OSNews

I agree with and support yours and others ambitions with OSNews. Too me, OSNews is a site which I visit when I have the time to read both an article and the discussion. I surf in here perhaps once or even twice I day, and I *learn* a lot about well news in the OS world. Slashdot is of course wider in scope and tend as everyone knows to have a bit different, more geeky, funny and ironic tone to it, which is relaxing and nice when I'm in the mood for that. And I certainly read the discussions more often than TFA. Digg on the other hand is most often like watching commercials, MTV, Fox News, Hidden camera or The Osbournes because you're too lazy to sit up and fetch the remote. No continuity (per definition), no reflection. Just a quick sugar kick for the brain and afterwards I just feel brain-obese. I hardly ever read the discussions. Because what is there to say about some random YouTube clip?

Go OSNews! And thanx for a great job! :-)

Anyways, if there is something creative I can add to this discussion, it would be that I would like to see a scoring system that takes into consideration the influence of a post. Just modding up or down is a bit simplistic. An impopular post modding-wise could have been very important for the discussion. I think having some sort of citation/impact index would improve the discussion in a forum like this.

What do you all think about this?

The community of Digg is the primary thought behind its design: it is the engine of the reporting and consumption of items for ad revenue. It is mostly-undirected and representative of a larger cross-section of the Internet populace than sites directed by some manner of editorial control.

The tools that Digg provides to enhance discussion are not uninteresting, since they largely cede comment selection to a similar user-level filtering as news items. If a comment does not advance a discussion, it can be weeded out for the benefit of others, and comments are not seen as inherently valuable. Considering that most comments on Digg are retarded, I think that is actually a good perspective.

The threading at Digg is pretty bad, but that is true of a lot of discussion forums on the Internet. The AJAX features are incredibly useful, and anything that reduces the irritation of using a site (especially one with perhaps hundreds of comments) is fine by me.

Of course the problem with Digg is that it is community driven and seeks to appeal to a wider cross-section of people than sites directed by editorial control. Any idealistic value of the tools it provides is quickly crushed by the harsh realities of the mob. As it turns out people are kind of stupid: between the absurdly low quality of discussion on Digg and the vapid stories that find their way to the front page, I only look at Digg once or twice a day and only on the first page or so. If I were running Digg through a spam filter I might be able to tolerate it, but as a website it's obnoxious. The comment selection responds to popularity rather than quality, which spurs partisans to swap whines about being buried because of bias. The front page is obviously 'gamed' to promote advertisements. Much of the articles that are selected that don't appear to be advertisements are duplicates or stupid.

If you want a lesson on why a republic is better than a democracy, well I think Digg will let you know. If you want to see how to be hot on the Internet, though, then you can also think of Digg. It went from nowhere to being an in thing, by appealing to a broad audience. That is its community: it's large and kind of juvenile, with considerable in-fighting and group-think. It's like the world, I suppose, only "enhanced" by the anonymity of the Internet.

Some nice points raised in Kroc's article. I suppose one problem is that OSNews perhaps doesn't have an sufficient quantity of news that they can afford for 50% of it to be hidden?

In all fairness, would an article about RISCOS ever reach other news sites via a voting system? On the other hand, another 'I think Microsoft and Vista suck!' probably would generate the interest.

I for one would like it if there was some text clarifying the meaning of the 'recommend' function. By recommending an article, am I saying that I agree with the points raised, or that I thought it was a good piece of writing, or that I think other people should see it to take issue with it etc?

I for one would like it if there was some text clarifying the meaning of the 'recommend' function.

What you are doing is telling fellow readers to take a look at this article-- you are recommending it to other readers. Where that recommendation is based on is up to you-- quality, subject, pictures, whatever.

I wish I could argue this. I participate quite a bit on digg, and my frustration has been growing. I left a comment yesterday about a post - the post was a link to a jpg that is about 3-4 years old. I pointed this out and was buried into oblivion. Then I left a follow up saying something like "jokes passed around in email three years ago, wikipedia articles, and youtube videos are what pass for the front page of digg news these days." That was dugg up.

There's no rhyme or reason to the digg community, because there's really no community, just a lot of users.

I don't really need to know every time Kevin Rose farts, although he is an interesting guy, and therein lies the problem - there's no middle ground. There were about 200 James Kim stories in 5 days, all of which were lacking detail. Whatever interests the crowd can overshadow the rest of the content, which doesn't happen as much with an editor-based news site.

Anyway, the point is that digg does a lot of things right, but they do *a lot* of things that I think we can improve upon - not to compete with them, but rather just to improve our own community.

