valued at Slashdot and that he should admit that "Of course you are 100% right, and I am wrong?"
I am guessing that this last one is the reason for a lot of this.
Re:And the point is? (Score:3, Insightful)
Most of the Slash editors and authors read comments obsessively. I read comments on almost every story posted to the mainpage, at threshold 0. I've read the discussion in this journal, and the journal entry itself, and I can't figure out what anyone wants from us. As far as I can tell, people are upset because they (deliberately?) misunderstand one or two lines of what Rob typed over the course of a three-hour IRC session. But I can't tell what this boycott is supposed to make us do, or realize, or change.
Should we look at server logs more? Or ignore them? Should we stop paying any attention to Slashdot's financials? Or should we be more bottom-line? Should we keep doing what we've been doing and just not talk about it anymore? Or should we pat comment-posters on the heads every day, and tell them what good little comment-posters they are?
Always judge people by their actions, not words. Since before I joined this company two years ago, it's been funding development of this (open-source!) code which is highly optimized to handle large-volume discussions. I think the logical conclusion is that we care about those discussions and recognize their importance.
Post your thoughts here, I'll check back on this journal occasionally.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
This is not the means to an end. Just a couple of guys trying to be noticed.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Add to this the fact that you have a dozen people posting on this journal, each saying they are going to join the boycott for completely different reasons.
It seems to me that if the editos notice the boycott, and ask themselves "Why did people do this?" they are going to walk away with a confusion of answers and no real explanation.
I think that comments are very important to Slashdot, and I think that all editors would agree with that statement. You are not going to "prove" that point to them.
While we are speaking of rants, you can check out some of my views on some things. [slashdot.org]
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
My primary problem is with getting $rtbl'd (as far as I can tell) from modding on the Post of Death, aka the First Slashdot Troll Post Investigation. Honestly, I thought the comment was very interesting, considering that I was a relatively active moderator and almost always read at -1 while I was modding (though I read at +2 on a normal basis). Who knew that by spending one innocent little mod point I'd get canned for the rest of my Slashdot career? I wasn't trying to promote anything sinister, evil, or even necessarily anti-slashdot. As much as anything, I was fascinated that the comment had had (IIRC) ~200 moderations done on it at that time. Is there any hope of getting mod/metamod privileges back? It's work on my part, but I do enjoy giving back and promoting thoughtful discussion.
Thanks for the effort you put into slashcode. It appears to work fairly well, though I've never looked at it myself. The problem, as often, appears to be with the users more than the software. Keep up the good work, and thanks for your interest in this thread.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2, Interesting)
You guys $rtbl'd me without cause or notification. You know how that makes me feel? I've been on this site since before you Jamie and you guys think you can take away a community privledge? Not that I modded much anyway, but it's bullshit what you guys did.
I like Slashdot, but the more and more bullshit happens because some of the editors refuse to get down off a pedestal and join the community the more I wish someone would dump the money into setting up an alternate.
I've been judging people by their actions -- and what I have found is that Rob does not value the comment posters or moderators at all. Otherwise the Post of Doom (I hate that name) would have been handled much differently. Maybe you guys need to hire someone to actually deal with the community, just a thought. As for the Slash code, please don't go off about how big of a deal it is. It's a message board, plain and simple. EZboard has you guys beat out flat as far as volume goes.
Sorry for any venom, I'm trying to be frank while still mostly nice -- I'm unhappy and considering I've been here since Feb 1998 and I get treated like that I feel I have a right to be.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
All this entire thing does is reduce the quality of an interesting and large community.
I have gotten modded down, lost karma and such by being in the wrong thread at the right time. Not really a big deal overall, but I do sometimes think (like I did just now) 'should I post on this one?' Will it cost me?
./ should not be like that.
There are not enough problems that the staff of slashdot and those that have them could not work them out over a weeks worth of healthy discussion.
Anything else is just lame and a waste of time...
