zlacker

>>pg+(OP)
I wanted to see if there had been any visible decrease in quality. Doesn't look like it. There's surprisingly little difference between this and the regular frontpage.

>>pg+e
I think it's the recent comments - their shallow attacks reduce the perceived quality of the submissions.

Recent comments tend not to collaborate with the article - they aren't filling in gaps, adding further instances, extending the concept; discussing where the article is clear or unclear; correct or incorrect. And they are neither respectful nor kindly. They don't build on, or with, the article to create something better.

Instead, comments compete with the article - they find spelling errors, logic errors, or denounce the article in a shallow, general, global and vague way, often labeling it with connotational language. They aren't trying to build value, but destroy it.

The only criticism I enjoy reading is what you'd get from a kind and wise mentor. If someone hates an article, I'd prefer it if they just ignored it.

But I can't make them do that - so, recently I've taken to ignoring the comments here, and going direct to the article to make up my own mind.

>>10ren+xf
I think I have recently been wrongly profiled by someone who shares this view. I mentioned that certain patterns of behavior in internet consumers resemble those encountered in dating sites and used car dealerships. I know there have been economic studies of this. (Couldn't find it with Google, though.) However, I was attacked as if I was merely trying to associate Apple Computer with dating sites and used car salesmen.

In my two decades online, I've found that those who attack others to try and "clean up" a news group actually end up trashing it with noise and junk. (In fact, I have been guilty of this as well.) Much better for everyone to act respectfully.