Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by juggs on Friday May 29 2015, @04:18AM   Printer-friendly
from the random-thoughts dept.

This is a topic that comes up all too often in comments, lambasting editors or praising them.

As it stands, editorial is a black box, they accept submissions, fettle them, then they appear as stories. Recently, the Original Submission link appeared on stories so you can see what went in and what appeared out of that black box, yet still the complaints come.

Just how much transparency is necessary? (This is an open question not rhetorical)

I like to believe that SoylentNews is the people that form it as a community, and the editing should reflect that.

Should we adopt some version control for subs so everyone can see who edited what through the pipeline that goes from sub to front page?

Thoughts on a postcard please.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anne Nonymous on Friday May 29 2015, @04:23AM

    by Anne Nonymous (712) on Friday May 29 2015, @04:23AM (#189484)

    > fettle them

    I'm pretty sure that's illegal, even in New Hampshire.

    • (Score: 2) by juggs on Friday May 29 2015, @04:41AM

      by juggs (63) on Friday May 29 2015, @04:41AM (#189493) Journal

      You may want to move beyond urban dictionary, there are others.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @02:07PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @02:07PM (#189664)

        Put the fettle to the metal, watch the page count go round?

        • (Score: 0) by KGIII on Friday May 29 2015, @09:11PM

          by KGIII (5261) on Friday May 29 2015, @09:11PM (#189845) Journal

          fettle:

          Noun
            1. A state of fitness and good health.

          Verb
            1. Remove mold marks or sand from (a casting).

          I figured I would save some effort.

          --
          "So long and thanks for all the fish."
          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:22PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Saturday May 30 2015, @08:22PM (#190208)

            > Remove mold marks or sand from (a casting).

            So, go pound sand?

      • (Score: 2) by martyb on Tuesday June 02 2015, @04:00AM

        by martyb (76) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday June 02 2015, @04:00AM (#191015) Journal

        You may want to move beyond urban dictionary, there are others.

        Like 'suburban dictionary', 'rural dictionary', and 'fields&streams dictionary'?

        But seriously, am trying to reproduce a bug we think we've found after upgrading the site on June 1, 2015 to rehash.

        --
        Wit is intellect, dancing.
    • (Score: 2, Interesting) by purple_cobra on Friday May 29 2015, @10:20AM

      by purple_cobra (1435) on Friday May 29 2015, @10:20AM (#189600)

      Hehe, that's one of those words/meanings that has been dying out (or, if it has had a parallel evolution, a different meaning that has become more prevalent) in these more interconnected times. FWIW, it's a colloquialism meaning "to refine", at least in the North of England. You also have a related expression "in fine fettle", i.e. doing/feeling very well. See here [dict.org] for definitions.
      My homeland has an expression that I personally have used more as I moved a few hundred miles north: "potch", meaning to fiddle aimlessly with. "Potching" with something means you're messing around with it for reasons (apparently) unknown.

      Back on topic, editorialising the submissions is, to my mind, not something I'm comfortable with, but correcting spelling, checking URLs actually point somewhere useful, etc. (i.e. fettling!) is a very good thing. But I'm an old git and I probably place more emphasis on this than others!

      • (Score: 2) by juggs on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:06AM

        by juggs (63) on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:06AM (#189938) Journal

        It probably is a localisation thing. I was also brought up in the North of England and "fettling" has no connotations other than polishing something to be the best that it can be.

        Our aim for SN editorial activity is not to "editorialise" stories i.e. dramatise things or bias them one way or another, but to present a readable, balanced summary of the article that is linked. Personally, I think the editors do a great job doing that. The recent spate of unrest about the process kind of rocked my confidence though, perhaps we'd developed tunnel vision.

        SN is nothing without its community behind it, that's how it began and I am adamant that is how it should proceed. Hence this META to get some feedback on how those outside the boiler room are finding things. You never know if you don't ask.

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday May 29 2015, @04:32AM

    by aristarchus (2645) on Friday May 29 2015, @04:32AM (#189488) Journal

    Editors are Gods! They wield absolute power! Once you let the plebs have a right to object, or complain, or do anything but submit their miserable findings, the whole game will be up. I prefer the black box of infinite darkness, and bow down to its infinite wisdom. Seriously, even if the editors are not actually gods, they should behave as gods. Thunderbolts for some, Swans for others. Way it goes.

    • (Score: 2) by takyon on Friday May 29 2015, @04:37AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 29 2015, @04:37AM (#189491) Journal

      ⚡⚡⚡ 🐦 🌀 🔫 ⚡⚡⚡ 🐦 🌀 🔫
      🐦  ABSOLUTE POWER  ⚡⚡⚡
      🌀     CORRUPTS      🐦
      🔫    ABSOLUTELY     🌀
      ⚡⚡⚡ 🐦 🌀 🔫 ⚡⚡⚡ 🐦 🌀 🔫

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 4, Funny) by aristarchus on Friday May 29 2015, @04:42AM

        by aristarchus (2645) on Friday May 29 2015, @04:42AM (#189494) Journal

        Yeah, but that is only for absolute values of absolute power. Now imagine a perfectly spherical cow and a SoylentNews editor . . . .

        • (Score: 3, Funny) by Kell on Friday May 29 2015, @05:59AM

          by Kell (292) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:59AM (#189526)

          As luck would have it, many Soylent editors and contributors are already spherically-shaped...

          --
          Scientists ask questions. Engineers solve problems.
      • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 29 2015, @03:52PM

        by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 29 2015, @03:52PM (#189710) Journal

        Not if you use dielectric grease.

