Comments on: The new Netscape is a joke

By: Tom Markiewicz » The day after my story was Netscaped

Tom Markiewicz » The day after my story was Netscaped — Mon, 16 Oct 2006 03:06:15 +0000

[...] I’m not sure if there is a coined term for Netscape like “slashdotted” or “digged” yet, but my recent post on the troubles I saw with Netscape was promoted to their home page Friday and I saw heavy traffic to my site. In an incredible turn of irony, my post criticizing Netscape’s practices made it to the number two slot on the home page and was there for almost the whole day. The fact that it was not censored and left to run its course actually sheds some positive light on Netscape, but more on that below. [...]

By: anonymous

anonymous — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:37:02 +0000

I challenge the Netscape paid team to PUBLISH the formula and the guidelines that are used to get stories to the top so that tech minds can independently confirm their claims. Further, I challenge them to allow all posters to submit their own pictures with their stories to level the playing field. Last, I challenge the Anchors and Navigators to DISALLOW themselves from voting for other anchorage and navigator stories. They get paid to submit stories they shouldn’t be allowed to vote on their own. Now this is a system with a bit more fairness, dontcha think?

By: FVFVFVFVFV

FVFVFVFVFV — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 05:25:42 +0000

KT said: “Being number 2 on netscape does not mean that everyone agrees with your opinions. It only means that people are interested in what you have to say…”

Where on Netscape does it say a “VOTE” is not an endorsement? It certainly is! That’s another reason why Netscape is a joke – “VOTE” has never been defined!

Why you say? Well, there are anchors and naviagators commenting on the post BUT they haven’t voted for it. If Vote were mere interest then Jason etal would have “VOTED.” They didn’t…

VOTES are not about interest… they’re about ENDORSEMENT. Look it up. Better yet wait until the first Tuesday in November and see what politicians our nation is merely interested in.

By: Anti-Fred

Anti-Fred — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:39:19 +0000

Dear Fred:

As someone else pointed out, first is not always the one that is kept or given a picture especially when an anchor is concerned. I too have see this happen over and over. The anchors will say they have nothing to do with this which only makes things worse. Accurate posts which come in before other posts are bypassed and removed if an anchor or navigator submits the same story LATER on. That is a FACT! There’s a discussion on the site now over a story that was “killed” rather than “closed.” Only the anchors and navs have authority to kill or close a story. When the story came in BEFORE theres, that’s when they kill it – destroy the evidence (time post). I’ve seen it over and over – this is the God’s honest truth! In fact consistently its the same anchor and navs that do the killing in favor of their own posts. Printing out your submissions is the only way to verify for those who care to do so. And then you say WTF, I’m OUTTA HERE!!!!!!!

By: Fred Scofield

Fred Scofield — Sat, 14 Oct 2006 01:03:35 +0000

Good Lord, Please get a REAL life, I happened across this by mistake (hope it never happens again) and I have to laugh at anyone so into themselves that something like this worries them to the point of spending as much time as it must have taken you to explain the situation as well as getting ME to spend this much time commenting on it. Having a “perspective” on any actual event is a made up croc of newspeak meant to give importance to something that a particular person may have to say. Either you were first,and correct in your account,or you were not.

By: Anti-digg

Anti-digg — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:04:06 +0000

I read your post here with interest, just about every charge you laid against Netscape, I’ve noticed about digg which is why I went to Netscape. LOL!

Im not saying that Netscape doesnt do it, but digg engages in massive censoring, and deleting of posts and whole accounts with no warning or reason.

Which is why I boycott digg – but as you say, a boycott of one, well its the principle of the matter.

By: Bill

Bill — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 22:00:16 +0000

I agree with you about Netscape being a joke. A lame, unfunny one at that. I’ve had a Netscape account since before the AOL-Time Warner merger and have seen the whole shebang slowly but surely deteriorate in quality and usefulness ever since the merger occurred. It’s just getting worse and worse as the years pass. I’ll be getting rid of my account before too much longer, I’m afraid…

By: thomas

thomas — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 19:53:05 +0000

I am with you Tom. I have tried to use netscape and had a ton of traffic from it. So it was working. Then I was banned and my site from Netscape with no warning whatsoever. All because the same user was voting my stories. I had never voted my own story. So now I cant post on there and my url cant be posted on there either. I was polite and nice about it but they didnt change anything. Digg is not perfect but it is at least fair. Netscape prefers the big sites over blogs. Agreed! New netscape is a joke

By: Tom Markiewicz

Tom Markiewicz — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:41:59 +0000

Brad, I don’t have a problem with the story falling out. That was never my main point of the post. What bothers me is that my submission was completely removed and then only reinstated after I asked what happened. Something is wrong there. The policy is either to completely remove with notification upon a dupe or to baseline it back to zero votes. In my case, it was both. Just doesn’t seem right to me.

I appreciate Jason’s comments above suggesting this may have just been a mistake. If that’s the case, I only take issue with how it was handled as opposed to the actions themselves. If there was an error, I would have expected the anchor to apologize and say its back on the site with zero votes, etc. Instead, I get the exchange that I wrote about. I hope this explains things a bit better. I never had any intention of the post being a whining complaint. It was simply meant to point out what I thought were some serious issues with the service.

The fact that this post did make it to number 2 on Netscape today as well as all the comments I’m reading, tells me that I’m not the only one who feels this way. There are obviously a lot of people who feel strongly about this.

By: Tom Markiewicz

Tom Markiewicz — Fri, 13 Oct 2006 18:33:59 +0000

KT, I agree with you that simply being number 2 on Netscape and receiving traffic is no indication that people agree with the article. But I have not actually written that it does nor have I attempted to imply this. In my post I simply stated that traffic shows interest and I’m not sure how that point can be argued. If someone see the title and a summary of the post now on Netscape and they click on it, they have interest in seeing what it is about. Clicking through does not imply approval. Additionally, the same could be said for the votes for the post currently on Netscape. If you read through the comments over there (and I highly recommend it), they are much more harsh than the comments made here. SO, many of those voting the post up may not necessarily agree. You can actually confirm this by reading the comments and looking at who voted for the article at the bottom. Many of my harshest critics still voted for it.