In article <f8g8lq$r4o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
waterskidoo <water.skidoo@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> > Consider that Roy says that there are one or more people who dig down
> > his comments on Digg, which number about 50 comments a day. According
> > to Roy, the amount of time and effort it would take to do that is such
> > that it must be someone being paid.
>
> Aren;t you assuming it's a single person?
If it is multiple people, that just makes the argument stronger, as that
would be less time and effort per person.
...
> > But it is a lot more time and effort to write and post 50 comments a day
> > than it is to find them and dig them down. Therefore, BY ROY'S OWN
> > ARGUMENT, Roy must be being paid to comment.
>
> You make a point but I think both of you would have a difficult
> time proving people are being paid to digg.
> Some people collect stamps, Roy's hobby seems to be advocating
> Linux. What's so bad about that?
Nothing's bad about it. My point here is that Roy is trying to argue
that people are paid to digg down his comments, but his argument works
equally well when applied him.
> ::Devil's advocate post on:::
>
> Also by the same token, you and Hadron following him around seems
> to be a little bit odd as well.
> Why the fascination?
> Are you guys being paid to discredit Roy?
> Why not just score his posts down if they irritate you so much?
>
> :::off::::
I don't follow him around. He posts a lot to places I read, so I see
his posts. Since I have excellent news gathering tools, I often am
already familiar with what he is posting, and so when he posts something
this is incorrect, I will either comment on it, or mod it down (if it is
posted somewhere that allows moderation), or both. (And about 10% of
the time, I'll mod him up).
Roy runs into problems on Digg for several reasons. Here are a few:
(1) Repetitive, off-topic comments. For example, if there is a story
about Intel, Roy will post something about how Intel is trying to screw
the OLPC and is an enemy of open source. It doesn't matter if the story
had nothing to do with any of that. Diggers will put up with that on
occasion, but he'll post basically the same thing to every story about
Intel, and that doesn't go ever well. He's got a whole arsenal of these
things--he's got some for Intel stories, some for AMD stories, some for
Microsoft stories, some for Apple stories
(2) Bad presentation. There are two things he does in his presentation
that annoys people.
(a) He posts long comments that contain quotes and links (much like
his postings here), but formatted in a very annoying way. There have
been many complaints to him about the formatting, and the Digg staff
told him they don't like it. He stopped for a while, but he's reverted.
(b) Spelling or grammar errors. Normally people overlook the
occasional spelling or grammar error, but Roy stated in one of his
comments that he does not proofread his Digg posts. I suspect that
because of that, some people are stricter with Roy on spelling and
grammar than they would be on someone who tries to get it right and
fails.
(3) Labeling people. There's a large list of columnists for major
computing magazines who Roy has decided are shills or trolls. When
someone posts a story linking to one of their columns, Roy is quickly
there with "Soandso is a known Microsoft shill. Do not read his column".
That might have been mildly interesting the first time Roy posted it,
but by the 20th, it gets pretty tiring. Digg users want to see comments
that discuss the content of the linked column, not accusations about the
author (especially when the author is a well-known columnist at a major
magazine, and so nearly everyone is already familiar with him, and
already knows where he stands with regard to Microsoft).
--
--Tim Smith
|
|
