4 ms·
> Why does anyone read WSJ anymore? Currently, your post is at DH1 (http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html). What point in th
by gpcz 13y ago
> Why does anyone read WSJ anymore?
Currently, your post is at DH1 (http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html http://paulgraham.com/disagree.html). What point in the article do you disagree with and why?
- arethuza 13y agoApologies for going a bit meta, but that would make a pretty good rating scheme for comments on here - DH6 through to AH6...
- pilgrim689 13y agoI wonder if pg considered this: replacing up/down arrows with such a scale (0-name calling, 1-ad hominem, etc.) to force users to think about what up/down means every time they vote.
- kenny_r 13y agoThat's very similar to Slashdot's moderating system, which I think is great.
- josefresco 13y agoUhg. IMHO there's a reason Digg and Reddit (and it's HN offspring) grew to prominence and it's partly due to Slashdot's confusing and archaic moderating system. I've been visiting for years and still don't fully understand, or care to decode how the system of moderating and nested comments works.
- josefresco 13y agoAlong with pointing our which HN rule was violated, how about adding some meat to the debate in order to demonstrate the type of post HN encourages? Such as actual readership/traffic numbers for the WSJ. For example this news piece claiming WSJ numbers are up after Murdoch took over: http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-readership-is-up-20-since-rupert-took-over-2010-5 http://www.businessinsider.com/wall-street-journal-readershi... I'm not saying the news story is accurate, but it does contribute to the conversation whereas the parent comment and yours do not.