After contributing images to several route articles on Wikipedia, and contributing here and there in other niches on the site under a few different accounts, I've finally decided to begin drafting an article for US 74A from Asheville to Forest City. I believe it could stand on its own as an article rather than just being in the special routes article. Similar ones for roads like US 17A in South Carolina exist, for example.
Here is the draft. The forum software is gonna break the link by removing the parenthesis at the end from the actual link so look out for that.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Draft:U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City)
Feel free to share any (constructive and polite) critique and/or other suggestions/tips.
Do it on the AARoads Wiki instead.
Wikipedia is a hostile environment for road editors now—the bar of "notability" keeps rising and rising, to the point that you may face pretty long odds getting a mere bannered route accepted. These days, they basically demand that you have a bunch of newspaper articles on a route for an article to exist, and even then those may be deemed not good enough if they don't focus on the road enough. (How much is enough? More than you can actually find in the real world!) The site culture actually rewards people that delete articles over those that create them now.
Most of the roadgeeks on Wikipedia have decamped to the AARoads Wiki (https://wiki.aaroads.com/), which uses the same software, is content to allow just about every road article within reason, and has nicer maps. The policies are greatly pared back and only focus on the important stuff, so you won't get accused of violating WP:BYOP, WP:MONGO, WP:DEEF, and WP:FJORD every time you turn around. If you do Discord, we have a server that has a lot of overlap with the membership here as well as on the AARoads Wiki. All in all it's a much more chill, low-drama environment, one which I recommend over Wikipedia.
Run as far as you can from Wikipedia. AAroads is far more friendly grounds to get your feet wet making Wiki style road pages.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2024, 05:37:22 PM
Wikipedia is a hostile environment for road editors now—the bar of "notability" keeps rising and rising, to the point that you may face pretty long odds getting a mere bannered route accepted. These days, they basically demand that you have a bunch of newspaper articles on a route for an article to exist, and even then those may be deemed not good enough if they don't focus on the road enough. (How much is enough? More than you can actually find in the real world!) The site culture actually rewards people that delete articles over those that create them now.
Most of the roadgeeks on Wikipedia have decamped to the AARoads Wiki (https://wiki.aaroads.com/), which uses the same software, is content to allow just about every road article within reason, and has nicer maps. The policies are greatly pared back and only focus on the important stuff, so you won't get accused of violating WP:BYOP, WP:MONGO, WP:DEEF, and WP:FJORD every time you turn around. If you do Discord, we have a server that has a lot of overlap with the membership here as well as on the AARoads Wiki. All in all it's a much more chill, low-drama environment, one which I recommend over Wikipedia.
The only way any of my article changes stick is when I quote a different wikipedia page and then they are okay with changes.
Quote from: Scott5114 on February 23, 2024, 05:37:22 PM
Wikipedia is a hostile environment for road editors now—the bar of "notability" keeps rising and rising, to the point that you may face pretty long odds getting a mere bannered route accepted. These days, they basically demand that you have a bunch of newspaper articles on a route for an article to exist, and even then those may be deemed not good enough if they don't focus on the road enough. (How much is enough? More than you can actually find in the real world!) The site culture actually rewards people that delete articles over those that create them now.
Most of the roadgeeks on Wikipedia have decamped to the AARoads Wiki (https://wiki.aaroads.com/), which uses the same software, is content to allow just about every road article within reason, and has nicer maps. The policies are greatly pared back and only focus on the important stuff, so you won't get accused of violating WP:BYOP, WP:MONGO, WP:DEEF, and WP:FJORD every time you turn around. If you do Discord, we have a server that has a lot of overlap with the membership here as well as on the AARoads Wiki. All in all it's a much more chill, low-drama environment, one which I recommend over Wikipedia.
Damn. I had no idea. That's both very disappointing and very stupid. I can see how an environment like that can easily make people feel all high and mighty about what they think should and shouldn't be on there.
Recently, I made a Wikipedia article for the forum itself - and it was promptly deleted.
Quote from: KCRoadFan on February 26, 2024, 08:21:07 PM
Recently, I made a Wikipedia article for the forum itself - and it was promptly deleted.
TBF, I'm not aware of AARoads, muchless this forum, ever having met Wikipedia's criteria for "notability", even before the latest round of bs.
Here it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
Quote from: index on September 12, 2024, 08:49:25 AMHere it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
As mentioned above, my suggestion is to post it to https://wiki.aaroads.com instead of the stupid wiki run by stupid people. The road article deletions have started in Europe.
Unless you know your DEEF and your MONGO forward and backward, I guess.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2024, 11:10:39 AMThe road article deletions have started in Europe.
