Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Yahoo Faces Questions After Discovery Of Comment Replication

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the never-attribute-to-malice dept.

The Media 97

An anonymous reader writes "Someone noticed that certain Associated Press stories on Yahoo seem to be appending old comments to new stories in a way that was highly misleading (suggesting new stories had a lot more interest than they really did). The initial theory was that this was some sort of nefarious scam, potentially by Yahoo and the AP. However, Mike Masnick at Techdirt dug into the details and found evidence that it's more about incompetence in the way Yahoo built its comment system, combined with the way that the AP pushes and rotates its articles to partner sites."

cancel ×

97 comments

How does that saying go again? (4, Insightful)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464118)

Never attribute to nefarious scams that which can be adequately explained by incompetence?

Or something like that anyways

Re:How does that saying go again? (3, Funny)

SilverHatHacker (1381259) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464142)

You pulled this exact post, word for word, out of my head, at the exact instant I thought of it. You've got to teach me how to do that!

Re:How does that saying go again? (3, Funny)

Monkeedude1212 (1560403) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464220)

You have to purchase my 10 DVD Box set on how to read minds through the internet. 11 small payments of 30 dollars + shipping and handling*

*dvd's shipped seperately

Re:How does that saying go again? (5, Funny)

techoi (1435019) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465028)

I am thinking of my address and credit card number right now. Please send me qty 2

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32468738)

I love it that you decided to expose a mindmeld connection that's unsecure...now all us mindreadrs will run your card up and there's not much you can do about it!

It's not identity theft if I've been you in a previous life!

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466328)

never attribute to weird mind powers that which can be adequately explained just by some bloody good luck.

Re:How does that saying go again? (3, Funny)

Michael Kristopeit (1751814) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464172)

Never attribute to nefarious scams that which can be adequately explained by incompetence

if this sentiment was universal, all truly nefarious people would simply hide behind the protection of incompetence.

i'm attributing this to orchestrated incompetence.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0, Flamebait)

PopeRatzo (965947) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464620)

all truly nefarious people would simply hide behind the protection of incompetence.

There you go, trying to bring George Bush into this discussion.

Shame on you liberals.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

Gilmoure (18428) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464760)

I don't make enough money and my parents aren't rich enough for incompetence to be a plus for me.

If I screw up, I end up paying.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0, Flamebait)

Kingrames (858416) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464222)

How about "only a sith deals in absolutes"?

but seriously, we heard "never attribute to malice what can adequately be explained by stupidity" record numbers of times over eight years. That statement doesn't hold any water anymore. It's an excuse to be as malicious as possible and to never be held accountable for anything you do, especially if it was intentional. After all, no matter what happens, you can always claim you're older and wiser AFTER THE FACT.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464462)

How about "only a sith deals in absolutes"?

That sounds like the sort of absolute statement a Sith would make.

Or perhaps it's not just the Sith who deal in absolutes after all.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464686)

Do you seriously not get the humor there? The statement is intentionally paradoxical.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32465298)

I'm not sure if George Lucas is that clever.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

JesseMcDonald (536341) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466094)

I'm not sure whether the paradox was deliberate or not in the original context. In the movie it seemed to be given as impromptu advice, which would imply that either the speaker didn't see the paradox, or the phrase, its paradox, and the resulting lesson were all well-known to both master and apprentice despite never being mentioned elsewhere.

However, this is not the original context. I was responding to the quotation in Kingrames' comment, where it appeared to me to be taken literally. Perhaps I was wrong; subtle sarcasm is hard to reliably detect without the regular audible clues.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464268)

Hanlon's Razor [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

SupremoMan (912191) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464300)

Hmmm I read the parent before. I think Slashdot is appending old comments to new stories. It's no doubt some sort of a nefarious plot to make the stories seem as though there is more interest in them.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

moortak (1273582) | more than 4 years ago | (#32468564)

Bah, everyone knows Slashdot appends old stories to new comments.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464308)

Nope, it's "Never attribute to nefarious scams that which can be adequately explained by incompetence? Or something like that anyways."

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464330)

You must be new here. Slashdot's Razor clearly states "Always attribute to maliciousness everything that companies larger than you have ever done or ever will do. Then, bitch about it in the comments".

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465630)

How else do you expect people to react when 99% of wealth is owned by less than 1% of the population?

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466348)

dirty communist!!!!!!!!

