Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.misc > #323 > unrolled thread
| Started by | "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2014-02-12 14:54 -0600 |
| Last post | 2014-02-13 09:36 -0500 |
| Articles | 9 — 8 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.misc
Ars: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevant "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> - 2014-02-12 14:54 -0600
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevant Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> - 2014-02-13 02:30 +0000
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-13 01:20 +0000
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t Koen Lefever <koen.lefever@gmail.com> - 2014-02-12 23:26 -0800
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t John Brownalt <deconfliction@filteredperception.org> - 2014-02-14 02:58 +0000
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-13 07:35 +0000
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t True Satan <true_satan@fastmail.co.uk> - 2014-02-13 11:45 +0000
Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> - 2014-02-14 11:02 +0000
Re: Ars: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevant Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> - 2014-02-13 09:36 -0500
| From | "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 14:54 -0600 |
| Subject | Ars: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevant |
| Message-ID | <20140212-205415.211.0@Elizabeth-T.xKnuth.news.eternal-september.org> |
Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with comparative screenshots. http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. -- Elizabeth T. Knuth http://www.users.csbsju.edu/~eknuth/ Slashdot Beta delenda est!
[toc] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Oregonian Haruspex <bob_davis_retired@yahoo.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 02:30 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevant |
| Message-ID | <2084652910413951275.465017bob_davis_retired-yahoo.com@news.eternal-september.org> |
| In reply to | #323 |
"Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote: > Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with > comparative screenshots. > > http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- > interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ > > Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get > deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. > Thanks for the link. The article is pretty interesting and would be a good read for the Dice people. I like your web page too - I guess I'm not the only lynx user left after all!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | wjwlsn <ibillwilson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 01:20 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <bm36hkF9t28U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #346 |
> "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote: >> Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with >> comparative screenshots. >> >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- >> interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ >> >> Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get >> deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. >> > > > Thanks for the link. The article is pretty interesting and would be a good > read for the Dice people. > > I like your web page too - I guess I'm not the only lynx user left after > all! > The comments were interesting too. The ones that were most illuminating for me were from people that had never really spent much time at Slashdot. They tended to look at the Beta site layout as a big improvement over the classic design - more inviting, more modern, easier to read - not necessarily great in comparison to other news aggregator sites, but an improv ement. That's the way they saw Slashdot: as a news aggregator, not as a community discussion site. When these people even mentioned the community, they basically described as being old, curmudgeonly, and unreasonably resistant to change. Then there were the people that had spent some time on Slashdot, but left for various reasons. Most of these people seemed to see the site and its content the way we do, i.e. that the discussions were the real content. Many of them seem to have been turned off by the chaotic nature of the discussions, and what they perceived as a low signal-to-noise ratio. Other s seem to have wanted better and more frequent article summaries, possibly with more focused discussions regarding the article topics. Their reaction to Beta tended to be moderately negative... accepting of cosmetic change as long as functionality didn't suffer. Finally, there were the people that (I assume) are more like us... they valued the free-wheeling nature of the discussions and how the community-driven moderation and meta-moderation system served to distill the chaos. These people frequently referred to the userbase as a community, and expressed anger or sadness at what the Beta redesign (and/or the backlash) w ould ultimately do to the community. Some had been around from the old Chips and Dips days, i.e. proto-Slashdot, and more than a few commenters sported userid numbers in the 3 to 5 digit range. These folks had extremely negative opinions about Beta (haha, like that's news to us). A couple other clusters could probably be identified, but the three above seem to include the vast majority. If I were to assign descriptive labels to these groups, they'd look like this: 1. Web 3.0 headline readers uninterested in what a bunch of old neckbeards think. They want tech news delivered in easily digestible chunks, and want the news source to be cool and modern. 2. Focused information seekers looking for community insight on major tech news. They want the insights behind the tech news, and believe that the community (old, grizzled, and grumpy as it may be) can be a source of wisdom. 