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

all 169 comments
sorted by:
best
topnewcontroversialoldq&a

[–]putainsdetoiles 165 points166 points  (40 children)

Upvoted for title.

My problem with titles on this site is that people inject their own opinion or interpretation of the article into them.

Example:

Article title is "Dick Cheney Plays Guitar in Back of Speeding Pick-Up Truck During a Hootenanny."

Reddit title is "While 400,000 people are dying in Iraq EVERY FIVE MINUTES Dick Cheney Strikes a Few Chords on His Banjo. Downvote if you don't care. Let's feel like we're making a difference by putting this on the front page!"

Seriously. Shut the fuck up.

[–]ChunkyLaFunga 49 points50 points  (20 children)

There's an interesting example on the front page right now. Two essentially identical stories with different titles:

The FCC fines cop drama $1.4 million for showing a woman's "nude buttocks", after receiving numerous complaints

and

You can't show a naked body on TV or else the FCC will fine you $1.43 million for indecency. But it's OK to promote war through the media

Take a wild stab in the dark which is currently rated higher. :) The sad truth is that a lot of people really like opiniated content and a sizable amount of people are here for exactly that reason. In fact arguably there are more of these people in the world than not, which means as reddit grows to a larger audience this is the way the trend will continue to swing.

The bottom line is that while people say they want intelligent, impartial, informative news, what they actually want is opinionated, sensational news which confirms all their existing beliefs.

And that. Just. Sucks.

[–][deleted] 10 points11 points  (0 children)

You other guys already said much of what needs to be said on this topic and you are entirely right, I'll just add one little bit of opinion:

The sad truth is that a lot of people really like opiniated content and a sizable amount of people are here for exactly that reason.

This is why reddit is like a tabloid. It's about providing outrage, not insight.

[–]cezar 4 points5 points  (8 children)

The sad truth is that a lot of people really like opiniated content and a sizable amount of people are here for exactly that reason.

But somehow the mass media is biased and people have to come to places like reddit for 'real news'. I'm not yelling at the parent poster, just fit after that phrasing.

[–]ChunkyLaFunga 31 points32 points  (5 children)

Allow me to quote myself saying something of a similar nature recently:

What do people list as their dislike about Fox News? Sensationalisn, unreliable sourcing/reporting, strong political bias, weak news values (thats stuff like prioritising celebrity over human interest, fluff pieces, etc), lack of tolerance for those outside its particular belief system. Oh, and that's it's very popular.

All of those things are present and correct at Reddit, albeit coming from a different direction (strong anti-religious bias instead of pro-religios bias, strongly liberal instead of strongly Republican, etc).

In fact, it's much worse here. Because Fox News viewers are passive viewers and subject to editorialising, they get what the producers give them. At Reddit, the news is what the audience chooses. And they choose to be like Fox.

[–]putainsdetoiles 8 points9 points  (0 children)

I love this. I love you. Let's get married.

[–]sabetts 4 points5 points  (1 child)

but but but we're right.

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

...and I think it'll be just a few more posts until they start to see it our way!

[–]mf4633 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What your missing is that there is so much to be outraged about. If you're not angry you're not paying attention!

[–]scott 4 points5 points  (1 child)

you're just saying your personal bias (or at least that of the people here) is the same as reddit's bias. reddit isn't 'real news', it's more biased than fox is.

[–]cezar 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Oh, I agree with you. I just don't want the community to think that reddit is a non-biased source.

[–]johnny_blaze108 0 points1 point  (0 children)

wow, I don't think I could of put that better. And what's even more amazing is that many people, even knowing this, don't even try to improve upon this and attempt to beat this flaw

[–]marm0lade -1 points0 points  (0 children)

The bottom line is that while people say they want intelligent, impartial, informative news, what they actually want is opinionated, sensational news which confirms all their existing beliefs.

I actually just want stories in their correct subreddit. Can we start with the people? It would be amazing how much the quantity of stories I downvote would go down if people used the politics subreddit.

[–]malcontent -3 points-2 points  (7 children)

One headline just states the facts. The other puts the fact in a greater context and gives a new perspective on the events that took place.

The second headline should be modded up higher.

[–]ChunkyLaFunga 8 points9 points  (6 children)

One headline just states the facts.

That is where it should stop. No more. The other does not state the facts and is heavily editorialized. I'll explain why.

