User Generated Content Usually Sucks
Adam Scheinberg, January 8, 2007 (18 years ago)
This goes to show how worthless digg.com comments can be. Nearly every comment is dugg down. C'mon, are these the kinds of comments that people feel they should take the time to type and submit. Do they think other people will get joy from reading them?
Read this comments on this inane, embarassing mess. Folks, this is proof that user generated content is not necessarily anything more than just volume. So is this, by the way.
Sites like Slashdot and OSNews are mostly valuable because their users contribute so much quality in the comments. Slashdot has been better since I moved my threshold to +3. OSNews is pretty good at 0. But most sites that make it too easy to participate are complete crap.
Read this comments on this inane, embarassing mess. Folks, this is proof that user generated content is not necessarily anything more than just volume. So is this, by the way.
Sites like Slashdot and OSNews are mostly valuable because their users contribute so much quality in the comments. Slashdot has been better since I moved my threshold to +3. OSNews is pretty good at 0. But most sites that make it too easy to participate are complete crap.
2007-01-08 18:39:27
Well said! Same goes for the user generated video. YouTube made it big because it allowed copyrighted video to be hosted, not because people's videos are interesting. They aren't.