Saidit has turned into a thoughtless news aggregator

submitted by bobbobbybob from self.SaidIt

Most of the links on the front page are now devoid of any content except a hyperlink or three.

This seems counter to the intentions of the site, which is supposed to nurture debate. Seems to me the OPs need to have something to say about the links they post. At the very least a summary of the link contents.

I'd like automated removal of these low efforts waste of space.

all 32 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]HeyImSancho 14 insightful - 3 fun14 insightful - 2 fun15 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

I usually put my 2 cents with everything I post, as an attempt to foster conversation. Overall, I tend to agree with 'write' something, but participation is participation.

Sometimes, people feel like talking, sometimes they don't, and then sometimes, I guess they really don't want to talk with 'some people', lol.

[–]fred_red_beans 15 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 0 fun16 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

I like it as a news aggregator. Sometimes I just want to share and see other information submitted by people who aren't paid or looking to gain anything. I don't feel the need to discuss every post.

[–][deleted]  (14 children)

[deleted]

    [–]magnora7 11 insightful - 4 fun11 insightful - 3 fun12 insightful - 4 fun -  (11 children)

    We've thought about requiring a 2-sentence "submission statement" with each post, that is a comment explaining why they posted it and why it matters. There are some subs on reddit that use this with seemingly good success

    [–]Drewski 14 insightful - 2 fun14 insightful - 1 fun15 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

    I'd be ok with some subs implementing this, but I don't think it should be a sitewide requirement.

    [–][deleted]  (1 child)

    [deleted]

      [–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      posting hyperlinks isn't 'providing content'. It is spamming crap. You could write a bot to do it and post bare links every few seconds.

      [–]bobbobbybob[S] 7 insightful - 3 fun7 insightful - 2 fun8 insightful - 3 fun -  (0 children)

      This would improve things a lot. anything to stop the posts with nothing but hyperlinks.

      [–]HibikiBlack 5 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      Some subs should add this as a rule. But I don't think the whole site should work like this. But in exchange, moderation should be more severe. I wish I could give you guys a hand with moderation but my hands are tied.

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

      This is similar to what r/conspiracy did to wreck it. :-/

      [–]magnora7 5 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 0 fun6 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I thought it actually worked out for them pretty well. I wasn't a fan at first, but I think it worked.

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, I was late to the game.

      It's probably an unjustified bias on my part.

      You're probably right.

      [–]HibikiBlack 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      The SS was the best thing that ever happened to r/conspiracy.

      [–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, I was late to the game.

      It's probably an unjustified bias on my part.

      [–]FormosaOolong 6 insightful - 1 fun6 insightful - 0 fun7 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I don't post much, but the reason I'm posting it is often reflected in the words I chose for the title. Then I usually add a comment underneath, but once a discussion starts, that comment moves to the bottom.

      [–]SierraKiloBravo 7 insightful - 2 fun7 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

      When you make a link post there is no option to make any comment at submission time. Are you suggesting that when link posts are made the OP should also post a thread comment about why they posted it?

      There are plenty of examples here and on the other site where the link alone generates conversations. Posting a comment to go along with a link could assist with this.

      When you make a text post, there is a title section and a text section, so a title could go in the title part and the link and explainer could go in the text part.

      I think automated removal is a bridge too far.

      [–]lumberjohn 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Hmm, you're right, thought it was the same sys as Reddit with text optional. Should be easy to change.

      [–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      This simply isn't true.

      [–]SierraKiloBravo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Which part of what I said "simply isn't true"?

      [–]Troll 4 insightful - 3 fun4 insightful - 2 fun5 insightful - 3 fun -  (3 children)

      Well, this site censors worse than reddit does. So why would anyone come here?

      [–][deleted] 8 insightful - 1 fun8 insightful - 0 fun9 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      No. It doesn't. You can at least have a civil discussion here with people that hold differing beliefs.

      [–]SierraKiloBravo 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Examples?

      [–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      If all you want to do is post hyperlinks, then don't come here, perhaps?

      [–]Entropick 4 insightful - 2 fun4 insightful - 1 fun5 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

      I will rectify this on my posts starting immediately.

      [–]FormosaOolong 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

      In a general sense I agree with this idea, but I want to add that some links do speak for themselves, and do inspire comment. I think calling all links a "low effort waste of space" is a bit extreme.

      I personally don't need everything to be a debate.

      [–]SierraKiloBravo 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      100% agree with you.

      Some people use the site one way and for X reasons, some use it another way and for Y reasons. There is literally a voting system, things which are insightful or funny will rise to the top, things that get no votes won't.

      [–]burtzev 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Yeah, don't let anyone trick the owners into subverting our democracy.

      [–]313337 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I don't think a summary of link contents is needed. A lot of the posts I see are just not shit im interested in. No description beyond the title is needed for me to know if I'm interested in clicking or not. Sometimes shit is worth looking at, sometimes not, but requiring more bullshit to share a link doesn't help, imo.

      [–]sawboss 3 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 0 fun4 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      This seems counter to the intentions of the site, which is supposed to nurture debate.

      No.

      I'd like automated removal of these low efforts waste of space.

      NO!

      [–]Enviro 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      The whole internet is normies. I used to love red conspiracy bc of the outside thinking. Even places like stolen history is partisan politics dweebs. Politics is for rich soap opera shows to make retards think they are smart. It's simple as that, distract from real issues and control narrative. The CIA even says that's what they do.

      [–]Snow 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      Maybe change the system to "vbulletin" can solve this.

      [–][deleted] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      https://www.google.com/search?q=bob+jij+of+bob+ik&tbm=isch&source=univ&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjKx4ue0p3jAhVIbFAKHe70CZ0QsAR6BAgEEAE&biw=1024&bih=657

      [–]send_nasty_stuff 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

      I blame the pyramid of debate focus of the site. Pyramid of debate should be reserved for threads or subs that call for a fair debate. However, social media isn't about fair debate it's about people and people are sad, angry, emotional, liars, truthers, religious, secular, happy, and illogical and on and on. I feel like the mods of this sub want everyone to act and post like spock from Star Trek. Well sorry nobody is going to want to play in your sandbox if that's the focus.

      [–]bobbobbybob[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

      I'm really happy with people who don't want to follow the site rules to go somewhere else.

      There are plenty of social media sites that encourage zero-effort commenting, and they've all turned to trash. You are welcome to them.

      You don't represent as many people as you think you do.