And another thing about web2.0 - everybody thinking it's a competition. It's Slashdot vs Digg or something new each day. This is again self-centric design at work. OSNews doesn't need to compete with Digg in the slightest - only do its own job, the best it can. Why do people obsess so much over themselves; and the cause/website they support?

The biggest problem with Digg is that its model favours mediocracy and general opinion. A naked picture of Bill Gates would make it to the front page, but an in-depth article analysing and assessing the differences between a muK and a monolithic kernel design would get about 5 Diggs. I wouldn't call Digg a newssite; I would call it a community weblog. 95% of Digg's content is what belongs on your personal weblog; not on a self-respecting newssite.

Digg is the ultimate expression of boulevard press; not only give the people what they want, but also let them write it the way they want. Which is fine-- it's just not for everyone (or me).

All in all, I agree with you, Kroc, that OSN and Digg do not compete (and by sheer volume, we'd be crushed anyway). However, I do know that if I had to bet my money on either of the two surviving the test of time in the coming 5 years, I'd know what I'd bet on.

Edited 2006-12-19 14:52

"""
A naked picture of Bill Gates would make it to the front page
"""

Yuk!

Put him on a rack. Add some black leather. And maybe some compulsory Ubuntu usage. And it *might* get my click. ;-)

I don't think any of the popular link magnets are "self-respecting news sites." They largely create little content besides discussion, and what content they do create is of dubious quality. It's rarely investigative, and is usually just opinion. They rely on sensational headlines and pick subject matter that is often unimportant. To some extent they may have something in common with other news organizations, but that says more about the decline of journalism or the superficiality of their audience than anything else. In any event, enough about Slashdot.


If I were to suggest linking to research papers here, for example, I would expect to see maybe 2-5 comments. I could probably name the people that I would expect to chime in, but I won't because I don't want to drag them into my own opinions. The subject matter would lie outside of the domain of expertise of many people, and require significant time to read, and so it would see little traffic from people that are largely interested in inflaming passions about simple topics or just keeping up with the latest news from projects. There is a lot less nonsense here than there is on Digg, by virtue of it having an editorial staff, and by being directed to mostly technology-related items, but that does not mean that the discussion here does not favor mediocrity. I will never see Bill Gates naked here, but I will see links to articles that pander to the Dvorak audience or to Learn To Read in 21 Days snippets. Of course I will also find interesting things, which is why I read this site more than Digg despite the much smaller volume of information: smaller is better, because I have things to do. We use spam filters for a reason, after all.

I also read programming.reddit.com and lambdatheultimate.org, but those are more-targeted link magnets than OSN seeks to be, though LtU used to generate a lot of interesting discussion. Or I guess to put it another way, these sites only compete with each other if you happen to only read one of them. Otherwise they are partially-overlapping sources of information. Digg is no longer focused on technology news and OSN doesn't link to Jon Stewart on YouTube.

"""
Whatever interests the crowd can overshadow the rest of the content, which doesn't happen as much with an editor-based news site.
"""

Which reminds me...

We haven't had any OpenSuse 10.2 reviews yet, today. ;-)

I'm sure that's a joke, but isn't it news when something new is released?

Do you realize how much shit the editors have to take EVERY FEW MONTHS about this? Too much Ubuntu when a new Ubuntu comes out, too much Vista when Vista comes out, too much OS X when a new version of OS X comes out, too much SUSE when a new SUSE comes out... it's getting to be so annoying. When something is released, there's always a flood of reviews, and then it fades back into the middle of the pack. The EXACT SAME THING happens on all technology sites, Web 1.0, Web 2.0, or whatever.

Sorry. It *was* a joke. ;-)

And you are quite right to post the reviews as they come out.

I actually like seeing all the varied opinions. Particularly, about distros and OSes that I *don't* use.

Just givin' ya a hard time. :-)

You could be more selective about the reviews you put up. A lot of the reviews of various OSs I've seen here are little more than one page of: I installed it, it did/didn't detect my hardware, it was great.

And? What's so bad about that?

If you want to keep from seeing so many reviews of some particular OS on the front page, at least until the hype dies down, you should be able to filter it and others of similar criteria out in your preferences. Even filtering out specific categories should be an option once you're logged in.

Unfortunately, preset categories are still pretty agnostic as to what you *really* want to filter out. There are some good front-page articles which could fall through the cracks of your filters, and there are others which are crap ("why 'x OS' is better, and always will be", and others), but still get through your filters because someone posted it in the wrong category.

And finally, there can *never* be enough preset categories, as far as I'm concerned. I want to see more Mozilla development-related articles, more Wikipedia-related articles, more Google articles, etc., but probably won't today (not even through Digg search for the last 7 days) because the Software section is full of Mozilla, Adobe, Mac OS (wait a minute, there's an Apple section over there. Get to steppin'!), Microsoft, and so forth.

