• If you are citizen of an European Union member nation, you may not use this service unless you are at least 16 years old.



Page history last edited by PBworks 13 years, 4 months ago

The idea stock exchange could become better than Slashdot.


Reasons to agree

It seems like Sashdot is mimicking the very worst part of conversations, in that every thing that someone says gets heard by everyone else, and then when anyone responds we all have to see the whole ugly mess.

Instead of the:







method, we should use the:




Reasons to agree #1 Reasons to disagree #1


Reasons to agree #2 Reasons to disagree #2


Reasons to agree #3 Reasons to disagree #3




The problem with the way Slashdot works now is that progress is never made. A conversation string is recorded, but that is just one of infinite possible conversations that could have taken place with that subject. For instance, someone post something on Slashdot, and typically someone will post a reason why they disagree with the original idea, and then someone else will post a reason why they disagree with the second idea. After a few post some good ideas may have been brought up, but there is no way to keep it all organized, except chronologically.



But most people have more than just one reason for believing a conclusion. And just because someone brings up a good reason not to come to that conclusion, the original person probably won't change their mind. How could each of his reasons be evaluated independently.



The way Slashdot is currently organized this is impossible. However if they simply let people submit reasons to agree or disagree to an idea, and if they put these in different columns, the whole process of debate would improve. Eventually people could evaluate each reason to agree with or disagree with the idea, and the best reasons would go to the top.


I think that there should be one place where people submit an idea. Fine, slash dot does that. But what I would do differently people posting responses to my post, and then having them tacked on in a continuous string, that goes on for ever and never gets any where but away from the regular idea, I don’t know about you but most discussions that I have using the statement-response1-response2-response3 method don’t get anywhere. One of the main problems being that by the time you get to response3 you’ve already changed the subject 3 times.


The group should be large enough to provide stimulating interchange. We could use the entire online community. Historically, conflict resolution professionals have also said that the group should be small enough to encourage both individual participation and free-wheeling inventing. However the only problems come when too many people are trying to talk at the same time, however this is not a problem on the internet. On this web site a million people could be participating, but everyone will still get a chance to vote and submit their ideas.

Comments (0)

You don't have permission to comment on this page.