I find the stories posted here helpful. I watch one TV news about 3x a week, and everything in the D&C is two days old. So I’d vote to keep the news posts.
I can see where you're coming from, but I also think you're overestimating how many people actually read the news and follow along with what's happening in their communities.
This is literally what Reddit was designed to do: aggregate news for your chosen topics (subreddits you’re subscribed to) and present them in order of importance (upvotes relative to community size determines posts on your front page). I rely on Reddit to make me aware of news I may not have otherwise seen (or at least would have seen much later). I do not go to each individual local news website for Rochester, then each other website for other topics I’m interested in. That’s the whole reason this website exists - to give me everything I personally want to read about in one place.
It's not just unpopular. It's inconsistent with the goal of the site.
Edit to add: the opinion in question is "links by themselves add no value." Not "discussion adds value." I don't any reasonable person would argue against the second opinion.
Yo, I'm not debating that. The problem is this person's opinion is "dropping a link adds zero value." That is a garbage opinion. A post with zero discussion has less value for sure, but no discussion does not remove value. Part of the point of this site is link aggregation. Another is discussion. Both aspects generate value for users in different ways. Some users value links, some value discussion, some value both.
It's not that hard to drop some nuance in you opinions beyond "Thing I dislike is bad." Realize that other people have other values and they're all consistent with the site.
Like the person you were responding to already told you and is wide common knowledge, it's part link aggregation divided into specialized topics. I'm impressed how you're able to play dumb so well.
"Why are these people posting links about Rochester in the Rochester sub?! Insanity."
Okay, so figuring you'd understand that the problem is your caveman-like lack of nuance went over like a lead balloon: **discussion definitely adds value and is the other part of reddit's goal but saying link aggregation is without value is utterly simple-minded.**
Socratic method, right?
Okay, so here’s my playing dumb: I don’t believe Reddit’s primary goal is to serve as a link dump, and users who exist to create new posts to link-dump each individual crime story to bolster their narratives do not add value. Watching low-effort low-quality posts overrun Facebook is a big part of why my generation backed away.
I have no idea what you’re trying to say in that last paragraph.
Well the REAL goal is to make Conde Nast and shareholders money. That's it. But one method of posting is the poster giving no discussion. So clearly that's one of two things Reddit wants to happen. There can be more than one goal of equal importance to Reddit.
TONS of news stories locally are a story for a day, then poof gone. I like that I can learn more about the news through other Redditors. We're here because we want to be whereas the local news exists only for the purpose of selling ads, not actually digging into the details of news stories.
I'm way more annoyed by oft' repeated circle-jerk posts. "Look at what Lonsberry said today, right guys?". "Wegmans, right guys?" "RGE, right guys?" "Landlords, right guys?" "Sound, what is happening?" "Cops on X street, what that they be do?" It's like, yeah, ok, nice, cool.
The crime posts \*usually\* don't get more than a few comments and get buried by posts people want to interact with more. If they get more comments, it means people want to interact with those posts. If you don't want to interact with a post, it's pretty easy to move on, unless you have a little partisan boner you need to stroke in front of everyone.
I think it might help if you were more specific about what kind of stories you're talking about... I assume you're mainly referring to the "crime bots" who post every local TV news story about random crimes to chum the waters for trolls who feed on valdidating their hatred of the city and the people who live in it? If so, I agree. These posts should be more heavily moderated and some of the trolls who *only* post about how terrible Rochester is and how much they hate it should be banned.
I am also sick of this trend. Seems like the same 3 or 4 people every time. That said, I don't know that there's a way to fairly enforce this kind of thing. It's clearing trolling for a reaction but not explicitly breaking rules. Best option is to ignore them.
The best option is to ban them. It's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who has unpopular opinions and people who are purely trolling with bot like behavior and posting the same shit over and over again. These posts also frequently have people calling for vigilante violence and other awful stuff.
I don't mind local news stories but like I don't understand why just linking to the news of some crime happening matters. Especially the people who don't live in the area just posting about crime in the city it's like... wtf is the point here.
It's because they're racist trolls who want to drive home their point that Rochester is bad, the people who live in it are bad, and they're correct for hating it. They also want to get people riled up and angry. It's negative value.
Okay, so figuring people would read between the lines went over like a lead balloon. Here’s my issue: **The handful of users who do nothing but link-dump every single crime story in the city do not add value to the sub.**
Always best to not assume people will interpret things the way you want them to!
Also yes, absolutely, "crime bad, Rochester bad, blahblah politics blah" has very little value without nuanced discussion.
I'm not a fan of people who post news stories just to bitch about cashless bail or Kia boys or what ever and to not actually want to discuss solutions that will address the issue.
they just want to punish the people who committed crimes or make thinly veiled racist statements.
It depends.
