OSNews: http://www.osnews.com/story/20693/OSNews_Clean_Slate Exploring the Future of Computing en-us Copyright 2001-2009, David Adams adam+nospam@osnews.com Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:08:02 GMT http://www.osnews.com/images/osnews.gif OSNews.com http://www.osnews.com Sounds good http://osnews.com/thread?341472 http://osnews.com/thread?341472 Intuitively I feel things are moving in the right direction, regarding separating the news into "just news" and "opinion-enhanced news". That ought to get rid of some of the mess. So keep it up. Oh, and all the best wishes for the new year and merry christmas/new year to all of the team!Edited 2008-12-25 16:38 UTC Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:37:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Buck) Comments Any chance of a combined RSS feed? http://osnews.com/thread?341474 http://osnews.com/thread?341474 I don't mean to complain, and i'm not doing - I love this site and more long features is a definite plus to me but as a suggestiopn, could we please have a combined RSS feed for our readers?

This all looks to be in the right direction, well done team OSNews!

Happy christmas everyone! Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (samw) Comments RE: Any chance of a combined RSS feed? http://osnews.com/thread?341476 http://osnews.com/thread?341476
could we please have a combined RSS feed for our readers?


I can't do that for you personally, but yes, this should definitely happen (assuming you mean page 1+page 2). It'll be up to Adam to set it up though.

It might already exist, though. I don't use RSS, so I really wouldn't know ;) . Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: Any chance of a combined RSS feed? http://osnews.com/thread?341478 http://osnews.com/thread?341478 combined rss would be great ;)

I like where you guys are going with this but I like my feed unadulterated ;) hehe


cheers and Merry Christmas!. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:28:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Nossie) Comments Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341479 http://osnews.com/thread?341479 Hmmm. I'm not sure if this would be a considered a "Glorified RSS reqest". But regarding "long articles"... it's always seemed to me that the editors all have their own personal accounts which probably command more attention than the regular user accounts, anyway. Why not keep the official stuff relatively "just the facts" and then post the opinions as regular posts. Lots of people here "know a thing or two about a number of subjects" and find the regular comment section to be a perfectly adequate vehicle. I dunno. It just seems like in the past, when neighborhood site operators start talking about "Editorial Vision" and stuff, it only bodes ill for the future.

OSNews is great. But it's not CBS News, and you're not Walter Cronkite. And that state of affairs is perfectly fine with me. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:33:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments All hail lord Xenu http://osnews.com/thread?341480 http://osnews.com/thread?341480 Since Eugenia took the backseat, your opinion was what kept us reading (and laughing at) osnews Thom. No seriously, it's great to read stuff from someone intelligent and ballsy enough to voice critical opinions.

Keep up the good work Thom. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (SEJeff) Comments RE: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341481 http://osnews.com/thread?341481
Why not keep the official stuff relatively "just the facts" and then post the opinions as regular posts.


That's the privilege we have as editors ;) . That's just how the world works. So to be blunt: no.

The thing is though, if you submit an article to us, or even a well-written regular long news item, we'll publish it. We are very open to publishing different opinions - we always have been. In other words, you can have the same kind of podium that we have. Feel free to use it. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 17:38:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE: Any chance of a combined RSS feed? http://osnews.com/thread?341484 http://osnews.com/thread?341484 The RSS feed never changed. It was always all items, page 1 and 2, and it will stay that way for the time being. In the event we decide to break them up, we will offer a combined feed for certain. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Adam S) Comments Comment by vikramsharma http://osnews.com/thread?341485 http://osnews.com/thread?341485 OSNews is my homepage on my Linux laptop and my mac. Merry Christmas everyone and Happy New Year to all. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (vikramsharma) Comments More content http://osnews.com/thread?341488 http://osnews.com/thread?341488 I personally think this is a great idea.
It fits in nicely with a blog post by Tim O'Reilly I was reading a couple of days ago (not linked by osnews) http://radar.oreilly.com/2008/12/waking-up-from-nightmare-on-tech-s... which comments on how much of the Web 2.0 hype is over sites linking to content which never actually produce any of their own; leading, perhaps to less quality content as the advertising moves from those producing content to those linking to it.
Producing your own content centered on topics started by others seems like a neat solution.