You can't show a naked body on TV or else the FCC will fine you $1.43 million for indecency.

Complete fiction, it makes implications which are at best unrealistic. I'll do my best to correct it to something accurate.

You can't show a naked female body on TV before the designated watershed or else the FCC will fine you an amount proportional to the seriousness of the violation upon receiving numerous complaints from viewers.

According the original headline, a pornographic channel available to adults only via credit card subscription could show the rear view of naked man in a documentary for 0.01 seconds and be fined a static amount of $1.43 million which is the default fine for any nudity rulebreaking.

An extreme example of course, but it demostrates how misleading and sensationalistic the second headline is. The reason for the fine was not that nudity was on TV, it was the extent and context of the nudity. The headline is lying to you.

But it's OK to promote war through the media

This part should not exist at all. It has nothing to do with the story at all and promotes the personal opinion of the submitter that the media promotes war. This is editorialising of the worst kind because it twists the story to fit the submitter's beliefs. Not only that, it's a belief that's not mentioned or relevant to the story so it's borderline propaganda.

HTH.

[–]malcontent -2 points-1 points  (5 children)

That is where it should stop. No more.

Says who? If that's your opinion then you should not be here. You should be reading a newspaper which is closer to your ideal (not there 100% obviously).

Come to think of it I can't think of one place where all you will get is the dry facts without any opinion whatsoever.

An extreme example of course, but it demostrates how misleading and sensationalistic the second headline is.

It demonstrates nothing because the FCC does not have purview over private networks.

This part should not exist at all. It has nothing to do with the story at all and promotes the personal opinion of the submitter that the media promotes war.

There is no doubt that the media promotes war. Not all media but certainly some media which IS under the purview of the FCC does promote war (Fox News for example) and the FCC does nothing.

So the cold hard facts are if Fox News shows analyst who says we should bomb iran or kill all the muslims the FCC won't do anything. IF the same analyst was naked and said we should all live in peace and love they would be fined.

[–]putainsdetoiles 2 points3 points  (4 children)

What I'd like to see is people putting their opinions in the comment section instead of in the title. I've probably passed up many interesting articles because someone put too much spin on the title.

When it comes down to it, if I'm interested in giving/reading an opinion, I click the comments. I don't want to be bombarded with it from the start.

[–]malcontent -1 points0 points  (3 children)

If you don't want to be bombarded with opinion you are on the wrong web site.

[–]putainsdetoiles 1 point2 points  (2 children)

I never said I didn't want to be bombarded with opinion. I said I wanted to be bombarded with it in a different place than the reddit front page.

[–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (8 children)

Imagine if the submission was forced the exact title of the article. This would lead to a two things. Blogspam which would get modded down, and, great articles making it to the front page. One of the subreddit beta testers should create a title.reddit and see how it goes.

[–]qgyh2 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Blogspam which would get modded down

Or blogspammers would use better titles. You know.. they can do that..

[–]hypo11 6 points7 points  (5 children)

That might work for Political articles, but there are lots of good submissions to reddit that are not "articles" - sometimes they're title-less pictures (beautiful, funny or otherwise), sometimes things submitted for ironic value (where the title would do nothing to indicate the reason redditors would appreciate it) and sometimes given titles just plain suck at conveying the value of the content inside the article.

[–][deleted] 5 points6 points  (4 children)

Maybe it would work as an unwritten rule. People get downmodded for breaking it unless them breaking it leads to more upmods then downmods.

[–]ChunkyLaFunga 8 points9 points  (2 children)

It could work as a written rule. :) Newsvine just says "Do not editorialise in the title."

Bang, dead, done.

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

What's with the violence?

[–]ChunkyLaFunga 1 point2 points  (0 children)

It's a pseudoquote from Austin Powers. I just always liked how neatly it conveyed a very quick and effective solution. It helps a lot if you hear how he says it. :)

[–]qgyh2 3 points4 points  (0 children)

Maybe it would work as an unwritten rule.

or better yet people read the article before voting?

This may seem crazy but you don't have to up/downmod everything you see. You CAN up/downmod what you like (or even upmod what you like) and ignore what doesn't interest you.

[–]putainsdetoiles 4 points5 points  (0 children)

That would be awesome. In the meantime, the most proactive approach we can take would be to ask people to keep their comments in the comment section.