        --
        Washington DC delenda est.
    • (Score: 1) by blackhawk on Friday May 29 2015, @10:13AM

      by blackhawk (5275) on Friday May 29 2015, @10:13AM (#189597)

      Some of those swans were pretty rape-y, I'l take the thunderbolts, thanks!

      • (Score: 5, Funny) by WizardFusion on Friday May 29 2015, @01:45PM

        by WizardFusion (498) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @01:45PM (#189654) Journal

        Everything is a dildo if you are brave enough

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:55PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @10:55PM (#189882)

          That's not funny. That's god damn insightful.

  • (Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:38AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:38AM (#189492)

    I liked the idea of putting the link to the original submission with the submitter's name.
    juggs writes

    The other idea of a link on the submissions page that has all the original submissions was good.

    This is only if it is not too much extra trouble for the editors.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by zocalo on Friday May 29 2015, @08:25AM

      by zocalo (302) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:25AM (#189569)
      Really, I think this is almost all that is needed. It's a discussion site - we don't *need* a full audit trail and accountability like we might if it were legal or financial data being edited - in that context some of the suggestions seem like total overkill to me - we certainly don't need to run submissions through a CVS so we can review every single edit. Lets be realistic here and concentrate on the discussions *about* the submissions, not who changed what in the submission and have the discussions go off on a he said/she said tangent over editorial descisions.

      With a little code wrangling it should be possible to automate the inclusion of a link to the original submission, and a little more to automate links to multiple concatenated submissions, so that's easy enough. Provided its a safe assumption that the editor that posted the story did any initial edits and any subsequent edits for tone by new editors are annotated in the story, that's more than enough of an audit trail for me to identify if anyone is being an ass or trying to push a particular viewpoint. I don't think we really need to see basic edits for stuff like spelling or grammar corrections made by editors other than acknowledgement of deliberately included errors with a "[sic]" at all - it just needlessly clutters up the story.
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 5, Insightful) by hemocyanin on Friday May 29 2015, @02:42PM

        by hemocyanin (186) on Friday May 29 2015, @02:42PM (#189677) Journal

        It's a discussion site - we don't *need* a full audit trail and accountability like we might if it were legal or financial data being edited - in that context some of the suggestions seem like total overkill to me - we certainly don't need to run submissions through a CVS so we can review every single edit.

        Totally agree with you. An additional point I'd make, is that people are always going to bitch. The fact they are bitching doesn't necessarily mean anything is wrong because there are some people who will go to the ends of the earth to find something to complain about. Catering to such people is a losing proposition because their criticism isn't about any issue that actually needs addressing, it's about trying to get attention. I think that describes the large majority of complaints about editing here.

        • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:13PM

          by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:13PM (#189739) Homepage

          True, I appreciate your sentiment, however we do try to listen to the community. It's a hard line to walk sometimes between listening to suggestions/complaints and simply getting the job done; we all work very hard (and will continue to strive) to maintain that balance.

          --
          (Score:1^½, Radical)
          • (Score: 2) by zocalo on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:10PM

            by zocalo (302) on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:10PM (#190108)
            Understood, and I'm sure that it's appreciated by many of the site readership. Having given it a little more thought, I think a good compromise would be the following:

            Automated inclusion of original submission. Not really fussed where, but it doesn't need to be in your face.
            Basic spelling/grammar errors fixed silently (it's vs its, their vs they're vs there, etc.)
            Fixed links done with acknowledgement lest anyone think it's a change to OP's intent
            Deliberately included typos, etc. indicated with "[sic]"
            Significant edits for tone/language/content etc. acknowledged in the story as a heads up for those that care
            Follow-up edits to the story after posting, especially those made by other editors, noted inline or at the end of the story

            That keeps clutter to a minimum, gives a reasonable audit trail, and should provide enough accountability over who said what to placate most people. There will always be some that want more but, as I noted earlier, we should be focussed on discussing the topic of the submissions, not the worthiness of the submissions themselves. Implement a few simple "fixes" and wait - I'm pretty sure things will settle down and be forgotten about soon enough.
            --
            UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
      • (Score: 2, Interesting) by Drake_Edgewater on Friday May 29 2015, @06:06PM

        by Drake_Edgewater (780) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:06PM (#189757) Journal

        I think the best place to put the link to the original submission is in the "Related links" box at the right side of the summary.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Friday May 29 2015, @04:59AM

    by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday May 29 2015, @04:59AM (#189496) Journal

    First and most of all, thanks to all the editors again for doing the editing in the first place. Since there was a severe shortage of editors some months ago (I don't know the situation right now), we, the readers, should make sure to not complain too easily. Improvement suggestions are always a good idea, and the difference is probably only the tone, but we should treasure the editors we have (and, of course, the other staff behind soylentnews).

    That said, one of the improvement-suggestions I made in the past would be a mainly technical one: Could we crowdsource the screening of new submissions? E.g. there could be one article "Submission", new articles are submitted by posting a comment on this everlasting "Submission" article. Users can up- and downmod the initial submission-comment and propose editorial changes by replying to the original submission-comment.

    There is a risk that people will start the full discussion already within this "Submission"-Threads, but this might be mitigated by some additional policies:
    1. The comments here are not copied to the final article, therefore having less visibility, giving less incentive to post opinions here
    2. Since this is editorial work, not the article-discussion, access to this section could be limited (if the codebase is flexible enough to allow such tweaks):
          - Only accounts existing for > 3 month can participate in this editorial work, no anonymous users
          - Stricter guidelines to mod non-editorial remarks off-topic
          - Whole subthread to a submission is archived as tar-archive or moved to scm repository or whatever seems appropriate to satisfy the need for transparency; but it's not as accessible as the finally published story

    Of course it would help if we could move modpoints, e.g. if we modded a submission "Interesting" I'd like to remove that rating again and move it to a later comment in the same thread to vote for a better, revised version.