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
First, I want to admit my guilty-pleasure: EverQuest. Why is this relevant? I see the same sorts of community problems there, but on a different scale. It's all real-time and there tends to be a younger audience which is much more voiciferous in their feedback, so I've gotten a good feel for what the problems are.
First off, you run one of the most useful site on the net. Period.
However, you do a piss-poor job of reminding your users of why they apreciate that. What I'm talking about is PR, plain and simple. When you roll out a subscription service, you know that there's going to be some percentage of the population that will say, "hey, we shouldn't have to pay for this crap!" Hell, you'll get this response if you say you're going to start charging for diamonds.
What you needed to do was soften the blow by reminding people that they WANT to be here. You needed to make sure that the majority of
I appreciate
I agree with the author of this journal that comments are the life-blood of Slashdot. They're the reason that the site is useful. I think you understand that as well. But, don't let yourselves get out-PRed by the trolls.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
If anything, this will just add on to the "contempt for those hard-core fans." Anyone who follows Slashdot enough to follow a link in a
In addition, the original journal article, the one linked to in the
So now we know what dynamic possibly causes this feeling among some posters, but not a single solution to be found.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
"Respect us!" cry the hard-core fans. "We are the heart and soul [of the franchise]!" Again, a problem is that any reply of "We respect you as a market" doesn't address this.
Now, as to a solution, I must confess that's beyond my abilities. I'm pretty good (I believe) at figuring out what is the problem, in a certain framework. However, it's an entirely different task to come up with a way to solve it. I don't know. And if I did know how to solve problems with Slashdot editors [sethf.com], I'd have my anticensorware investigations [sethf.com] on the front page!
So all I can offer is my analysis. This isn't a case of "If you have to ask, you'll never know". But I do think it's a case of "If you don't know what is being asked, you'll never know how to reply".
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Cheers
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
I think I know the comment you're looking for [slashdot.org] - it was posted to FortKnox's journal.
*Ahem* - and I quote: "...kids like FortKnox who live on Slashdot (713 comments, christ!) need to get out more."
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
We are all more than happy to see users who post a plethora of interesting, insightful, and/or informative comments :)
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Come on, now. I'm not a troll or crapflooder. I don't ABUSE the system. If you guys see me as a threat, tell me. I'll be happy to stop commenting (won't stop my journal). I want to know if someone that doesn't have the authors opinions is "abusive".
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Now, if you'll notice, I still have a decent Karma rating right now. I know, karma doesn't matter, but obviously I was at one time posting insightful [slashdot.org], informative, or just plain funny stuff that the majority found worth moderating UP.
Now is it true that just recently I've posted a crapflood [slashdot.org] or two either logged in or as an AC? Sure, but the one I linked to here was only in response to getting a problem fixed, that for a time, was annoying me to death at home because I never had the time to reinstall my somehow messed up and non-working mozilla browser, and had to use IE instead.
Do I also post comments [slashdot.org] that are inflammatory and don't agree with the masses, simply cause I whole-heartedly believe in what I posted? Sure.
So why is it that because a few of my posts are a waste of space, that all the rest of my comments and additions to slashdot are worthless and childish in the eyes of micheal and jamie? I agree that the slashdot "editors" want this to be a haven of interesting, quality stuff, but quite honestly, this isn't a true "forum" as in the original, non-Information age sense of the word. People do not speak in turn, do not have to listen to others, and do not have 'obey the rules' because the "editors" have put all sorts of automated controls in place so they don't have to do any real work "moderating" the discussion themselves. And yet they bemoan other's overuse and abuse of such a system? It's not *perfect*, but it works up to an extent.
I've read Seth's account of censorware.org, and I have to believe it pretty much point blank. Just look at how jamie and michael are treating the very people who make slashdot what it is! It's good to have all the voices, even the crapflooders and trolls, and flamebaits, because rather than forcing us to listen to just what the "editors" want (what DO they actually edit anyways???), we get to pick apart all the differing views, ideas, and information ourselves, regardless of how much there is.