WillEdited 2008-12-25 19:56 UTC Thu, 25 Dec 2008 19:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Willstuppence) Comments RE: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341489 http://osnews.com/thread?341489 Content needs personality.

A news item is going to be presented and written about on a million blogs up and down the Internet.

OSnews can’t be everything to everyone, but it can be something to someone. It is better that we provide something unique to the Internet -- even if some people don’t like it -- than to be nothing more than a Yahoo Pipes feed regurgitating everybody else’s RSS.

Yes, our "opinions" will piss some people off, but we as news editors are not soulless, genderless, completely unbiased machines. OSnews will be no more biased, unbiased or opinionated with "longer" items than it was without them.

We want to bring original thoughts, and original discussion to the table, and we can only do that by taking our roles as editors more seriously.

Kind regards,
Kroc Camen. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments RE: More content http://osnews.com/thread?341490 http://osnews.com/thread?341490 I wholeheartedly agree. While OSNews serves as an excellent news aggregator that caters to us OS enthusiasts, I fully approve of the move towards offering unique and original content. I'd love to see OSNews become a definitive source for opinion and criticism on the world of operating systems

OSNews editors: Please feel encouraged to voice your own takes on issues, but remember to listen to your readers, too, for is it not written:

"Whoever loves correction loves knowledge, but he who hates reproof is stupid." ?

Keep up the good - nay, the Great - work. ;) Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:06:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (rexstuff) Comments RE[2]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341491 http://osnews.com/thread?341491
OSnews can’t be everything to everyone, but it can be something to someone.

Well, "read more" is definitely a move in the right direction from the unnecessarily annoying "my take"... as long as the story links are in the short blurb visible without having to read through the opinion part. (Restricting the blurbs to "just the facts, ma'am" would be a plus, too.) Which is not to say that I generally disklike reading you guys' opinions. That's more a matter of disliking feeling manipulated. I suspect that without some strong aversion to feeling manipulated, we'd all be using Windows, never having even thought to consider other operating systems (regardless of what we've actually settled upon), and most of us wouldn't be here.Edited 2008-12-25 20:16 UTC Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:07:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: More content http://osnews.com/thread?341492 http://osnews.com/thread?341492 To all,

And if you know something better than us -- we would want nothing more than our smart, well-informed, and passionate community to correct us.

The current editorial staff cannot be experts on every subject, and if news items you care about are falling to the wayside of Pg.2, then consider contributing original content, your own opinion and expertise attached to news items--or put yourself forward as an editor to cover the subjects you know well. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Kroc) Comments RE[3]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341493 http://osnews.com/thread?341493
as long as the story links are in the short blurb visible without having to read through the opinion part.


Which is exactly what we promise to do. It's in the article, actually ;) . Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments Appreciation http://osnews.com/thread?341494 http://osnews.com/thread?341494 This is take two as my "is this really what you want to be doing right now?" filter kicked in, so I switched to Safari ;)

I don't know when or how I started reading OSnews but I have been reading for a long time. I am not the talker type of guy on the Internet, probably because I am not a native English speaker so basically I am a reader. I have actually just now registered for OSnews and posting my first comment.

I have been reading and enjoying OSnews over RSS and haven't been onto the actual site for a while. I like OSnews the way it is, but I think it will be at least as good as it is right now in the new direction you are taking. Internet is all about getting to information but I have just recently noticed that Web 2.0 is all about what you think about this information, whether it is your friends, your photos or news items.

So kudos for the new direction and thanks for all the fish -but please keep the news items, blurbs, whatever you call them so that I don't have to go out and find a new news source.

Cheers,
Alpay Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:34:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (alpayerturkmen) Comments RE[4]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341495 http://osnews.com/thread?341495
Which is exactly what we promise to do. It's in the article, actually ;) .

That being under 'read more', I only kind of skimmed it. ;-) And I missed that bit.

But I kinda figured that was in the plan. :-)

Don't take my suggestion as being a terribly strong one. The existing plan looks reasonable.Edited 2008-12-25 20:36 UTC Thu, 25 Dec 2008 20:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments I'm all for it http://osnews.com/thread?341505 http://osnews.com/thread?341505 I have to say I have a good feeling about this direction and hope you attract new writers with more content.

