Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

[P]
Improving the Quality of Kuro5hin.org's Front Page

By pb in Meta
Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 03:30:03 PM EST
Tags: Kuro5hin.org (all tags)
Kuro5hin.org

As time has gone on, more stories have made it to kuro5hin.org's Front Page.  This may be due to more stories being submitted total, or to a change in the voting habits of the people of kuro5hin.org.  In any case, I have a proposal to increase the overall quality of the stories on the Front Page and to make the voting system more reasonable.

The actual change to the Scoop code is trivial, and it has been proposed before, by Talez. However, not many people noticed his proposal at the time, but perhaps it is more relevant now.  So the question isn't whether this can be done, but whether you want it done.


To the best of my knowledge, the current voting algorithm is this: people vote (+1, FP), (+1, Section), 0, or -1.  When the story comes up for voting, if the ratio of (+1 FP) votes to total votes is greater than some user-defined threshold, the story gets posted.  In Scoop, this ratio defaults to 0.5, which means that there must be at least as many (+1, FP) votes as there are (+1, Section).  This value may be closer to 0.45 at kuro5hin.org.

However, this does not entirely make sense to me, because when I vote -1, I don't want that story to appear on the Front Page at all.  In this case, if I'm worried that a story might get posted that I don't like, it's actually to my benefit to vote (+1, Section) instead of 0 or -1.  Therefore, I would prefer it if my 0 or -1 vote counted as a (+1, Section) vote in case the story does get posted to kuro5hin.org.  If other people don't want this behavior, or actually want their 0 vote to not count, maybe this could be a user-specified preference.  Personally, I'd prefer it if at least a -1 vote was also a vote against the story appearing on the Front Page.

Now this might take a lot of otherwise decent stories off of the Front Page.  I realize this, and therefore propose a threshold.  If a story is up for consideration, and the number of FP votes is some percentage (say 30% to 40%) of the total number of votes, the story should go to the Front Page.  Obviously this threshold would be a system-tweakable parameter, determined by the admins much as the voting thresholds are.

Here are some examples of the sorts of stories that might be affected by a proposal like this, provided by TON:

So you've decided to lose your mind?


For: 226 FP: 128 Against: 131 Abstain: 82

Firearms And Self-Defense

For: 255 FP: 152 Against: 160 Abstain: 80

I leave it for you to decide. Will this improve the quality of kuro5hin's Front Page, and do you want your -1 votes to count when a story is being considered for posting?

Sponsors

Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure

Login

Poll
Most desirable K5 feature:
o This feature 9%
o A working search feature 44%
o Comment pagination 2%
o A "Finished" vote for the Edit Queue 13%
o Themes 4%
o Killfile 7%
o Images 4%
o Mu 13%

Votes: 141
Results | Other Polls

Related Links
o Scoop
o Kuro5hin
o it has been proposed before
o Also by pb


Display: Sort:
Improving the Quality of Kuro5hin.org's Front Page | 86 comments (70 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
Preemptive finicky asshole counter attack (3.75 / 4) (#1)
by BinaryTree on Sun Aug 25, 2002 at 11:55:27 PM EST

(About this article)

<BinaryTree> pb: People are going to be finicky assholes and suggest that you take it to scoop.kuro5hin.org
<pb> BinaryTree: I'll be a finicky asshole and explain to them that (a) there's already a link there and (b) this is a K5 problem, not a Scoop problem.

K5 (3.00 / 4) (#2)
by medham on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:04:30 AM EST

Should stop operation until the search is fixed. No posts, no stories, no diaries, no polls. Let's put that "hive-mind" to work, people!

The real 'medham' has userid 6831.

Good idea. (2.00 / 1) (#18)
by qpt on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:36:36 AM EST

With another account, I made quite a comment about you! Will you ever find it with searching disabled, though? Likely not.

Domine Deus, creator coeli et terrae respice humilitatem nostram.
[ Parent ]

+1 vs 0 (4.80 / 5) (#3)
by Pseudonym on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:14:09 AM EST

[...] when I vote -1 or 0, I don't want that story to appear on the Front Page at all.

Hrm. When I vote 0, I am abstaining, and implicitly leaving it up to everyone else, so I would prefer not to have my 0 votes count as +1 Section.

I take your point about -1, however, I suspect it's open to abuse. All it takes is a few people dedicated to voting everything -1 and all of a sudden nothing gets posted to the front page.

Perhaps using a fraction of the -1 votes (say half) as "-1 FP" votes is better? I don't know. Only an analysis of existing FP articles will tell.

Personally, I don't bother with the front page. I simply use the RSS feed as my united "front page".



sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Good point. (none / 0) (#6)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:31:16 AM EST

I've changed my article a bit, to reflect this.  I guess I'd also want to hear people's opinions and arguments about this.

Maybe we can make this a user preference?
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Huge FP to -1 ratios (4.66 / 3) (#9)
by Talez on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:43:41 AM EST

FP stories fall into roughly two categories:
  1. Stories that go up without resistance that generally follow the forumla of between 100-150 +1 votes with +60-90 as FP and about 15-20 -1 votes.
  2. Stories that have huge amounts of resistance pulling them back that generally follow the forumula of between 250-300 votes, 130-150 of which are fp and 135-205 votes.
The problem is that story type #2 has a huge amount of resistance. The two main attitudes that appear to be seen here are:
  1. "This story is crap but the n00bs/liberals/communists are taking the bait. Don't let that piece of shit get posted little alone get to the front page".
  2. "Why the fuck should an MLP get to the front page just because 'it should be discussed'. Make the whining whore write a proper article/story before I think about paying it attention".
Both of which attitudes would warrant the -1 contributing to taking stuff off the front page.

The algorithm I originally designed accomplished the goal of letting type 1 stories getting through unhindered while making type 2 stories work for FP status. The general idea being that if more people wanted it front page than dumping it along with a quota of users wanting FP being met, it would pass to FP instead of section.