Hopefully they can take care of the US soon so that people will stop defaulting to Wikipedia (and so that Google will correctly rank the AARoads wiki articles and not Wikipedia's).
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2024, 11:10:39 AMQuote from: index on September 12, 2024, 08:49:25 AMHere it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
As mentioned above, my suggestion is to post it to https://wiki.aaroads.com instead of the stupid wiki run by stupid people. The road article deletions have started in Europe.
Unless you know your DEEF and your MONGO forward and backward, I guess.
I really need to remember how to do all the stuff I used to do over on Wikipedia so I can maybe actually make some edits on the AARoads wiki.
Quote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2024, 03:16:15 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2024, 11:10:39 AMQuote from: index on September 12, 2024, 08:49:25 AMHere it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
As mentioned above, my suggestion is to post it to https://wiki.aaroads.com instead of the stupid wiki run by stupid people. The road article deletions have started in Europe.
Unless you know your DEEF and your MONGO forward and backward, I guess.
I really need to remember how to do all the stuff I used to do over on Wikipedia so I can maybe actually make some edits on the AARoads wiki.
There is plenty of info still to add on the List of primary state highways in Virginia (https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/List_of_primary_state_highways_in_Virginia) listicle to start.
Quote from: 74/171FAN on September 12, 2024, 03:45:31 PMQuote from: WillWeaverRVA on September 12, 2024, 03:16:15 PMQuote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2024, 11:10:39 AMQuote from: index on September 12, 2024, 08:49:25 AMHere it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
As mentioned above, my suggestion is to post it to https://wiki.aaroads.com instead of the stupid wiki run by stupid people. The road article deletions have started in Europe.
Unless you know your DEEF and your MONGO forward and backward, I guess.
I really need to remember how to do all the stuff I used to do over on Wikipedia so I can maybe actually make some edits on the AARoads wiki.
There is plenty of info still to add on the List of primary state highways in Virginia (https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/List_of_primary_state_highways_in_Virginia) listicle to start.
Yup, I know. I've had my eye on it for a while.
Quote from: Scott5114 on September 12, 2024, 11:10:39 AMQuote from: index on September 12, 2024, 08:49:25 AMHere it is, after several months:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Route_74_Alternate_(Asheville%E2%80%93Forest_City,_North_Carolina)
I feel like I did a decent job. Does anyone have any suggestions or improvements?
As mentioned above, my suggestion is to post it to https://wiki.aaroads.com instead of the stupid wiki run by stupid people. The road article deletions have started in Europe.
Unless you know your DEEF and your MONGO forward and backward, I guess.
I intend on doing that at a later point. I've had the article saved locally for when I do, and if it gets deleted. For now, it's there, I prioritized that since it will get more exposure.
https://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:Rschen7754/The_time_is_now details a lot of the latest developments about how the English Wikipedia has turned against the road editors.
I had to explain the whole anti-road thing Wikipedia is on right now to my wife at the Reno Road Meet. That was a hot topic of discussion among the group at the starting meetup lunch.
Her normal person perspective was that "Wikipedia sounds stupid and full of arrogant assholes." That to the point synopsis got a laugh out of me.
Quote from: rschen7754 on October 04, 2024, 02:39:02 PMhttps://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:Rschen7754/The_time_is_now details a lot of the latest developments about how the English Wikipedia has turned against the road editors.
I was wondering why Google searches of road content always yielded Wikipedia instead of the AARW. And the fact that people suddenly have become very interested in posting here about when every road change is reflected in Wikipedia has surely not helped. It might be a bit drastic, but given how bad the situation is, perhaps we need a forum rule on that?
Quote from: vdeane on October 04, 2024, 09:53:05 PMQuote from: rschen7754 on October 04, 2024, 02:39:02 PMhttps://wiki.aaroads.com/wiki/User:Rschen7754/The_time_is_now details a lot of the latest developments about how the English Wikipedia has turned against the road editors.
I was wondering why Google searches of road content always yielded Wikipedia instead of the AARW. And the fact that people suddenly have become very interested in posting here about when every road change is reflected in Wikipedia has surely not helped. It might be a bit drastic, but given how bad the situation is, perhaps we need a forum rule on that?
Eventually, if things go on the way they have, enough content will get deleted from Wikipedia that Google will have no choice but to return AARW results.
Although it would be in our best interest to keep links in-house, I'm reluctant to make it a rule because 1) some people still may not know AARW even exists and 2) it seems fairly authoritarian—theoretically a Wikipedia article could develop in a different direction from the AARW one and someone could legitimately prefer the Wikipedia version, as much as those of us on AARW may not like it.