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

kronosopher (1531873) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466486)

"In an insane society, the sane man must appear insane." - Spock

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

Kilrah_il (1692978) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467476)

I think people around here give those companies too much credit. From all the theories that arise after such stories, you would think that each company is controlled by a criminal mastermind (AKA Doctor Evil) that sits all day and tries to create plans to f^%$-up everyone just to gain "One Million Dollar!".
Now, I wouldn't be so naive as to suggest that those companies are the exact opposite (i.e. they want to spread little bits of happiness all around), but the truth is probably somewhere in the middle: These companies are trying to make money, usually in an honest way, but sometimes they screw-up, either through incompetence (which I think this is the case this time) or because of "nefarious" scams (e.g. Facebook's privacy issues*).
Although problems such as the one described in TFA should be found, pointed out and fixed, we should be more selective in the "Evil Corporation" designation.

* Some would say those privacy issues are just very bad business decision, but to the lay person it's the same. If you prefer the interest of your ad partners to the gross disadvantage of your customer, then you have a problem.

Re:How does that saying go again? (4, Insightful)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464406)

"Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."
(attributed to Napoleon Bonaparte, born 1769 - likely competently poisoned to death in 1812)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon_I#Cause_of_death [wikipedia.org]

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

jeepien (848819) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466010)

"Napoleon Bonaparte, born 1769 - likely competently poisoned to death in 1812

...not to mention maliciously.

Re:How does that saying go again? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32472166)

Protip: when citing a source, try not to cite one that contradicts your point. He was unintentionally poisoned in his youth.

I noticed the same on Amazon.com (2, Interesting)

rolfwind (528248) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464998)

On some movies, like the DVD of a certain franchise, Amazon now includes reviews from all the other seasons or even completely different titles, going so far as to calculate the star ratings based on these seperate products.

This doesn't seem to be across the board and may be up to the individual seller of the product, but it has turned movies that were rated 2 stars 2 years later into 5 star products -- without having an additional actual reviews pertinent to the title added, rather than reviews of better movies in the franchise lumped together into it.

Really destroys their credibility.

Re:I noticed the same on Amazon.com (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32479062)

They also group together reviews of the DVD and the Bluray, so you can get reviews saying how wonderful the extras are, attached to a product that has no extras. Rather misleading.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

CaroKann (795685) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465776)

I've always thought this happened by design. Although, I've never been sure exactly what the design was.

Perhaps it's an attempt to keep a conversation about a particular topic going through multiple headlines and stories. New stories are being written all of the time, usually with just a paragraph or two that are different from the old story.

Perhaps it was an attempt to cut down on the number of stupid posts. After all, who reads the end of a comment thread that contains 99,601 comments [yahoo.com] . Surely people realize that few people are going to read their comment after so many have been posted.

Perhaps it's an attempt to cut down on flame wars. It's not easy going through 100's of pages trying to find out if some moron picked up on your finely honed flame-bait.

Perhaps it's a database design issue, and they are simply trying to save disk space.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

Dexter Herbivore (1322345) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466558)

Am I the only one here that finds "dissidentvoice" likely to be a batshit insane conspiracy theorist? I know he was right about the comments system being broken, but you know the saying about broken clocks...

Maybe, maybe not... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32472010)

You don't know much about SEO and the like, then, I take it. Websites recycle content wholesale, and certain others (especially dating sites) make up fake profiles and users because people are always a little reluctant to join a site with few or no users.

Re:How does that saying go again? (1)

lonecrow (931585) | more than 4 years ago | (#32478900)

"incompetence before conspiracy" is how I have naming the rule. It has applications all over the place from 9/11 some World Bank actions and others.

However, I am not sure if I would apply it to the latest financial meltdown. It smelled a little to much like disgruntled employees pilfering as much as they can on the way out the door.

Sloppy programming (4, Insightful)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464122)

Well, in this case, they're treating the last path part as a unique identifier, which it obviously is not. I read the article half expecting it to be an integer overflow bug....

Re:Sloppy programming (5, Informative)

Lazlo Woodbine (54822) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464340)

It's pretty common in newspapers (and AP) to recycle slugs. A slug is the internal identifier that's used for a story since the title is often the last thing written. The slug is typically only unique for a specific day. Also, Yahoo is fairly incompetent when it comes to technology for a company its size.

Re:Sloppy programming (1)

Bakkster (1529253) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464714)

Also, Yahoo is fairly incompetent when it comes to technology for a company its size.