    Alternatively we could have an option in our journals to mark entries we would like to see published as stories. Marked stories could be listed in the submission pipeline, users could add editorial comments already. This would be even better if the journal entries could be voted for/moderated as well. For anonymous submissions, some other mechanism would be required.

    --
    Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 2) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @05:12AM

      by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:12AM (#189501) Journal

      This crowd-source idea is cool. Let's call it Firehose. :D

      Your idea about the journal-to-main-page concept is pretty awesome, but it would likely require some significant backend changes to not overburden the editorial team.

      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday May 29 2015, @05:49AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:49AM (#189524) Journal

        Your idea about the journal-to-main-page [...] would likely require some significant backend changes

        Yes, probably... Personally I'd prefer the other idea of having a "Submission" story. It inherently supports anonymous submissions, and I would think it's easier to implement. Even without setting special rules for comment section in "Submission" story, it might be helpful as long as the threads are always removed after the actual article was published.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:55AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:55AM (#189525)

      q., did you miss the part about "on a postcard"? Brevity is the soul of wit, or so I have been told.

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @07:05AM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:05AM (#189543) Journal

      Wait, we haven't got enough editors, so we are going to all become editors?
      We have trouble getting enough stories submitted, so we are going to take submitters and make them editors.
      Then we are going to get together and vote stories up and down before the are posted?
      And we are going to comment on them, before we comment on them, and pretend we didn't by deleting the comments?

      So who is left to read these stories after all that?
      You've essentially drafted everyone we have into the editing process? There is nobody left to submit, and nobody left to read!!?

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday May 29 2015, @08:07AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:07AM (#189563) Journal

        I you over-dramatize. Most people are going to the main-page and will see the regular stories. Those people who already liked to take a peek ahead at the submit list will continue to do that and additionally provide some feedback. I don't think this will stop anyone from submitting more stories or reading the regular stories.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 2) by FakeBeldin on Friday May 29 2015, @11:34AM

          by FakeBeldin (3360) on Friday May 29 2015, @11:34AM (#189616) Journal

          I you over-dramatize.
          I you get that a lot.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by bzipitidoo on Friday May 29 2015, @12:54PM

            by bzipitidoo (4388) on Friday May 29 2015, @12:54PM (#189639) Journal

            Obviously the GP needs an editor.

            Wait, maybe s/he is an editor? Who will edit the editors?!

            • (Score: 2) by q.kontinuum on Friday May 29 2015, @01:42PM

              by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday May 29 2015, @01:42PM (#189652) Journal

              PANIC! DRAMA! We need an enhanced editor-staff to review comments before they go live! Immediately! And I need to take my time to write some journal entry on how to avoid such catastrophes in the future, and to apologize! Thanks for alerting me!

              --
              Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @09:05AM

      by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @09:05AM (#189576) Journal

      There is a possible problem with this approach. Having a relatively small community, it would be very easy for someone (or organisation) to enforce group-think by editing the submissions that they disagree with in to something very different. Some submitters are criticised not for what they have submitted, but because of their views (_gewg), or because they are simply disliked (SlimPickens/HughPickens/papasfritas). Unless a complete audit trail is put in place and effectively policed, it would be impossible to guarantee what the end result would be or identify who was making the changes. Who would police this task? How would they enforce the rules? Would it be a case of the last edit wins? I was recently castigated for putting 'words into the submitter's mouth'. Isn't this proposal simply a formal procedure to do just that? We have insufficient submissions now to justify prioritising which should go out when - if they are acceptable as submissions they have a very high chance of publication.

      What is being proposed does not save any effort on the part of the editors, indeed it could well increase their workload as they would have to try to balance every input into a single story. There is no benefit to the editing system that we now have in place. Of course, if you feel that this is the problem then you simply have to say. I will step aside if I am not fulfilling the wishes of the community.

      The submissions are meant to be draft summaries of existing factual material and reporting, to which links are provided. They should not contain personal views, a bias or contain speculative material - that is the purpose of the comments after each summary. They should accurately convey the contents of the linked material and that alone, although we do permit a small degree of leeway in this (e.g we allow submitters to pose 'what if' questions etc). Adding additional information below a submission (e.g. additional links, updated material) I can support. Permitting changes to the original submission I cannot.

      • (Score: 3, Interesting) by q.kontinuum on Friday May 29 2015, @09:58AM

        by q.kontinuum (532) on Friday May 29 2015, @09:58AM (#189590) Journal

        As I mentioned, I'm thankful for the efforts of the editors as it is, without reservations, and I definitely have neither the time nor the ambition to usurp any of you. Also I highly appreciate the quality of articles the way they are now. It was only once that I had a feeling my submission was changed to the worse, and even in that case it was a matter of opinion and for me only a minor issue anyway.

        Juggs asked what could be improved in regards to transparency. I took it as an opportunity to bring in an idea I'd consider an improvement, as it would make the process of offering additions to the original submission more transparent. My idea would be that the original submitter gets the karma-bonus and credit, but the editor gets a chance to pick some supplementary links / additional information from the comments. Also, the moderation system would provide some hint if a story is in high demand or probably a troll. I'm not saying the community should get the final decision, just proposals.