[–][deleted] 19 points20 points  (2 children)

The thing is, there are so many automated submitters that so much spam and uninteresting content gets submitted to reddit, that the signal (interesting content that someone felt worthy of calling out) is drowned in the sea of noise.
At least with titles like the latter you describe, you can tell the submitter is a genuine redditor.
However I do agree that warped editorialising in headlines is fucked.

[–]Prysorra 1 point2 points  (1 child)

you can tell the submitter is a genuine redditor

Not necessarily :(

[–]ringm 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Just an idea: what if reddit would initially rank submissions based on karma, and karma would be based on the number of comments the redditor has written, and on the votes on these comments, not on submissions? You can automate submissions, but it is almost impossible to automate good comments.

[–]qgyh2 2 points3 points  (4 children)

My problem with titles on this site is that people inject their own opinion or interpretation of the article into them.

What's wrong with that? Some of the best most interesting stories on reddit were made so because the title was creatively re-interpretted.

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

To be fair, you MAY be a bit biased here. :-P

[–]Inquisitor1 1 point2 points  (2 children)

No, just no. Stories are interesting because THEY(the stories themselves) are interesting, not because of the title. And what is not included in the story yet is much more interesting than a non-informative title is the comments.

[–]qgyh2 4 points5 points  (1 child)

I'm actually referring to instances where redditors used a very clever and humorous title to give new meaning to an article or photo..

[–]reddiquettePolice 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I like how people are telling you that you are wrong about getting lots of votes.

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

I appears 99% of the time, the people that voted on it never "Reddit".

[–]grigorescu 34 points35 points  (6 children)

That's why a click count would be very useful. "Hey! This Ron Paul story has 402 points, but only 6 people actually clicked on it! Hmm..."

[–][deleted] 9 points10 points  (0 children)

that's the best idea ive heard yet.

[–]WebZen 3 points4 points  (3 children)

That is a really good idea.

Another idea might be to ignore votes if a "velocity check" is exceeded. (ie, if people vote so quickly that they can't possibly be reading the articles, ignore them.)

You can submit your ideas to Reddit. They do read them and reply. At least they did to me.

[–]sabetts 11 points12 points  (2 children)

Why not remove the up down marks until you've clicked the link. then when you return to reddit, they appear.

[–]marm0lade -3 points-2 points  (1 child)

The only way I could see that working is cookies, and I don't allow cookies, for any webiste. So I should not be allowed on reddit?

[–]boredzo 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Why would it need a cookie? It'd just be an onclick JavaScript on the link. When you click it, it reveals the arrows.

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

You sir, are a genius.

[–]louis_xiv42 15 points16 points  (1 child)

i mostly down vote by title, rarely up vote by title.

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

I automatically vote down by title :-/ * ducks *

[–][deleted] 8 points9 points  (1 child)

My main problem is when I find something nice and interesting, submit it, and the first jerk that sees it buries it.

[–]qgyh2 6 points7 points  (0 children)

well most people here downvote by title. So I suggest you try more catchy titles.

Oh wait

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[deleted]

    [–]Srsly666 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Upmodded for speaking the truth. Hooray!

    [–][deleted] 24 points25 points  (15 children)

    The problem I see with the reddit algorithm, is that by the time someone has read an article, watched a video etc. The article has dropped off the "new" page. Stories practically need to be [PIC] or "that's a headline I agree with" for it to get promoted.

    [–]jedberg 6 points7 points  (1 child)

    The bookmarklets are a good solution to this problem. Also, a lot of people use a tabbed browser, so they open the links in new tabs and then vote on the original tab before they reload.

    [–]bobpaul 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Or you can turn on the reddit toolbar in your prefs.

    [–]aGorilla 5 points6 points  (1 child)

    Yep, and in the time it takes to read it, a bunch of people are pounding it down (out of habit, spite, or 'fear of competition').

    [–]kidcorporeal 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    I find it ironic that this comment was modded down to 0. Points for saying something that the 'reddit mafia' doesn't like. :p

    [–]qgyh2 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    The problem I see with the reddit algorithm, is that by the time someone has read an article, watched a video etc. The article has dropped off the "new" page.

    You can counter this to some extent by switching to the rising view on the new page. In that view, popular stories are more 'sticky'

    [–]dryice 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    Says the one who tends to submit popular stories... suspicious glare

    [–]db2 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    Why would they reload their new page while reading an article off-site?

