OSNews

Yup. I do this to prevent people from not reading the "read more". The "read more" on articles that we have been doing the past few weeks is a new element on OSNews, and I need to coerce people into seeing them, so they know it's there. It also prevent people from not seeing the whole picture; the new frontpage items on OSNews are far more general and less information-dense than they used to be - with information meaning information from the actual news article at hand. In other words, they are less meaningful, so you actually NEED the read more to gain a better understanding. The new style teasers generally contain nothing but a little history or background information on the topic at hand, but relatively little from the actual newsworthy article.

OSNews had turned into a glorified RSS feed with three lines teasers all over the place, no background information, no nothing, and an endless list of pointless test releases of Linux distributions, and meaningless items like "here's a review of GreatBSD 2.3.6.1.1.1a. Go read it." I've changed that. It's certainly not perfect yet, but give us time.

This is the new style for OSNews, which allows us to do more thorough items, with more information, and maybe an opinion or two. We've heard nothing but good responses, so everyone better get used to it .

Edited 2008-05-05 15:36 UTC

So OSNews is the Thom Tech Blog now? Seriously, how now is it different from a blog? I like link aggrregation, and I'm sure I'm not alone. To be frank, I really don't care about your take on the subjects. I'll form my own, thank you. I come for links. I also don't care that you offer your take,but it's very presumptuious to so openly try to force it on us.

Edited 2008-05-05 16:09 UTC

And you don't see anything wrong with that? I rely on osnews to let me know when something related to my interests is happening. When it does I expect a link to the actual information. The "extra details" you provider are either a subset of the linked article, and thus not useful to me because I will be reading the article anyway, or are comments that should be posted in reply instead.



Do you not see what's wrong with that? The summary *should* provide information, hopefully enough that I can decide whether I want to peruse the article in full. Forcing me to click once to decide whether I want to click again wastes my time. Give me sufficient information *and* a link up front!



That's fine, even good. When something is posted that I am not familiar with I like the extra background describing it. But why is this a reason to remove the link to the article?



It's fine that the system "allows" you to do more thorough items, but I am not seeing that. I am seeing "requires readers to waste their time" on perfectly routine items where details are *not* required.



You're hearing a negative response now. Please stop hiding article links! Add "read more" pages to you heart's content, if you must. You could just post a comment like everybody else, but power is meant to be abused. Doesn't bother me. Just don't let this fancy new feature of yours allow you to lose perspective on what you're doing here: I don't come here to read your commentary, I come to find out what's going on in the OS and related world. If it's not original reporting then I *just* want the link to the source material.