I've said it before in my posts, and I'll say it again: The Slashdot Editors are not true EDITORS!!! They tack on little snippets of additional info once in a while to stories submitted by their readers. This is hardly the same thing as managing original content writers at a traditional newspaper. All they're doing is coallating all the info into 'main topic sections' that other people send them.
Get off your high horses guys. You're constant spelling, grammatical, programming, and intellectual errors do not go through any sort of 'journalistic' process. Users moderating the crap everywhere is what cleans up your website. It's great that you provided the infrastructure and support it for an automated discussion online, but for goodness sake, don't be upset when the content provided isn't exactly the content you expected.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Some how I don't think were getting the whole story on that one.
Come on like they couldn't just register 'censor-ware.org'?
I'm also "prejudice" by the fact that in my one experience dealing with Mr. Sims I found him to be a nice guy.
He got me my slashdot password when I lost it and the emailaddress that it was registered to.
Michael if your reading this I owe you one. If your ever in LA I'll buy you a beer or something.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
I never remember reading that. But I read the essay a while ago (like 6 months). So mabey it wasn't set up yet.
2) The first time Michael Sims shut-down the censorware.org site, the critical aspect was that HE HAD ALL THE FILES. No-one else had a full copy, because HE WAS THE WEBMASTER, and we all trusted him to some extent (I had a partial copy of the files, because I trusted him least!). He was holding the files hostage, until I put up a partial copy.
Again this doesn't address the whole story.
Like for instance from the email to Michael:
Why did you and him become enemies?
I'd like to know I think it's an important part of the story.
3) After the second time Michael Sims shut-down the site, permanently, the issue is, and remains, that there are a lot of old links that still point to censorware.org. People trying to find material at these old links get misled, because they get either an error, or some rant by Michael Sims. This all matters right now, this instant, because, for example, there's a Federal trial about a government mandatory censorware law [ala.org] starting next week. What's happening is not a force of nature. It is not an act of God. It is deliberate, willful, maliciousness on the part of Michael Sims, in misleading people who are trying to find material to oppose censorware.
I just went to censorware.org. This is what I saw:
This is a rant?
And what exactly do you call it when you scream from the hills with all this "have Michael Sims stop playing dog-in-the-manger" stuff?
Please add your voice to have Michael Sims stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the censorware.org domain, and return it to the Censorware Project.
You still have yet to show me why I would want to do this.
PS: I never even heard of the censorware project till I read your essay
Plus in my experience dealing with Michael he was nice to me. You OTOH are acting like a dick.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
It sucks that you were modded a troll too.
And I agree it's an important part of the story. Unfortunately, it's very long and complex and involves certain still-sensitive legal matters. It has to do with my risk of getting sued for anti-censorware work. It may all get told eventually. Till then, regrets.
On censorware.org Michael says he will put up a full history in the next couple of days. I guess I'll get the whole story after all.
http://www.efa.org.au/Publish/PR990730.html [efa.org.au]
This first link you showed me is an old news item I dought that anyone reads it anymore.
Why don't you email the webmaster and get him to change the link?
Again, if Michael Sims doing what's basically a goatse'ing people trying to fight a Federal trial about a government mandatory censorware law [ala.org] starting next week doesn't convince you, I am at a loss to imagine what would.
This second link you showed me dose not AFAIK have any links to censorware.org.
So what's you point there exactly?
If your trying to say that since the loss of the
I put it ot you that I never even heard of censorware.org till reading your essay.
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
My guess is that he'll just call me names and point out where other people have called me names. He'll leave out the reasons, many of which he knows, from when he was brought into the legal discussions. It's the power of journalism, all I can do is play catch-up with his abuses.