I would also like to see the Resources section of OSnews updated and perhaps links to other OS related sites of interest. Thu, 25 Dec 2008 23:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Dirge) Comments RE: Appreciation http://osnews.com/thread?341512 http://osnews.com/thread?341512 Your English is excellent and in my humble opinion is better than most of us who are native speakers. Please do not be afraid to post your opinions in the future. Many of us regular readers would love to read what you have to say. Fri, 26 Dec 2008 00:59:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (soonerproud) Comments Thom, I must say.. http://osnews.com/thread?341514 http://osnews.com/thread?341514 .. this may well be the most exciting internal-policy article I've read on this site. Great ideas. It's nice to see how OSNews is shaping up. Congratulations! Fri, 26 Dec 2008 01:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (wannabe geek) Comments I don't see any Page 2 side box http://osnews.com/thread?341519 http://osnews.com/thread?341519 I used to see the page 2 side box but no longer, what gives? Fri, 26 Dec 2008 04:22:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Angel) Comments Collapsed items? http://osnews.com/thread?341530 http://osnews.com/thread?341530 Sorry for uneducated question, but what is the purpose of some items being collapsed by default? Can anyone explain the logic behind this? Thanks a lot ... Fri, 26 Dec 2008 07:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (-pekr-) Comments erm... http://osnews.com/thread?341533 http://osnews.com/thread?341533 Call me daft but I can't find the Page 2 link, and I actually never saw it before. Not running an ad blocker or anything.

EDIT: Also, glad to hear about the change in editorial direction. It seems to be a continuation of the overall rise in quality OSNews has seen over the last year or so.

Keep it up!Edited 2008-12-26 08:57 UTC Fri, 26 Dec 2008 08:55:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (thebackwash) Comments User input on accepted articles? http://osnews.com/thread?341534 http://osnews.com/thread?341534 I like the direction things are taking, yet I think the rethink could go even further. Have you considered something similar to Slashdot's Firehose, where users can contribute ratings as to whether a story should get accepted on the front (/second) page? This would not only lessen the strain on the editors but also ensure that news the users find interesting but that the editors might not have picked still makes the cut.

One step further would be to allow the users to create their own "long pieces". In some sense this is already built-in since users can contribute original stories; why not extend it to also being allowed to contribute "long pieces" with a news and an opinion section? This combined with the user-rating system would ensure that trash does not get posted, while increasing the number of in-depth articles, all while sparing the actual editors lots of time (and saving money, since most of the "editors" in effect are volunteers).

As an added bonus the "blog-esque" aspect that comes with having a few contributing editors gets alleviated by a much wider range of opinions.

I think this would be in the "true" spirit of Web 2.0.

Think it over.

CheersEdited 2008-12-26 09:20 UTC Fri, 26 Dec 2008 09:15:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Moochman) Comments RE: Collapsed items? http://osnews.com/thread?341539 http://osnews.com/thread?341539 The collapsed ones are the "page 2" items. Originally, a sidebar was introduced for this purpose. Then someone suggested listing them together with the page 1 items, showing only the headlines. This experiment is what you see now. In the article, however, Thom says they are going back to the sidebar. Fri, 26 Dec 2008 10:54:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (bogomipz) Comments RE: User input on accepted articles? http://osnews.com/thread?341542 http://osnews.com/thread?341542
Have you considered something similar to Slashdot's Firehose, where users can contribute ratings as to whether a story should get accepted on the front (/second) page?


Short answer: ain't gonna happen.

Long answer: You see, OSNews is a site with a traditional editorial gatekeeping model. Slashdot used to be like that too, but then they caved under the pressure of Digg's success, and they figured they could create some halfbaked model in between traditional editorial gatekeeping and "modern" web-two-dot-oh user-controlled content.

We will not go there. We are already quite open, as you can see which headlines are in the waiting list, and everyone can submit news and articles to us. I personally do not believe in user-controlled content the way Digg does. It may have its place, but that place is not here on OSNews. Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:11:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[4]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341545 http://osnews.com/thread?341545 I just couldn't bring myself to wade through that meandering edict in it's entirety. Perhaps you could could summarize the changed? Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:35:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments RE[5]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341547 http://osnews.com/thread?341547 I'm not a summarising automaton. The article is pretty clear. You might misunderstand the changes without the proper context anyway. Fri, 26 Dec 2008 12:45:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[6]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341550 http://osnews.com/thread?341550
I'm not a summarising automaton.

