On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 22:32:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:52:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
>> You have 3 seconds to convince a random visitor that the site is worth his/her time.
>
> That's basically why i use the word 'flamewar' - it fits into a tweet while being pretty descriptive.
>
> Though, indeed, the meaning among hacker communities and other parts of the internet is a bit different* so might as well reword it on the front page (I do think the content inside stands up pretty well though, and several of the posts match 'flame' by either definition).
>
> * A flamewar among hackers doesn't need to be personal, profane, or particularly insulting. Just invested, long, and esoteric (which often appears pointless to those on the outside).

I think it looked pretty pointless to people on the inside as well

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 23:54:15 UTC, Meta wrote:
> On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 22:32:50 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
>> [...]
>
> I think it looked pretty pointless to people on the inside as well

Just because the discussion is pointless doesn't mean defeat is acceptable!

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 21:52:34 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> You have 3 seconds to convince a random visitor that the site is worth his/her time. If I am looking for a tool the last thing I want is to try to download something from an emotional boy scouts club.
that's great: less SJW and other unstable persons. if someone is judging *programming* *language* with 3-second look at the site... well, i'd better not have such person on board.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 07:34:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> that's great: less SJW and other unstable persons. if someone is judging *programming* *language* with 3-second look at the site... well, i'd better not have such person on board.

But Social Justice Warriors are great fun!!!

Here's the deal: there is usually a correlation between presentation and content. If the front page is professional, then there is some hope that the product is too. If there is no editorial control on the front page, then there probably is chaos elsewhere too... That's a fair assumption to make that often holds true.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 09:07:52 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 07:34:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> that's great: less SJW and other unstable persons. if someone is judging *programming* *language* with 3-second look at the site... well, i'd better not have such person on board.
>
> But Social Justice Warriors are great fun!!!
>
> Here's the deal: there is usually a correlation between presentation and content. If the front page is professional, then there is some hope that the product is too. If there is no editorial control on the front page, then there probably is chaos elsewhere too... That's a fair assumption to make that often holds true.

But the reallity is that the debat has happened. So, what do your propose ? To hide the reallity ?

More concretely, I accord you that maybe the word "flamewar" could be replaced by "animated debate"...but otherwise, pfft.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 09:33:12 UTC, BBaz wrote:
> But the reallity is that the debat has happened. So, what do your propose ? To hide the reallity ?

Yeah! Be selective.

Just report facts that are of interest to a wider audience. There seems to be too little interesting content to fill a weekly.

A more condensed bi-weekly would look more interesting to visitors.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 09:47:05 UTC, Ola Fosheim Grøstad wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 09:33:12 UTC, BBaz wrote:
>> But the reallity is that the debat has happened. So, what do your propose ? To hide the reallity ?
>
> Yeah! Be selective.
>
> Just report facts that are of interest to a wider audience. There seems to be too little interesting content to fill a weekly.
>
> A more condensed bi-weekly would look more interesting to visitors.

Ok, I understand your position now. I don't agree but I get your your point.

On Monday, 30 November 2015 at 20:07:10 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> I'll change it to "thread" on the front page.

I liked this line

"And, the thread many of you have been waiting to hear about... "

Which was exactly how I felt, after reading about the other threads :-) This bit of news was more for those who participated in the thread (or were crazy enough to read it!), kind of like an in-joke. No harm in there.

I was interested in seeing how you (Adam) would sum it up, and I have to say you did a pretty good job.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 07:34:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
> that's great: less SJW and other unstable persons.

FYI, I am called am SJW by a lot of people.

On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 14:53:10 UTC, Adam D. Ruppe wrote:
> On Tuesday, 1 December 2015 at 07:34:49 UTC, ketmar wrote:
>> that's great: less SJW and other unstable persons.
>
> FYI, I am called am SJW by a lot of people.

And that's a good thing!