        If you think this makes the job of the editor harder, don't do it. As I see it, we don't have a problem, so no need to fix it.

        --
        Registered IRC nick on chat.soylentnews.org: qkontinuum
        • (Score: 2) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @10:51AM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @10:51AM (#189604) Journal

          I definitely have neither the time nor the ambition to usurp any of you

          I hope that you didn't think that I was suggesting that was your intention - I wasn't. Thanks for your kind words. I will confess that I wish that this entire sequence of events had never occurred (I will have to be more careful with my edits in future).

          I was simply intending to give an alternative point of view regarding the possibility of the community taking some role in the editing of stories. While I am pleased to see suggestions that will both enhance the quality of this site and involve the community more, in this instance I feel that the extra editorial workload, additional coding effort and the establishing of the appropriate procedures and controls are not justified by the perceived benefits. That is only my view however - I am not speaking for other editors nor for SN.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03PM (#189729)

        The submissions are meant to be draft summaries of existing factual material and reporting, to which links are provided. They should not contain personal views, a bias or contain speculative material - that is the purpose of the comments after each summary. They should accurately convey the contents of the linked material and that alone, although we do permit a small degree of leeway in this (e.g we allow submitters to pose 'what if' questions etc). Adding additional information below a submission (e.g. additional links, updated material) I can support. Permitting changes to the original submission I cannot.

        First, janrinok, thanks for all your hard work! In large measure I agree with your concerns about "crowdsourcing" the submissions process. It sounds like a whole lot more work for the editors with benefits that are, at best, doubtful. I think the job of the editors should be to, well, edit submissions. They should clean up grammar, spelling, and edit for brevity and clarity; they should also check all links to make sure they work properly, perhaps even go looking for better links (assuming any exist). The one thing that I think editors do need to improve on is to edit out any cheerleading of the submitter to promote an agenda. I can't tell you how annoying and condescending it is, for example, when the submitter or the editor ask loaded questions that are designed to lead the reader to what is obviously their own preferred conclusion on the story. If the original submitter or the editor want to push an agenda they should do that in the comments like everybody else. In fact I would think that, alone, would go a long way to stifling groupthink on the site. Other than that, I wouldn't really change much else.

        • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @05:58PM

          by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @05:58PM (#189755) Journal

          Thank you.

          Another part of our job is editing those stories that do contain bias, personal agendas, or are unbalanced or unfair, because they do not comply with the requirements stated in the submission guidelines. We can do this in one of two ways. We can simply reject the submission. While we do not hesitate to do so, it results in even fewer submissions to work with. Or we can edit the existing submission - remove the bias and personal agendas, and ensure that the summary is balanced and fair. We try, wherever possible, to provide links to additional material to do this task for us but, in some cases, such material does not exist or simply cannot be found. We therefore have to adopt a neutral standpoint and try to view the submission from another angle. It is this that has been misconstrued as 'editors pushing their own points of view'. We are simply looking at the problem from a different aspect to provide material that is suitable for release. Otherwise, all the work that has been done is simply wasted effort.

          As you are probably aware, all summaries are reviewed by at least 2 different editors during routine operations. Any individual bias introduced by an editor would be detected by another and the summary would not be released. Any editor - no matter how junior or inexperienced - can stop the release of any story to the front page. They are all told to do so if they have any doubts whatsoever about a summary's suitability for release. However, both editors understand that we are often struggling to provide enough stories for the front page and that discarding submissions not only wastes existing material but quickly dissuades others from making their own submissions too. If we can edit a submission to make it acceptable then I feel that we should at least try to do so. Again, I stress, this is not editors trying to force any particular viewpoint but simply trying to ensure that the submissions is edited until it complies with the submission guidelines [soylentnews.org]. Such action is bound to be the polar opposite of any bias shown by the original submitter which is why they tend to get annoyed. The final summary, however, is balanced and neutral.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03AM

    by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03AM (#189497) Journal

    The number of problematic editing actions seems pretty small to me. Aside from one recent story, this whole thing seems blown out of proportion. This is our second or third meta thread about that story and the editing process for heaven's sake! Even the originating problem was addressed in the same story thread, and I think that's where it should have stayed. How many accepted submissions are drawing complaints from the submitters?

    Adding the line break and text with a link seems to draw excessive attention to this minor issue. The User [soylentnews.org] writes [soylentnews.org] format would tuck away the editing process instead of drawing attention to it, which in its current form seems excessive and distracting. After all, newspaper sites don't have a "read the unedited submission" link on the bottom of each article, nor do magazines or anything else I can think of short of Wikipedia. If you're editing the submissions to add the current format, it doesn't cost anything to make this change. I'm not even sure any change from the longstanding format was needed in the first place.

    That being said, it's great that the benevolent dictator and staff here are open to feedback. Thank you to all the volunteers for their work on this enterprise.

    • (Score: 5, Informative) by khchung on Friday May 29 2015, @05:15AM

      by khchung (457) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:15AM (#189503)

      Agreed this is blown out of proportion. The way it used to be is fine. There will always be people who don't like how his submission got edited, but it is the editors' job to edit, and I absolutely thank the editors for doing their job.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:17AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:17AM (#189505)

      Actually, I'm rather happy with the new format. There were more problems than the one: see for example https://soylentnews.org/article.pl?sid=15/05/11/1456240 [soylentnews.org], where an editor posted a blatantly false and inflammatory statement about Google. The editors had grown pretty snarky around that time, but the new editorial control has helped immensely, and the new format isn't that intrusive.