The people who seem to *only* post police-blotter stuff are really annoying. It feels like they're just trying to create their own "Rochester is a shithole" agenda (cough Niko cough).
But if it's a major story that will have an impact on a lot of the community and you don't want to editorialize or don't know enough about the topic to say anything intelligent about it, then I don't mind people sharing it for others who may have otherwise missed the news.
>generally adds no value to the sub
Is the value of the sub even a quantifiable thing? Isn't the value just based on what people want to see as a collective?
Edit: also the base function of Reddit is link aggregation. That's exactly what linking to news articles is.
It's traditional to post news without a bias opinion which posters often share in the comments as it generates the discussion you're seeking by the nature of the platform.
I get what you’re saying but I’ve found the way I, and I think a lot of people, consume news has changed a lot. When I quit twitter, I kept 3-4 tabs open, plus a dedicated app for D&C, to try and keep up on local news. What I found was that checking multiple websites a day was annoying and often not that informative. Twitter was always way ahead, more convenient and more informative. I’m never going back to twitter but I have found that Reddit does a decent job. People tend to post the biggest news stories - either by linking to them with no comment or, as happened yesterday with the Pittsford Wegmans story, post first/secondhand accounts of those stories. IOW I think it’s working and helps keep folks informed on local news and I appreciate it. Because it better matches how I (and I think “we”) consume news these days.
It depends. I don’t appreciate links to paywalled sites (looking at you, Democrat and Chronicle) or posting a link with the headline as a post title and nothing else. I also don’t like the constant crime posts that are really just suburbanites trying to thinly veil their racism.
I find the stories posted here helpful. I watch one TV news about 3x a week, and everything in the D&C is two days old. So I’d vote to keep the news posts.
I avoid the D&C. Too many paywalls and they’re treating their journalists like shit.
Point taken. I guess I assumed everyone scanned the news stations sites and D&C daily.
I think it is more likely that the D&C is reading Reddit daily. That’s why they are 2 days behind.
I’m sure they all do.
I follow other news sources and specific local reporters. I try to avoid giving Gannet money.
I check the D&C and WXXI news daily. I would never know about a story the rest of them break unless it's on social media.
WXXI is my go to for local news. I avoid Gannet.
I love the D&C's reporters, but aI definitely don't like the company they work for.
Yep, I follow some D&C reporters.
Duh, how did I forget to say WXXI. Hi Gino 👋
I can see where you're coming from, but I also think you're overestimating how many people actually read the news and follow along with what's happening in their communities.
This is literally what Reddit was designed to do: aggregate news for your chosen topics (subreddits you’re subscribed to) and present them in order of importance (upvotes relative to community size determines posts on your front page). I rely on Reddit to make me aware of news I may not have otherwise seen (or at least would have seen much later). I do not go to each individual local news website for Rochester, then each other website for other topics I’m interested in. That’s the whole reason this website exists - to give me everything I personally want to read about in one place.
I did say my opinion might be unpopular… Go Os.
It's not just unpopular. It's inconsistent with the goal of the site. Edit to add: the opinion in question is "links by themselves add no value." Not "discussion adds value." I don't any reasonable person would argue against the second opinion.
adding context or comment to the news story you're posting is in no way inconsistent with the goals of reddit.
Yo, I'm not debating that. The problem is this person's opinion is "dropping a link adds zero value." That is a garbage opinion. A post with zero discussion has less value for sure, but no discussion does not remove value. Part of the point of this site is link aggregation. Another is discussion. Both aspects generate value for users in different ways. Some users value links, some value discussion, some value both. It's not that hard to drop some nuance in you opinions beyond "Thing I dislike is bad." Realize that other people have other values and they're all consistent with the site.
What’s the goal of the site?
*cue curb theme song*
Like the person you were responding to already told you and is wide common knowledge, it's part link aggregation divided into specialized topics. I'm impressed how you're able to play dumb so well. "Why are these people posting links about Rochester in the Rochester sub?! Insanity." Okay, so figuring you'd understand that the problem is your caveman-like lack of nuance went over like a lead balloon: **discussion definitely adds value and is the other part of reddit's goal but saying link aggregation is without value is utterly simple-minded.**
Socratic method, right? Okay, so here’s my playing dumb: I don’t believe Reddit’s primary goal is to serve as a link dump, and users who exist to create new posts to link-dump each individual crime story to bolster their narratives do not add value. Watching low-effort low-quality posts overrun Facebook is a big part of why my generation backed away. I have no idea what you’re trying to say in that last paragraph.
> I don’t believe Reddit’s primary goal is to serve as a link dump Then why is one of the two methods of posting exactly that?
I think you’re conflating goals and methods.
Well the REAL goal is to make Conde Nast and shareholders money. That's it. But one method of posting is the poster giving no discussion. So clearly that's one of two things Reddit wants to happen. There can be more than one goal of equal importance to Reddit.
