Beta
×

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!

Meet Slashdot 'Super Submitter' Esther Schindler (Video)

Roblimo posted about a year ago | from the sharing-your-favorite-stories-with-the-slashdot-masses dept.

Media 53

Her bio says, "Esther Schindler has been writing about computers – with a particular focus on software development and open source – since the early 1990s. You’ve seen Esther’s byline in prominent IT publications, such as CIO.com, IT World, and IEEE Spectrum. She's written dozens of analyst reports for Evans Data about software development trends. Her name is on the cover of about a dozen books, including most recently The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Twitter Marketing. Esther is editor of a site for software developers, these days, while still freelancing occasionally for IT World (most recently The developer's guide to future car technology) and she writes a blog about project management." She submits her own work to Slashdot, and submits work for other writers, too. She may or may not be the most successful Slashdot submitter of all time, based on the percentage of her submissions that show up on the front page, but she is absolutely in the top 10. In this interview, she shares some of her secrets. Maybe Esther's thoughts will help you submit more successfully. (So will reading the Slashdot FAQ.)

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

She's a chick right? (-1, Troll)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year ago | (#45331207)

Is she hawt? :)

Re:She's a chick right? (-1, Offtopic)

Servaas (1050156) | about a year ago | (#45331215)

Nevermind I watched the actual video...

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45331347)

Yes, she's hot. She has more science fiction books than you do.

Re:She's a chick right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45331379)

Print is dead

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year ago | (#45331491)

Do you? That would be hot - but I have about 1000, mostly in hardback (I'd have many more, but I keep having to move cross-country). Judging by your UID, you've been collecting for as long as I have, so I could believe it.

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45333007)

I lost count somewhere around 700 but that was just the paperbacks, and doesn't count the hardbacks. Fortunately for my book budget I am also a frequent visitor to my local library, and every so often I do cull the herd... which is how I keep some of the collections under control. (I also have 400+ cookbooks. And I review a lot on Amazon.)

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year ago | (#45332199)

You slipped up Esther. You were holding a cat, and the guy doing the interview mentioned that you have a houseful of cats. The secret is out - the cats do it all, and you just take credit for all their work. FAKE!! You're just as fake as my wife!

Good interview, actually. Now I'm curious, I want to poke around, and see what you've submitted in the past. (now you've done it - I've learned something! You can click on a person's profile, click "submissions", and right there, Slashdot tells you everything that person has submitted! Who'da thunk it!) Generally, I don't even bother to read who submitted a story, I just jump in when something appeals to me and/or I think I have something to add.

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45332981)

The cats let me think I'm in charge. It's part of their charm.

I'll let you look at all the submissions that were turned down. See weren't they all worthy? Huh?!

Re:She's a chick right? (1)

Fnord666 (889225) | about a year ago | (#45333425)

The cats let me think I'm in charge. It's part of their charm.

Dogs have people, cats have staff.

Slashvertisement ? (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45331259)

You’ve seen Esther’s byline in prominent IT publications, such as CIO.com, IT World, and IEEE Spectrum. She's written dozens of analyst reports for Evans Data about software development trends. Her name is on the cover of about a dozen books, including most recently ...

With those creds she needs a bump from shlashdot? Sounds like Dice has got a piece of the new book sales.

Re:Slashvertisement ? (1)

gl4ss (559668) | about a year ago | (#45332525)

well she knew how to play the editors, since apparently it's a video about how to play the editors to publish shit.

In 10 years had a total of one submission make it. (2)

t0qer (230538) | about a year ago | (#45331327)

What is your secret Esther?

Re: What is your secret Esther? (1)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#45331399)

Her list.

Re:In 10 years had a total of one submission make (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45331549)

If she's really looking for stuff to post she can help these guys [slashdot.org] answer a few queries.

Re:In 10 years had a total of one submission make (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45335437)

I don't think so much about what interests me. I consider what might interest you.

I looked through a few of your submissions. With a few, you have the germ of something that might work. But you just blurt out the "fact" of the link, like "CNN says bigfoot was found," and that fits into my "weather report" description. Oh, yeah? How nice for them. Instead, tell me what you found and why it matters to me. Why should I care? Why is this amusing or relevant or useful to know?

Re:In 10 years had a total of one submission make (1)

t0qer (230538) | about a year ago | (#45338439)

Thanks for taking the time to answer Esther. I'll definitely take your pointers next time I try and submit something.

Re:In 10 years had a total of one submission make (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45338715)

I'm happy to help. :-)

Wow (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45331333)

Robert Plant hasn't aged well

Re:Wow (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45338877)

I have several responses to this comment.