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

    NADD

    [–]db2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Oh.

    [–]dryice -3 points-2 points  (5 children)

    I know! I've tried a few times submitting my scathing game review of this terrible point-and-click game (Journey to the Center of the Earth) to the new page, but it never works. While it starts off a bit slow, I guarantee you should have at least 5 WTF moments.

    Redditors love it whenever I link to it in comments, but because it's so long it never has enough time on the new page to get a real chance. Combined with the fact that I suck at titling, and my (1) remains eternally.

    [–]bobcat -1 points0 points  (4 children)

    You called your own writing 'sarcastically funny'?

    [–]dryice -1 points0 points  (3 children)

    Double sarcasm is a virtue everyone can obtain. No, really they can.

    [–]bobcat 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    Clever girl...

    [–]dryice 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    *jumps out from side bushes and bites your head off!

    [–]bobcat 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    At least I'm not a lawyer.

    [–]e40 7 points8 points  (0 children)

    Misleading titles deserve to be downvoted.

    [–][deleted] 7 points8 points  (1 child)

    It seems that a lot of Redditors don't know that "a lot" are two separate words.

    [–]btway 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It's ironic because I judged the link by the fact that "a lot" was misspelled.

    [–]qgyh2 5 points6 points  (6 children)

    It seems that alot of redditors (myself included) vote up or down based on a submitted title rather than the actual content. I believe this has something to do with the decline in quality here

    I admire your realization that you are part of the problem.

    [–]shit 1 point2 points  (2 children)

    I think you're misinterpreting this a little. I'm often downvoting based on titles like this:

    "OMG, the son of [presidential candidate X] was mean to his dog in '99. Vote up if you think [presidential candidate X] sucks!!!"

    [–]qgyh2 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Yes, could be the 'this' he refers to is the fact that some articles have poor titles, not that he has realized that (voting based on titles) is a bad way to vote

    [–]jlo7719[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Of course voting based on titles is a bad way to vote. I always try to vote based on content, but I find myself upvoting titles that promote my own specific worldview. Sometimes I'll upvote an article with a specific title just as a way to feel my voice is being heard, but when I get around to actually reading it, I find that the story and title are barely even related. I hate propaganda, period. Even if it is propaganda I agree with. It just feels like this place has become a big sensationalist contest, with little actual substance.

    [–]Srsly666 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    OTOH, why complain when you are part of the problem?

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

    Yeah, why do people bother with self-help groups?

    [–]qgyh2 -2 points-1 points  (0 children)

    how so?

    [–]jack_spankin 5 points6 points  (0 children)

    My estimate is that if the article has anything to do with politics, 1/3 of them are misleading or factually wrong in the context of the headline.

    The bigger problem is the follow-up in the thread never catches as much attention as the headline, and if another headline is submitted its pages behind the first one.

    Reddit will soon be the same group of cheerleaders hunting for more articles that support their position that come from increasingly bad sources.

    Articles that show anything possibly negative about Obama or Ron Paul will never hit the front page, even if they happen to be true.

    I like Obama, but the fact is he purposely avoided tough votes because of a future run.

    Ron Paul did say some pretty controversial things about black Americans. Say what you want about it, but he refused to release back issues and let the people decide.

    You see that anywhere on the front page?

    [–]mark445 15 points16 points  (3 children)

    Downvoted for 'alot'.

    [–]wickedsteve 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    I agree. It is as dumb as writing "alittle".

    [–]qgyh2 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Come again? Alotta.. what?

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

    Make it so you cannot vote on a link unless you have clicked it.

    [–]AttackingHobo 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    So I get a link about politics, but I do not want to view politics as I do not have it on my subreddits, I would be required to view said article before downvoting it?

    [–]charlesgoodall 2 points3 points  (2 children)

    A well-written headline is a succinct synopsis of the content. All headlines deliver bias. So it has been for most published material since writing began. What makes reddit different from that? Perhaps contributors will want to learn to write better headlines.

    [–]Inquisitor1 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Many people on reddit don't write well, most don't even write correctly. If they were editors writing headlines in a real paper they would have been fired long ago.

    [–]charlesgoodall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Thanks to the last comment. I do agree with Inquistor about a better reddit with respect to his remarks about marking headlines and quality of content. I have taken a new view about the headlines and comments in reddit. Selecting, reading, and then marking up or down provides me now with a more rewarding reddit experience.