It's just an example. Have another, at, e.g. http://www.watchoncensorship.asn.au/guide.html [watchoncensorship.asn.au] . It would be a tremendous job to chase them all down. And there's other links in print, which can't be changed. Why doesn't Michael Sims just stop playing dog-in-the-manger with the domain name, and refrain from basically goatse'ing people?The point of the link to ALA's CIPA pages [ala.org] is to inform you about the issue of the Federal trial starting next week about a government mandatory censorware law. It is to show you how Michael Sims destroying a website of anti-censorware information, and again basically goatse'ing people trying to find such information, has real-world, right-now, Federal-law, relevance. You, personally, may not be involved in this issue. However, other people are involved, and when they try to find information from links to censorware.org, they either get an error, or Michael Sims hijacks them to his rant. I repeat: This is not a force of nature. It is not an act of God. It is deliberate, willful, maliciousness on the part of Michael Sims, in misleading people who are trying to find material to oppose censorware.
By the way, if it isn't clear to you, Michael Sims seems to have now made all the links to various reports and other material on censorware.org go to his rant. It's astonishing. We have a Slashdot editor pulling what amounts to goatse'ing of people seeking anti-censorware material. He's now more of a Troll than the trolls!
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Not to put too fine a point on it, but: no shit. We don't need any reminder of that.
Personally, I think Slash is important -- not just for Slashdot, but for sites in years to come that will use it to spark free, open discussions about other things. There are a zillion Content Management Systems, but there's only one Slash.
I don't want to sound sappy but knowing I'm helping keep an ongoing discussion of thousands of people alive is part of why I love to get to work in the morning. I've been fighting against online censorship in one way or another for about ten years now, and this is part of it: letting other discussion-oriented sites start up using our code.
The whole point of the internet is for everyone to be able to speak. I figure in a very small way, I'm doing my part to un-Disneify the net by helping keep this ongoing discussion rolling and by helping others start their own up.
Pretty sappy I know, but that's how I feel...
My guess is that you started this "blackout" because you were angry about the perceived lack of importance placed on comments -- but now that you know that's not true, you figure you've gotten so much attention you might as well go through with it. I obviously can't convince you otherwise, so good luck and have fun, I guess. We'll still be around when you all get back.
You might want to check out what I said about our readers' comments last September [slashdot.org]. I'll reproduce it here to save you the click:
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Here's a concise way of stating the dynamic:
The hard-core fans are saying they want to be respected as producers of value
The franchise employees too often reply that they respect them as consumers of product
These aren't the same thing.
I believe you're making some interpretation errors based on not understanding what another person values deeply.
Sig: What Happened To The Censorware Project (censorware.org) [sethf.com]
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
Value that the franchise has been utterly unable to monetize...
The franchise employees too often reply that they respect them as consumers of product
I believe you are dead wrong here. Based on Malda's comments elsewhere, the hard-core fans are a direct drain on
front_page_profit - comment_costs + story_value
My assumption here is that if you laid off the programmers who spend 80% of their time working on comments (sorry, Jamie) and dumped the comment system entirely (take out the bandwidth costs, redeploy the servers, etc, plus also the limited income from ads and subscriptions which are mostly from the hardcore), that
Let me break it down in similar terms for you:
The
But for God's sake when someone gives you something, don't bitch at them that they don't appreciate you.
If this were at all the success you want it to be - if all the hard-cores went away for a week - I think you'd find VA would say, "Wow,
Thankfully for those of us who enjoy comments, are grateful for the charity (and are trying to even the equation somewhat with subscriptions), I suspect that the boycott won't make much of a dent.
But if you're threatening
Re:And the point is? (Score:2)
You're again reading too much into too little. I just meant that the rest of us will be waiting for you to rejoin the ongoing chat.
My other remarks you took mostly the wrong way too. I didn't mean you disagreed, I didn't mean to give offense, I was just rapping about my personal take on all this, at a lazy midnight.
