Slashdot Ad Free: Worst Subscription Service Ever

from the try,-try-again dept

John Taylor writes “I wish that I didn’t agree with this guy, but Slashdot has fucked up badly this time. What he doesn’t mention is why they are doing it – cue the OSDN Deathstar. I would pay Slashdot if they offered something cool, but they haven’t. This is so pathetic, it is unreal.” This is, of course, referring to Slashdot’s decision to charge people to get rid of the big annoying ads they’re planning on introducing. The article linked here points out that they’ve come up with the worst possible system for doing that. Most of Slashdot’s value (they say) comes from the community – and the new pricing scheme discourages that part – because the more you use Slashdot, and the more you participate… the more you pay. They’re actively discouraging their heaviest users. It also points out that it’s all negative reinforcement. They don’t give anything extra of value to users who pay – they just make users who don’t pay have a worse experience.

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “Slashdot Ad Free: Worst Subscription Service Ever”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
Drew says:

Ads? What Ads?

I’ve been happily browsing websites for a good long time without many different forms of ads, all except those particular annoying ones from, and I’ve been able to avoid nearly all of them by using WebWasher &amp a really deliberate lmhosts table that references a lot of the ad-company servers as, saving not only me actually having to look at those ads but also wear and tear on my local DNS server.

Phillip says:

Problems with Slashdot

People resent having to pay for a magazine where the readers generate all the content. The editorial ‘value’ comes from randomly choosing submited stuff, adding a poorly spelt one-line comment, and then posting it without doing any fact-checking at all. To add insult to injury, the people who generate the most content are the people who visit the most often… who are going to be the ones most heavily penalised! If they can’t break even with 1/3 million targetted readers against distribution alone (they claim it to be $1.5/annum) using advertising then maybe they should think about more intelligent ways of distributing their content (mirrors?).

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...