      The editing here has gotten better than Slashdot's, and quickly, not that it's a high bar to reach. The comments, of course, are another matter...

      • (Score: 4, Informative) by GungnirSniper on Friday May 29 2015, @05:29AM

        by GungnirSniper (1671) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:29AM (#189516) Journal

        The editor in your example fixed the story and commented to that effect barely a half hour after it was posted. The whole story got all of three on-topic posts. So again, how big is this micro problem?

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by ticho on Friday May 29 2015, @06:50AM

          by ticho (89) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:50AM (#189536) Homepage Journal

          Fully agree here. Please, let's not let few loudmouth conspiracy theorists ruin regulate this site into oblivion!

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:27AM (#189514)

      GungnirSniper has it spot on and I agree totally. It is a good sign that the SN crew are taking criticism seriously, but you have to remember that this is the internet, where criticism is infinite, and get on with your business.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @07:14AM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:14AM (#189549) Journal

      Adding the line break and text with a link seems to draw excessive attention to this minor issue.

      Exactly. We've tied our selves in knots for one malcontent. Lets go back to the way it was and trust our editors.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by LoRdTAW on Friday May 29 2015, @01:31PM

      by LoRdTAW (3755) on Friday May 29 2015, @01:31PM (#189648) Journal

      While I agree about the editing being decent enough, I applaud the staff for actually listening and opening a dialogue. It shows they really are listening to the community.

    • (Score: 2) by Appalbarry on Friday May 29 2015, @08:21PM

      by Appalbarry (66) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:21PM (#189828) Journal

      Agreed. My guess is the Eds are reacting to one or two very whiny people.

      These are the people who will never, ever be satisfied. Nothing that the Eds can do will be enough.

      Hell, even if you let these people post anything they like, with no editing, at any time, they would still complain.

      So Editors, take your cues from the 99% of people who are happy with what you're doing. The less than 1% that complain endlessly will just consume your time and energy without contributing anything of value.

      And, to the one or two people complaining: slashcode [github.com] is Open Source - go start your own web site. If you do it right it can be very successful.

      DM me if you need me to point you at an example.

      • (Score: 2) by juggs on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:36AM

        by juggs (63) on Sunday May 31 2015, @02:36AM (#190288) Journal

        It is all too easy to allow focus to be drawn by the noisy 1%, that was my mistake right here. It's also easy to forget that if the other 99% aren't jumping up and down screaming, thinks are most likely A-OK.

        Still, it is good to see some affirmation for the Editors that put time in every day to keep the front page populated.

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:11AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:11AM (#189499)

    How about SN staff choose whatever default they prefer and give (registered) users the option to choose what appears on the front page?

    1) "Fettled" version (with link to submission? and/or original submission in a tool tip?)
    2) Raw submission (with link to fettled version?)
    3) Both

    Don't see how anyone could complain then. Except people who don't like the default and refuse to register. (Though you could still let anonymous people set a session pref?)

    • (Score: 4, Interesting) by takyon on Friday May 29 2015, @05:28AM

      by takyon (881) <reversethis-{gro ... s} {ta} {noykat}> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:28AM (#189515) Journal

      Allowing users to "ban" stories by the name that appears in the byline could be useful.

      In fact, with a little work, this could be done on the front page using an extension.

      Most summary blurbs have a

      <p class="byline">...</p>

      in it. getElementsByClassName, check a list of banned names, and then hide the

      <div class="article"></div> and
      <div class="storylinks"></div>

      for the story. Rss could be more difficult.

      --
      [SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
      • (Score: 3, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @07:37AM

        by frojack (1554) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:37AM (#189558) Journal

        Or, we could put our hands over our eyes and ears and sing la la la la loudly when we see that dreaded by-line....

        I can't think of better things to spend dev time on.

        --
        No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:09PM (#189737)

          Or, we could put our hands over our eyes and ears and sing la la la la loudly when we see that dreaded by-line....

          Indeed. Now everyone can have their own personal version of Faux Noise right here on SN!

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Friday May 29 2015, @05:12AM

    by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @05:12AM (#189500) Journal

    First off, I think the editors are doing a great job.

    Anyone who edits/polishes/touches-up/etc a story/submission that belongs to another person will eventually draw ire for doing that. Don't let it get to you. If there is an issue with one in a hundred submissions, that's not too shabby at all. If it is one in a thousand, that's pretty damn amazing. I'm pretty sure that this site has now published a good few thousand stories and there has been one or two issues. And honestly, I don't think that either of them were *too* big. One used a word that the submitter used - and the original story didn't - there was argument about whether it should have or should not have been used. Meh.

    Second off - editors, keep doing what you are doing. You are the bread and butter of the site - without stories rolling through, no-one would visit. Keep at it and don't let the odd bit of criticism get to you. You can't keep everyone happy, but you are keeping almost all of us happy.

    • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Fluffeh on Friday May 29 2015, @05:15AM

      by Fluffeh (954) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @05:15AM (#189504) Journal

      Sorry, forgot to reply directly to the questions posted:

      Just how much transparency is necessary?

      Within reason, I think the site is already much more transparent than most news sites and I don't think any more is really needed.

      Should we adopt some version control for subs so everyone can see who edited what through the pipeline that goes from sub to front page?

      This is a news site, not a bulletin board for anyone to post. The reason we have editors is to keep out the junk, polish up submissions that need it. I don't personally care to ever see who changed what word in which submission - and really don't think that would be worth the effort for anyone to code up.