I thought it was good and fair myself.

Si in Googlis non est, ergo non est
[ Parent ]

More Section Stories Is Cool (4.00 / 4) (#13)
by Carnage4Life on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:55:45 AM EST

I haven't read the K5 Front Page in months ever since I found out how to make the Technology Section my front page. The only thing I regret about doing this is that on some rare occassions I miss some really good Tech articles.

Thus I am in favor of any proposal that will increase the number of section stories.

Carnage4Life voted +1 for this Idea

I'm confoozled... (4.00 / 2) (#17)
by wrinkledshirt on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:34:22 AM EST

Don't all stories that make the front page also end up in the section page as well? Or am I missing something?

[ Parent ]
And well you should be (4.00 / 1) (#60)
by rusty on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 06:42:47 PM EST

Don't all stories that make the front page also end up in the section page as well?

Yes, they do. C4L seems to be misinformed: All posted stories are section stories. Some are also FP. Drawing the relevant Venn diagram is left as an exercise for the reader. :-)

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

The way I read it... (5.00 / 1) (#75)
by codemonkey_uk on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 11:41:27 AM EST

I thought C4L was implying that some times people section the storys incorrectly. That way a "Tech" story might end up in, for example, the Freedom & Politics or Culture sections, and he would not see it.
---
Thad
"The most savage controversies are those about matters as to which there is no good evidence either way." - Bertrand Russell
[ Parent ]
Thad's right, you misunderstood [n/t] (none / 0) (#82)
by Carnage4Life on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 05:10:12 AM EST



[ Parent ]
Ah (none / 0) (#83)
by rusty on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 06:24:25 AM EST

Ok. You did say Thus I am in favor of any proposal that will increase the number of section stories. Which this won't. Hence my reading of it.


____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]
Incorrect Premise (5.00 / 6) (#15)
by leviramsey on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:22:10 AM EST

My understanding of the current voting algorithm is this: people vote +1, FP, +1, Section, 0, or -1. When the story comes up for voting, if the +1 FP votes are greater than the +1 Section votes, the story gets posted. This is the current method.

That was the old algorithim. However, I have reason to believe that it has either been changed or there is something extra that you have missed.

Consider: Microsoft - Undeserving of Libertarian Praise, posted to the front page on Wed Aug 21, 2002. The voting was as follows:

  • 153 votes for -1.
  • 127 abstentions.
  • 125 votes for +1, Section.
  • 123 votes for +1, FP.

Now, if your understanding of the algorithm was valid, this would not have made the front page. However, it did get FP. Either there is a bug in the code, or your understanding of the algorithm is off.

ISTR talk of a changed algorithm a while back. I think it assigned 5 points to +1 FP, 4 points to +1, Section, 2 points for abstention, and 1 point for -1. If the total points divided by the number of votes was greater than a certain threshold (I think 2.5, but I could be mistaken), it gets FP. Applying that algorithm to the above story, we get a total of 1522 points in 528 votes, which is 2.88, which is over the threshold.



Current algorithm... (4.66 / 3) (#20)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:50:43 AM EST

Obviously I'm proposing this because I feel that something is broken in the current algorithm.  I think that my proposal should still be possible regardless of what the current algorithm is.  I can't know what--precisely--the current algorithm used on kuro5hin.org is, but I can check and see what the algorithm is according to Scoop.

lib/Scoop/Admin/AdminStories.pm says this:

                my $total = $sec_votes->{Y} + $sec_votes->{N};
                my $ratio = $sec_votes->{N} / $total;
                $ratio = sprintf("%.2f", $ratio);

                my ($ws, $ds, $where);

                $S->{UI}->{VARS}->{front_page_ratio} ||= 0.5;

            if( $ratio < $S->{UI}->{VARS}->{front_page_ratio}) {
                        $ws = -2;
                        $ds = 1;
                        $where = "Section";
            } else {
                        $ws = 0;
                        $ds = 0;
                        $where = "front";
            }

Perhaps the front_page_ratio on Kuro5hin.org isn't 0.5; my sources say it might be closer to 0.45; I'll do what I can to fix my story.  :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

OK (4.66 / 3) (#21)
by leviramsey on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:50:45 AM EST

I'm quite mistaken, though pb's characterization of the algorithim seems to be inaccurate.

I do think that -1's should be considered in some way when deciding on FP status. Not counting -1's seems questionable to me, though maybe rusty has a rationale...



[ Parent ]
Don't know how well a change would work... (4.00 / 4) (#19)
by wrinkledshirt on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:44:08 AM EST

I get the feeling that, no matter how arbitrary the current system seems, any change we make will seem just as arbitrary to someone else down the road.

Thing is (4.33 / 3) (#23)
by DranoK 420 on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 02:21:14 AM EST

Many of the greatest stories that spurred the greatest debates have been so-split (ie, tons of +1FP and tons of -1). By your system all of these stories would go straight to section.

When a story is highly controversial, it tends to garner a dragon's horde of both FP and -1 votes. IMHO, these are exactly the stories I want to see on the FP.

Section stories are rarely contested. They're good, relevant, and informative, but lack that quality which makes me want to post back.

DranoK


Poetry is simply a convenient excuse for incoherence.


how do you tell them apart? (none / 0) (#25)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 03:02:02 AM EST

First, if people actually voted on quality, controversial stories wouldn't get -1's, only bad ones would.  But we don't live in that fantasy K5, so I'll ignore that point for now.

When a story isn't very good, it also tends to garner a dragon's horede of -1 votes.  By definition, many people don't want to see that story at all, let alone on the front page.

Very good stories are also rarely contested; check out many of Rusty's stories about K5, or Manobes' Particle Physics stories.  They don't get many -1's at all, because people genuinely want to read them.