3. Core community members that see Slashdot as a long-term online home base. They want in-depth discussion of tech news and are willing to put up with chaos in order to get deep insights, but also enjoy (and are fiercely protective of) the community identity. So, here's what I think, and it squares with what many people have been suggesting: Dice wants more of group 1 and are willing to dump group 3 to achieve that goal, and they're probably betting that group 2 won't decline too much as a result. Why? Probably because group 3 is not an important demographic in their primary line of business, and in addition, is only going to decline in size as time passes. Group 3 doesn't make them enough money, at least not directly... and if they can shift the site in such a way that *they* become the content creators instead of the community, they won't really need Group 3. They'll destroy the community to get where they want to go, because after all, we're just an audience to them. Anyway, that's the way I see it.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Koen Lefever <koen.lefever@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-12 23:26 -0800 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <d5cd12ab-2458-4839-a59b-4d85a0d5a33e@googlegroups.com> |
| In reply to | #353 |
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:20:41 AM UTC+1, wjwlsn wrote: > > "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@c...ju.edu> wrote: > > >> Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with > > >> comparative screenshots. > > >> > > >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- > > >> interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ > > >> > > >> Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get > > >> deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. > > >> > > > > > > > > > Thanks for the link. The article is pretty interesting and would be a good > > > read for the Dice people. > > > > > > I like your web page too - I guess I'm not the only lynx user left after > > > all! > > > > > > > The comments were interesting too. The ones that were most illuminating for me were from people that had never really spent much time at Slashdot. They tended to look at the Beta site layout as a big improvement over the classic design - more inviting, more modern, easier to read - not necessarily great in comparison to other news aggregator sites, but an improv > > ement. That's the way they saw Slashdot: as a news aggregator, not as a community discussion site. When these people even mentioned the community, they basically described as being old, curmudgeonly, and unreasonably resistant to change. > > > > Then there were the people that had spent some time on Slashdot, but left for various reasons. Most of these people seemed to see the site and its content the way we do, i.e. that the discussions were the real content. Many of them seem to have been turned off by the chaotic nature of the discussions, and what they perceived as a low signal-to-noise ratio. Other > > s seem to have wanted better and more frequent article summaries, possibly with more focused discussions regarding the article topics. Their reaction to Beta tended to be moderately negative... accepting of cosmetic change as long as functionality didn't suffer. > > > > Finally, there were the people that (I assume) are more like us... they valued the free-wheeling nature of the discussions and how the community-driven moderation and meta-moderation system served to distill the chaos. These people frequently referred to the userbase as a community, and expressed anger or sadness at what the Beta redesign (and/or the backlash) w > > ould ultimately do to the community. Some had been around from the old Chips and Dips days, i.e. proto-Slashdot, and more than a few commenters sported userid numbers in the 3 to 5 digit range. These folks had extremely negative opinions about Beta (haha, like that's news to us). > > > > A couple other clusters could probably be identified, but the three above seem to include the vast majority. If I were to assign descriptive labels to these groups, they'd look like this: > > > > 1. Web 3.0 headline readers uninterested in what a bunch of old neckbeards think. They want tech news delivered in easily digestible chunks, and want the news source to be cool and modern. > > > > 2. Focused information seekers looking for community insight on major tech news. They want the insights behind the tech news, and believe that the community (old, grizzled, and grumpy as it may be) can be a source of wisdom. > > > > 3. Core community members that see Slashdot as a long-term online home base. They want in-depth discussion of tech news and are willing to put up with chaos in order to get deep insights, but also enjoy (and are fiercely protective of) the community identity. > > > > So, here's what I think, and it squares with what many people have been suggesting: Dice wants more of group 1 and are willing to dump group 3 to achieve that goal, and they're probably betting that group 2 won't decline too much as a result. Why? Probably because group 3 is not an important demographic in their primary line of business, and in addition, is only > > going to decline in size as time passes. Group 3 doesn't make them enough money, at least not directly... and if they can shift the site in such a way that *they* become the content creators instead of the community, they won't really need Group 3. They'll destroy the community to get where they want to go, because after all, we're just an audience to them. > > > > Anyway, that's the way I see it. +1 Insightful.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | John Brownalt <deconfliction@filteredperception.org> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-14 02:58 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <ldk0ol$pr6$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #358 |