Thank you Captain Obvious ;)

Re:Sloppy programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32466886)

ur welcome, Major Asshole

Re:Sloppy programming (2, Insightful)

Pollardito (781263) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465462)

It's unique for a specific day, but it also isn't. As they add more detail to a story, a new story comes across with the same slug (or even slightly changed). They're matching comments to slugs instead of to some sort of a story ID, because they want the comments to stay on the story as it's revised. Imagine a story on the World Trade Center attacks coming through 10+ times as more and more detail filters in, and every time a new version comes through all the comments get wiped.

Unfortunately it looks like their attempt to fix a weakness in the underlying delivery is overcorrecting. These things are pieced together by human editors on some sites, but I'm sure Yahoo isn't the only one to botch an attempt at automating it.

Re:Sloppy programming (1)

Velex (120469) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466806)

some sort of a story ID, because they want the comments to stay on the story as it's revised. Imagine a story on the World Trade Center attacks coming through 10+ times as more and more detail filters in

The solution to that is to also store revisions, e.g. revision_id 2, 3, and 6 belong to story_id 4.

Re:Sloppy programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32472234)

The solution to that is to also store revisions, e.g. revision_id 2, 3, and 6 belong to story_id 4.

Uh, of course, since they'd be using the same algorithm that they're currently using to find out which stories are the same, it would just mark different stories as revisions of each other...

Re:Sloppy programming (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32468380)

What's really stupid is that this is a story at all.

Anyone who has refreshed a story or saved a (already loaded in their browser) story at a later date (say, with IE, which saves from the network not the cache) and then checks the contents realizes a story on news.yahoo.com uses the same link for repetitive story. Hell, something with iraq_war or something in the link has been refreshed for years.

If you want to save the original story, you have to note the title, then search it in the yahoo news search field and go through the results (usually affiliate sites end up higher than the original AP or Reuters story) and click that link.

Anyone who has saved news.yahoo.com stories with Firefox in the same folder (says, 'interesting news stories') runs across this problem as well, because Firefox saves by some filename in the link name, and you get filename collisions so the browser prompts you to give the document to be saved a different name.

This has been going on for years. I maybe could probably track it for you, as I save Yahoo! News stories on 2 different computers for reference purposes. When people started noting the comments problem (within the comments btw) on yahoo, it was obvious they were just tacking on old comments due to the linkage being reused. The main oil spill document has a ridiculous number of comments, since they keep refreshing the page with the same link.

In other words... (1)

Saeed al-Sahaf (665390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464124)

In other words, Nothing To See Here, Slow News Day, and so on... NEXT!

Re:In other words... (1)

Arthur Grumbine (1086397) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464642)

In other words, Nothing To See Here, Slow News Day, and so on... NEXT!

Hmmm... apparently /. also suffers from this symptom of comment duplication... :-P

Re:In other words... (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466894)

In other words, Nothing To See Here, Slow News Day, and so on... NEXT!

whatever. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464128)

Like Slashdot's any better. This comment was written eight years ago.

Re:whatever. (1)

gront (594175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467058)

In Yahoo news, old comments append you!

Yahoo Answers (5, Funny)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464182)

Kind of OT, but Yahoo Answers comment system is wonked out too. My favorite part is how I can edit my answer after it's been modded up (or down). I can say something like 'To fix your WAP you need to reset to factory defaults and reconfigure', and get modded very high. Questions come in very fast and most are off the main page withing a few minutes, so I can go back 10 minutes later and change my answer to something like 'Call the company at 202-456-1414 and complain. they will give you the runaround, but the secret word is 'potus'. Demand to talk to potus and you will be fine.'

Re:Yahoo Answers (4, Funny)

nurb432 (527695) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464260)

So you are the bastard that got the black vans to my house when i had that wireless problem !!!!! potus my ass!!!

Re:Yahoo Answers (1)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464272)

They need to do WAP instain mother>

Re:Yahoo Answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464416)

Who kill their router because their router cannot frigth back! It was on the /. this mroing, an admin in AR who had brick her three routers!

Re:Yahoo Answers (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464628)

I like Stackoverflow's model. Comments are editable for a 5-minute period. Answers and questions are editable by anyone with a high enough rating, with a wiki-like changelog.

And I absolutely detest Slashdot's system. Just goes to say, even the direct opposite of a shitty system (edit anytime) is still shit (no editing).

Re:Yahoo Answers (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464808)

Especially since we 'own our comments'. Not really sure how they define ownership. "Hey congrats on paying off your house and becoming an true homeowner! Oh, you accidentally painted your house numbers in the wrong order? Bummer, looks like your stuck with it now...forever."

