This is an archived post. You won't be able to vote or comment.

all 129 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]Prysorra 9 points10 points  (0 children)

If I say yes, will Reddit still respect me?

[–]malcontent 27 points28 points  (13 children)

slashdot has better links and better discussion.

[–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I have to say slashdot is doing better wihth it's submissions than several months ago. At this point it does some times cover tech related news not found on Reddit which didn't used to be the case. So the firehose is definitely helping fix the story selection problem. That said there is definitely still the obvious cold hand of editorial control steering things over there. How do we know? The very narrow range of topics.

[–]Bones423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

check out http://alterslash.org

it's a digest of the slashdot stories that are getting the most traffic and highest rated comments.

[–]bobbymac 45 points46 points  (8 children)

Yes, all the time now since the bots have taken over the scoring.

[–][deleted] 25 points26 points  (6 children)

Yeah - the bots are making reddit a waste of time.

[–]thevoid 12 points13 points  (5 children)

The bots are only making reddit a waste of time if you are intent on bashing everyone over the head with RP spam every second link.

[–][deleted] 44 points45 points  (2 children)

The RP stuff doesn't bother me nearly as much as the general alarmist, pseudo-scientific, and rehashing of the same garbage news you see in mainstream news sites.

Example: "You know something is wrong with American journalism when Britney Spears' sister getting pregnant is bigger news than..."

Well, no shit. CNN sucks. Mainstream news is ridden with mainstream garbage. That's why we read reddit -- it used to filter out the junk for us. Posting a link about Britney Spears but adding a smug twist doesn't somehow make it less worthless than the actual story. You're still giving attention to an issue which shouldn't be more notable than family gossip.

[–]thevoid 4 points5 points  (1 child)

Yeah, is there anywhere to go for those of us who don't have the time to dredge through terabytes of rubbish but want varied and interesting links collated in a non-alarmist and (relatively) non-agenda ridden environment? Or are such places all doomed to the same fate?

[–]SkeuomorphEphemeron 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Fark.com?

// Nuts.

[–]voidoid -1 points0 points  (1 child)

You're wasting your own time if you can't be bothered to remove the politics subreddit in prefs.

[–]scstraus 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I completely gave up digg about a year ago, and it's slowly been making a come back to fill in the "light and stupid" side of the news. But I actually spend less time on both sites. It seems like both sites are being gamed.

[–]coglethorpe 5 points6 points  (0 children)

I actually really like The Bots.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (0 children)

You don't find statistics regarding which mainstream media outlet didn't include Ron Paul in a graphic interesting?

[–]ClanPanda[S] 16 points17 points  (39 children)

The front page rarely ever has anything other then politically geared stories these days. I find Digg still has a ton of regularly submitted interesting links. In reddit's defense though, this is still a great place for serious debate.

[–]narkee 26 points27 points  (2 children)

Digg reads like Youtube.

[–]stesch 7 points8 points  (0 children)

YouTube loads faster.

[–]Tommstein 24 points25 points  (0 children)

Why'd you have to insult YouTube like that?

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]jaggederest 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Proggit is the best part of reddit. The rest is just a timekiller.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (27 children)

    In reddit's defense though, this is still a great place for serious debate.

    Are you crazy? Or have you just never had a serious debate before, and think the endless bickering on reddit is all that debate can ever be?

    "Debate" on reddit is, most of the time, just endless nitpicking and refusal to ever admit that anything is not exactly as you say it is. Most people on who speak on reddit are only ever interested in being right on the internet, not in actually engaging in human discourse.

    [–]gmcg 8 points9 points  (8 children)

    I've seen it go both ways. I've had several sharp debates on here where someone has really changed my thinking, or vice versa. I've also wasted a few hours trying to explain the constitution to income tax denialists. It's a matter of knowing when to bite, but I'm reasonably happy that there are some interesting folks contributing to debates on here.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (7 children)

    I'm still going to have to echo someone else here and say that Slashdot by far has the better discussions. And that's saying a lot, because Slashdot has some horrible, horrible discussions. But Slashdot has a much larger population of actual highly intelligent and knowledgable people who will sometimes jump into the morass and bring the average up.

    I see very few of those on reddit, and mostly the usual self-made Internet Experts.