So how do we tell the cream from the chaff?  Well, by this story voting system.  If you can come up with another system that will improve things AND tell bad stories from good stories, please post it. One method that might be currently used has to do with assessing the comment ratings on a story, but obviously this method has its flaws as well.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Poll: Write in option (4.66 / 6) (#24)
by sticky on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 02:36:56 AM EST

Flash intro.


Don't eat the shrimp.---God
heehee... die [nt] (3.66 / 3) (#50)
by ceejayoz on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:59:04 PM EST



[ Parent ]
Threshold should be raised (3.00 / 1) (#26)
by TheophileEscargot on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 04:34:03 AM EST

I believe the proportion of votes needed was lowered relatively recently, from 50% to 45% or so. I agree it should be raised: lots of trivial MLP and Meta stories are making the front page right now. I don't think it's worth changing the algorithm tho.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
Hmmm... that got me thinking... (4.00 / 1) (#55)
by Yekrats on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 04:34:51 PM EST

What if we were able to set our own proportion as a user-defined variable. One reader might want 75% threshold to keep out the "lousy" stories, or another might want a 10% threshold to allow everything through except for the worst.

Just a crazy thought.

[ Parent ]

how to adjust the alogrithm (5.00 / 1) (#62)
by dr k on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 07:38:30 PM EST

First, you need an algorithm that is adjustable in a meaningful way. The percentage method seems to work, but it is susceptible to small fluxations in voting behavior. Deviations would be better.

Second, someone needs to actually look at voting behaviors and story posting statistics to see how things are getting distributed. None of this "It seems like there are more/fewer than last week" nonsense. Get the numbers, and put the numbers where everyone can see them.

Third, someone needs to take that information and actually tune the system - or make the system self-tuning.


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

Trivial? (none / 0) (#79)
by JChen on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 08:33:14 PM EST

One man's trash is another's treasure.

Let us do as we say.
[ Parent ]
Nope (none / 0) (#81)
by TheophileEscargot on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 04:14:22 AM EST

MLPs and Metas are trivial.
----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]
So add a voting option (-1: not front page) (4.00 / 3) (#28)
by mozmozmoz on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 06:59:50 AM EST

So we get

  • +1 FP
  • +1 Section
  • 0 Abstain
  • -1 Not FP
  • -1 Dump It

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?

-1 Dump it? (4.50 / 2) (#43)
by br284 on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:08:58 PM EST

Why would someone vote "-1 Dump It" on an item and still want it on the front page? Seems like a useless option.

-Chris

[ Parent ]

*not* the front page (none / 0) (#85)
by mozmozmoz on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 06:59:20 PM EST

The point of the original article is whether "dump" votes count against FP, or neutral. The "not FP" option makes it explicit. So yeah, I see a real place for "dump it, and for fscks sake don't put it on the front page".

There's lots of comedy on TV too. Does that make children funnier?
[ Parent ]

How ironic (3.00 / 1) (#30)
by notcarlos on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 08:24:55 AM EST

That at the end of reading that story, I had to vote on it...

He will destroy you like an academic ninja.
-- Rating on Rate My Professors.com
How do you define quality? (3.00 / 1) (#31)
by j1mmy on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 08:57:08 AM EST

Quality of stories? Quality of the mix of stories? I think the only thing that can improve quality is better stories, and there have been more than a few good ones lately. I'm not seeing any quality problems here.

My 2c (3.50 / 2) (#32)
by bob6 on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 09:02:33 AM EST

My default k5 homepage is set to "Everyhing": there's no such thing as Front Page.
Ironically section stories get more focus because FP titles aren't listed on the left table.

Cheers.
Abandon the article voting altogether (3.00 / 6) (#34)
by krek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:22:18 AM EST

Auto-post to section page after 100 comments.
Auto-post to front page after 200 comments.
If, after 24 hours, auto-post has not occured, evaluate comment ratings, if statistically above some threshold, post, else, dump.

Very much not in favour of a "Dump It" button.

Clarification (4.00 / 3) (#35)
by krek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:33:26 AM EST

There seems to be two sorts of people here, those who want to read well written and interesting formal articles, and those who want to discuss, debate, and argue the current and not-so-currents issues.

I am here for the debate; article quality, spelling and grammar are very much secondary consideration for me. The important part is that the article brings up an a topic in a though provoking way, generating new ideas and refining old ones.

We have lost many truely excellent discussions here because the topic was controversial, or the author of the article was not on the mainstream side of the debate, or was not the most seasoned journalist, thus it got voted down and out of existence after only an edit queue and 30 minutes of voting. Tragic.



[ Parent ]
On the other hand (5.00 / 1) (#48)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:22:22 PM EST

a lot of us who have been active in political debates for extended periods of time notice that many of the debate-style articles rpesent controversial topics *without anything new or innovative being said*, and degenerate into the same rehash of the same discussion, with no new thought or knowledge coming out of the debate --- such discussions are a *complete* waste of time.

Don't get me wrong; i'm all in favor of discussion and debate. But I want discussion and debate where people are arguing from fact, not rumor; where people are stopping to *think* about the implications of what they and other people are saying, and not simply to repeat political beliefs grounded in emotion without the most piddling attempt at applying logic or reason.

Kuro5hin used to provide that. It still does, but not nearly as regularly, and the majority of the political-debate articles which make it to the front page do not. :(

[ Parent ]

Then don't waste your time (2.00 / 1) (#49)
by krek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:58:45 PM EST

Why would you read something where you feel that you would be wasting your time?

YOU may have seen all of the arguments, and feel that nothing new is being said, but your are only one person, there are over 6 billions others who may or may not have had the same debating experience as you, who may not have heard all of the arguments, who has for the first time poked his or her head above the tepid waters of corporate media, and you would shove them back down.