And the best part is there will always be some knob discrediting everything you said because of a misspelling.

Re:Yahoo Answers (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465798)

Yeah, it's kinda like talking, isn't it? I wish I could go back five minutes and change my side of a conversation IRL. Could be really useful for interviews, especially for the part about negotiating the salary...

Re:Yahoo Answers (1)

Itninja (937614) | more than 4 years ago | (#32473244)

But I don't have to wait 8 minutes when I misspeak to correct myself.

Re:Yahoo Answers (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464950)

And I absolutely detest Slashdot's system.

And yet here we are...

Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (-1, Redundant)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464230)

http://dissidentvoice.org/about/

"Dissident Voice is an internet newsletter dedicated to challenging the distortions and lies of the corporate press and the privileged classes it serves. The goal of Dissident Voice is to provide hard hitting, thought provoking and even entertaining news and commentaries on politics and culture that can serve as ammunition in struggles for peace and social justice."

Another reason to despise the left - they justifty exclusion of sites biased to the right and will not even click on those links, but willingly quote the sites as sources with no comment or inquiry on Slashdot. In other words, evil and deceptive "justifications".

Re:Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (0, Redundant)

NiceGeek (126629) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464252)

QQ

Re:Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464388)

No, I have no intention to limit myself to that, thanks. Why fight in a game when the "rules" are all manipulative deceptions, intentionally being changed continuously to make you lose? The conclusion is, play a different game and ignore all rules. But thanks for reminding me of what I should NOT do, which is simply QQ. At least you show that you are fully and completely aware of the situation, so ignorance cannot be used as an excuse.

Re:Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464494)

Sucks being a stupid rightwing liar, doesn't it?

A leftist site can convey a closer approximation of reality than a right-wing site. Sure, there are probably leftist that knowingly distort the truth or even lie, but I wish they wouldn't, since it's not necessary.

Re:Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464538)

"A leftist site can convey a closer approximation of reality than a right-wing site."

Why play by the rules when the rules are set by deceptive liars who continually change them in your disfavour?

I have asked myself that question for a long time.

Re:Sites biased to the left are OK for Slashdot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464610)

And the rules are set by the corporate press and the privileged classes.

Remmeber .... (1)

Anomalyst (742352) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464280)

What you see is not information, it's not even data, it's "news" and rarely related to anything important in the real world.

Re:Remmeber .... (1)

game kid (805301) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464700)

But I saw it in the ticker thingy at the bottom! I swear Obama is having an affair with Katy Perry!

Awww come on, maybe they got a visit from the (1)

Phizzle (1109923) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464342)

Department of Redundancy Department?

When is something ever evil planning? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464366)

Oops, we recorded way more data than we wanted. Oops, we attached comments to the wrong stories. Oops, we inadvertently introduced an incompatibility with our competitor's product into our operating system. Oops, we ran over the Greenpeace boat. Oops, we changed the privacy settings to reveal more than our users wanted.

Too many accidents IMHO. Do you really think that managers don't know how to make it look like an accident when they cross boundaries?

Bigger problem is editing (1)

SomeJoel (1061138) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464446)

I don't know who the drunks are that write and edit the Yahoo and CNN "news" stories, but they usually have more spelling and grammar errors than a 2nd grade book report.

Re:Bigger problem is editing (1)

CrashandDie (1114135) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464930)

"I don't know who the drunks are who write and edit" (fixed that for you)

Oh the irony of a grammar complaint coming from one who fails to live by his own rules.

Re:Bigger problem is editing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32467740)

Erm, no you didn't. Who and that are interchangeable here. Physician, heal thyself...

timeline of Yahoo quality (3, Informative)

blair1q (305137) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464520)

Kinda lame, but useful
Still lame, not as useful
Somewhat better presented, less useful compared to competitors
Kinda flashy and a little more useful than before
Crufty and deliberately defeatured
Kinda buggy and simplistic compared to competitors
Definitely suffering bit-rot, not any more useful
Total crap with pockets of new development of script-kiddie webdev showoff crap that makes it no more useful and often worse than useless

Re:timeline of Yahoo quality (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466382)

ever since i saw the headline, i been wondering who the fuck uses yahoo anymore?
even hotmail is better than yahoo mail.
google news is much much better than yahoo news.
yahoo search??? what yahoo search?

