Linked by Thom Holwerda on Thu 25th Dec 2008 16:07 UTC
OSNews, Generic OSes Consider the following a little Christmas gift. Some of you may have already noticed, but for a few months already OSNews has seen a shift in content. Not necessarily in the subjects we cover, but more in the way we present our news. We've experimented for long enough now - we have settled on a definitive change in our content type. Read on for the details.
Thread beginning with comment 341648
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[9]: Regular posts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Dec 2008 20:05 UTC in reply to "RE[8]: Regular posts"
Thom_Holwerda
Member since:
2005-06-29

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

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Regular posts
by sbergman27 on Sat 27th Dec 2008 20:30 in reply to "RE[9]: Regular posts"
sbergman27 Member since:
2005-07-24

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

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[11]: Regular posts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sat 27th Dec 2008 20:43 in reply to "RE[10]: Regular posts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

you might be facing a mass exodus


You mean like the one we've been in the middle of ever since, like, 2003?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[10]: Regular posts
by joshv on Sun 28th Dec 2008 13:42 in reply to "RE[9]: Regular posts"
joshv Member since:
2006-03-18

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.

Reply Parent Score: 3

RE[11]: Regular posts
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 28th Dec 2008 14:19 in reply to "RE[10]: Regular posts"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

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.

Reply Parent Score: 1