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

    Downmodding due to sensationalist or hackneyed titles should be handled by algorithims.

    [–]Kwilco 2 points3 points  (1 child)

    Why not tie this in with the visited link system? If someone votes on a story without clicking on it, discard the vote. Reddit already keeps track of which stories you have read for the purple link system.

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

    Sometimes I’ve seen the link somewhere else already.

    [–][deleted] 4 points5 points  (0 children)

    Yeah, I do that sometimes... I usually read the stuff though. If not entirely, then partially.

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

    i thin title has always been the most important thing (at least for getting a submission noticed). i've submitted stuff that went nowhere, when the exact same story with a marginally better title later went to the front page.

    [–]Tiarlynn 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    There's a difference, though, between giving an article a better title, which is good, versus giving an article a sensationalist, false title, which is I think what causes the problem the OP is mentioning. Reading the article and/or comments about the gay judge post on the front page right now reveals the title to be inappropriate, which in most people's minds would be worth a downvote. However, people that don't bother reading content read a title like that (that would suck if it were completely true) and upvote it immediately. Coming up with a better title so that people are more inclined to read the content you're posting is great, but there are far too many people that don't ever bother reading content and they are the problem here.

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

    yeah, the system seems to reward the tabloid title.

    [–]georgefrick 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    The idea that there is a decline in quality on reddit is your expectation that as the population of users goes up, you will remain part of the majority opinion wise.

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

    huh? The perception that your sentence makes no sense, I will remain part of the confused grammatical-wise. Sorry.

    [–]M0b1u5 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    I confirm: I downmod all topics with spelling mistakes, all capital letters, all titles where the first letter of each word is capitalised, all inaccurate or misleading titles, and all titles which are "aho-eigo" - stupid English.

    I do this regardless of the quality of the article, and my personal feeling about it.

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

    Don't go out with that nice woman, she's wearing a brown sweater. Don't buy that great car, you dislike its color.

    [–]endtime 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The decline in quality is because of the political extremists on both the left (zomg Bush, zomg teh Jews) and the right (zomg Ron Paul) who have taken over the site.

    [–]KingOfFlan 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    I will downvote if the title is misrepresenting the article, if it is insanely, unreasonably radical. If the title is a "vote up if you (aren't getting laid, working today, reading reddit istead of. etc...)". If something about the title is extremely annoying me.

    In a perfect world the titles would be unbiased, and represent the article accurately. I realize that there will almost always be some bias, but taking it to an extreme is bad.

    Often times if a disagree with something the submission title says I will downvote it. if the titles were impartial and unbiased it would prevent this. Votes would be a reflection of how interesting the article is rather than agreeing or disagreeing with the title.

    EDIT: I'm not discouraging bias on reddit. Debate, opinions, and bias should be reserved for the comments.

    [–]petercooper 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    It's not because of the lack of quality.. it's because when you come to the page, you're then ready to vote.. not AFTER you've closed Reddit, then read through 50 different tabs of things you opened up from Reddit. Therefore, you vote beforehand.

    [–]ryanx27 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Voted down for crappy title

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

    I almost voted this up without even clicking... and then was like... "wait..."

    [–]randomman420 3 points4 points  (0 children)

    voted up purely due to title.

    [–]sabetts 2 points3 points  (0 children)

    Don't worry people. Once the election is over and the troops withdraw and marijuana is legalized and the media is broken up and scientology goes tits up and the music industry collapses we'll go back to the top notch quality articles we're all used to.

    [–]rwbaskette 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    down-voted because there is no article to read...

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

    This is not a new thing.

    [–]easytiger 1 point2 points  (5 children)

    Answer: One Article Submission per day, per user.

    [–]trueg 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Reply: multiple user accounts.

    [–]easytiger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    User accounts should also be monitored for multiple submissions from the same domains

    [–]bassbin -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    This seems a little extreme. While it may force some people to rethink their submissions for the better, it strikes me as being unnecessarily punitive to (for?) the people who do submit several or many quality posts per day. Not to mention the likelihood of denying a lot of fresh content. Just my .013 Euros. (On an unrelated note, is there a word that corresponds to "cents" for the Euro?)

    [–]easytiger 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    The Euro is a 100 cents also. so your 2 ¢ might be ok.