      • (Score: 2) by fleg on Friday May 29 2015, @06:49AM

        by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @06:49AM (#189535)

        I don't personally care to ever see who changed what word in which submission - and really don't think that would be worth the effort for anyone to code up.

        as an 'umble programmer i endorse this opinion.

    • (Score: 2) by fleg on Friday May 29 2015, @06:47AM

      by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @06:47AM (#189531)

      i am in complete agreement with Fluffeh.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:27AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:27AM (#189609)

      How often we recall, with regret, that Napoleon once shot at a magazine editor and missed him and killed a publisher. But we remember with charity, that his intentions were good.
      - Mark Twain letter to Henry Mills Alden, published in the Chicago Daily Tribune, November 11, 1906, pg. 3.

  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by engblom on Friday May 29 2015, @05:33AM

    by engblom (556) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:33AM (#189517)

    I do not see any problem with how it is now. Somehow there will always be some hating if their text got edited, regardless if it was an improvement or not. This is visible from Wikipedia were some are even using bots for keeping their own written version there. We will never be able to satisfy those hating some minor edits.

    • (Score: 2) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @07:26AM

      by frojack (1554) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:26AM (#189556) Journal

      Somehow there will always be some hating if their text got edited,

      Agreed, but those people have to start their own site. That's the only why they will be happy.

      I've submitted a story or two. Some have made it virtually untouched. Others got a badly needed fresh coat of hatchet.
      The former, I did an OK job on, the latter, I clearly needed to step up my game.

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
      • (Score: 2) by Magic Oddball on Friday May 29 2015, @09:59AM

        by Magic Oddball (3847) on Friday May 29 2015, @09:59AM (#189591) Journal

        I've submitted a story or two. Some have made it virtually untouched. Others got a badly needed fresh coat of hatchet.
        The former, I did an OK job on, the latter, I clearly needed to step up my game.

        Exactly the same thought here. I take my submissions seriously enough to put in a lot of time revising them, so if anybody could find edits unjustified or disturbing, it would be me. So far, there has been only one submission out of several where there was more than a word or two tweaked that I was neutral about — and in that exceptional case, I was grateful because I knew I'd written the submission while too tired/distracted to do a decent job revising it myself.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by quadrox on Friday May 29 2015, @06:09AM

    by quadrox (315) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:09AM (#189527)

    1) you can't please everyone - no matter what you do there will be people complaining. Accept it, deal with it.
    2) I want a neutral tone in all articles - submissions that are written with a clear bias should be edited remove that bias. No bias should be introduced by editors. This includes any and all stories where there is a clear majority view on SN (e.g net neutrality).
    3) Submissions should be fact checked. If the submission seems fishy but still worth posting, don't give it a negative slant, add links.
    4) I don't care about editorial transparency as long as the advice rules are followed.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:56AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @11:56AM (#189624)

      SoylentNews is people. People have views. People write articles. People's names are associated to those articles. People's words are copyrighted by default.

      Editors - edit
      Writers - write

      Editors - Do not change the view of the writer to be something that was not submitted.
      Writes - Be pared to have an article rejected because it is missing facts and supported information per what the WRITTEN standards are.

      Editors - can fix grammar, display formating, and misspellings, but the "tone" or view of the submission.
      Writers - Be sure your "voice"fit the group's WRITTEN standards.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:29PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:29PM (#189745)

        If you want to follow that, then:

        Editors: Reject submissions that do not have a neutral tone, or at least aren't using flamebait wording to get attention. This isn't some breathless clickbait site.

      • (Score: 3, Informative) by janrinok on Friday May 29 2015, @06:16PM

        by janrinok (52) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @06:16PM (#189763) Journal

        When well-intentioned submissions do not comply with the Submission Guidelines [soylentnews.org], I would prefer that we editors be allowed to edit them until they do.

        There shouldn't be any 'tone' or 'view'. The submission should be neutral, balanced, fair and supported by links to factual material. The tone, view or personal thoughts belong in the comments! When we edit we are often trying to correct one or more of these deficiencies so that we can release it as a story. Its probably why they call us 'editors'.

        Before you continue spouting about what the Submission Guidelines should say, perhaps you ought to read them to see what they do say. Concentrate on the first requirement if you are too busy to read it all.

  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by frojack on Friday May 29 2015, @06:26AM

    by frojack (1554) on Friday May 29 2015, @06:26AM (#189529) Journal

    I never had a problem with the editing.

    But I figured I'd play along and click those links to the original story, and see what the editors did.
    I never saw a single edit that I thought was unjustified.

    I'm appalled that what little care some people put into their submissions, and amazed at the job the editors did
    getting some of these messes ready for publication.

    I think we should go back to the way it was.

    There, I said it. This has all been a tempest in a teapot by people trying to abuse the site, and abuse the editors.
    Personally, I'd be fine in removing those links, they serve no purpose but to drive a wedge between the site an the
    editors.

    All of this was started by the demands of a few people who can't post anything but inflammatory stories in the most inflammatory way.
    There will always be malcontents. These are exactly the WRONG people to micromanage the editors.

    Not every edit needs to be quibbled over.
    A clumsy sentence needs fixing, as does an inflammatory one.

    --
    No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 2) by fleg on Friday May 29 2015, @06:53AM

      by fleg (128) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @06:53AM (#189538)

      completely agree.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:01PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @12:01PM (#189627)

      Then reject the the submitters story. Do not rewrite and put their name to it. "XXXXXX writes:" XXXXX did not write what follows. The editor did.