On 2014-02-13, Koen Lefever <koen.lefever@gmail.com> wrote: > On Thursday, February 13, 2014 2:20:41 AM UTC+1, wjwlsn wrote: >> > "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@c...ju.edu> wrote: >> >> >> Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with >> >> >> comparative screenshots. >> >> >> >> >> >> http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- >> >> >> interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ >> >> >> >> >> >> Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get >> >> >> deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. >> >> >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > Thanks for the link. The article is pretty interesting and would be a good >> >> > read for the Dice people. >> >> > >> >> > I like your web page too - I guess I'm not the only lynx user left after >> >> > all! >> >> > >> >> >> >> The comments were interesting too. The ones that were most illuminating for me were from people that had never really spent much time at Slashdot. They tended to look at the Beta site layout as a big improvement over the classic design - more inviting, more modern, easier to read - not necessarily great in comparison to other news aggregator sites, but an improv >> >> ement. That's the way they saw Slashdot: as a news aggregator, not as a community discussion site. When these people even mentioned the community, they basically described as being old, curmudgeonly, and unreasonably resistant to change. >> >> >> >> Then there were the people that had spent some time on Slashdot, but left for various reasons. Most of these people seemed to see the site and its content the way we do, i.e. that the discussions were the real content. Many of them seem to have been turned off by the chaotic nature of the discussions, and what they perceived as a low signal-to-noise ratio. Other >> >> s seem to have wanted better and more frequent article summaries, possibly with more focused discussions regarding the article topics. Their reaction to Beta tended to be moderately negative... accepting of cosmetic change as long as functionality didn't suffer. >> >> >> >> Finally, there were the people that (I assume) are more like us... they valued the free-wheeling nature of the discussions and how the community-driven moderation and meta-moderation system served to distill the chaos. These people frequently referred to the userbase as a community, and expressed anger or sadness at what the Beta redesign (and/or the backlash) w >> >> ould ultimately do to the community. Some had been around from the old Chips and Dips days, i.e. proto-Slashdot, and more than a few commenters sported userid numbers in the 3 to 5 digit range. These folks had extremely negative opinions about Beta (haha, like that's news to us). >> >> >> >> A couple other clusters could probably be identified, but the three above seem to include the vast majority. If I were to assign descriptive labels to these groups, they'd look like this: >> >> >> >> 1. Web 3.0 headline readers uninterested in what a bunch of old neckbeards think. They want tech news delivered in easily digestible chunks, and want the news source to be cool and modern. >> >> >> >> 2. Focused information seekers looking for community insight on major tech news. They want the insights behind the tech news, and believe that the community (old, grizzled, and grumpy as it may be) can be a source of wisdom. >> >> >> >> 3. Core community members that see Slashdot as a long-term online home base. They want in-depth discussion of tech news and are willing to put up with chaos in order to get deep insights, but also enjoy (and are fiercely protective of) the community identity. >> >> >> >> So, here's what I think, and it squares with what many people have been suggesting: Dice wants more of group 1 and are willing to dump group 3 to achieve that goal, and they're probably betting that group 2 won't decline too much as a result. Why? Probably because group 3 is not an important demographic in their primary line of business, and in addition, is only >> >> going to decline in size as time passes. Group 3 doesn't make them enough money, at least not directly... and if they can shift the site in such a way that *they* become the content creators instead of the community, they won't really need Group 3. They'll destroy the community to get where they want to go, because after all, we're just an audience to them. >> >> >> >> Anyway, that's the way I see it. > > +1 Insightful. Agreed. Though I emphasize the big *if* on the overlords becoming the content creators instead of the (3) that (2) currently enjoys mooching the pearls of wisdom from. Alternately, perhaps they believe they can shake the right amount of (3) off, hoping that enough of the wisdom of (3) sticks around to suffice. Although from an information warfare standpoint, I'm wondering if there might not be enough trolling and vengeful (3) that manages to poison the well going forward. I.e. making comments that have enough insight to fool (2) into thinking they are worth paying attention to, but in truth, end up being the opposite of wisdom. Though really, on a pure paranoid information warfare conspiracy theory, I think the NSA overlords might just be happy enough succeeding in a scorched earth tactic. I.e. the grumpy old farts might be seen as an impediment to a Neo-Stasi total surveillance state. I certainly suspect monied-conspiracy scorched earth tactics in poisoning the well of usenet. But I might just be a tad psychotic :) Cheers, -dmc
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 07:35 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <bm3auqFao9nU1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #353 |