Not every one is well excercised in the skills of logical and rational debate, they have been raised not to ask questions, and belive that CNN is the ultimate in unbiased and well balance news. It is our, or perhaps your, duty to educate these people. Not all of them will want to be enlightened, but many will, after the initial, brutal shock gas passed, be grateful to you and to K5 for opening thier eyes, hell, they might open your eyes. It is of the utmost arrogance that you feel that nothing new can be achieved from rehashing an old discussion or that new voices, even untrained ones, are incapable of bringing new and unexplored perspective to an aging debate.

K5 may have provided the fix that you needed at one time, back when it was only the tech elite, the socially enlightened and the old sages on the net. But, that time is over, there is a whole, new net-generation that needs to be taught, and it falls to us to do so, otherwise we would prove ourselves to be the mental masturbation crew that many already think that we are. We talk the talk, but it seems that most are unable, or unwilling, to walk the walk. We have at our finger tips the most powerful instrument for social change that has ever been devised, the natural nemisis of propaganda, the great info-equiliser, and all you can do is whine about how it was better before it was in mass use.

Remember, use your left hand (provided you are a righty), that way it at least feels like you are doing it with someone else.

[ Parent ]
wow. (5.00 / 1) (#52)
by aphrael on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 02:51:14 PM EST

You're reading a lot more into what i'm saying than I'm actually saying. :)

that new voices, even untrained ones, are incapable of bringing new and unexplored perspective to an aging debate

I never said that, and it's not something I *would* say; the greatest power of the net is that it allows voices that would not ordinarily be listened to to be heard, and that it provides people with exposure to things outside their normal mien of existence. It's particularly good when people from different cultures use the net to share their experiences and to learn about each other.

However, there are constructive ways to do this and non-constructive ways. A discussion that consists of people chanting "the US is evil because it wants to attack Iraq" and people chanting "Europeans are stupid cowards because they don't want to attack Iraq" isn't going to teach anyone anything, and it's not going to allow the people who believe those things to explore where each other are coming from and develop an understanding of why they believe what they do; it's simply going to polarize people into camps that don't listen to each other.

That can be fun for the participants, especially for people who know that that's what's happening and are playing with the people who don't; that is, in some sense, the essence of trolling. But it doesn't lead anywhere, and it certainly doesn't bring about *any* form of 'new insight'.

I think what's bothering me here is that K5 seems to be slowly sliding from a 'discussion' site where we all respect each others integrity and are interested in exploring ideas and thought-processes, into an 'argument' site where the first reaction to views one doesn't share is to belittle them, or their owners, or to become angry; where the *argument*, and the thrill thereof, is more important than the *discussion* and the understanding of ideas and viewpoints.

In my view, that becomes a caricature of what the site originally was --- and is far less in the interest of the 'new voices' you are calling for us to listen to than the discussion I am advocating is.

This *may* be a transitory thing; it's entirely possible that the quality of discussion will increase over time, and that the angry, almost vitriolic discussions of the recent months will subside. And it's possible, even likely, that loud, heated arguments will expose people to ideas they hadn't encountered before (the people *watching* the arguments, not the people participating in them). But I'm skeptical.

Sometimes it seems to me that that's *worse* than what it was in the past; other times it strikes me as just being *different* ... and the existence of change is the only truly immutable thing in the world, and while that change may sometimes be *sad*, it's usually worth the effort to look at what is emerging and see the beauty in it, instead of focusing on what came before. But even so, the fact of change does not mean that some things cannot be preserved, or rather some *aspects* of things; I consistently vote against poorly-written articles by native english speakers as part of an attempt to do that, and I find it frustrating when people like you assert that quality of writing is irrelevant, it's the ideas that matter --- at least, when the 'ideas' you say matter represent nothing new; when they *do* represent something new, i'd be more likely to agree with you.

We have at our finger tips the most powerful instrument for social change that has ever been devised, the natural nemisis of propaganda, the great info-equiliser

I agree with you to a certain extent, and to a certain extent I disagree: the net is only the natural nemesis of propoganda *if people are willing to check references*. If people are not willing to research the issue, and simply believe what they are told, the net becomes the natural *ally* of propoganda --- of all types; the rapid spread of holocaust denial on the net demonstrates this. I vote against numerous political articles because they strike me as being propoganda --- completely unresearched presentation of individual belief as *fact*; unless i'm willing to take the time to do the research to refute it, the best thing I can do is vote against it as being propoganda. But again, as much as I want K5 to be an open site, I find it frustrating; sturgeon's law turns out to be oppressive in some ways.

and all you can do is whine about how it was better before it was in mass use.

I can see why you would think that from what I wrote, but that is *not* my position, and never has been; a glance through posts i've made to meta articles in the past would verify that. The spread of the net, and it's ability to foster communication between people, is a *good* thing; it could in time become the backbone of the most vibrant social revolution in the US since the 'great awakening'. But that's true only if people are actually interested in *communication*; and what worries me, as I said above, is that the communication card is being turned into the argument card here, to almost nobody's benefit.

is a whole, new net-generation that needs to be taught, and it falls to us to do so

I find it amusing that you accuse me of arrogance after making a statement of this nature; who are *we* to think that we have anything to *teach* newcomers? Aren't we all equals, engaged in the sharing of ideas and thoughts, and in the communication of worldviews?

I think it's pernicious to assume a holier-than-thou attitude whereby "we" are here to teach some nebulous "them" about the way the world works. And I think that's related to my complaint about arguing; if everyone is here to teach "them" what's "right", then nobody is here to listen, or converse, or understand one another, and there is no room for anything except angry debate --- and the assumption that everyone who disagrees with you is stupid, or evil, undercuts most political debate in the US, and most political debate at kuro5hin.

How is that constructive?

[ Parent ]

well stated (none / 0) (#53)
by krek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 04:13:06 PM EST

Have you ever had a 'discussion' (read: argument) in the real world, they are generally shouting matches, or at best a mantra-a-thon, that is simply the way that the large majority of people express themselves.