Wanted: Summarizing automaton. Brief experience necessary. Contact so-applications@osnews.com ;-) Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:13:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE: All hail lord Xenu http://osnews.com/thread?341551 http://osnews.com/thread?341551 I agree, don't always like or agree what he has to say, but I am always compelled to read it. And the topics that spurr off as a result are equally compelling, keep up the good work! Fri, 26 Dec 2008 13:14:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (hollovoid) Comments Will the new plan result in some things being ignored? http://osnews.com/thread?341613 http://osnews.com/thread?341613 Previously, it seemed like OSNews was doing a good job at being unbiased. Has this changed? Your initial statement appears to imply that it will.

I sincerely hope this is not the case.

GC Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:36:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (heron) Comments RE: Will the new plan result in some things being ignored? http://osnews.com/thread?341614 http://osnews.com/thread?341614
Previously, it seemed like OSNews was doing a good job at being unbiased.

The sky's red here on Planet Claire. What's it like where you are?Edited 2008-12-27 05:40 UTC Sat, 27 Dec 2008 05:40:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[2]: User input on accepted articles? http://osnews.com/thread?341625 http://osnews.com/thread?341625 Would it be fair to say you are taking OSNews in the direction of Ars Technica? They just have long articles, and I've always liked the quality that comes from that. As you gain editors I suspect this site will become even better than it already is. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 10:31:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (iain.dalton) Comments RE[6]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341632 http://osnews.com/thread?341632 No, it's not a clear article. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:46:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments RE[7]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341633 http://osnews.com/thread?341633 Well, nobody else seems to be having any problems. I'm sorry, but the article is crystal clear, and i'm not going to pull everything out of context just because you are having trouble reading. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:48:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: Will the new plan result in some things being ig http://osnews.com/thread?341636 http://osnews.com/thread?341636 HUH? I think this is an honest and simple question which deserves a straight answer. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:18:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (heron) Comments RE: Will the new plan result in some things being ignored? http://osnews.com/thread?341639 http://osnews.com/thread?341639
Previously, it seemed like OSNews was doing a good job at being unbiased. Has this changed?


The article is pretty clear. We've never been unbiased, it's just that now we will be more direct about how we editors feel, but only in the longer items. It will not affect which stories we run, just how we run the part below the read more link.

Then again, we've been doing what I announced above for months and months now, and it doesn't seem like you really noticed. So, no, nothing's going to change for you. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:49:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: Will the new plan result in some things being ig http://osnews.com/thread?341641 http://osnews.com/thread?341641 Seems to me that that original article is an acceptance about bias and working around it.

The way to get an "unbiased" site is to have authors of different bias. There's no reason to ask Thom to change his bias, as part of being biased is being well informed on the topic you're biased about.

So, bring in others with different expertise and bias, and then, while individuals may be biased, the site as a whole may well not be, or minimally will at least have a broader scope. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 18:17:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (whartung) Comments RE[8]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341646 http://osnews.com/thread?341646 Thom, sorry, this is a meandering post with no clear structure which does poor job of actually conveying the nature of whatever changes have taken place - let me demonstrate:


First para - introduction. Nothing specific said about changes made. But read on for specifics.

Para 2 - Page 2 is here (never mind the fact that there's no link to it anywhere I can see). Talk about the fuzzy criteria for page 2 - gut feeling - but this has changed - more about that later.

Para 3 - "long items" - of which this paragraph appears to be an example. Something about input/output posted on the "crew mailing list". No idea what the crew mailing list is. No idea how longer items are a new/novel feature.

Para 4-6 - History of "my take" - much hated. Extended exegesis on "neutrality" which manages not to convey much about your actual position other than an insider post from the crew mailing list.

Para 7 - Wow - a real feature. Links in the summary. Hosanna. Welcome to 1999 Slashdot. But of course you feel the need to qualify this and divert into a non-sequiter about pompous/clever headlines.