Duh! (1)

Just Brew It! (636086) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464576)

You'd think an Internet company that has been around as long as Yahoo! would understand how to code a proper CMS by now. IMO this is just further evidence that they will be joining the likes of Netscape and AOL in the dustbin of Internet has-beens sooner rather than later...

Re:Duh! (1)

toadlife (301863) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467148)

You would think...

Up until a few months ago, the site ZDNet had a bug in their comments that allowed the first person who made a comment under a story or blog to change the headline displayed over the comments section by modifying the querystring.

For example under a story called "Flaw found in Internet Explorer" the link to post a comment would look like this....

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Flaw+Found+in+Internet+Explorer [zdnet.com]

The first person to post a comment could change the querystring like so...

http://zdnet.com/blogs?foo=4343?title=Microsft+gives+up+advises+edveryone+to+use+Firefox+instead [zdnet.com]

And the "new" title would appear over the comments section for the world to see. I had fun with it a few times - never anything dirty or offensive and I even reported the bug to them multiple time, but they left it unfixed for years. Someone with ill intentions could have put something vulgar up for all of their readers to see.

It doesn't make any difference (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464604)

Because the comments of new stories on Yahoo are all the same to start with!

Half will directly hold the current sitting President responsible for the article's topic. Some will hold the political party with majority in Congress (yes, this includes articles about Acts of God -- see articles about Hurrican Katrina blaming the Right Wing). Then there will be all the responses to the first two groups that instead blame the other party or previous President. There will be a few that comment on terrorism. And there will be a few hardcore environmentalist-written ones.

Re:It doesn't make any difference (1)

gront (594175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467040)

Don't forget all the cranks and crazies. Yahoo's news comment system is a complete waste of time and I have no idea why they have it. They got rid of it for a while, then brought it back. Without any sort of moderation or sanity checking, it's like listening to talk radio without call screening.

Re:It doesn't make any difference (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32474026)

Well, you can "thumbs up" and "thumbs down" comments now like on YouTube, and ones that score low enough (the threshold seems pretty damn low) will be hidden by default. So there is actually a possibility that the old crew of outright racist and vulgar comments will be actually suppressed a bit (that was why Yahoo pulled the comment plug to begin with, it was during that scare about lawsuits on sites that allowed hate speech to be published in reader comments). But the general quacks will still get the attention they want.

A system more like Slashdot's where a comment starts with a low score and has to be modded up to a certain threshold to be seen by most people would be better.

Re:It doesn't make any difference (1)

TimSSG (1068536) | more than 4 years ago | (#32468038)

You are correct; it really explains why it took so long to notice the problem.

Tim S.

plausibly deniability (2, Funny)

subanark (937286) | more than 4 years ago | (#32464664)

<tinfoilhat>
Getting a cue right from The underhanded C contest
</tinfoilhat>

Reality (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32464868)

Former Yahoo! here.

This has been this way for years.

It's because articles get boiled down into news cycle topics, and it's those topics that have discussion, not individual articles themselves.

This decision dates back to version 2 of Yahoo!'s internal Message Boards platform, which would have collapsed under its own weight if forced to deal with one discussion per article.

Re:Reality (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465016)

We know it's something like that already. The real interesting part is Yahoo hasn't been able to fix such an obvious bug for all these years.

Re:Reality (1)

JustOK (667959) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466910)

It's a FEATURE!!!!

Recycling comments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32465160)

People do that all the time on slashdot in order to build karma.

Advanced Comment Duping System? (1)

ZERO1ZERO (948669) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465232)

Has Yahoo stumbled upon the Holy Grail of dupes? Have they unwittingly produced the mother of all duping systems? We must know, is there anything slashdot can learn from this to ensure more efficiently duped articles? Why stop at duped stories when we can have duped comments?! This would save so much time.

Has Yahoo stumbled upon the Holy Grail of dupes? Have they unwittingly produced the mother of all duping systems? We must know, is there anything slashdot can learn from this to ensure more efficiently duped articles? Why stop at duped stories when we can have duped comments?! This would save so much time.

Re:Advanced Comment Duping System? (1)

BobisOnlyBob (1438553) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465542)

Has Yahoo stumbled upon the Holy Grail of dupes? Have they unwittingly produced the mother of all duping systems? We must know, is there anything slashdot can learn from this to ensure more efficiently duped articles? Why stop at duped stories when we can have duped comments?! This would save so much time.

Re:Advanced Comment Duping System? (1)

thoughtsatthemoment (1687848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466404)

This is an easy call for a redundancy mod.