You can see it happening, if you stand by and watch people bring down the S/N ratio, then what good are you.

"I think what's bothering me here is that K5 seems to be slowly sliding from a 'discussion' site... into an 'argument' site"

So, what are you going to do about it? As I see it you have two choices: Stand your ground and try to get people to see it from your side, and experience it on your level, or, you can jump ship and try again elsewhere.

Now here is the catch, the part that you seem (note that i said seem) to be missing, if you jump ship the pleebs will just follow you. They want to be educated, they may not even realise it, but they are here for a reason, they want something more, and when this site tanks they will realise that they will need to find another site, and they will then find yours, and destroy it as they did this one and all previous sites.

So you say that people here are engaging in non-constructive methods of debate, methods that do not teach and only cause polarisation. So... get in the middle and mediate. Debate and objectivism are learned skills, learned skills that are usually not taught in our schools, so where is the average joe meant to pick up these abilities, why, right here of course. Even if you do not convince the commentor right away, you will have forcibly inserted thoughts and ideas into their head, and the heads of everyone who read your posts, and once ideas go into a head they are notoriously difficult to get out. It may not be obvious, especially at first, but your arguments will have had an effect, and, if, as you say, or seem to think, your arguments are balanced and intelligent, they will be unable to fully dismiss the point you made, and, thus, you have helped change a mind.

Ideas are not static, nor do they exist for a limited time and space after which they vanish. Ideas are fluid and dynamic, there has not, to my knowledge, ever been a truely original idea, we, humans, are exceptional creatures, able to extrapolate, interpolate, and cross-bread ideas into an infinite array of thought. I deny that there is any idea that would qualify as new, if it seems that it is, I assure you that it only because you have never encountered that particular idea before. At one point you too had limited exposure to ideas, imagine if noone had thought it worth their time to introduce you to them. Where would you be right now? Probably not having this conversation.

And for the record, I never said that quality of writting is irrelevant, just that I consider the ideas of more relevance than the english exactitudes.

"The spread of the net, and it's ability to foster communication between people, is a *good* thing; it could in time become the backbone of the most vibrant social revolution in the US since the 'great awakening'."

This is a whole other argument, but as far as the US goes, I believe that they are likely to miss the revolution, chances are they will legislate this social revolution right out of existence, leaving the rest of the world to jet off ahead of them. Prediction: In 50 to 100 years the US will be looked upon as China is today; A politically and socially backward country who is desperately trying to close the gap without conceding.

"I find it amusing that you accuse me of arrogance after making a statement of this nature;"

Fair enough. But do you or do you not feel superior to those who you claim are ruining K5, do you not feel that you have something that they could benifit from. The concept of everybody being equals is complete bullshit, it just makes no sense. I know more than some other people, and yet others know more than I, how can there possibly be equality here. The way I see it is that everyone has equal potential (genetic arguments aside), it is up to each of us to push our potential to the limits.

Discussion for the sake of discussion is fine, but if we are not trying to argue our way to a consensus, then what are we here for. It may be arrogant to assume that 'we' are here to teach 'them', but, as I said previously, 'they' may have something to teach 'we' as well.

Anyway, my point, boiled down to a slogan is this: "the only permanent thing that you leave behind is the example you set". There is nothing more powerful in this world than a consistent and enlightened example. you said "unless i'm willing to take the time to do the research to refute it, the best thing I can do is vote against it as being propoganda", well, take the time, no one learns a damn thing if all you do is vote down the propaganda, debunk it, ask pertinant and piercing questions, and demand answers for them. Acknowledge defeat, acknowledge good points, and most importantly, acknowledge that you have been taught. Appologise when you have made errors, be gracious when others appologise to you.

The best thing that you, or anyone else who feels concern, can do for this site is continue to post as you always have, be adamant in it and do not let anyone derail you. As you cannot force people to be what you want them to be, be a shining paragon of K5 enlightenment and make them want to be what you want them to be.

Sorry if this does not make as much sense as it seems to to me.

[ Parent ]
So FP would stand for 'Flamebait Page' [nt] (none / 0) (#37)
by TheophileEscargot on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:56:57 AM EST


----
Support the nascent Mad Open Science movement... when we talk about "hundreds of eyeballs," we really mean it. Lagged2Death
[ Parent ]
yep. (5.00 / 1) (#84)
by squigly on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 08:19:36 AM EST

I've known other sites try this.  The most inflammatory trolls get the highest rating.

[ Parent ]
Quantity != Quality (3.00 / 2) (#39)
by quasipalm on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:41:03 AM EST

I've seen plenty of stories that have a huge amount of posts, but a almost completely devoid of good discussion. Take, for example, the "where are you from" stories that surface every month or so.

(hi)
[ Parent ]
Fair enough (none / 0) (#40)
by krek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:52:53 AM EST

So how do you reliably recognise quality?

I believe that this is the overarching question here.

Statistical analysis?

[ Parent ]
+1 FP (1.42 / 7) (#36)
by Nine Eleven on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:34:42 AM EST

Peter D. Baylies just wants to fuckin' rock, man.

quality and quantity (4.85 / 7) (#38)
by Kellnerin on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:15:43 AM EST

Nothing I see in this proposal necessarily improves the quality of the front page. All I see is that it will probably lead to fewer stories on the FP, and more complaints about the FP not changing enough, and the community looking stagnant to outsiders, and what can we do to post more stories to FP?

There's only one sure way to improve the quality of the front page, and that is better stories.

--sometimes you pick your gods, sometimes the gods pick you -odin--

quality... (4.00 / 1) (#41)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:56:34 AM EST

The idea behind this proposal is that it will lead to fewer stories on the Front Page--but that those few stories will be the best that Kuro5hin as to offer.