Now it's a tired 3 AM and I'm not going to continue this, because it seems you're seeing the worst in everything I say. I'll just shut up now :)
April (Score:2)
Oops (Score:2)
Sign me up! (Score:2)
Joining the blackout! (Score:2)
If editors don't value the opinions of commenters or moderators, then who's opinions do they value? Who's best interests are they supporting? I understand that it must be nice to have an ego boost for editing such a popular site, and there is nothing wrong with that, but either the ego thing is getting entirely out of hand or there are other factors (e.g., money, corporate, politics) affecting their behaviour towards user movements such as the Troll Post Investigation. It shows that some editors are acting on the bit of the childish side, unbecoming of a supposedly professional journalism site. Somehow they believe that they're credibility is affected by such posts and need to smack it down; and assuming that something like that will be ignored by the general user community is an insult to our intelligence, making us seem like a bunch of sheep. But these pigs aren't going to get the satisfaction.
This is why I am going to stay away from Slashdot from April 21 to April 27. If some find this blackout unrealistic, just remember that activism only works if you take an active role, and not if you treat the situation with apathy (sort of like the "but my vote doesn't really count" rubbish). Take charge of your beliefs and follow through with them!
Submit this as a story (Score:2)
The free to non-free experience (Score:4, Offtopic)
Salon.com - started charging for some stories, for forums
Fool.com - started charging for forums.
I was not a member of Salon.com's forums, but I was posting on Fool.com's forums. I paid for both sites, and saw the same cycle at both sites. The cycle is:
After much soul-searching, the current admins of the site decide on a pay model rather than a free model. The top admins write an essay on why the new model is necessary to announce the upcoming change.
Heated debate ensues. The admins spend more time than usual in the forums debating the topic, sometimes rewarding those that agree in a insightful way, and punishing those that disagree in a crude way.
Camps emerge - those that want to support the site anyway, those that are disgusted that the admins are trying to make money off of their content, those that decide that the deal makes financial sense, etc. etc. The wide-spread debate does NOT change the smallest detail of the original plan.
A boycott is announced at a future date. The boycott comes and goes. Some of the boycott announcers forget themselves and post anyway. The results are inconclusive.
D-Day occurs. Forum traffic goes way down - lots of "are you here?" messages. In some ways, it is because the most vocal have left. In other ways, it's because the ones who paid are now thinking - "would I pay for the comment I'm about to write?".
Within one week, things are back to normal, except for the addition of "I'm paying for this crap?" messages and "This post is worth the fees alone!" messages.
Within one month, things are back to normal, expect that there are fewer rabble-rousers.
But go ahead with the boycott. It is an important part of the process, and may give you an idea of the size of your faction and the ability of that faction to make a clear statement. Good luck.
Geeze . . . (Score:3, Interesting)
Of course, evidentally I find the meta-discussion worth adding to, so it seems I'm actually a hypocrite. Whee! :)
Whatever. I like the comments and I've never felt they've been marginalized.
Just had an idea: Imagine if a whole bunch of people decide to go along with this plan of yours and don't post at all during the week. I'm guessing that the people who participate meaningfully in it will be people who post regularly to Slashdot. Infrequent posters like myself won't matter, because I'm just as likely not to post as post during any given week. However, most of the time, I don't post because I've come into the discussion when there's already a hell of a lot of posts, and it turns out that any point I felt like making has already been made a number of times and moderated to hell and back. :)
So when us infrequent posters notice that there's actually some room for us in the discussion, your plan would kind of fall apart if suddenly there's just a whole bunch of "new" people filling the empty holes.
Add to that the number of people who won't even be aware of the movement because they don't bother to follow .sig links or just don't care about meta-discussions (which I actually find quite interesting), and it becomes a rather dismal prospect. :)
Or it could be wildly successful beyond your, um, wildest dreams. (heh) Yeah.
organizing this blackout (Score:2)
Personally, I think Rob's statements hold a lot of truth and really help put the (relative lack of) value of comment posting into perspective. It's easy to get really wrapped up in small on-line communities, and I've seen a lot of these where a lot people had some really positive experiences. Slashdot, saddly, doesn't build the sort of community that many other forums do, largely because each topic lasts for only a day or less. That's just my opinion.