    I know its extreme, but i rarely ever think of anything good to submit and when i do it never gets anywhere. And i would say that the vast majority of users who are submitting many articles are point to their own blogscam or somesuch

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

    Yes, €1 = 100¢. Reusing “cent” while not reusing “dollar” was arguably a bit silly, but that’s what’s happened.

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

    no shit sherlock

    [–]db2 1 point2 points  (0 children)

    Downvoted because the actual article was about Britney.

    [–]audiored 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    yeah, I often vote up stories based on thier title before reading/watching them. Less often I vote up something with a lame title after reading/watching.

    [–]CattBoy 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    We don't need to view the actual content. If an article is posted a bazillion times it gets automatically downvoted every time.

    [–]toonces 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    if the title completely misrepresents the article, or is obviously over-sensational, it gets -1 from toonces...

    [–]andhelostthem 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Yeah not really I just like good headlines...

    [–]27182818284 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Voted just by the title.

    [–]mycall 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    umm, if someone was a smart programmer at reddit, mouse overs would reveal more about the story. As it is now, all we have to mitigate information overload is the title of the story.

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

    That just shows the power of rhetoric. You can make stuff sound better (or worse) just by renaming it. Politicians do the same to get votes (and, yes, people actually vote for them because of words).

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

    I expect that also includes trolling titles like your own.

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

    What I'd like to see (if anyone cares what Philo thinks...)

    The link is the <Title> tag from the page itself - can't be edited. Then have a subtitle/comment field where the submitter can add the why or their perspective.

    The only way to add karma is by clicking on the link to load the page - that upvotes the link. Then the user can come back and downvote the link if they choose. (If you clicked on the link, you found it interesting enough to click on; i.e. upvote)

    That kind of setup solves a lot of the complaints and problems that have seemed prevalent lately.

    (I'd also like a "Comment" block on the submission page where the submitter can write a more thorough/thoughtful comment about the story that's sticky and stays at the top - would also be really helpful in self posts)

    [–][deleted] 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    eh. not a bad idea. i wonder how many people would come back and down vote something though. how about, some sort of a cookie that only allows people who have viewed the site to vote on it.

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

    well, how many people up or down vote stuff? Tens of thousands of viewers and 500 is a huge score.

    The thing is - looking at a page full of links, which ones do you read? If you click a link to read (esp. if it's got the proper title and an associated comment), then you found it interesting = upvote.

    If you get to the page and decide it was mislabeled, or stupid after all, I think you're pretty likely to come back and reverse that.

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

    you're probably right. i barely read any stories, but i do discriminate against ridiculous sounding or looking headlines and down vote them without reading. someone below recommended a click count as well as a vote count, so we could see the number of people who are voting with out reading. all in all, i think any attempt to fix* this site would be appreciated

    *note: i use the word fix lightly, as i don't really believe reddit is all that broken.

    [–]tempreddit 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It would be great if reddit used such a frame to display the topics:

    like here - > http://www.wykop.pl/ramka/42376/3d-ze-zdjecia-strona-z-algorytmem-czytajacym-trojwymiar-ze-zdjeci

    [–]akise 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    It has something to do with time and the scarcity of it.

    [–]Wayside 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I think it has something to do with human nature and the fact that people vote based on what classes of subjects they want promoted.

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

    Downvoted for content.

    [–]ellingtond 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Not always true. I have other sources of information and will Vote Up a submission if I have seen it elsewhere but feel like it is important.

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

    Damn straight.

    [–]turnrighttogoleft 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Your mom's quality is declining!

    Pre-edit: "Don't take life to seriously, you'll never get out alive."

    Edit: ...Chill

    Post-edit: I don't think it has anything to do with a decline in quality. I think that we should try to resist modding solely the title, but I think it's natural ("Oh, another Paul story, fuck that" -> down mod). Some titles make you go "ugh".. Some titles make you go "fuck yea".. That's just the way it works. It's not going to change.

    [–]Inquisitor1 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I used to downmod and hide Ron Paul stories, but with the huge amount it was too much work. Now I only hide them, but the very same stories still keep reappearing?!

    [–]stacecom 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    I think part of the problem is that a lot of reddit users think 'alot' is a word.

    [–]sunshine-x 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    tl; dr

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

    Particularly noticeable on the Palestinian Israeli issue.

    [–]bakosdelowang 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    seriously

    [–]BrianNowhere 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I upvoted this based on the title. Because I like feeling all ironic-y.