I think the proper response is to just reply to anyone using Wikipedia links with an advertisement for AARW. People should learn eventually.
It probably depends on the criteria used by the search engine. The Gribblenation blog page doesn't appear in searches in Yahoo searches unless you go for something super specific that nobody else covers. That stands to reason given we are hosted by Google. I would imagine Google probably has something in their algorithm that highly emphasizes Wikipedia over other similar Wiki pages.
The basic way that Google works is that the more domains that link to your domain, the higher the page rank is. There's a bunch more variables but that's the most important function.
Obviously, Wikipedia gets more links to it than AARoads does, so it will outrank AARW by default. (But we have more of a fighting chance being on AARoads than if we had started a new site like "roads.wiki" or something that would be starting out with zero links.)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 05, 2024, 08:39:12 AMIt probably depends on the criteria used by the search engine. The Gribblenation blog page doesn't appear in searches in Yahoo searches unless you go for something super specific that nobody else covers. That stands to reason given we are hosted by Google. I would imagine Google probably has something in their algorithm that highly emphasizes Wikipedia over other similar Wiki pages.
*Googles Yahoo!*
I thought that this thread would be about the first article on a road ever published on the Wikipedia, and I'm curious as to what that would be. Does anyone know?
This is for a deletion discussion for a city street in Adelaide, Australia, but the exact same arguments are used on highway articles. This is an example of the sort of thinking that led to the AARoads wiki being founded.
QuoteDelete None of the sources at the article such as street directories and Google maps establish notability. The sources presented here amount to routine, local coverage of news such as apartments being built along the road or pedestrian crossing improvements in Adelaide which lists this road amongst many roads to be upgraded. Local roads like this must meet WP:GNG which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Keep rationales with comments such as "The article has existed for over six years with no concern" or "Keep article as per norm" should be disregarded by closing admin as completely at odds with good-faith discussion of notability. AusLondonder (talk) 16:16, 4 October 2024 (UTC)
Delete. Map overlays do absolutely nothing for notability as they are not secondary sources, and maps from the owner of the road itself are additionally not independent. Passing mentions in local news are also nowhere near sufficient for GNG. JoelleJay (talk) 00:06, 7 October 2024 (UTC)
I will say this. I would be in favor of deleting a lot of city street articles, just because usually all the sources talk about buildings or famous people on that street and not the street itself. Usually the worst offenders are the UK and Australia. For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Addison_Road,_London that I nominated last year.
What frustrated me about that particular AFD that was mentioned was that it was being kept for the wrong reasons (inertia and passing mentions) while state and provincial highways are getting nominated, and some are actually being deleted. But it certainly demonstrates that there is anti-road vitriol out there, usually those people don't make the distinction between city streets and state highways.
And yet, absolute crap like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_streets,_41%E2%80%93250) hasn't even had an RfD yet...
Quote from: Molandfreak on October 07, 2024, 05:23:33 PMAnd yet, absolute crap like this (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles_streets,_41%E2%80%93250) hasn't even had an RfD yet...
Hold my beer.
The fundraiser by Wikipedia for the first time stimulated a negative reaction with me due to their stance on road articles. I really don't understand their asinine position that secondary sources are better than primary.
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2024, 08:39:54 PMThe fundraiser by Wikipedia for the first time stimulated a negative reaction with me due to their stance on road articles. I really don't understand their asinine position that secondary sources are better than primary.
There are also some significant concerns with the fundraising, as mentioned at this community RFC
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Village_pump_(proposals)/Archive_196#RfC_on_the_banners_for_the_December_2022_fundraising_campaign
Quote from: rschen7754 on October 07, 2024, 03:00:06 PMI will say this. I would be in favor of deleting a lot of city street articles, just because usually all the sources talk about buildings or famous people on that street and not the street itself.
I would hazard a guess that that's because most city streets are not all that interesting, nor that long, in and of themselves.
Some people like that sort of coverage, though, and that's why we spun the U.S. Streets project off of USRD when we were on Wikipedia.
One I'm surprised doesn't have an article is Lighthouse Avenue on the Monterey Peninsula. It is mentioned in at least five other Wikipedia articles. Figured at least the tunnel would merit a standalone page.
Quote from: Rothman on October 07, 2024, 08:39:54 PMThe fundraiser by Wikipedia for the first time stimulated a negative reaction with me due to their stance on road articles. I really don't understand their asinine position that secondary sources are better than primary.
