No, I disagree. For instance, how did this mess get voted up without anyone seemingly doing any editing?
"An outsider's impression would be that this place is a ghost town &mdash which is not so far from the truth"
&mdash? Yeah, a type- the kind of typo that is fatal in programming, ans should be fatal in an article.
Those of you who voted this up should have read the damned thing first, suggested editing (like, for example, putting the semicolon at the end of the &dash or even (gasp) using the "-" character. You know, the DASH???
I suspect rmg of putting that typo in deliberately. He's laughing his ass of at us. And his elephant, too.
Now, my objections.
1. They already go on the front page, in the section box. Plus, if everybody gets on the front page, how than can I gloat? I would change one thing - meta articles would never get FP.
2. I vote we RAISE the vote threshold to keep crap stories like this one (and far worse than this one which isn't bad, for a meta) from being posted.
If there was one thing I learned from running my old website, it was that old content is better than bad content. Yeah, believe it or not sometimes my writing sucks. When I would have a spell of suckiness, my numbers dropped faster than a pair of pants in a whorehouse. Often if I didn't post at all for a couple of days, my numbers would go up as people logged on in anticipation.
The very worst catastrophe was a three or four day dry spell followed by a sucky post. Boy, people are fickle!
As far as getting posted is concerned, I've had a few articles posted here that on further reflection I realized that I would have voted against had somebody else submitted them.
"But it is precisely the irresponsible opinions and unusual takes on things that make a site interesting. If we throw them out in the service of content by consensus, we undermine any advantage a site like this one can have."
There is no consensus here, which is why everyone accuses everyone else of trolling. For example, sellison. I've finally come to the realization that he is not a troll, but actually just somebody with limited reasoning abilities.
We have right wingers and left wingers, GNU hippies and Windows faciests. We have homophobes and heterophobes. We have dyslexicd and hyperlexics. Few of us here are alike in any way, shape, or form.
"Writers here must submit their stories, edit them, watch often bizarre criticisms pop up, sometimes having to act as a rapid response unit to avoid the dreaded ten -1s it takes to kill the article, then wait and wait for the article to be posted or rejected."
That's not how I do it. The "dead tech" story is typical of how I submit - I submit to the edit que and go drinking. I then drunkenly flame everyone who disagrees with me, fix typos and drunkenly introduce more, go to bed, and fix it again in the morning.
Of the stories I've had rejected (yes, I get voted down) only one did I think on further reflection was voted down unfairly. I suspect if I resubmitted it now, it might get section.
"With these changes, we will have a better chance of new and interesting content getting voted up."
No, with these changes we have a greater chance of total dreck being voted up. IMO there's way too much total garbage being voted up as it is.
I would make one change- unless the author moves to vote, or the readership moves to move to vote, an article should sit in the edit que for longer to give more people time to point out typos and innacuracies.
And I would lengthen the time it takes to auto-post, giving more people a chance to vote. There are far too many times I'll be logged on to K5 right before bedtime, with an ampty que, and face a really shitty story in section (or worse) the next morning.
"The entire neocon movement is dedicated to revoking mcgrew's posting priviliges. This is why we went to war with Iraq." -LilDebbie