  • Robert Plant wasn't that pretty to start with. Fortunately, he made good music, instead of trying to have a career as a model.
  • "When nine hundred years old you reach, look as good, you will not." --Yoda
  • My self-worth is not bound to my looks. Nor should it be (even though I was kinda cute when I was young). I judge my value by my skill in my chosen field (whatever that is at the time, whether it's optimizing compilers, explaining how OS/2 system internals work, or sharing advice on using Twitter), in whether I treat others with kindness, and, of course, by how much chocolate I get to eat. So if you were trying to put me down, it didn't work.
  • Oh how sad. With all the wonders that the Internet brings to you, the first and only thing you consider is how someone looks?! Young padawan, the joy, the utter joy of living online, in IP packets, is that we connect to one another based on who we are and not what we are. My gender doesn't matter. My color is irrelevant. What matters is that we can find people who share our interests -- science fiction, programming, baseball, whatever -- and we can be honest with each other (because we don't have to edit ourselves, saying "I have to live with these people" when a family member utters a deplorable statement such as "I like the Dodgers.").

    Thus we get to learn from each other, and our bodies matter least of all the things we bring to the conversation. Thus I could be friends with someone online for years before learning he was in a wheelchair, when in-person it would have been the first -- but least important -- thing I learned about him.

    And you think first about how attractive I am? I'm so sorry. You're missing so much of what online communities can bring.

super submitter? (4, Insightful)

Orp (6583) | about a year ago | (#45331417)

If anyone is a "super submitter" it must be this guy [hughpickens.com] , I think he is the submitter of about one third the submissions I click on.

Re:super submitter? (2)

Smurf (7981) | about a year ago | (#45332347)

Another "super submitter" was Roland Piquepaille [slashdot.org] .

R.P. annoyed the heck out of many here because he would frequently link to entries on his own blog in his submissions, to the point that at the end most of his submissions were considered spam and rejected [slashdot.org] . But, hey... he did submit a truckload of stories [slashdot.org] .

Re:super submitter? (1)

Optimal Cynic (2886377) | about a year ago | (#45334673)

I pour out a can of spam every year in memory.

Re:super submitter? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45332375)

Yeah, lets line up all the slashdot crownies. It would be more interesting to know how much they pay slashdot "editors" in backchannels to get their stuff up without the parent company knowing.

Slashdot: We link to networkworld and hughpickens.

Good for you (2)

InfiniteLoopCounter (1355173) | about a year ago | (#45331485)

If you really are picking quality articles for submissions, keep it up. Everyone has a joke about the quality of articles here, but this site only works when people put the time in to these things.

From the video (thanks /. for not making another 5 hour video), this was pretty funny:
Q: "Do you read /. summaries at least"
A: "no I just skim it"

Thanks (1)

pregister (443318) | about a year ago | (#45331669)

As a fairly longtime reader and someone who has always kind of looked askance at frequent submitters, I'd like to take my head out of my ass and say thank you.

Re:Thanks (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45333017)

::glowing smile:: You're welcome.

Re:Thanks (1)

halexists (2587109) | about a year ago | (#45334849)

Such equanimity, to smile and respond graciously to a hideous ass-freshly-pulled-talking-head!

Re:Thanks (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45335473)

I'm always friendly. Someone might have chocolate to share with me.

What is this? (3, Insightful)

mcmonkey (96054) | about a year ago | (#45331693)

She may or may not be the most successful Slashdot submitter of all time, based on the percentage of her submissions that show up on the front page, but she is absolutely in the top 10.

If you don't have the data to determine if she is or if she is not the most successful submitter of all time, then I am skeptical you have the data to know she is in the top 10. There could be 1 person ahead of her on that list, but it's impossible there could be 10?

I know this is off topic and petty, but in a way, not so much. A common lament on /. is the poor state of writing on digital technologies, software, and development. To have such weak writing in a submission about a writer, it's a little sad.

Re:What is this? (1)

vomitology (2780489) | about a year ago | (#45333805)

Let's ask the NSA!

Re:What is this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45334677)

maybe there are qualitatively only 6 people even possibly considered, in which case she would maybe be #1, but if not is among that group of 6. In that case she would definitely be in the top 10 even if no quantitative data to support her being #1.

IDK if this is the case, but I dont think its unreasonable to make such a claim without statistical results to back it up.

Fuck cats. (1)

landofcleve (1959610) | about a year ago | (#45331709)

With all of those scats, there are no significant others vying for her time, as the scats would drive away all suitors.

The secret (3, Insightful)

CoolGopher (142933) | about a year ago | (#45331741)

It's really very straight forward - simply submit whatever the current top story on /. is at the moment! Given the frequency of same-day dupes we've been seeing, you're bound to get a lot of your stories through...

So /. is full of content from a marketing expert (2, Insightful)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#45331879)

...who promotes the flooding of social venues like Twitter with spam.

Hmmm.

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45333187)

I'm not convinced The Complete Idiot’s Guide to Twitter Marketing. has any content.

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45335843)

Actually, the book tells people to have human conversations. Not to create the kind of awful "branded" Twitter streams we both abhor. I advise people to do the same thing I do on slashdot: Tell other people about things they'll find useful and cool.

Which does not make me a marketing expert. It makes me a communication expert.