Para 8 - Finally back to page 2. 200 words to say short items go to page 2. So I have to read to the middle of the darned post, and then consume 200 words of fluff to learn about probably the biggest major change. But then again, I still can't find a link to page 2.

Para 9 - More talk about Page 2 criteria.

Paras 10-13 - OS news is not Thom's blog, need for more editors/writers This apparently requires 4 paragraphs of exposition.

Para 14 - What you can do to help - write longer submissions.

Para 15 - Merry xmas.

Para 16 - Please provide constructive commentary.


So let me summarize the changes for those who didn't take the time to wade through your 16 paragraphs of dense prose:

1. Main page will concentrate on longer summary articles.
2. OSNews is trying to grow the writer/editorial staff to support #1.
3. Shorter items will be moved to the mysterious page 2 (which I can't seem to find).
4. Links will always appear in summaries.
5. You can help with #1 by submitting longer/meatier summaries. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 19:56:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments RE[9]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341647 http://osnews.com/thread?341647
3. Shorter items will be moved to the mysterious page 2 (which I can't seem to find).

http://www.osnews.com/page2

One thing that OSNews does well is maintain an aesthetically pleasing , logical, and easy to remember link structure.Edited 2008-12-27 20:07 UTC Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:04:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[9]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341648 http://osnews.com/thread?341648
So let me summarize the changes for those who didn't take the time to wade through your 16 paragraphs of dense prose:



So you did understand it.

Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's bad. It just means YOU didn't like it. Everyone else here seems to be perfectly fine with it, so I'm assuming you are a statistical glitch.

In any case, the the article wasn't fluff, it was context. The moment YOU run a website like OSNews is the moment you will also understand why it's necessary to be so descriptive when it comes to policy changes.Edited 2008-12-27 20:07 UTC Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[10]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341649 http://osnews.com/thread?341649
Just because you didn't like it doesn't mean it's bad. It just means YOU didn't like it. Everyone else here seems to be perfectly fine with it, so I'm assuming you are a statistical glitch.

Well... so far, few seem to be strongly against the plan. Not that it would make that much difference if they were. Consider it constructive feedback when I say that if I knew of a site of similar orientation, and which had as high quality a user community I would likely move to it. It is the user community and not so much OSNews itself which makes it worth visiting, IMO. In fact, I suspect that if another similar site did get started, and gained enough momentum to get noticed, you might be facing a mass exodus. The attitude of "this is a done deal, and you guys really have no choice" is a recurring one here are OSNews. One which has never sat very well with me. But for the moment, I don't think I would want to sacrifice the conversations I have with my friends (and foes) here.

Which does bring to mind a suggestion that I have actually made here before, but only in jest. But I ran into a site which actually supported it, and decided that maybe it might be worth seriously discussing. I'm not sure I'm actually recommending this. But I ran into a site the other day which had a "Friends" system, similar to here at OSNews, to allow one to explicitly organize their "Friend/Fan" relationships. But they also had a complementary "Foes" system to allow users to explicitly organize their "Foe/Enemy" relationships. At the very least, discussion of this might be entertaining. :-)Edited 2008-12-27 20:33 UTC Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:30:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[11]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341650 http://osnews.com/thread?341650
you might be facing a mass exodus


You mean like the one we've been in the middle of ever since, like, 2003? Sat, 27 Dec 2008 20:43:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[12]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341651 http://osnews.com/thread?341651
You mean like the one we've been in the middle of ever since, like, 2003?

I'm not sure what your question is. What is the significance of 2003? I'm pretty sure I was a reader back through that time (under an old account with a username which escapes me at this time.) Did something special happen in 2003?

BTW, would my old account, unused for years, still exist somewhere? I'm now curious as to just how long I *have* been reading OSNews. Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:05:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (sbergman27) Comments RE[10]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341703 http://osnews.com/thread?341703 On the actual changes I don't really care much either way. I like longer commentary, but I tend to find the longer articles here are of a lower quality than say Ars Technica - but I will grant that they are getting better.

What I was trying to get through your head is that your long winded post didn't do a very good job of communicating those changes in a clear manner. You buried most of the major changes in the middle and end.