Nefarious is overused. And usually incorrectly. (1)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465286)

adjective
(typically of an action or activity) wicked or criminal

adjective
flagrantly wicked or impious

Ever since it was used in Raiders of the Lost Ark it seems.

So, did Yahoo have a wicked or criminal scam, or was was it something less. Maybe just a scam?

If you ever think that Slashdot's system is bad (2, Interesting)

CityZen (464761) | more than 4 years ago | (#32465384)

You just need to take a look at Yahoo's comment system to see how much incredibly worse things can be.

I'm not even talking about the quality of the comments themselves, which make your average Slashdot troll look like a PhD in comparison.

Still, though, I think comment systems in general need lots of improvement. One idea I have is weighted tags: allow tags to be added to comments, along with +/- buttons to allow others to alter the weight of the tags. Then, design the display system to let you filter or arrange content based on tag weights that you care about.

Of course, there's always lots of details to work out, such as how to keep the taggers/raters honest (or at least prevent too much abuse).

Once such a system is made, it needs to become viral and replace all the lame comment systems out there.

Re:If you ever think that Slashdot's system is bad (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466390)

actually there is no room for discussion on a news website. if you want discussion, go to a blog or a forum.

Actually, it's not a new website... (1)

Crazy Taco (1083423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466846)

actually there is no room for discussion on a news website. if you want discussion, go to a blog or a forum.

Well, to be technical, Yahoo! really isn't a news site. They are more of a web portal, and I'm sure if you pressed them, they would say the purpose of their existence is to entertain visitors with interesting content, not be a news organization. I mean, it's not like this is cnn.com... if comments keep people entertained (read some of them, they ARE entertaining) and coming back to the site then they are going to have comments and discussion.

On a side note though, I do take issue with your statement that there is no room for discussion on a news website. Maybe if there was more discussion of the story we would start getting both sides more reliably, and that's always a good thing.

Re:Actually, it's not a new website... (1)

perryizgr8 (1370173) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467106)

a true news outlet would not have any inferences or opinions of the journalist. it would just state the facts. once i was watching bbc and one of their people was interviewing one of the wto protesters. he asked him what do the protesters want. the man was truly baffled. he gave some bullshit gibberish as answer and went away. now it was clear that atleast this man did not have any agenda and was just there to have some fun. but the bbc people did not make any comment on it. they allow the viewer to make their own judgments and inferences. in this case a second side does not exist. you are free to choose any side because bbc did not take any side. no comments are needed to "start getting both sides more reliably".

Israel's use of 'captured' video draws criticism (-1, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32465406)

Hamas is now in control of the Gaza Strip after winning an election there against Abbas' Palestinian Authority.
  -- Robert

KDE 4 was released (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32467790)

Hamas is now in control of the Gaza Strip after winning an election there against Abbas' Palestinian Authority.

  -- Robert

I hear KDE 4 was released

That's nothing (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32466986)

I've found that yahoo routinely changes the links to their articles. After sharing on one facebook I clicked it to show it to someone else on MSN the next day and found that the story at the page was drastically different than the one that I had posted. in fact it was an entirely different article.

Re:That's nothing (2, Informative)

gront (594175) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467048)

Different content on the same subject or a completely different subject? Often the AP or whoever is doing the article will update and change it around a bit over time, especially on breaking news. Sometimes it is difficult to determine how and when it was changed, sometimes they tell you.

Re:That's nothing (1)

crossmr (957846) | more than 4 years ago | (#32468882)

This was an entirely different article. Several other sites still had the article, searching the text I had quoted on FB for it I found hundreds of copies. Yahoo just up and changed it though with no notice that I could find.

Re:That's nothing (1)

SeaFox (739806) | more than 4 years ago | (#32474106)

What I hate is they don't have permanent links to articles. Or they don't archive their news stories, one of the two. If I find an article I like I can't really bookmark it. If I try to come back to it months later I'm simply told the article doesn't exist.

Meanwhile, I have bookmarks to articles on Wired's website from a decade ago that still load correctly.

Or: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32467006)

/. Faces Questions After Discovery Of Comment Replication

So it's not on purpose? (1)

NFNNMIDATA (449069) | more than 4 years ago | (#32467510)

I always figured it was on purpose, the better to keep conversations about the same topic together. Seemed a bit ham-handed but I figured they had a reason. I mean there's no way they could not have known about it is there? All you would have to do would be to glance at one of the major stories and it would be obvious that the comments do not pertain to it directly and are old with thousands of responses.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...