There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 00:25 (#9MN7) ...which made it through reviews. Is this one of those? Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 08:54 (#9N4K) Last time it was submitted, I searched and found this is a (serious) product proposal (not a news story) which has been repeatedly submitted all over the web. How he found his way to |. I don't know... Pretty hard to follow, probably not native English, so I didn't really try. There are hordes of people out there in the perpetual motion community, coming up with motor and turbine designs every day, which don't hold-up to any scrutiny. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 09:34 (#9N64) How he found his way to |. I don't know...From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?Pretty hard to follow, probably not native English,I just saw a wall of text. No introduction of the topic and why it could be generally interesting for |.. It had no apparent 'story' so I ignored it. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-06-02 21:23 (#A9X3) From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?By all means, keep it up! Pipedot is pretty small with no current method to gain new eyeballs other than through word-of-mouth.Sorry for the double-posts. Testing the (seemingly broken) language translation. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 07:58 (#AAPF) Ok. The problem I see is... on /. I am nothing more than an evil troll, who tries everything to burn his once excellent karma. Since /. was taken over by dice I have only contempt for this click-baiting cesspool and my posts show clearly show it. So I might not be the best |. 'ambassador' on /, ;-) Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.
Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 08:54 (#9N4K) Last time it was submitted, I searched and found this is a (serious) product proposal (not a news story) which has been repeatedly submitted all over the web. How he found his way to |. I don't know... Pretty hard to follow, probably not native English, so I didn't really try. There are hordes of people out there in the perpetual motion community, coming up with motor and turbine designs every day, which don't hold-up to any scrutiny. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 09:34 (#9N64) How he found his way to |. I don't know...From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?Pretty hard to follow, probably not native English,I just saw a wall of text. No introduction of the topic and why it could be generally interesting for |.. It had no apparent 'story' so I ignored it. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-06-02 21:23 (#A9X3) From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?By all means, keep it up! Pipedot is pretty small with no current method to gain new eyeballs other than through word-of-mouth.Sorry for the double-posts. Testing the (seemingly broken) language translation. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 07:58 (#AAPF) Ok. The problem I see is... on /. I am nothing more than an evil troll, who tries everything to burn his once excellent karma. Since /. was taken over by dice I have only contempt for this click-baiting cesspool and my posts show clearly show it. So I might not be the best |. 'ambassador' on /, ;-) Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.
Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-05-24 09:34 (#9N64) How he found his way to |. I don't know...From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?Pretty hard to follow, probably not native English,I just saw a wall of text. No introduction of the topic and why it could be generally interesting for |.. It had no apparent 'story' so I ignored it. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-06-02 21:23 (#A9X3) From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?By all means, keep it up! Pipedot is pretty small with no current method to gain new eyeballs other than through word-of-mouth.Sorry for the double-posts. Testing the (seemingly broken) language translation. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 07:58 (#AAPF) Ok. The problem I see is... on /. I am nothing more than an evil troll, who tries everything to burn his once excellent karma. Since /. was taken over by dice I have only contempt for this click-baiting cesspool and my posts show clearly show it. So I might not be the best |. 'ambassador' on /, ;-) Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.
Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-06-02 21:23 (#A9X3) From time to time I drop the |. url on /.. Should I not doing this?By all means, keep it up! Pipedot is pretty small with no current method to gain new eyeballs other than through word-of-mouth.Sorry for the double-posts. Testing the (seemingly broken) language translation. Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 07:58 (#AAPF) Ok. The problem I see is... on /. I am nothing more than an evil troll, who tries everything to burn his once excellent karma. Since /. was taken over by dice I have only contempt for this click-baiting cesspool and my posts show clearly show it. So I might not be the best |. 'ambassador' on /, ;-) Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.
Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 07:58 (#AAPF) Ok. The problem I see is... on /. I am nothing more than an evil troll, who tries everything to burn his once excellent karma. Since /. was taken over by dice I have only contempt for this click-baiting cesspool and my posts show clearly show it. So I might not be the best |. 'ambassador' on /, ;-) Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.
Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 11:29 (#AB38) To tell you the truth, it was turning into a cesspool before Dice. Probably started around the time when the politics section was created. When I go and look at stories back in 2004, it was not uncommon to see some of the top experts in obscure fields chiming-in, making insightful and nuanced observations about the topic, and getting +5 for the effort. It was truly awesome. Over the years, that dissolved into a "me-too" rant and ditto-fest, where mindless, feel-good but completely inaccurate comments were +5. Anything challenging the group-think was -1 Troll, no matter how accurate, which gradually pushed all the experts away.My editorial style mostly comes from what I saw was horribly wrong with summaries over there... Far too many were superficial, inaccurate, one-side pablum, which resulted in the vast majority of comments being readers trying (much like Sisyphus) to correct the misinformation or slant of the summary on each story. Which is why it irks me when people (namely: editors at SoylentNews) use the number of comments that an article gets as if it's a series of up-votes, or otherwise valuable and necessary.