2 ms·
I usually start with the comments. As someone else said, many sites are dumpster fires, whether it's ads, JS bloat, or just poor design, and the comments often
by forgotmypw17 6y ago
I usually start with the comments. As someone else said, many sites are dumpster fires, whether it's ads, JS bloat, or just poor design, and the comments often have an alternative link for the content.
- krapp 6y agoUnfortunately, the more people comment without having read the articles, simply reading into the title, the more of a dumpster fire the threads themselves become. I wish we could replace the rule against accusing people of not having read the article with a rule not to comment in a thread unless you have read the article.
- forgotmypw17 6y agoI did not say I do that. But usually if the medium is crap, so is the content, so reading the article before commenting adds little to the discussion anyway.
- krapp 6y agoI wasn't accusing you of anything, it's a general problem. I've seen plenty of potentially interesting articles descend into flamebait arguments, boilerplate rants and snarking over misinterpretations of the title. It's a chronic problem for a community focused on intellectual curiosity to be so often incurious and intellectually dishonest. Reading the article always adds something to the discussion - if the article is of low quality then it should be flagged rather than serve as a magnet for low quality comments. But not reading the article at all never adds anything to the discussion. Even reading far enough to determine whether reading further and commenting is worthwhile is better than making assumptions (and comments) based on the domain or title or what have you.