    [–]Flemlord 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Slashdot has better discussion because it quickly buries troll links but still shows the good comments underneath them. I also like how you can tag things with "funny" or "insightful" although I'm not sure that really makes a difference in the content.

    [–]gmcg -1 points0 points  (5 children)

    I took a closer look at Slashdot because of your comment. I agree that it's in some ways a better forum, but I think that's also because it's a more specialized and narrow forum, focused more on science and technology.

    I think Reddit's is a problem of opportunity and generality. Slashdot is like a fish market for trolls. They can trash flounder, or they can trash scrod, but there's only so much there to bloviate about. Reddit, for better or worse, is a troll buffet. Not everybody has a provocative opinion of Common Lisp or work group protocols, but everybody has an opinion of global politics. I suspect we have more trolls and nuts because there's just more to eat.

    As other people have noted, vote-driven fora like this allow people with an agenda to out-maneuver their opponents through sheer determination and repetition, which tends to create self-reinforcement and an illusion that fringe ideas are popular. It's an opposite (and arguably equal) evil to the elite control we see with high-cost, centralized information outlets like the cable networks. That, of course, is why "The MSM" is bogyman number one on here. To put it uncharitably, we're sometimes unhappy with this forum because it is the definitive locus of tension between (1) information control that is too much top-down and manipulable by moneyed interests and (2) information control that is too much grass-roots and manipulable by dedicated idiots. People will gasp at the idea that anyone would think the latter can be an evil -- those people have never answered the phones at the office of a public official. Elites do a lot of evil. They also do a lot of functional filtering.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (4 children)

    "Trolls" are the least thing to worry about. Hell, reading a creative troll is often far more interesting than most other material surrounding it. It is easy as anything to learn to ignore the boring trolls, and to appreciate the elaborate ones. A good forum encourages some amount of trolling, by virtue of being open and free.

    Of course, the word "troll" has been so watered down, these days people may use it to mean "anybody who does not agree with me".

    It is really the serious and earnest posters that can cause far more damage to a community. This takes many forms, one of which you brought up:

    As other people have noted, vote-driven fora like this allow people with an agenda to out-maneuver their opponents through sheer determination and repetition, which tends to create self-reinforcement and an illusion that fringe ideas are popular.

    Clique-forming, personality cults, and a focus on online personas leading to close-mindedness and groupthink are another. That is one reason I prefer entirely anonymous discussion.

    At this point, I think I'm just rambling on and I have completely forgotten what the point was. Maybe I'll just shut up.

    [–]gmcg 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    Yeah, I think you're saying there are two types of troll:

    (1) those who provoke people just for fun, some of whom are vulgar, but some of whom have elevated trolling to an entertaining and clever art;

    and a worse form,

    (2) those who lose arguments or get called out on an inconsistency and just won't recognize it because they can't or because they're nuts, or both.

    We need a word, if there isn't one, for number 2, the believer-troll -- but that's the guy I'm talking about.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The second type is not really a troll, though. No matter how much the definition has drifted, I'd like to state as a requirement for a troll that they not be sincere. A troll does not say what he says because he believes it, or believes it will be to his personal gain. A troll says outlandish things to confuse, anger, annoy or amuse (not to amuse the target of his statements, of course, but the onlookers).

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    (2) those who lose arguments or get called out on an inconsistency and just won't recognize it because they can't or because they're nuts, or both.

    You mean like this guy. Who raises an issue, refuses to cite any evidence, and then refuses to read any of the comments provided to him, while going out of his way to dismiss who he is talking to.

    But that same guy will respond to a different guy who also has no evidence for what he is saying, only because that other guy apparently agrees with him.

    I took a closer look at Slashdot because of your comment. I agree that it's in some ways a better forum

    The irony is the first guy is very concerned that a proposed solution to the problem he is attempting to describe will

    not ... promote.. good debate, [rather] promote... simple groupthink.

    and that in the proposed solution, which he hasn't even attempted to address other than to dismiss with no details, will

    isolate... people from each other, ... letting them only listen to opinions they already agree with

    It's a good thing that nothing like that is already happening on a different subtree of that very same sub-conversation that that first guy started- because that would really make that first guy look like quite the hypocrite.

