Digg and Slashdot are both powerful in terms of driving traffic, but nobody has yet bothered to compare the quality of comments between the two services. Until now, that is. On any given day, Digg has far more innane comments from immature younger males with no life, while the innane comments on Slashdot tend to come from more technically-astute older males with no life. These indicators are blatanty obvious if you look at the typical stories surfacing on either site (or the ones which ones rise to the top). Digg users are generally social, while Slashdot users are typically anti-social.
I believe that more Digg commenters have their own blogs, whereas Slashdot participants seem to live vicariously (and primarily) through that community. Slashdot threadheads happen to post more than a sentence or two on any given subject; Digg is all about the quick fix. In the Slashdot community, there are human filters in place at the thread’s initiation. In Digg, everything is ruled by the community. Digg commenters (overall) are more rude and disrespectful, while Slashdot commenters tend to float into condescension and sarcasm with relative speed.
My question: which community of commenters is worse?
This is, by no means, a slam on either product: it’s merely an observation that plays itself out, over and over and over and over and over again with EVERY SINGLE STORY. I still find both sites absolutely (indescribably) indispensable, and my life has certainly been bettered by their existence. I just can’t help but wonder why we need insipid comments that don’t enhance the original story? “Comments” are broken altogether, everywhere.