Haha... but seriously (Score: 2) by skarjak@pipedot.org on 2014-08-26 20:32 (#2Q9R) Ok, this is pretty funny. It's a joke right? A post submission doesn't seem to me like proper notice. Also, on behalf of John Doe? :DAnyway, I will say though that the automatic content scrapping of pipedot has brought soylent news comments with it. I'd rather these be kept out, honestly.It is my experience that people interested in tech news kept reading slashdot or went to other sites, while people interested in drama went to soylent. Let's keep this place clean.. even if it means less content. Re: Haha... but seriously (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-08-27 08:52 (#2QHM) One of the goals of this site was the self-hosting ability of the software. Ideally, anyone should be able to fire up a copy of Pipecode on their own web server and immediately have access to the existing collection of stories and comments submitted by the community. Similar to the venerable Usenet of that long lost September, the canonical website (Pipedot.org, SoylentNews.org, etc..) is simply a "viewer" of the underlying network. If all the users in the community have access to the entire database, problems such as the recent "beta" debacle simply cannot occur. If any one site becomes obnoxious towards its users, the users can simply switch to a different portal of the network. Re: Haha... but seriously (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-27 13:13 (#2QKY) Other unintended effects: everyone stopped commenting on Pipedot because if you commented on Soylent they'd replicate to Pipedot, but not the reverse. Also the flood of articles/comments kind of drowned out the Pipedot faithful. This was an interesting technical feat but I'm not sure it benefited the site.
Re: Haha... but seriously (Score: 1) by bryan@pipedot.org on 2014-08-27 08:52 (#2QHM) One of the goals of this site was the self-hosting ability of the software. Ideally, anyone should be able to fire up a copy of Pipecode on their own web server and immediately have access to the existing collection of stories and comments submitted by the community. Similar to the venerable Usenet of that long lost September, the canonical website (Pipedot.org, SoylentNews.org, etc..) is simply a "viewer" of the underlying network. If all the users in the community have access to the entire database, problems such as the recent "beta" debacle simply cannot occur. If any one site becomes obnoxious towards its users, the users can simply switch to a different portal of the network. Re: Haha... but seriously (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-27 13:13 (#2QKY) Other unintended effects: everyone stopped commenting on Pipedot because if you commented on Soylent they'd replicate to Pipedot, but not the reverse. Also the flood of articles/comments kind of drowned out the Pipedot faithful. This was an interesting technical feat but I'm not sure it benefited the site.
Re: Haha... but seriously (Score: 1) by zafiro17@pipedot.org on 2014-08-27 13:13 (#2QKY) Other unintended effects: everyone stopped commenting on Pipedot because if you commented on Soylent they'd replicate to Pipedot, but not the reverse. Also the flood of articles/comments kind of drowned out the Pipedot faithful. This was an interesting technical feat but I'm not sure it benefited the site.