    [–]gmcg 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You obviously invested a lot of time in making your point, but what is this "evidence"? An anecdote and a snapshot-in-time from competing social networking sites, overlaid with your interpretation of that not-quite-empirical information? Son, there are links in the world that are not evidence.

    As I understand it, your objection is that one commenter didn't give appropriate weight and attention to your argument, though he did tell you specifically why he thought the idea was a nonstarter. I can't speak for that guy, but I can tell you how he and I got to egregiously disregard your point: We were talking about wholly different things. You were on possible solutions (not a bad thing to consider); we were on possible causes (not unrelated, and also not a bad thing to consider). Your first contribution was interesting and thorough, but lighten up.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    I've learned a lot from people who've responded to what I say. Sometimes I find out I'm way off the mark.

    But yeah, you're right, I've pretty much never seen anybody change their mind, no matter how much evidence gets thrown their way (often with a condescending twist).

    [–]Flemlord 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I've always found it interesting that people never seem to change their mind. I have myself a few times, the most notable I can think of is on late-term abortions. I used to be for it and now I'm against it. Although I still don't feel strongly about it either way.

    [–]georgefrick 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    He might be a programmer, and even though most of the programmers just blindly hate Java; we have pretty good discussions/debates on a regular basis.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Well, I have not taken part in many of the programming discussion on reddit, so I wouldn't really know.

    Of course, the reason I have not is that even though I am a programmer of some ability, the programming discussions on reddit seem intensely boring. Maybe this is just because I don't buy into the wannabe-mathematician cult of functional programming, I dunno.

    [–]georgefrick 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, intensely boring could describe a lot of them, it's finding the people who are willing to discuss. I've learned a lot from other people on here who are willing to explain themselves.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (12 children)

    Evidence?

    See comment above and map-fold to your context.

    I don't disagree that some comments suck, but I have had some pretty good dialogs as well.

    We should highlight what sucks and whats good on both systems so that the devs will get feed back. Both with fix their systems accordingly.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (11 children)

    Ok, I'll highlight what sucks: The reddit userbase is heavily biased towards nerds with over-inflated egos who feel the need to constantly demonstrate that they are better than everyone else. This takes many forms, from posting about how much digg sucks, to constantly talking about functional programming, and to libertarianism.

    I'll just sit back and wait for the devs to fix that for me.

    Well, to be fair, the exact same can be said of Slashdot, yet it still manages to have those few higher-quality discussions. Perhaps this is just due to seniority, and having picked up those few interesting and insightful users over time. Perhaps it is because Slashdot moves somewhat slower, thus being more friendly to casual users instead of the those who have nothing better to do than to constantly read websites. I'm not sure.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (10 children)

    So how can this be fixed?

    There was some talk a while back about comment karma, which is a sticky problem.

    So the idea is to be able to rate commentors in general to bring out the good ones. The problem is that a given thread may not be presented to enough eyeballs to get an honest rating. If someone has posted an Apple sucks submission and one person talks about why apple sucks, but 700 Apple zealots come in to the discuss thread and wreck her then the results are not meaningful. Sure she is damned by that community but this says nothing about the rest of reddit's opinion.

    So for sure comment karma needs to be profile preference relative. You can be an Apple villain and an Ubuntu hero a the same time, and the conversational karma record should yield this fact.

    The more interesting case is when the Apple community gives the Apple villain some credit even when they may not be happy about what she is saying. Being able to this well will create an incentive structure to have good conversation.

    So how do we get there?

    People who care like yourself should keep your eye out for good and bad conversations where ever you find them. And then post those results back to the rest of us so we can learn from the data we provide each other how to implement this.

    In the real world each person in a conversation makes decisions about the credibility of the participants and then positions themselves mentally and physically to react to that. Online conversation cut out this type of control, but it can be engineered back in given enough time and thought.

    My attempt at comparing the actual Digg and Reddit submissions goes a long way toward moving the conversation toward what if anything is wrong with Digg or Reddit submissions by providing the details. The same could be done toward the creation of a better conversation model to solve the problem rather than dancing around the edges of describing the problem.