Still, there is some intangible value in the "community", and perhaps that value is part of what makes slashdot special to that smaller portion of readers who even bother to read the comments. Perhaps some people really do feel a strong sense of community at slashdot? It's easy to see how Rob's opinion could sound really offensive to someone who feels like they've really contributed to slashdot and is part of a real community (though personally, I see it as more of standing on a soapbox sounding-off to random passer-bys than truely participating in a community).
In the context of selling advertisements (the context of Rob's recent comments, in case anyone forgot), it really is a stats game with funny terms like "pageviews", "impressions", "clickthrough", and so on.
Still, I have to wonder what would happen if there really were a boycott.
It would seem like an effective approach, though somewhat intrustive to people's mailboxes, would be to grab all the +2 to +5 comments from the last several weeks, manually harvest all the available email addresses (almost everyone puts some anti-spam stuff in), and then email them a really well composed and compelling plea to convince all those users not to post for that week.
The difficult part is writing that message so it really does appeal to the average enlightened (or karma whoring) poster. I suspect that putting this sort of work into the boycott will not actually happen, or the vendetta against Rob will shine through and ruin the message.
Anyway, just a few random thoughts, as I try to balance my perspective that this post is probably among the least value-adding I've written (since it'll be seen by so few people) and my urge to press the "Submit" button instead of just closing this windows instead of commiting the post.... as I will seriously consider in the third week of April if anyone who is passionate about this boycott goes to the trouble to do some real organizing and harvests my email address from the numerous posts I've made (including some +5's) and sends me a well-written and compelling, perhaps even personalized request to participate in the boycott.
Humor slap (Score:2)
My two metric pennies... (Score:2)
Before I get the cheapskate reply: I've already subscribed. Stupid? Perhaps. Validates the system? Quite possibly. However, I didn't subscribe to stop some ads. My reasons for subscribing were due to the fact that I've enjoyed Slashdot for well over 3 years now, and $AU10 isn't going to break my budget anytime soon. Besides, OmniWeb blocks the ads anyway. Ads are not why I paid; I paid as a "thank you" for the past three years.
However, that does not mean I like the current direction. I dislike a subscription system that does nothing for the subscribers (yes, I consider stopping ads as nothing; I can stop those anyway). But most of all, I hate a subscription system that punishes the people that contribute the most. Punishment for supporting a site? Moronic. If participating in something that seems so futile it has 'hopefully' in the title is the only way I can attempt to get my feeling across, then that's what I'll do.
During T(H)GSB week, along with not reading/posting comments or submitting stories, I'm going to stop using my Slashdot ad credits and just block via OmniWeb again. If CmdrTaco feels that comments cost him more "in purely economic sense", I think that blocking his ads and reading his site for 'free' will cost him even more.
CmdrTaco, I love the site, but please stop punishing those who post with higher subscription fees. Rewards (extra features) make people feel happier then threats ("big ads or money!").
And bring back Geeks in Space
Honestly .. too many people on /. are ego-centric (Score:2)
but yesterday
WHAT use is that? no new information was shared
I think Rob is right
3 years ago it was a little bit diffent. (not better
we could cut easily 70% of the comments out
I gave $$ to
(my 2cents)
The Real Problem . . . (Score:2)
Way ahead of you (Score:2)
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Again, read what I wrote more carefully. This has nothing to do with subscriptions, per se, but with the attitude I saw expressed by the "editors", most importantly by Rob Malda.
I don't believe he quite understands the importance of the comment posters, for the very reason you describe--you click through to read the comments, and learn things. This is the true value of Slashdot, not the collected links on the front page. If you take away the comments and comment posters, you are left with a poor "hot list" of links, often spelled poorly, with inane comments attached to the tail.
This is not anti-Slashdot, nor anti-subscription. This is pro-comments and pro-comment authors. Often, those at the top forget the value of those at the bottom. Sometimes a sharp crack on the head is a good reminder to pay attention.
