[jacquesm]

I don't understand your 'red herring' reference, if you do not increase the signal-to-noise ratio when you are perfectly capable of doing so then you can't really complain.

Also, everybody can 'flag' articles that are not suitable.

What was your favourite social news site before ?

[biohacker42]

It simply means that it doesn't matter how many articles you submit. If more people prefer other articles, with say more linkbait headlines, then yours will be buried. In short, simply submitting and voting is not a solution when more, many more people are voting other things up. More generic, shallower things.

And I flag a lot of articles, but very few of those get banned, same principle as with submitting. If a few people flag and a lot vote up, it stays. And "few" and "a lot" are relative terms here. They'll change with time.

I've seen narrow and deep focused discussions be replaced with wide and shallow discussions on many sites, but in rough order: Slashdot/Digg/Reddit/programming-reddit/science-reddit and I know I'm forgetting a few that came and went fast.

[skwaddar]

I'm going to follow you because that's my path too (though Digg was short lived).

The process is known as "the September that never ends".

Slashdot is a bit better now days though the rate of submission is slow.

[biohacker42]

Yep, Digg was a blip for me as well. It turned to crap lightning fast.

When PGs essays first led people away from Slashdot to Reddit, there was a noticable drop in the quality of Slashdot. And early on Reddit was a like beautiful jewel of social news sites.