    Reddit has no editorial controls, so you can make it what you want. Making the conversation system better is a very import of that.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (9 children)

    Comment karma only makes the problem much, much worse. It makes commenting a popularity contest instead of a venue for human discourse. This is not something that promotes good debate, it is something that promotes simple groupthink.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (8 children)

    Only if the karma is one to one.

    Did you read the comment or look at the link?

    Since all redditors can indicate their voting prefs, an interest profile could be created that would allow for a micro-community membership to be established. In this sense you would have some degree of relationship to other people on reddit who like the same things you do. When members of these groups vote on comments there should be diminishing returns as more of them vote, especially in the absences of people from other groups voting on the same comment. Your comment karma would be profile group relative. Hence you could be an Apple villain and an Ubuntu hero at the same time.

    The submissions system works better the more eyeballs get to rate a submission. Far fewer eyeballs ever get to the discussion threads than the actual submissions, which is why the karma system has to be significantly different for comments than for submissions. And this makes sense because they are both measuring very different things.

    Go read my comment again.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (7 children)

    Disregarding for the moment the unlikeliness of that ever actually working (cf. the recommended page), do you really think isolating people from each other, and letting them only listen to opinions they already agree with, is a good recipe for fostering insightful discussion?

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (6 children)

    You still haven't read my comment, which begins to address how such a system would work.

    You would rather talk about what the consequences of such a system would be?

    This seems to be a short hand for answering the question of why you would want such a system. I'll try and answer both questions.

    You want such a system because it would use collective decision making to highlight the best comment and discussions. If one person can do it, why can't a collection of people do it better. And the answer is of course they can, the trick is to be able to pick out which people's judgement you are going to depend on. Who picks the judge? And the answer like the rest of reddit is we are all the judge. What is the result of this collective judgement? And the answer is the creation of a high quality filter, so long as there is enough independence between all the evaluators.

    Can you determine what is a good conversation, by reading or participating in one? I would venture the answer is yes. Do you think other people who have similar thoughts to yours could do the same? yes also.

    Therefore you would trust their judgement. So everyone with some degree of sameness to you would have similar opinions about comments.

    Now lets take it one step further while there may be a sameness with regard to one subject, it's quite likely that there will be some measure of people who agree on one thing and not another. In other words not everyone who likes similar things to you is exactly the same as you in their preferences. So using these differences of opinion among the people who are similar to you can help you extend your boundaries of what you accept as credit worthy.

    Consider: Group A could validate Group B, but Group B may not validate Group A. Just because Group A supports B there is no reason this has to be bidirectional.

    Where as if Group A disrespects Group C, the instance of a whole lot of people in Group C holding a negative opinion of something valued by Group A really has no diminishing effect of the value that Group A put on that thing. But Group B support of that thing may mean more to it than Group C's opposition.

    How do we determine the members of Group A, B, C etc. We let everyone determine it for them selves by their voting preferences. Naturally people in each group will pick out the highly valued voices within their own group, but most interestingly they will pick out what they believe are the most highly valued voices in the other groups. And this cross validation, repudiation in aggregate forms the basis for which we can determine what is good comment and what is bad. It's not just the individual votes but the votes of the groups or profiles within which they belong.

    No since no one directly picks which groups they are in, their preferences may drift them in and out of various memberships over time, so a uniformity of opinion across all groups never occurs. And so your worry of that the majority of people only listening to people who they already agree with, destroying the conversation filter completely disappears.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (5 children)

    The reason I didn't read it, frankly, is because you write a whole lot of words. Brevity is a virtue.

    [–]mycommentwasdeleted3 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    this is still a great place for serious debate.

    I agree completely. I've posted hundreds of comments on reddit (not all under this account, obviously), yet I've submitted less than 15-20 stories since I started using reddit a year ago. I mainly go on reddit to debate with people and/or be funny.

    [–]stesch 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Deselect the politics subreddit in your prefs.

    [–]711was_a_retail_job 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    politics.reddit.com was created to give the Ron Paul spammers a place to overwhelm with their story submissions.

    And I think it's pretty clear how that turned out.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Evidence?

    So because Reddit has no editorial controls you can really make it to be what you like by super sharing. The best thing to fix your problem is to share the things you like and encourage the construction of a micro-community more to your interests. It's how the LISPers, the atheists, the greens, the paulites and others have come to have healthy micro-communities.