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#45338255)

Its the intent that makes it spam. The attempt at "human conversations" just makes it more insidious, ensuring that I'll have to read 70% further into the exchange before I realize that important aspects are getting marginalized or stilted because a participant was determined to insinuate sales propaganda.

Perhaps you could write a book on how to more effectively filter this stuff out?

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45338703)

Filter it out? Just don't follow them...?

There are companies/"brands" I follow because I find their info cool or useful or they make me say, "How 'bout that!" Sometimes that's the case even when I have no interest in their product... in the same way that I can admire the Budweiser Clydesdales even if I'd never drink their beer. (I am a beer snob.) And there are companies whose stuff I like even though their Twitter feeds are lame. For example, I'm thinking of one quilting fabric company whose Twitter feed is nothing but dumb self-serving ads, and comparing it in my head to another quilting fabric company that regularly shares groovy quilt designs (made with their fabric of course), and asks Facebook fans which fabric they ought to feature in a print magazine ad, and so on.

But if you discover that what they say/publish is not-so-cleverly-concealed propaganda, nothing says you have to follow them.

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (1)

Burz (138833) | about a year ago | (#45340429)

Its not all about 'me' and personal preference... its about communities avoiding unethical business practices that undermine trust in a society. Commercial propaganda / subtle astroturfing permeating all our discussions would be just such a form of corruption, and I believe it already has helped undermine trust. People end up increasingly discouraged and cynical as all sorts of discourse become repurposed for somebody else's monetary gain (and possibly your's, too, sonny... if you ever get past the advancing front of economic disparity); We become increasingly burdened to un-follow and regroup until we just switch off, or resign ourselves to pastimes and relationships based on the inherently commercial or trivial.

All of those examples you gave are just extensions of branded promotions, at least from my perspective. There is little difference sharing info and feelings about Clydesdales in a Budweiser forum or quilt designs at a fabric manufacturer from any of the other modes of promoting consumerism... the emotional manipulation of (would be) consumers for money or power is the underlying cause for the exercise. I'll qualify this by saying there are businesses that operate at- or near the hobby level whose socializing doesn't fit into the above characterization because its sincere and less about their bottom line (if at all).

But I doubt those people need your advice in the first place--they are already "there". The salesmen and relentless self-promoters would do us a favor by keeping their "conversations" branded and obvious so we can better trust those with whom we would like to converse.

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45347741)

Ok. Wasn't going to respond to anything, but when I saw your "beer snob" statement....
(So, what types / brands of beer do you prefer?)

I have been reading your words since the early 90's, particularly OS/2-related articles. (I supported OS/2 from 2.0 through Warp at work, and am still a fan.) I always enjoyed the subject matter you wrote about, and just wanted to thank you for all the years of your efforts. Glad to see that you're still at it!

 

Re:So /. is full of content from a marketing exper (1)

Esther Schindler (16185) | about a year ago | (#45347841)

How kind of you to say so!

Beer-wise: I am more of an ale fan than lagers, with particular fondness for IPAs and porters. But my attention is on good craft brews rather than a specific type. Or good craft anything; I appreciate good made-by-hand workmanship in any endeavor.

I'm pretty sure.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45331945)

...I have submitted more posts than anybody on this site!

I don't feel like watching a video... (1)

liquidsin (398151) | about a year ago | (#45331949)

so I'll just wait and read the story when timothy dupes it later this week

Super submitters (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45332205)

I was waiting for the other shoe to drop. Slashdot just died.

In this interview, she shares some of her secrets (1)

tmark (230091) | about a year ago | (#45332609)

so the video reveals Schindler's list ?

Thanks for the warning (2, Insightful)

NoMaster (142776) | about a year ago | (#45332779)

She submits her own work to Slashdot, and submits work for other writers, too.

So, a shilling spammer then?

Thanks for the warning. Maybe you could investigate a few more of these professional arseholes who's actions work to destroy the utility of the ideal of free and public information flow?

TIA.

Long time no see (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45334495)

I remember Esther back from the days of OS/2.

Re:Long time no see (1)

operagost (62405) | about a year ago | (#45336505)

Yup. I learned REXX with her book.

Complete idiot? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45334627)

This person's claim to fame is being a complete idiot, and that's a good thing? Wow, we used to lionize people like DMR and Stroustrup!

Slashdotters of the world! (1)

Rambo Tribble (1273454) | about a year ago | (#45335737)

Do not compromise the integrity of your submissions to pursue the filthy lucre of "success". This is just a ploy to stifle your creative spontaneity by actually suggesting you think first. Clearly, if that were applied to all the content here, this would just be another, run-of-the-mill, tech news site. Yawn. (Really, I think the editors just want less work to do.)

What is this? (1)

mu51c10rd (187182) | about a year ago | (#45335805)

So...um...we're writing articles about the submitters of articles now? Is this metanews?

..successful submiter and ex-OS/2 user (1)

martiniturbide (1203660) | about a year ago | (#45340509)

You are always welcome back to the community anytime Esther.

YOU ROCK !!!

Longest ad ever (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#45357359)

e ver

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?