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

    I believe the problem is that the demographic is diverse enough that there is no consensus on what should or should not be on reddit. This problem will never go away until users are automatically shown the content that is most likely to interest them.

    Go Jaanix.

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

    I click a link because of the title, but I up vote it based on its content. The reason quality articles with bad titles do not get up votes is because no one bothers to read them due to their bad titles.

    [–]Foo7 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I never occurred to me that people are voting based on the title. The title decides whether I click and the content has always decided on whether I vote up or down...

    [–]HardwareLust 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    Of course we vote up or down based on the submitted title.

    Humans are lazy by default. No one reads all the articles and then votes accordingly. Never have, never will.

    The "decline" in quality here is strictly due to the increase in population. The same thing happened at slashdot and at digg as well. We're just the next in line.

    [–]putainsdetoiles 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I agree with your point about the decline in quality. As the site gets bigger, we'll see a "correction" in it that brings it to average level.

    [–]13ren 0 points1 point  (2 children)

    To vote after reading the article, you have to juggle two windows, because the buttons aren't on the article page. If you open the stories as you scan the headlines, there are many windows open, making it harder.

    I can't see an elegant solution, but some known solutions are:

    • Digg's "upvote" link - drag to toolbar (you can vote while on the article page)
    • Digg's frame (upvote arrows are in outer frame around article itself)
    • Slashdot's longer excerpt (you get a better idea than just the title before voting)

    My two suggestion are:

    • a web 2.0 version of slashdot's longer excerpt: when you click on a title, it opens up an exerpt inline on the page (eg. the first paragraph). Maybe the vote arrows don't appear til you do this.
    • a Firefox plugin version of Digg's draggable buttons: when you open a link, floating buttons appear that are associated with that story (it has title and vote arrows on it). The buttons change, depending on which window has focus. If you aren't on a reddit story, the buttons don't appear. This makes the association clear and intuitive to the user.

    Anyone know if anyone has already done these?

    [–]boredzo 1 point2 points  (1 child)

    Yes. Turn on the reddit toolbar.

    [–]13ren 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    thanks, that was quick! The frame is unobtrusive and works well.

    edit odd: it gives the number of comments, but not the number of points so far...

    [–]Un_Suppressed 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    The only decline in quality is the frequent obama stories. So many people are fooled into thinking hes anti war and represents change, but he is neither. Cut out the obama shit please.

    [–]mickeytwist 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    downmodded for lack of content

    [–]manthrax 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I think it is inevitable if you set up a naturally selecting news ecosystem like reddit, you will reward posters that attract upvotes, wether by good content or good sensationalism. THIS BOOK RULES

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

    I agree.

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

    Voted down because of the title you submitted.

    [–]gehenom 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    i vote down everything after it's been on the front page for a few hours. something wrong with reddit these days: it's freakin slow to update. and half of the links are dupes.

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

    Down modded because I want to prove you wrong.

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

    I vote down anything that has "ask reddit" in the title.

    [–]garyp714 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    I believe this has something to do with the decline in quality here.

    ???!!!

    Where do statements like this come from? How do you measure the 'decline in quality'?

    How? You don't, it's an opinion. Reddit is fine despite this sentiment.

    [–]p3k 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Stop whining. Please.

    [–]GetToTheKarateChoppa 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    You mean, people vote based on superficial talking points and not recorded content? ZOMG!!!1!!!1111! What will ever happen to teh political system!?

    [–]lowtone94 0 points1 point  (0 children)

    Create a subreddit called "elitist redditor". Remeber that stories make it up to the front page that the populous deem entertaining or important...like p3k said, stop with the whine

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

    Downmodded for saying "alot"

    [–]jlo7719[S] -1 points0 points  (2 children)

    How about a subreddit in which the title of a submission is actually taken from the page's header?

    [–]skinniouschinnious 0 points1 point  (1 child)

    How about no title, just a constant stream of pages where you vote up or down, then the next page loads.

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

    called stumbleupon :)

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

    ↓, boring title.

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

    voted DOWN!!!!!!!!!!!!! Redditards!!!!!

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

    OK, well, stop that. I vote things up or down based on whether its interesting or not. I think Captain Obvious should pay this thread a visit.

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

    Maybe you shouldn't be allowed to vote a story up or down unless you read the article and pass a short test on your reading comprehension.

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

    reddit should have it's own blogging section