As to how often the Front Page should change, well, it's changing a lot faster now than it did in the past, and I believe the quality of these stories is on average lower than the few stories that used to make it to the Front Page, but this is of course entirely subjective.

I just don't see how having only the better stories on the Front Page wouldn't improve its quality.
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

I think it's more a case of dramatically... (4.00 / 3) (#47)
by leviramsey on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 01:15:30 PM EST

...more FP voting.

Just as (I'm guessing here, but it seems accurate) the three most given out ratings are 0, 1, and 5 (maybe not zero, actually), a lot of voters will only vote +1 FP or -1 (I do, to a certain extent... however, meta and MLP only get +1 Section from me). So it's largely a cultural thing.



[ Parent ]
voting behavior (4.50 / 2) (#63)
by dr k on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 09:09:59 PM EST

If people have changed their voting behavior, perhaps it is because they are starting to realize that opinions have the most effect at the extremes. Why invest energy on the difference between a 3 and a 4, or between the Front Page and a Section Page? The system doesn't care what your reasons are, it just needs enough votes to make a decision.


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

sorry, but I'm not convinced (5.00 / 1) (#54)
by Kellnerin on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 04:26:07 PM EST

It's a long way from "there will be fewer stories on the FP" to "these FP stories will be the best of K5". It only guarantees that the most agreed-upon, least offensive, least controversial stories (and those written by rusty) will get a pass to the FP, but ignores a lot of stories that might be interesting, novel, or generate interesting discussion.

Stories don't appear by magic on the FP -- people vote that way. By some measure, the stories on the FP are already the best of the crop. If there are excellent stories that don't make it to the FP, that may be a problem but I don't see that as your complaint. Having some stories you think are not-so-good doesn't bother me as much, because obviously some critical mass of voters thought it was worthwhile, and that means it deserves a spot on the FP.

-1 votes do count for something. They make it that much harder for the story to be posted at all. If enough people believe it should be posted to counteract that (remember you need a lot more votes to post something than to dump something), then why don't the people who supported the article get to choose where it appears?

--sometimes you pick your gods, sometimes the gods pick you -odin--
[ Parent ]

I'm sorry too. (5.00 / 1) (#58)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 05:12:47 PM EST

The stories that make it to the Front Page now are, by and large, pretty good.  As I've said elsewhere, the two stories that probably wouldn't be on The Front Page are "I feel so much more secure", at 30.9%, and "Microsoft - Undeserving of Libertarian Praise" at 30.7%.  The other two debatable stories are "So you've decided to lose your mind?", at 35.8%, and "Firearms and Self-Defense", at 36.6%. Everything else would likely remain unchanged.

You can decide for yourself whether these stories are as good as the other stories on the Front Page. I say they do not, because some critical mass of voters thought that they do not belong on the Front Page, and voted that way.

-1 votes don't make it that much harder for a story to not be posted.  Once it starts going up, statistically, it is very unlikely for a -1 vote to do anything, and as I've said, for the people who don't like the story, it is to their advantage to vote +1 section instead of -1, to at least ensure that the story they do not like (in fact, like less than a +1 section vote or a 0 vote) at least does not get posted to the Front Page.

Quite often, there are more -1 votes than there are total (+1, FP) votes; whose votes are more important?  Since more kuro5hin readers think an article does not belong on the site at all, that means it belongs on the Front Page?
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Firearms and Self Defense (none / 0) (#78)
by Kintanon on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 05:36:56 PM EST

I thought that article had some interesting points to make and generated a lot of good discussion. I think it belongs on the FP. The other one about going crazy belongs under the humor section, no need to FP it.

However, I don't vote on stories, so who cares what I think? >:)

Kintanon

[ Parent ]

Quantity (5.00 / 2) (#59)
by rusty on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 06:38:35 PM EST

it's changing a lot faster now than it did in the past

I disagree. If you have the inclination to try to prove that, I'd really like evidence. It should be relatively simple to go back a few weeks or months or whatever and show some kind of progressive increase in FP stories over time, if there is one.

The goal of the FP vote is mostly a quantity-limiting one. Looking at recent weeks I see between one and (rarely) five stories making the front page in any given day. My best guess at an average would be probably 1.8 or 2 per day. That's exactly the rate that the FP algorithm and variable thresholds has been tweaked to hopefully produce.

Basically, I understand your point about how voting -1 affects the FP decision, but I'm unconvinced that there is a problem with the rate of front page stories that needs solving. Your article doesn't provide any evidence that there is, and I haven't seen any in the comments.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

good call. (4.50 / 2) (#64)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:12:42 PM EST

I took a look at the number of Front Page stories over time (not comparing them with the total number of stories) by going back to the various Front Page story pages and taking note of the page number and the date of the first story on the page.

From the data, it looks like K5 goes in cycles, and at the moment we're gradually seeing more Front Page activity.

Note that the main thing I want corrected isn't the amount of Front Page activity; an erratic 2 stories per day would be fine with me.  I'd rather you let my -1 vote count, so I don't have to vote stories that I don't like but are in the queue for too long to be dumped to section instead.  :)

The data is in Front-Pages and seconds since 1970.  Here's a linear fit:

f(x) = -662526*x+1.03494e+09

I believe that the "-662526" implies that it takes about 7+2/3 days on average to post ten stories (or one page) to the Front Page.

I've got some graphs too, and the derivative looks really funky (stupid math...)