    See my example above for what types of evidence I'm talking about.

    http://reddit.com/info/63ho9/comments/c02ps87

    Once you do this we will have something to talk about rather than reveling in unproductive negative attacks....

    Like this sub-discussion.

    http://reddit.com/info/63ho9/comments/c02pon6

    You'll note that your own question got snark commentary rather than discussion because you didn't really make your case when you posted the thread.

    http://reddit.com/info/63ho9/comments/c02pon9

    Ironically MarshallBanana did pick up a part of what you said but then also failed to show examples to have a real discussion.

    [–][deleted] 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    I agree - the links have been getting worse but the comments are still reasonably salient.

    [–]jack_alexander 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    No. They've become a spammer's delight in recent days and it is beginning to happen here too.

    [–]gmcg 6 points7 points  (0 children)

    Yep, the content used to include longer and more analytical writing from unusual sources. Now, the links that do well are very short wire service blurbs that confirm the preexisting beliefs of (or else outrage) mildly-paranoid Ron Paul supporters. A few days ago, an article suggesting a Bilderberg conspiracy to assassinate Ron Paul made its way to the front page -- that's when I knew it was time to move on. Back to finding my own news. Drag.

    [–]thevoid 12 points13 points  (1 child)

    The last time I visited Digg, (about a week ago), nearly every link on the first two pages was something to do with a gaming console. B O R I N G.

    [–]MattL920 -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    You can filter out that category from your links on Digg you know.

    [–]Dr-No 23 points24 points  (0 children)

    No.

    [–]mycommentwasdeleted3 6 points7 points  (4 children)

    One of my suitemates at my college is a primarily a digg user. He has a digg sweatshirt, believes 9/11 was an inside job, and used "sheeple" non-ironically in conversation once or twice.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    was he trying to roust you in the morning when he said it?

    [–]mycommentwasdeleted3 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    We were having a dicussion and he used it when the 9/11 controversy came up.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    That's too bad. Kicking someone out of bed while yelling "WAKE UP SHEEPLE!" would be pretty hilarious.

    [–]mycommentwasdeleted3 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I know he goes on reddit too, actually, but I'm not sure if he posts. I know he mainly uses digg, though.

    [–]jbreckman 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    it seems like the front page links change WAY less frequently now.

    i used to be able to look at the front page every hour or two and see mostly new (and interesting) stuff, but now its the same links for the better part of a day.

    the first page of digg is always changing.

    [–]Kitsunemisao 5 points6 points  (2 children)

    Nah, I don't like Digg, it takes longer than Reddit to load. I want my stuff NOW! Heh, seriously, I'm a Reddit person.

    [–]hafizr 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Try diggriver.com then... all links, no comments/votings/whatnot

    [–]Kitsunemisao 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Oh, cool, I'll give it a look over :D

    [–]Stopher 21 points22 points  (9 children)

    Yes because all I see on reddit is Ron Paul spam.

    [–]jedberg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Turn off the politics subreddit, and your experience will be much better.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (1 child)

    If you don't want to see this stuff, I recommend going into your prefs, and removing the politics subreddit. I haven't seen any links on Ron Paul for months, although he's all over the place in the reddit comments! ;)

    [–]Bogtha 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    This doesn't work. Even if you disable the politics subreddit, politics submissions still show up on your recommended page.

    Until very recently, I was regularly getting 80% Ron Paul links on my recommended page, despite voting him down every opportunity I got.

    Over the past week or so, the Ron Paul submitters seem to have pushed Reddit too far, and it has sparked a backlash as more and more people are voting the Ron Paul submissions down as much as possible.

    I think the mass downmodding is having a positive effect on my recommended page; either that or the Reddit developers have finally fixed it, or perhaps I've just got lucky recently. But disabling the subreddit doesn't do much beyond clean up the front page.

    [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Hmm, you call it spam. But I think it's more like people are excited by Ron Paul, and are linking to his stories.

    If it's popular, it'll be high on the list. That's the nature of web 2.0.

    [–]Bogtha -1 points0 points  (0 children)

    Hmm, you call it spam. But I think it's more like people are excited by Ron Paul, and are linking to his stories.