> A couple other clusters could probably be identified, but the three > above seem to include the vast majority. If I were to assign > descriptive labels to these groups, they'd look like this: > > 1. Web 3.0 headline readers uninterested in what a bunch of old > neckbeards think. They want tech news delivered in easily digestible > chunks, and want the news source to be cool and modern. > > 2. Focused information seekers looking for community insight on major > tech news. They want the insights behind the tech news, and believe > that the community (old, grizzled, and grumpy as it may be) can be a > source of wisdom. > > 3. Core community members that see Slashdot as a long-term online home > base. They want in-depth discussion of tech news and are willing to put > up with chaos in order to get deep insights, but also enjoy (and are > fiercely protective of) the community identity. > > So, here's what I think, and it squares with what many people have been > suggesting: Dice wants more of group 1 and are willing to dump group 3 > to achieve that goal, and they're probably betting that group 2 won't > decline too much as a result. Why? Probably because group 3 is not an > important demographic in their primary line of business, and in > addition, is only > going to decline in size as time passes. Group 3 doesn't make them > enough money, at least not directly... and if they can shift the site > in such a way that *they* become the content creators instead of the > community, they won't really need Group 3. They'll destroy the > community to get where they want to go, because after all, we're just > an audience to them. > > Anyway, that's the way I see it. That's insightful analysis and I believe you are right. Demographically there are more of the younger demographic who choose flash over substance, though, and if you look at the quality of comments from people posting from their cellphones, i don't think it's a promising future. Slashdot comments over the past year started to look a lot more like Reddit, which is an entertaining site but not very informative. It may be the executive decision has been made, the budget spent, and it's all a done deal. But I think they're pushing SlashDot into territory where it will fail. It will be a poor clone of Reddit at best and since Slashdot never breaks the news (hell, they're often a week late) they will compete badly. I used to enjoy LinuxToday too. Back in 2000-2002 the comments on articles were fantastic, and I used to visit there first and Slashdot second (or not at all). The same thing happened, they chose advertising over comments. The page is awful now: takes forever to load because of all the ad servers, the articles are interesting but not great, and the comments have been reduced to zero. I never go there anymore, and neither do many others. Oh well … out of the ashes come new things, hopefully, like this!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | True Satan <true_satan@fastmail.co.uk> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 11:45 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <ldib8q$bpm$2@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #353 |
Parent article was excellent...well done! If there plan is to be an aggregator for the younger, possibly more influenced by advertising and fashion, generation then that is a very crowded market with some extremely tough competition. Being late with news won't cut it there. The increased costs from having to be the source of their content rather than having the community do that for them are likely to be uncomfortably large and I doubt that their revenue will match up well with them. Given how fast Dig went into decline after its community were left feeling disenfranchised I don't see a bright future for Dice.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | RS Wood <rsw@therandymon.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-14 11:02 +0000 |
| Subject | Re: Slashdot's new interface could kill what keeps Slashdot relevan t |
| Message-ID | <ldkt3k$o1s$1@solani.org> |
| In reply to | #369 |
> Given how fast Dig went into decline after its community were left > feeling disenfranchised I don't see a bright future for Dice. I remember when Digg went south. It was basically freefall, and their users abandoned them like rats fleeing a sinking ship. Marrying a "users provide the content" with "we make money on advertising" business model is not an easy road to success.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Spalls Hurgenson <spallshurgenson@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2014-02-13 09:36 -0500 |
| Message-ID | <8olpf9t67cr5h0itraa1mh3p241thinsjr@4ax.com> |
| In reply to | #323 |
On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 14:54:15 -0600, "Elizabeth T. Knuth" <eknuth@csbsju.edu> wrote: >Article today on Ars Technica, somewhat sympathetic to the refugees, with >comparative screenshots. > >http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/02/slashdots-new- >interface-could-kill-what-keeps-slashdot-relevant/ > >Sort of tempting to post it to the firehose, but it would undoubtedly get >deleted or mysteriously modded way way down. To be fair, Slashdot has been becoming increasingly /irrevelant/ over the past decade. While I still maintain it's moderation system encourages some of the best commentary open to the general public - especially considering it still allows anonymous comments - anywhere on the web, its audience has been continually shrinking. It is this very fact that inspired Dice to the redesign (though whether the end goal was to re-invigorate Slashdot while keeping its current spirit or simply use the "geek cred" of its name to attract a new audience remains up to debate) Dice - and perhaps Slashdot as a whole - was in a Catch 22 "damned if they do, damned if they don't" sort of situation. The problem wasn't that Dice decided to change up the site. It wasn't even the new design itself. It was /how/ they went about the change, proceeding without accepting input from their current audience. (btw, in classic /. tradition, I did not RTFA so apologies if I am repeating what was already said. I'm just trying to make people feel comfortable here ;-)
[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]
Back to top | Article view | comp.misc
csiph-web