It makes some degree of sense for some subjects, like history or the hard sciences, where the primary source is likely to contain some degree of bias or conjecture. You wouldn't want to use the diary of a soldier as a source in an article, because while it's great for seeing what it was like through his eyes, he wasn't necessarily able to see what was going on at the scale of the battle or the war, and he's going to be biased toward his own side. Filtering that through a professional historian with the expertise to review several of those primary sources and synthesize them into a discussion of the whole can lead to a higher-quality source. Same thing with the sciences, since in many subjects there's no way for a layperson to tell when a scientist is spouting nonsense or fabricating data—it helps to use a trained scientist commenting on the paper to rely on when writing an article.
The problem is that this is an absolute uniform policy which isn't eschewed in topic areas where it makes no sense, and roads is one of those topic areas.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 08, 2024, 12:14:38 AMQuote from: Rothman on October 07, 2024, 08:39:54 PMThe fundraiser by Wikipedia for the first time stimulated a negative reaction with me due to their stance on road articles. I really don't understand their asinine position that secondary sources are better than primary.
It makes some degree of sense for some subjects, like history or the hard sciences, where the primary source is likely to contain some degree of bias or conjecture. You wouldn't want to use the diary of a soldier as a source in an article, because while it's great for seeing what it was like through his eyes, he wasn't necessarily able to see what was going on at the scale of the battle or the war, and he's going to be biased toward his own side. Filtering that through a professional historian with the expertise to review several of those primary sources and synthesize them into a discussion of the whole can lead to a higher-quality source. Same thing with the sciences, since in many subjects there's no way for a layperson to tell when a scientist is spouting nonsense or fabricating data—it helps to use a trained scientist commenting on the paper to rely on when writing an article.
The problem is that this is an absolute uniform policy which isn't eschewed in topic areas where it makes no sense, and roads is one of those topic areas.
I believe articles for people also have strict notability guidelines, so that way they can prevent any random Joe Smith from writing an article about themselves.
That being said, while allowing exceptions for certain subjects would be a good idea, and can see why some people would be hesitant to do so, even if their hesitancy would likely come from a slippery slope fallacy. ("If we allow relaxed standards for X, what's going to stop Y from getting the same relaxed standards?")
Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 08, 2024, 09:39:38 AMThat being said, while allowing exceptions for certain subjects would be a good idea, and can see why some people would be hesitant to do so, even if their hesitancy would likely come from a slippery slope fallacy. ("If we allow relaxed standards for X, what's going to stop Y from getting the same relaxed standards?")
Especially since IMO "slippery slope" isn't really a fallacy. Making small changes to get one's foot in the door and pave the way for larger changes is one of the tried and true ways politicians and advocacy groups bring about larger change.
Quote from: freebrickproductions on October 08, 2024, 09:39:38 AMThat being said, while allowing exceptions for certain subjects would be a good idea, and can see why some people would be hesitant to do so, even if their hesitancy would likely come from a slippery slope fallacy. ("If we allow relaxed standards for X, what's going to stop Y from getting the same relaxed standards?")
That's the thing, roads
did have an exception to the general notability policy, for ten years; it was called WP:GEOROAD.
It's just that now they're rolling back the exception because The General Notability Policy Must Rule All.
Quote from: Scott5114 on October 05, 2024, 06:41:07 AMEventually, if things go on the way they have, enough content will get deleted from Wikipedia that Google will have no choice but to return AARW results.
They Dutch road enthusiast community has maintained its own road wiki since 2007. The content was not copied from Wikipedia, but created from scratch.
This has led to the '
Wegenwiki' (Road's Wiki) being in the top 5 results on Google for many relevant searches.
A large majority of the articles are also sourced pretty well, which could help with SEO.
The Dutch road forum on the other hand, is almost invisible on Google, despite being large and active. I almost never get forum results on Google (except for Reddit recently) and I think Google has deranked internet forums from search results. You can only find it when searching for some very specific things.
Quote from: Chris on October 10, 2024, 08:25:52 AMI think Google has deranked internet forums from search results
When did this happen? Our forum seems to rank fairly high.
I search for highway information a lot for our Wiki (every day) and I cannot recall having ever found the AAroads forum in the results.
And by that I don't mean a search for 'aaroads forum', obviously you can find it that way. But when performing a search for highway-related information. For example I just tried a search for 'I-26 expansion' and the AAroads forum doesn't show up in any of at least the first 5 pages in Google. The same is true for 'I-26 Asheville project', where the forum doesn't pop up, but the AARW does appear at the 5th page of results.
The AAroads website and interstate-guide pop up frequently, but not the forum.