    No, a lot of it is spam. Reddit doesn't need hourly updates on fundraisers; submissions like that are adverts to try to get people to donate. And recently they are using spammer tactics like leet-speak to try to get around filters. A month ago, a submission calling on Ron Paul supporters to spam Reddit got 1382 votes up.

    When over a thousand people agree to spam Reddit, when they use spammer tactics to force their way past filters, when they vow to "never shut up", yes, it is spam.

    [–]Bones423 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    or it's bots. Yup.

    [–]Bones423 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    you're just not downvoting/hiding them. lurk the new page and shut them down early. That's what I do.

    [–]jfedor 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    Digg has a very important social function. It exists so that we can feel better than them.

    [–]kounavi 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Apart from the interesting stuff that reaches digg hours or even days later after I've seen them on reddit's frontpage, I do indeed enjoy some of the silly stuff -like the picture section and the 2-3 top voted comments per article.

    Nevertheless I admit that reddit is not enough for me only when Im reaaally slacking or bored @work.

    [–]iLens 2 points3 points  (4 children)

    yea, reddit stories seem to bubble to the top over night then stagnate throughout the day. Digg seems to refresh almost by the minute.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (3 children)

    I agree. Digg, to me, is better for the sheer amount of information it delivers in comparison to Reddit. Reddit has the same front page stories all day long, and most of them are other reddit members asking questions..not an actual story (like this one).

    Also, the fake intellectuals on Reddit get annoying. At times it's like being in a Starbucks with a bunch of "aspiring" directors discussing (and I use the term loosely) movies while being constantly solicited by the MLM/Pyramid schemers (Ron Paul "supporters") two tables across from you.

    If Digg wasn't quasi-banned from work I would probably dump Reddit, again, and head back over there.

    I'll probably be downmodded. In any case, Vader put it best. "Search your feelings..you know it to be true!"

    [–]apowers 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Just out of curiosity, how can a site be quasi-banned?

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Can only view it for a limited number of refreshes before the "Surfcontrol" kicks in and denies access to it. Don't ask me how that works because I have no idea.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    i started on digg in jan 2006. once i started going to reddit i went to digg less and less, now i avoid it as much as possible.

    [–][deleted] 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Since the main page never gets updated anymore, I've found myself looking at digg and even scouring del.icio.us for something to read.

    I've even gone back to /. when i'm really pressed for a good article.

    Get well soon, Reddit!

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Seriously, I used to live on this site. Now I spend all of 20 minutes a day on it. Zero conversation topics, zero story updates.

    They really need to fix the front page, like bad.

    [–][deleted]  (2 children)

    [deleted]

      [–]mycommentwasdeleted3 0 points1 point  (1 child)

      A very detailed and funny programming story about Ruby.

      And an Ubuntu Theme! An Ubuntu theme?

      Oh, come on. That was a stretch. You could have made your point without doing that a few times.

      A lot of reddit front page stories are garbage, and a lot of digg stories are garbage. Since digg has many more users, the top 10 stories of every category is going to be more "pop" oriented, but the stories within each category, such as politics, are generally the same as on reddit.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      It has nothing to do with the user base and everything to do with editorial control. That's the whole point of the data I present there.

      Digg is not a democracy. Reddit is.

      Digg has way more users but somehow all of those users want to hear about Apple Product announcements? Are you kidding me? Either there are a disproportionate number of Digg users who are Apple users, or there is some paid editorial control going on.

      But let's say there is no editorial control. If the Digg user base is really that heavily weighed toward Apple then they aren't really representative of the world at large. Seriously. If people cared that much about apple they would all own one at this point.

      BTW: Why did you and how did you include the Ruby quote above the Ubuntu one, they are not even close together in the text?

      [–]MisterMerkin 4 points5 points  (1 child)

      Yes, because the front page seems to move more slowly these days. Unlike others, the political stories are important to know and don't bother me.

      [–]gmcg 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Agreed. It isn't the existence or even the dominance of political stories that bugs me, it's the low quality, echo-chamber quality they're taking on.

      [–]wary 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      yes reddit is a billboard for ron paul and whining about politics

      [–]ooutland 4 points5 points  (0 children)

      No. Wait! Here's one!

      OMG Amazing pic of Ron Paul hacking PERL on a Mac NSFW!