At least OSNews has many more OS/software-specific RSS feeds and categories, although the article turnout for most categories on OSNews is far lower on average than those on Digg.

And one more thing: I only read OSNews or Digg because of the comments. True, on either site, most comments are either juvenile, trollish, fanboyish, conspiracist (oh yes, lots of shiny Tinfoil hats on OSNews!), etc., but they are the main attraction to the site. Someone else just said earlier on this thread that they actually feel like they know the commenters on OSNews.

But is the whole "family" and "quality" aspect what OSNews is aiming for? Do the editors have to be so hard on the quality aspect that they can't assume that users generally think of x article as crap (That recent why-I'll-always-use-RISCOS article should've been buried to Hades as soon as it was posted)?

Simply put: I can find out more about particular OSes through OSNews than through Digg. And I (and many others) want to know more (including the latest minute detail) about them. To that end, please be more liberal to the article submission, the comment system, and to the users themselves. Trust me, we're alot smarter and discriminating in taste than you guys may think.

http://digg.com/tech_news/Web_2_0_and_digg
But don't expect front page!

(note: Ssullivan dugg it, not me!)

Edited 2006-12-19 14:55

I played with implementing a user "ignore" list for v3. Ultimately, at the time, fixing our scalability problem trumped adding a new feature.

Now that we use smarter, fater queries and caching, it's something I COULD implement, if people thought it was necessary.

Sound off here: do you see a need for an ignore/block list?

Many would want an ignore feature, but would it benefit only yourself, or everybody else? If you're ignoring certain users, then you may not end up modding down any new, particular trollish comments, thus not contributing to the overall pruning of the community. I would rather mod others down until they were at a commenting disadvatage (and eventually got the point and left), then just serve myself and ignore a user, to the detriment of other users who would have to put up with the person.

OTOH, if enough people ignore a person, it could lead to reduced privledges for them, as another method of community moderation.

Reply Permalink Bookmark Score: 2

I'm not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart. People you have on your ignore list might make a similar comment to yours, or ask a similar question/post a similar answer, making the comments section a messy place with a lot of duplicate efforts. Some people will reference to another comment you cannot see, making discussing a certain subject very clumsy.

I understand its purpose, but doubt its usefulness.

Ignoring someone can already be achieved by simply not replying to the comment you'd like to ignore. Of course you can always mod comments down. The number of True Trolls (like NotParker who got banned by me after ignoring a warning a few days ago) is extremely low on OSNews, and there is barely ANYONE here who SOLELY makes trollish comments, and if there are, they get dealt with very quickly (can you name any troll here which really messed up discussions, besides NotParker who is now banned?). We all troll once in a while (me too), so who exactly would you ignore?

I'm not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart. People you have on your ignore list might make a similar comment to yours, or ask a similar question/post a similar answer, making the comments section a messy place with a lot of duplicate efforts.

That's a good point, and there are also implementation problems. If you ignore a user, do you still see responses to his posts? Also, what if a user with trollish tendencies decides to grow up and amend his ways by making reasonable posts? You wouldn't get the chance to see theses...

We all troll once in a while (me too), so who exactly would you ignore?

Right. We can all have bad days, and sometimes we may strongly disagree on certain subjects and agree on others. I remember getting into some quite intense political flameware with dylanmrjones, but we do get along fine on other points...

I'm among those who suggested an "Ignore" feature during the NotParker debacle, but after thinking the idea over I'm not convinced it's a good idea, at least not on a community-oriented site such as OSNews.

Perhaps we could simply add a "Flamebaiting" option for modding posts down (or add a mention to Flamebaiting in the Off-topic option, since the two are more often than not related...)?

"I'm not for an ignore option, mostly because of the fact it tears discussions apart."
Hmm, I haven't seen it that way before but you are probably right.
And thanks for banning NotParker, I sure hope we can get back to normal now

"""The number of True Trolls (like NotParker who got banned by me after ignoring a warning a few days ago) """

I would like to go on record as disagreeing with this decision.

I respect your judgment call, Thom. But NotParker, as annoying, provocative, and single-minded as his posts have been, has value to contribute to this forum.

I can't believe I said that but I'm pressing "Submit" anyway. ;-)

Ignore options won't work the problem I think is the mod points system, today exist a group of unobjective users who deside what is worth to mod up and what is not, and they have the control because they mod up to each other and mod down who don't like togheter, that's why we have trolls like twenex who often insult people and get moded up to 5, or segedenum or whatever who ruin every Novell or SUSE treath with off topic FUD and he is moded up to 5 for the same group and at the same time they disarm more objetives users giving them less mod points to defend their point.