 0       1030365673
 2       1029898952
 5       1028609247
 8       1026800820
 10      1026041172
 12      1025411440
 15      1024132466
 18      1022376937
 20      1020873957
 22      1019671812
 25      1018354738
 28      1017151381
 30      1016135046
 32      1015559304
 35      1014207912
 38      1012911528
 40      1012334565
 42      1011429927
 45      1009414274
 48      1005450904
 50      1004276955
 52      1002908259
 55      1001186496
 58      999471977
 60      998024064
 62      996571057
 65      995655113
 68      992937064
 70      989686012
 72      986413794
 75      982557780
 78      979647350
 80      978691701
 82      977149601
 85      975234383
 88      973286375
 90      971668509
 92      970788172
 95      970579989
 98      969931412
 100     969567071
 102     969375005
 105     964136096
 108     963525808


---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Graphitational pull (4.00 / 1) (#65)
by rusty on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:35:53 PM EST

Can you, or someone else smarter than me, maybe whip up a graph of this and slap up a link to it? I'd really like to see this, but have absolutely zero idea how to graph that.

Ok, if we let the quantity discussion go for a minute, I still have an issue with the idea that a -1 vote is necessarily also a grudging "section" vote. Or, even assuming this, that we want -1 voters to have a say in deciding where a posted story should go. One point that struck me in particular from someone else's comment above was that typically stories that are almost evenly split between +1FP and -1 votes are controversial and really good FP fodder, for just that reason. A scheme that considered -1 votes de facto section votes would strongly mitigate against controversial stories getting to the front page, which, I think, would be bad.

And a final question. The way I think of it is basically this: There's two elections going on here. One is between "post it" factions and "don't post it" factions. If the "post it" faction wins, the FP or section decision is a second election among the people who supported the story being posted. "Don't post" people have already lost. If you say "don't post," and lose, why then should your vote further affect the second issue?

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

bad graph pun (5.00 / 1) (#66)
by pb on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:53:20 PM EST

Here's a graph of the data in seconds since 1970 vs. front page stories, along with the linear fit I mentioned earlier.

It's possible that considering 0 votes as well could actually make things more fair for controversial stories (of course you'd have to mess with the thresholds); the problem is, there's no really good way to tell a "controversial" story from a bad story.  Obviously a lot of people don't like it, isn't that enough?

One of the points that Talez brought up that I think is very sane is that in a lot of these "controversial" stories, there are more people voting -1 than there are people voting +1, FP.  How can you justify posting a story to the Front Page when more people simply don't want it on the site at all?

Your vote should affect the issue because you have an opinion, and you voted on it, just as you would count +1, FP votes as regular +1 votes if a story goes to Section instead.  After a certain critical number of votes have been reached, it's amazingly unlikely for a story to be dumped--after that point in time, in the current system, -1 votes are useless, because statistically they'll just be countered by (slightly more) +1 votes.  Obviously if anyone can verify this by looking at the data, you probably can.

The problem is, the person voting on the story in the queue doesn't know that their -1 vote is useless yet.  You can make an educated guess by looking at how long the story has been in the queue and by looking at the comments, but you honestly don't know until you vote and are allowed to see the voting results.  At that point, you'll know whether your -1 vote had any chance of dumping the story or not.  If not, you would have been better off voting +1, section.

I've outlined which sorts of stories would be affected by counting -1 votes by analyzing the current Front Page; this isn't a huge change, but it may move some controversial pieces to section.  It may also move some inflammatory or somewhat poorly written pieces to section as well. If you come up with any other ideas, definitely let us all know.  :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Cleaning graphitti off the wall (5.00 / 2) (#68)
by rusty on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:13:39 PM EST

Stop me, before I pun again!

So, according to the graph, it's been basically linear over time, with a slight sinusoidal-looking wave pattern.

Ok, point made about the issue with FP votes being drastically fewer than -1 votes, I guess. Like I said, I can see your basic argument. If I were forced at gunpoint to come up with a new system, I think it would make some sense to remove the "front page" vote altogether and just rely on the ratio between +1, 0, and -1 to determine front page, in some way. Or, alternatively, institute story rating and determine front pageworthyness by an after-posting rating mechanism. Like, posted stories all go to section. Stories that subsequently are rated above x.xx after Y number of rating inputs are promoted to FP.

But when it comes down to it, I'm still not convinced that the flaws in the system are such that they actually need fixing. Don't underestimate the negative effects of changing a major part of K5 that everyone's become more or less accustomed to. I typically try to avoid making changes unless the negatives of not changing outweigh the negatives of changing. Considering the rate of FP stories is good, and pretty steady, and I do think that overall the front page does reflect the best K5 has (plus perhaps some of the not quite so best, but generally little of the best ends up in section only, is my opinion) is the problem really more than a theoretical one? Like, would a change actually bring more quality to the front page? I still can't see that it would.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

not punny (4.00 / 1) (#70)
by pb on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 01:52:42 AM EST

I think that's basically it, although the wave pattern looks interesting--I'll have to look into it some more later.

I agree with you that changing a major part of K5 has the potential to be a very bad thing, and in that spirit, I'd be happy if the threshold in the current system were raised a bit instead.

Also, I'd appreciate it if no story with a greater number of negative votes than FP votes were allowed., but that would of course be extra.  To tell the truth, I don't think +1 votes / total votes would necessarily be that bad of a system either.

But this all goes back to another ridiculous goal of mine--user customizability.  Obviously if I could pick my own rating system, this wouldn't be a problem at all. And really, Rusty, you can handle a few extra database hits...  ;)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

Boo on customizability (4.00 / 1) (#71)
by rusty on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 02:04:27 AM EST

You probably, by now, know my feelings on excessive customization, so I may not need to belabor them any further. The overall gist being that of course infinite customization is possible, but it's not really what I'm interested in vis-a-vis K5. I really really want this to be more about a lot of people doing something together, and being (hopefully) proud of what our collective work can produce.

But that's a whole 'nother ball of fish, anyway.

____
Not the real rusty
[ Parent ]

let's hear it for infinite customizibilimitation! (none / 0) (#72)
by pb on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 08:22:45 AM EST

I see infinite customization as a separate goal, designed to make using the site more comfortable for the individual user. Obviously no matter how much of a community we are, we don't all agree on the same things, and we all have our own personal preferences.