The same is true for Dutch or German searches on Google. I'm also on the Highways & Autobahns forum of Skyscrapercity and I never get results from that forum either.
The forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
Quote from: hotdogPi on October 10, 2024, 08:34:05 AMQuote from: Chris on October 10, 2024, 08:25:52 AMI think Google has deranked internet forums from search results
When did this happen? Our forum seems to rank fairly high.
Quite a while ago - maybe even a decade at this point. It's unfortunate, because there are many searches where seeing what real people are posting matters more than getting a bunch of news articles. It's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reedit.com to the end. It would be nice to have a wider well to draw from, but I don't know the relevant forums most of the time, while I do know Reddit.
Quote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2024, 09:54:38 AMThe forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
(https://i.makeagif.com/media/3-26-2017/Jp1MVA.gif) (https://www.aaroads.com/gif/that-is-a-disgrace-Jp1MVA)
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2024, 09:54:38 AMThe forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
I hesitate to search for the first three results.
Quote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2024, 03:58:23 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2024, 09:54:38 AMThe forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
I hesitate to search for the first three results.
Various wiki pages. Apparently several dudes named Alan have laid claim their own version of Alanland.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2024, 04:22:20 PMQuote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2024, 03:58:23 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2024, 09:54:38 AMThe forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
I hesitate to search for the first three results.
Various wiki pages. Apparently several dudes named Alan have laid claim their own version of Alanland.
For what it's worth, the full name of the infamous one is the Esperantist Republic of Alanland.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not? I actually have a few subreddits I check every day, even though I don't have an account. It's a good supplement for local news (honestly some days it seems like a better source than the local stations on TV) and fandom-related discussion (I'm sure forums still exist somewhere, but good luck finding them). And, of course, random queries about random subjects for which the comments of regular people is more appropriate than the news/blog/product sites that Google favors these days.
Quote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not?
Let's just say a loud minority of redditors have... a reputation.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 11, 2024, 08:31:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not?
Let's just say a loud minority of redditors have... a reputation.
K12 was enough of a Reddit sample to affirm that the site was not for me. Nobody on this forum has said anything regarding Reddit I ever took as a ringing endorsement.
Quote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2024, 08:48:23 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 11, 2024, 08:31:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not?
Let's just say a loud minority of redditors have... a reputation.
K12 was enough of a Reddit sample to affirm that the site was not for me. Nobody on this forum has said anything regarding Reddit I ever took as a ringing endorsement.
Every subreddit has its own culture. I don't think I've ever spent time on the subs K12 was in. But he might not be representative, given that he got banned from there.
Quote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:58:32 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2024, 08:48:23 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 11, 2024, 08:31:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not?
Let's just say a loud minority of redditors have... a reputation.
K12 was enough of a Reddit sample to affirm that the site was not for me. Nobody on this forum has said anything regarding Reddit I ever took as a ringing endorsement.
Every subreddit has its own culture. I don't think I've ever spent time on the subs K12 was in. But he might not be representative, given that he got banned from there.
Regardless, the one common element I've always heard about was the general toxicity. I've heard similar things from a great many people on this forum about places like Twitter also. Why add social media stuff to my plate that seems to not do much but make others miserable?
Quote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:58:32 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2024, 08:48:23 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 11, 2024, 08:31:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 11, 2024, 08:25:05 PMQuote from: LilianaUwU on October 10, 2024, 08:48:32 PMQuote from: vdeane on October 10, 2024, 08:36:04 PMIt's to the point where many of my searches now append site:reddit.com to the end.
Do you really want to read the opinion of redditors, though?
Why not?
Let's just say a loud minority of redditors have... a reputation.
K12 was enough of a Reddit sample to affirm that the site was not for me. Nobody on this forum has said anything regarding Reddit I ever took as a ringing endorsement.
Every subreddit has its own culture. I don't think I've ever spent time on the subs K12 was in. But he might not be representative, given that he got banned from there.
As someone who has moderated a fairly sizeable sub, I can tell you that Reddit's community is very hit or miss in regards to toxicity.
Quote from: LilianaUwU on October 11, 2024, 06:31:44 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 11, 2024, 04:22:20 PMQuote from: hbelkins on October 11, 2024, 03:58:23 PMQuote from: Max Rockatansky on October 10, 2024, 09:54:38 AMThe forum appears fourth in the Google results history for Alanland.
I hesitate to search for the first three results.
Various wiki pages. Apparently several dudes named Alan have laid claim their own version of Alanland.
For what it's worth, the full name of the infamous one is the Esperantist Republic of Alanland.
(https://comicstud.io/c/pogolrufuz.png)