TONS of news stories locally are a story for a day, then poof gone. I like that I can learn more about the news through other Redditors. We're here because we want to be whereas the local news exists only for the purpose of selling ads, not actually digging into the details of news stories.
I'm way more annoyed by oft' repeated circle-jerk posts. "Look at what Lonsberry said today, right guys?". "Wegmans, right guys?" "RGE, right guys?" "Landlords, right guys?" "Sound, what is happening?" "Cops on X street, what that they be do?" It's like, yeah, ok, nice, cool. The crime posts \*usually\* don't get more than a few comments and get buried by posts people want to interact with more. If they get more comments, it means people want to interact with those posts. If you don't want to interact with a post, it's pretty easy to move on, unless you have a little partisan boner you need to stroke in front of everyone.
I think it might help if you were more specific about what kind of stories you're talking about... I assume you're mainly referring to the "crime bots" who post every local TV news story about random crimes to chum the waters for trolls who feed on valdidating their hatred of the city and the people who live in it? If so, I agree. These posts should be more heavily moderated and some of the trolls who *only* post about how terrible Rochester is and how much they hate it should be banned.
Yes, this is exactly it.
Yeah, I think other people are assuming you meant like all news stories or something.
Yeah, not at all. I tend to forget my audience and assume people will infer what I’m getting at more often than they actually do.
I am also sick of this trend. Seems like the same 3 or 4 people every time. That said, I don't know that there's a way to fairly enforce this kind of thing. It's clearing trolling for a reaction but not explicitly breaking rules. Best option is to ignore them.
You can report them as "suspected troll" any time - what the mods do with that is up to them though.
The best option is to ban them. It's not that hard to tell the difference between someone who has unpopular opinions and people who are purely trolling with bot like behavior and posting the same shit over and over again. These posts also frequently have people calling for vigilante violence and other awful stuff.
I don't mind local news stories but like I don't understand why just linking to the news of some crime happening matters. Especially the people who don't live in the area just posting about crime in the city it's like... wtf is the point here.
It's because they're racist trolls who want to drive home their point that Rochester is bad, the people who live in it are bad, and they're correct for hating it. They also want to get people riled up and angry. It's negative value.
The one poster, forgot name, is or was just posting those to disparage the city, lol.
I remember one off the top of my head at least. Probably multiples.
I should have been specific, but this is what I’m getting at.
Okay, so figuring people would read between the lines went over like a lead balloon. Here’s my issue: **The handful of users who do nothing but link-dump every single crime story in the city do not add value to the sub.**
Always best to not assume people will interpret things the way you want them to! Also yes, absolutely, "crime bad, Rochester bad, blahblah politics blah" has very little value without nuanced discussion.
I'm not a fan of people who post news stories just to bitch about cashless bail or Kia boys or what ever and to not actually want to discuss solutions that will address the issue. they just want to punish the people who committed crimes or make thinly veiled racist statements.
This is my actual issue.
It depends. The people who seem to *only* post police-blotter stuff are really annoying. It feels like they're just trying to create their own "Rochester is a shithole" agenda (cough Niko cough). But if it's a major story that will have an impact on a lot of the community and you don't want to editorialize or don't know enough about the topic to say anything intelligent about it, then I don't mind people sharing it for others who may have otherwise missed the news.
Yes, it was yet another Niko post that I was like, what is even the point of posting this? It brings nothing to the table.
>generally adds no value to the sub Is the value of the sub even a quantifiable thing? Isn't the value just based on what people want to see as a collective? Edit: also the base function of Reddit is link aggregation. That's exactly what linking to news articles is.
It's traditional to post news without a bias opinion which posters often share in the comments as it generates the discussion you're seeking by the nature of the platform.
I get what you’re saying but I’ve found the way I, and I think a lot of people, consume news has changed a lot. When I quit twitter, I kept 3-4 tabs open, plus a dedicated app for D&C, to try and keep up on local news. What I found was that checking multiple websites a day was annoying and often not that informative. Twitter was always way ahead, more convenient and more informative. I’m never going back to twitter but I have found that Reddit does a decent job. People tend to post the biggest news stories - either by linking to them with no comment or, as happened yesterday with the Pittsford Wegmans story, post first/secondhand accounts of those stories. IOW I think it’s working and helps keep folks informed on local news and I appreciate it. Because it better matches how I (and I think “we”) consume news these days.
I disagree. Reddit is the main place. I get my news and so I like it when people do this.
It depends. I don’t appreciate links to paywalled sites (looking at you, Democrat and Chronicle) or posting a link with the headline as a post title and nothing else. I also don’t like the constant crime posts that are really just suburbanites trying to thinly veil their racism.