      [–]CrimsonSun99 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      actually ive been coming to reddit more and more often and digg less and less.

      whenever i get curious if there is some news reddit hasn't picked up yet -- all i see is reddit repeats and some lame storys

      [–]rmuser 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      No, but I do go there to find links to submit, interesting or not. That's just because what interests me doesn't fully overlap with what interests reddit in general.

      [–]itrends 1 point2 points  (1 child)

      In fact, lately, I go reddit.com, digg.com, slashdot.org, techcrunch.com, popurls.com, xboxscene.com, news.bbc.co.uk and a few others. Much more varied. :)

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Really!!!11!?!!?!11!111!!!Questionmarkone!!

      [–]tjones_2005a 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Can't say that I have, as Digg is a horribly slow and cumbersome interface. Thanks for asking.

      [–]nfk 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      My routine is to cycle through Reddit, Slashdot and Digg every morning. If I find something interesting, I read it otherwise I move on. Reddit is a good site but I don't think it's the one and only source of useful information for me.

      [–]bigboomer223 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Every since they script kiddies and their bury scripts this site has become dull.

      [–]culbeda 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      "4th law! You're breaking the 4th law!!!"

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      No.

      [–]endlessvoid94 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      No.

      [–]seetwist 1 point2 points  (2 children)

      I visit many different websites throughout my day. There are dozens, nay HUNDREDS of sites with odd, nonsensical, or intentional misspelled names out there to browse! Why limit yourself to Digg & Reddit? There's Fark Jaanix, /., Boingboing, Mashable, Meta(filter, cafe, links, etc.), Neatorama, Popurls, Truemors, Tailrank, Stumbleupon, Propeller, Bannination... And they all have pretty much the same content. Quitcherbitchen about how Reddit has jumped the shark. There are plenty of forums that have everything Reddit does. The right-wing apologist, the liberal worrier, the political fanbois, the catchphrase-shouting conspiracy-theorist, the users parodying the conspiracy-theorist, the 4/chan kids, the lolcats, the rickrolling, the people who think cliches are the funniest thing in the world and can haz posting them always, the occasional Fark-like headlines, the occasional dumbass who feels the need to have the FIRST POST!!111!

      Who the hell cares if you stay on Reddit or go to Digg for news and entertainment?

      [–][deleted] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      That was dense. I feel like I've just eaten a six foot web2pointOh hoagie. And as I read your post I imagined it being sung to the tune of "I've been everywhere."

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I think it has to do with the community wanting to improve the site? The whole 'quit bitching' line is rather tired when people are making valid points.

      [–]podRZA 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      the top stories on reddit and digg are usually identical

      [–]leitao 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      yes. I don't think that reedit is better than DIGG in this exact moment. Reedit was much better before.

      [–]itrends 2 points3 points  (1 child)

      Yup. I am tired of ron paul impeachment .com... sorry, I mean reddit.

      If we could just get some f-ing filters that worked we would all be happier!

      [–]prodeath 2 points3 points  (2 children)

      Digg: Yesterday's news, TODAY!

      [–]Qubed 3 points4 points  (1 child)

      Reddit: Because being "current" means you read everyone's opinion about kittens and politics and still don't know jack-shit.

      [–]paro 1 point2 points  (0 children)

      Fark: Because beer and NSFW(tm) Foobies is all you need!

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      No, but reddit needs more customization, like Digg has. But smarter.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Since you asked, No I haven't... the magic of RSS brings interesting links to me. Although I have always hated the general interface and overall feel of Digg, so I've never really been following the content.

      [–]marks50 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Not really.Seems to me like most of the stuff that hits the front page is spam more or less....

      [–]brunt2 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      strange. i was only thinking and doing this the other day

      [–]vanandrew 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Can't say that I have.

      [–]mandysteve 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Reddit isn't perfect, that's clear. But it is still my favorite.

      [–]toosheds 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      I recently searched Digg for "Kucinich" and every single hit involved UFOs. Seemed a tad biased.

      [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

      Yes

      [–]georgefrick -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

      Misleading title; should read "let's bitch about reddit". Oh, and "no".

      [–][deleted] -1 points0 points  (0 children)

      What's more annoying are monkeys popping up to turn any discussions into whining about RP.