Say interacting on K5 is like two people talking on the phone--one person is in an easy chair, and another one is in a bed.  Still another one is driving in a car on the way to work.  None of these things in any way should detract from their discussion, so there's no reason to make everyone go to a telephone booth if they want to have a conversation--that just irritates people.

Customization is just giving the people what they want, and that's what I thought K5 was all about in the first place.  :)
---
"See what the drooling, ravening, flesh-eating hordes^W^W^W^WKuro5hin.org readers have to say."
-- pwhysall
[ Parent ]

simplicity first (4.20 / 5) (#42)
by speek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 12:07:43 PM EST

How about just one voting option: +1. You either want the story posted, or not. Section posting has one threshhold, front page has a higher threshhold. All these voting options are superfluous.

--
what would be cool, is if there was like a bat signal for tombuck -

because we're bad at math (5.00 / 1) (#61)
by dr k on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 07:23:02 PM EST

I've been bitching for over a year that the moderation scheme is foolish. But at least one thing has been fixed: the post threshold used to be based on the number of registered accounts, so the post threshold used to keep going up and up, allowing fewer and fewer stories to get posted.


Destroy all trusted users!
[ Parent ]

i dont even care for the FP concept (4.50 / 2) (#51)
by zzzeek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 02:36:24 PM EST

personally id prefer every story that gets published on K5 be treated as having equal  importance.   But thats just me.  I dont even read the "front page", I just navigate to the "browse by section" page immediately to see whats there. I find stories equally or more interesting in the non-FP as in FP.

Id be more interested to see how a story made its way to the front page, how long it took to get voted up, and even numerical statistics of why people voted it up or down (such as, "I agree with its premise", "I disagree with its premise but was interesting", "Its poorly written but I liked the discussion it generated", etc.  if there is some way of quantifying these things.)

Easier way (none / 0) (#56)
by damiam on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 04:44:29 PM EST

I just navigate to the "browse by section" page immediately to see whats there

You could go into your display preferences and set it to show all stories on your "start page".

[ Parent ]

Several Rounds and Ordering Alternatives (4.83 / 6) (#57)
by murklamannen on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 05:02:37 PM EST

The most logical and simple voting system is a majority vote with several rounds (viritual rounds in our case) and ordering different alternatives in order of preference instead of just voting for one.
So +1 FP would mean, in order of preference:
1. Post it to the front page
2. If it isn't posted to the front page, post it to the section
-1 means
1. Drop it
2. If it isn't dropped, post it to the section page
+1 Section:
1. Post it to the section
2. If it isn't posted to the section, drop it*

There are three alternatives: -1, +1 section and +1 FP (0s are not counted).
You count the votes, and the alternative with the least votes is removed. Now you have a second "virtual round" with the two remaining alternatives. Everyone who voted for the removed alternative are now counted as voting for their second alternative. The winning alternaive in this "second round" decides what will happen with the story.

This way a maximal number of people will be happy with the decision.

BTW, why must everyone have the same voting algo? Why can't it be configurable for each user?




* This is open for discussion. You might rather have the story posted to the front page than not posted at all or you might not want to soil the front page with a moderatly good article. There should probably be two +1 section votes, one for each of the opinions above.



other needed voting options (4.50 / 4) (#67)
by speek on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 10:54:14 PM EST

  • +1/2 - this is vital for shared accounts. In fact, what we really need is a write-in text area so that arbitrary decimals can be written in.
  • -1 Don't Care - should be obvious.
  • 0 Don't Care - equally obvious.
  • 0 I have no idea what you're talking about
  • -1 I have no idea what you're talking about
  • -1 Troll
  • +1 Troll
  • -1 I'm in a bad mood, so don't take it personally.
  • +1 FP, but -1 dump if only makes section
  • +1 section, but -1 dump if makes front page
  • +1 if will post today, -1 otherwise
  • Textarea for user to write in own algorithm in Perl.
  • -1 needs editing
  • +1 section, but would've been +1FP if better written

    and that's just for starters!

    --
    what would be cool, is if there was like a bat signal for tombuck -

  • you forgot (+pi, irrational) [n/t] (4.00 / 1) (#69)
    by martingale on Mon Aug 26, 2002 at 11:17:14 PM EST



    [ Parent ]
    complex numbers, quaternions and octonions (none / 0) (#73)
    by iwnbap on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 09:32:35 AM EST


    make your votes non-commutative, so voting order counts!


    [ Parent ]
    And without a unique division operator (none / 0) (#77)
    by nusuth on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 04:53:52 PM EST

    Everyone should choose their own "ratio" definition, limits and their preference for GT operator as a user preference.

    [ Parent ]
    partial orderings (none / 0) (#80)
    by martingale on Wed Aug 28, 2002 at 12:55:31 AM EST

    It only really gets fun if the user preferences allow for choosing a strictly partial order on comments, without the k5 user realizing it isn't total.

    [ Parent ]
    my favorite alternative (3.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Shren on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 10:41:33 AM EST

    Double all thresholds (190 post, -40 dump)

    • +1 Front Page
    • +2 Section
    • 0 Abstain
    • -2 Dump


    how about (4.00 / 1) (#76)
    by Phantros on Tue Aug 27, 2002 at 04:47:33 PM EST

    A compromise: How about if you vote -1 on a story, the story is hidden from you and you don't have to see it. (but with an option where you can unhide stories) So, if you vote -1 on two stories about sprockets because you hate sprockets, the sprocket stories won't be cluttering up your front/section page.

    4Literature - 2,000 books online and Scoop to discuss them with

    or how about (none / 0) (#86)
    by Jim Tour on Fri Sep 13, 2002 at 12:37:23 PM EST

    Every ten -1 votes convert one FP vote to a section vote.

    Improving the Quality of Kuro5hin.org's Front Page | 86 comments (70 topical, 16 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:

    kuro5hin.org

    [XML]
    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!