This appears to be a common theme with you Thom, you like to force people to read all the way through something (by for example burying the links in the "read more" section, a practice now finally abandoned, but originally heavily defended by yourself).

You will become a better writer if you learn how to summarize at the top, and leave detailed expository for the end. You might not like that style, but it's the way things a best done on the web. I am a busy person. I want to be able to decide if I want to read on into the detail quickly - and if I don't read on, I want to at least come away with some useful information.

Take for example Kroc's post on Ruby. I had no idea what the hell it was talking about until I read 4 paragraphs into the "read more" section. That's just broken. To be honest I wouldn't have read the article if it had been properly summarized. But I read it just to figure out what the hell it was about.

If this is by design, it's extremely wrong-headed. Don't coerce your readers into reading things they wouldn't have otherwise - use your noggin to succinctly summarize the story well enough that the discerning reader can decide for themselves. Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:42:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments RE[10]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341704 http://osnews.com/thread?341704 Excellent, I'll bookmark that, because well, the site maintainers can't seem to put a link to a major portion of the site in the title bar. How user friendly. Sun, 28 Dec 2008 13:44:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (joshv) Comments RE[11]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341707 http://osnews.com/thread?341707
Excellent, I'll bookmark that, because well, the site maintainers can't seem to put a link to a major portion of the site in the title bar. How user friendly.


Currently, there is NO NEED for a link to page 2, because page is integrated INTO the front page, as part of our ongoing experimentation. As the article explains, page 2 will move back to the sidebar, which will contain a link to the dedicated page 2, just as it did when we first introduced the concept a few weeks ago. Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:10:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[11]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341708 http://osnews.com/thread?341708
This appears to be a common theme with you Thom, you like to force people to read all the way through something (by for example burying the links in the "read more" section, a practice now finally abandoned, but originally heavily defended by yourself).


This only happened during the first few DAYS of the first longer items, MONTHS and MONTHS ago. We stopped doing that right away when we received our first complaint, and NEVER did it again. You are exaggerating.

You will become a better writer if you learn how to summarize at the top, and leave detailed expository for the end. You might not like that style, but it's the way things a best done on the web. I am a busy person. I want to be able to decide if I want to read on into the detail quickly - and if I don't read on, I want to at least come away with some useful information.


Dear lord, and I thought I was arrogant.

I will not write in a staccato information style where I will cater to people who are not willing to spend time reading articles. It are people like you that make all those pointless comments asking questions that were perfectly answered within the article - but you missed it, because you were too busy to read the actual article - yet you seem to have enough time to write comments with questions in them that everybody else had already answered by reading the article.

How quaint.

You have made it clear now that the article itself wasn't bad or incoherent (as evidenced by everyone else here who had no problems understanding it), it's just that you didn't want to spend time to read it. Which is fine, but please don't confuse your own unwillingness with bad writing on my part. Sun, 28 Dec 2008 14:19:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Thom_Holwerda) Comments RE[2]: Regular posts http://osnews.com/thread?341852 http://osnews.com/thread?341852 I realize this is an old posting but I was on vacation at the time.

I think the long article should be as neutral as possible, while realizing that complete neutrality is impossible. But, I also think opinions on the material are fine, I just think there should be a clear dividing line.

My ideal osnews would be such:

New wizzerbang gadget gets new Whosiwhat

Project leaders annocned today that the wizzerbang gadget would now have whosiwhat functionality. This comes in response to frequent criticism from its community that it was falling behind arch competitor Tartimal who has had the whosiwhat functionality for upwards of a year.


Commentary by Bill Shooter Of Bul:

Wizzerbang is spending too much time trying to play catch up and become Tartimal, while not doing enough to enhance it sown unique functionality. Whosiwhat-ism is nice for those that need it, but everyone that does need it is already using Tartimal. Those that use Wizzerbang have a different use case that is best left uncluttered with the modifications to the codebase that whosiwhat will necessitate.


Comments:


Bill is obviously a puppet of big Gargiphol. Anyone int the Yasterfund industry needs whosiwhat, whether they know it or not.

~eyesAreOpen Mon, 29 Dec 2008 22:02:00 GMT donotreply@osnews.com (Bill Shooter of Bul) Comments