Re: (Score:2)
while I don't mean to dismiss the value of comment posters
You know, he starts out by showing that he does understand, is sympathetic to your viewpoint, and recognizes that many people are going to feel like you do about this.
the percentage of readers that read comments is small.
and then he makes a statement of fact. Not opinion, but fact. Perhaps it is false fact; maybe he's lying. I don't know. Do you? Have you got access to the logs? Nevertheless, it's not an opinion. He hasn't said anything bad against comment posters and readers, only told us what the server has to say about the size of our group.
I was pretty amazed. Over 50% of unique slashdot readers don't click past the first page. But these people are sucking the bandwidth of a great site, and it's going to go down if it doesn't turn a profit. So, you and I are drawn by the content and interaction, but apparently average Joe bandwidth-sucker is just along for the headlines.
Give the guy some credit; he said he understands where your coming from. You, and I, and CmdrTaco all understand the importance of the community. But the subscription and advertising systems are going to be based on statistics, and that's the only statistic we've got.
I'm not going to quit contributing, because when I say "contributing to slashdot," I think, "contributing opinions and information to a huge and vibrant community, many of whom will feel a benefit from what I have to say." I won't let those people down, and I think Rob and the others have done a great job of making this sort of thing possible.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah. From our point of view, the headline readers are useless deadweight. But from the statistical point of view, it's us.
I'm expecting an Internet crash (not the same as the dot-com crash) some day, analogous to the video game crash of 1984. After that, everything will come back different. I'm not sure what it will be, but it will be different.
For now I just wish I could moderate. :)
Re: (Score:2)
I has a short e-mail conversation with Rob and he pointed out something i didn't think of originally. The 50% of people that do get past the first page and then the even smaller percentage who post cost more money than the ones just viewing the main page. The 50% just using slashdot as a page to grab links from are only costing slashdot a fraction of what the content making posters are.
And my point is that this is a bad, faulty equation. If this equation could stand on it's own, Slashdot would be better served to dump the comments altogther!
The answer is, of course, because it is that vocal minority that makes Slashdot worthwhile. My beef (or, part of my beef) is that Malda even makes such a statement at all. It is patently untrue: otherwise, he is a fool to continue to provide the comment feature.
This "statistic" is so poor a metric as to be laughable. It can't even bear it's own weight--why on earth base (or even reference it) a discussion of subscriptions upon it?
Re: (Score:2)
As a business, YES, it would. That is entirely Rob's point: We all think we're the most important part of
Rob agrees that we add something more to the site than can be captured on a bottom line. But the reason he dismisses you out of hand when talking about business concerns is that you HURT the business, not help it (modulo anything you're doing to help with subscriptions). You can protest all you want - you won't change those economics.
Re: (Score:2)
And my point is--as I've made it somewhere above in one of many comments--is that this is a false comparison, and should never be made.
An analogy: you're shopping for a car. You have $100. There's a red car for $110, and a blue car for $90. Which do you buy?
Through Malda's SQL-query soul, he apparently would buy the blue car for $90. My reply is, applied to this analogy, "That blue car doesn't have any tires or an engine! If you save up for two more months, you can buy the red car, which gets 100mpg and comes with a supermodel in the trunk!"
All of the variables are not accounted for in the original equation.
I won't let those people down, and I think Rob and the others have done a great job of making this sort of thing possible.
And I don't disagree. If I didn't give a shit, I wouldn't have stirred up this hornet's nest--I'd just mosey along and pull the RSS file or something.
Re: (Score:2)
Hey, thanks for the positive comments. I was expecting to get flamed all to pieces. I've got a lot of sympathy for Taco and Co. because they are doing what they love, but what they love just isn't paying the bills as easily any more.
Interesting Idea! (Score:2)
I know I'm getting a touch OT, but this is an interesting idea. It'd work easily with a Java system, where you can use container clustering and Entity Beans to limit the connections to the DB.
But I think you're idea has merit. A P2P set of webloggers... all hitting a DB full of stories, publishing their "specialty". Sure, you'd see a lot of copying from site to site, but I think, eventually, a clear set of superior sites would emerge.
Now you just need a group of developers to design it...