The actual mod system is propense to do that.

Edited 2006-12-19 18:09

Yeah, I really like the mod system at times and other times I completely hate it. Back when Thom linked to the story about Hans Reiser getting charged with murder I posted this:
"Now I see why some distro's have said that they will stop using ReiserFS after all these years." I was trying to say that maybe some of these distro's don't want to be associated with that kind of bad publicity, even though it is a great FS.
I don't see any personal attacks or offensive language in this post, but somehow it earned me a -5.
I think that if people get modded down, there needs to be a system in place to moderate that decision, not just let anything fly. OSNews is a fantastic site that never gets closed on my computer, work or home, and I am glad to see actual news rather than some of the junk that gets spewed all over some of the other sites. Thanks.

I think that moderation of the "bads" (personal attacks, offensive language, off-topic-ness and spam) should be separate from the [+]/[-] moderation. I envision a third, separate skull+bones icon. Think 'kill' or 'poison'.

The [+] and [-] should only ever be used for expressing like or dislike, or whether you agree or not, and be completely up to the community.

It might also be neat to display both ups -and- downs for each post, instead of a single, opaque "score". If 5 people vote me up and 5 vote me down, the score doesn't tell.

The 'kill' button would alert the admin, and be purely admin domain.

"""Many would want an ignore feature, but would it benefit only yourself, or everybody else? """

Kroc,

I agree, for the most part. An ignore feature is the cyber-equivalent of an ostrich sticking its head in the sand.

As I have said before, I browse at -5. There are some good posts there at -5.

If we are to be a community, we need to know what others are saying, even when it annoys us.

I disagree about using that knowledge (and power) to reduce others' abilities to get their own message across.

I dislike the policy of not allowing replies to messages with scores lower than a particular threshold value, for example.

I believe in the usefulness of two tools in the case of people acting as trolls:


1. Lead by example. (Make good posts, and don't get sidetracked by straw men.)

2. Ignore them, where appropriate.



Neither of these techniques gets satisfying feedback from the suspected trolls.

But, like Porcelana, if you keep using them, they *do* work.

Edited 2006-12-19 16:47

Actually, I don't feel it is a vital addition to OS News. Some of the stuff getting complained about is good for a laugh at times. I mean after all, if you don't like someone's comments over time just see who posted and don't read it. It might take an extra couple of seconds.

And I must admit that on occasion I have taken the opportunity to rattle a trolls cage. I mean after all, it is either that or running up XP when I am in a masochistic mood... :-)

I agree with you, but perhaps some don't, and for them it might be useful. I do not think that we in general have enough troll invasions for this to be very useful.
I mean most of us are just here to discuss OS stuff and sure it can get a bit emotional, but if some comments or persons are so disturbing that they need to be automatically excluded from your sight, then you might need to take a break and go for a coffee and some sunlight or good music instead or something. It is OSs/etc we're discussing not foreign policies or liberty rights.

Or instead of "Ignore", we could perhaps have an "auto-mod-down" feature and a list of "Enemy of ..." ;-)

Edited 2006-12-19 16:48

"Its OSs/etc were discussing not foreign policies or liberty rights."

Not when an article that involves the French comes up ;3

"and a list of "Enemy of ..." ;-)"
Now that's getting into politics!

Sound off here: do you see a need for an ignore/block list?

NO. Reasons are stated in previous comments.

But I see need for little, almost meaningless button: I DON'T AGREE.

And number of non-agreements next to this button (or even some coloured thingy) - this way I can visually filter out interesting comments - because uninteresting or senseless comments will have this counter near zero.

:)

I am wanting more than just a block/ignore function.

I want to be able to modify the voting weight of different posters. A poster who I consider very knowledgeable I may want to have all their votes have a value of 10*times their normal point rating. Other posters who I consider a little on the silly side have the value of their points divided by 10 for example.

This would mean articles I see would be voted up by people I considered worth listening to and the votes will not just get swamped by the large number of people who are not really thinking about how they vote.

Also break it out into subject areas if possible.


Example: I am a BeOS fan, if I know a person is a BeOS/Haiku/Zeta developer I would like any votes from such a person to rate highly in said subject (say every vote is worth ten(10) points). At the same time the same person could be not very knowledgeable when talking about Linux, so I would like to leave their vote at it normal one(1) point value. If however on the other-hand they go into a rant when talking about Windows, I would like to decrease their vote value even further (example .1 points for each vote).

Complex yes, but over time you start to see intelligent voting on subjects instead of the rule of the masses.