Pipe

State of the Art-Novel InFlow Tech-Featured Project Development; 1-Gearturbine RotaryTurbo 2-Implotu

Preview

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 bryan@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 16:01 (#ABR4)

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.
I've been considering a slight tweak to the pipe submissions and story edits to combine them and give them more of a "wiki" style. This would mean that pretty much everybody would get an "Edit" button and would be able to make changes to a story. Obviously, like a wiki, abusive edits would need to be easy to identify and revert but it could potentially alleviate some of the easy editing problems. Far too often, I see an editor get blasted in comments about a simple spelling error or a similarly trivial problem. Editors, like evilviper and zaffiro17, spend a lot of time and effort to create wonderful summaries and it's discouraging to see the first 10 comments quibbling about a spelling error! But what if users could easily fix it themselves? Would empowering users with editing abilities be more of a help or a hindrance?

Look at the recent Sourceforge Gimp article on Slashdot. The editor is attacked by the users for:
  1. Being late at accepting the submission
  2. Not editing the two merged submissions enough
  3. Being part of a some type of cover-up or conspiracy
  4. Slanting the story to favor the corporate overlord
Perhaps normal users wouldn't see themselves and editors as such distinct classes if everyone where more equal. Almost like promoting someone to their level of incompetence.

Re: There are computer generated articles.... (Score: 2, Insightful)

by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2015-06-03 16:33 (#ABTJ)

Not sure if this is a good idea. I never heard anything good about wikipedia. BUT hearsay. But I am also very often on Stackoverflow. The rights to edit, why edit, how to edit... I very often have the feeling it is more of a pissing contest. Ok, you get valuable points for edits there, so it might not be 100% comparable. Nevertheless, the problem is editing other peoples posts is some kind of power. And some people get high on that kind of power. Is the 'getting blasted' you mentioned above really a problem? Does this happen somewhere back stage, where I don't see it? Because I really don't see it.... much.

If you do this, I propose something like Stackoverflow: Almost everybody can edit everything, BUT up to a certain reputation (karma) edits won't show automatically, but must go through a review of higher-karma members.

Moderation

Time Reason Points Voter
2015-06-03 23:06 Insightful +1 bryan@pipedot.org

Junk Status

Not marked as junk