      Maybe change the format to "xxxxx submitted THIS LINK, SN desided to post this instead:"

    • (Score: 2) by jbWolf on Friday May 29 2015, @03:23PM

      by jbWolf (2774) <jbNO@SPAMjb-wolf.com> on Friday May 29 2015, @03:23PM (#189695) Homepage

      Go back to the way it was? I dunno. I kinda like it like knowing what the original submitter sent. It helps me learn a bit more about the submitter. Agree with everything else you said 100%. Sure, there's the occasional hiccup, but overall, editors here are awesome.

      --
      www.jb-wolf.com [jb-wolf.com]
      • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:10PM

        by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:10PM (#189738) Homepage

        The eventual goal is to have the link to original submission appear in the "Related Stories" box or maybe somewhere in the title bar (like next to the "dept.") Until then we may continue to include the link in the story itself.

        --
        (Score:1^½, Radical)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by SlimmPickens on Friday May 29 2015, @07:13AM

    by SlimmPickens (1056) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:13AM (#189546)

    Some opinion pieces are OK, it stimulates discussion. It's only a problem when opinions are presented as fact.

    Maybe involve submitters a little in heavy rewrites, even if it's just the option to take their name off it.

    And maybe those links to the original submission could indicate if it's unchanged or spelling only.

    You're pretty much doing it right now though, I don't even think there's a problem.

    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:03PM (#189730) Journal

      Maybe involve submitters a little in heavy rewrites

      As an editor, I've been pushing for better ways to be able to commuicate with submitters. I think the lack of a line of communication is really the crux of the problem, IMHO.

      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
  • (Score: 2, Insightful) by Shimitar on Friday May 29 2015, @07:45AM

    by Shimitar (4208) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:45AM (#189559) Homepage

    I like things as they are right now.
    Of course it's always possible to improve, but sometimes trying hard to improve little details can lead to break the entire thing.

    So, let things go the way they are going. The best way is probably some kind of cross-reference between editors, like keeping an eye on editors who regularly abuse of their powers and bashing then a bit, eventually revoking their role if needed.

    --
    Coding is an art. No, java is not coding. Yes, i am biased, i know, sorry if this bothers you.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @09:25AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @09:25AM (#189580)

    Don't say

    X writes:

    if you've changed anything in the submission. Because clearly they didn't. You're putting words in their mouth.

    Original submission by X

    would be better imo.

    • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:56PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @01:56PM (#189657)

      if you've changed anything in the submission.

      If anything changed that altered the tone of the submission. Corrections of spelling, grammar, and minor clarifications (e.g. replacing "he" with a person's last name) don't require reattribution.

    • (Score: 2) by CoolHand on Friday May 29 2015, @05:06PM

      by CoolHand (438) on Friday May 29 2015, @05:06PM (#189734) Journal
      Yes, several of us have had some lengthy discussions on this topic on irc.. We've been kind of waiting to hear what the community says before firmly deciding on what we should put there.
      --
      Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job-Douglas Adams
    • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:23PM

      by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:23PM (#189742) Homepage

      We agree; that's basically what we intended to do all along, we may have missed it a few times. Thanks for your continued input!

      --
      (Score:1^½, Radical)
  • (Score: 2) by turgid on Friday May 29 2015, @10:08AM

    by turgid (4318) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 29 2015, @10:08AM (#189595) Journal

    It doesn't matter what you do, people are going to complain, so don't worry..

    I like the new (current) system where the original submission is linked from the bottom of the story. I don't think you should try to "improve" this. You'll just end up making things complicated and open yourselves up for more complaints.

    The whole point of sites like this is to aggregate stories and to provoke discussion. Having the original submission linked to the edited one gets the ball rolling, so to speak because straight away you have two different views.

  • (Score: 2) by TLA on Friday May 29 2015, @10:59AM

    by TLA (5128) on Friday May 29 2015, @10:59AM (#189606) Journal

    Hi fellas, sorry I've not been around (major hardware issues), but my 2c:

    I used to help out on the IRC bookz scene scanning OCRing and proofreading etexts. What we did was a strict version control where:
    0.5 was raw scan and first draft OCR (usually electronic);
    0.6 was first pass proof comparison between the OCR'd text and the original scan, with basic errors (mis-scanned letters corrected, etc);
    0.7 was formatting and indentation;
    0.8 was second pass proof comparison
    0.9 was final cleanup and stitching
    1.0 was the final, consolidated product.

    With large works such as the Harry Potter series, we had one scanner/OCR for 0.5 and a large group of proofreaders for 0.6-0.8, back to the scanner for 0.9 and to the scene channel for 1.0 release. The system worked so well we had the entire HP5 book scanned, proofed to perfection and the 1.0 etext in postscript released seven hours after release - with not a single error in the text. I think we might even have made the news with that one...

    --
    Excuse me, I think I need to reboot my horse. - NCommander
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Friday May 29 2015, @11:30AM

    by Thexalon (636) on Friday May 29 2015, @11:30AM (#189610)

    1. As you can see here, when you put it to the readership, they're completely supportive of our editors.
    2. If somebody, particularly somebody who wants to post highly inflammatory "everyone who disagrees with me is a moron" kinds of stuff on the home page, is truly unhappy, then that means that the editorial team has done their job, and done it well. An editor who is not pissing off some people is an editor not doing their job.
    3. The way to handle opinion pieces that you still want to post is to be very clear that the piece is the opinion of a person/organization that has a particular ax to grind. Find out what their overall position is, and announce it along with the story.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:41PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @04:41PM (#189728)

      "they're completely supportive of our editors." Great politco line.. false, if you read it all.

      The issues is simple. If an editor believes something was written with the wrong voice, they change it, BUT still assign the original poster as the writer. That at a minimum is a lie and possibly libelous.

      Now, how do we fix that broken problem. Showing before and after does not fix it, since how many actually compare, so original poster is still "charged" with writing the something he did not. In news, the editors do not get to rewrite a report and place the original reporters name on it. Yes, they can fix minor flaws like spelling and grammar, but whole sale rewrite it to be something the original writer did not say. They can reject and TELL the reporter to fix it. If the reporter does not want to fix it, can shop it to others or drop it.

      We need better ground rules.

      • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:04PM

        by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:04PM (#189731) Homepage

        The 'fix' that we came up with was something we intended to do all along and may have missed in a few cases:

        In a case that editing requires modifying the intent or ideas being presented by the submitter (rather than paring down, removing bias, proofreading, etc.), then the submission should be rejected. Alternately in the case that the story runs: the byline should not read "NickName writes:" and instead read "NickName informed us of a scoop" or "Originally submitted by NickName" (or similar) and the submission should be mostly re-written.

        --
        (Score:1^½, Radical)
        • (Score: 2) by mrcoolbp on Friday May 29 2015, @05:07PM

          by mrcoolbp (68) <mrcoolbp@soylentnews.org> on Friday May 29 2015, @05:07PM (#189736) Homepage

          I'd also like to add we are planning on adding wording to the guidelines and submissions page that indicate that by submitting a story, submitters understand and agree that their submissions will be edited based on our Submission Guidelines [soylentnews.org].

          --
          (Score:1^½, Radical)
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:28PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 29 2015, @05:28PM (#189743)

      The way to handle opinion pieces that you still want to post is to be very clear that the piece is the opinion of a person/organization that has a particular ax to grind.

      On that much, we agree. Make it very clear that this is the opinion of a person or an organization.

      Find out what their overall position is, and announce it along with the story.

      But this, I'm not so sure about. It doesn't seem to me to be the job of the editors to inform the rest of us what the overall agenda of a person or organization is. At most, I think it would be a fair call for an editor to point out the affiliation of the person who wrote the opinion piece. The rest seems best left to the comments. YMMV.

  • (Score: 2) by GlennC on Friday May 29 2015, @01:09PM

    by GlennC (3656) on Friday May 29 2015, @01:09PM (#189642)

    I've submitted a few stories, just items I found interesting and thought worthy of sharing.

    Fortunately for me, I haven't had a submission denied, although one is still apparently in the queue.

    If one of my submissions is denied for some reason or other, I'm not going to be offended.

    It's your site, fill it with what you will.

    --
    Sorry folks...the world is bigger and more varied than you want it to be. Deal with it.
    • (Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 29 2015, @02:31PM

      by isostatic (365) on Friday May 29 2015, @02:31PM (#189672) Journal

      It's your site, fill it with what you will.

      The point is, it's not. The site is a co-operative. It was born from the failures of the old site, which went downhill* as more and more money became involved.

      But yeah, invisible hand is the best way to fix things, just take your wallet elsewhere. Sigh.

      * Yeah yeah, it's been going downhill since it was Chips and Dips

    • (Score: 2) by cmn32480 on Friday May 29 2015, @05:54PM

      It's your site, fill it with what you will.

      It is OUR site. Yours, mine, and everybody else who reads it, writes subs for it, or works on it or enjoys it in any way shape or form.

      The staff is a part of the community. We want to do our jobs better and make the end result something that the entire community can be proud of.

      --
      "It's a dog eat dog world, and I'm wearing Milkbone underwear" - Norm Peterson
      • (Score: 2) by juggs on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:49AM

        by juggs (63) on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:49AM (#189956) Journal

        ^^ THIS is the reason for this META story and the reason that SN exists. SN isn't about top down dictat or foisting things on the community that they do not like, that's exactly why SN came into being as a certain subset of people fractured off from /. - enough was enough, we can do this better ourselves so let's do it, together. Here we are.

  • (Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday May 29 2015, @03:56PM

    by Phoenix666 (552) on Friday May 29 2015, @03:56PM (#189714) Journal

    It's enough of a challenge to get people to submit articles and other people to edit them. Building crowd-sourcing functionality for the editorial process would be a lot of development time for something that nobody would use, except those who would want to skew the system for their own ends anyway.

    The best thing to do is maintain open dialogue between the editors and the community, which you already do.

    --
    Washington DC delenda est.
  • (Score: 1) by Refugee from beyond on Friday May 29 2015, @07:51PM

    by Refugee from beyond (2699) on Friday May 29 2015, @07:51PM (#189812)

    Would be nice to change "Anonymous Coward" into "anonymous," for starters.

    https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=7683&cid=189733 [soylentnews.org]

    --
    Instantly better soylentnews: replace background on article and comment titles with #973131.
    • (Score: 2) by tathra on Friday May 29 2015, @08:50PM

      by tathra (3367) on Friday May 29 2015, @08:50PM (#189836)

      i agree. there's nothing inherently cowardly in posting anonymous. its degrading and insulting and should be changed. a few assholes post a lot of inflammatory shit anonymously, but a lot more people post informative and insightful stuff anonymously.

    • (Score: 2) by juggs on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:53AM

      by juggs (63) on Saturday May 30 2015, @02:53AM (#189958) Journal

      I have to agree. Given what we now know regards surveillance and monitoring, posting anonymously makes a lot of sense and should not be seen as some kind of detraction to the value of the comment.