Talk:Slashdot effect/Archive 1

boingboing
does boingboing have the same effect? JohnRussell 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot sure is lol cool. --Isequals 03:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Slashdot and Wikipedia
On 26 July 2001 wikipedia suffered from the slashdot effect and posted the following message:

We have been slashdotted, so we are having a highly busy day. If you get an 'edit lock' error, please just wait a few minutes and submit again. Our system isn't accustomed to this much progress this quickly!

That message was prompted by this post on Slashdot.

There has been at least one study on the Slashdot effect published. I will see if I can dig it up. ~ender 2003-04-19 00:21 MST

Times that Wikipedia has been slashdotted
Note: This was in the main article but has been moved to eliminate the self-referential aspect of the article. It may be better to move it to Slashdottings (linked from Wikipedia in the media).

Wikipedia has been "slashdotted" on:
 * July 26, 2001 - Slashdot article: 'Britannica and Free Content'
 * January 22, 2003 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia's 100,000th article' ([[media:Wikipedia100,000.png|screenshot]])
 * December 28, 2003 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Needs $20K'
 * February 2, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Reaches 200,000 Articles'
 * May 12, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Webby Award 2004 Winners Announced'
 * July 7, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Hits 300,000 Articles'
 * July 28, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Founder Jimmy Wales Responds'
 * September 21, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Hits Million-Entry Mark'
 * December 14, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Usenet Psychic Wars With Wikipedia'
 * December 23, 2004 - Slashdot article: 'Larry Sanger on Wikipedia and World'
 * January 3, 2005 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Criticised by Its Co-founder'
 * March 14, 2005 - Slashdot article: 'Online Poker Googlebomb'
 * April 18 - 19, 2005 - Slashdot article: The Early History of Nupedia and Wikipedia: A Memoir Part I & Part II
 * June 26, 2005 - Slashdot article: 'Yahoo! Orders Wikipedia Hardware'
 * August 5, 2005 - Slashdot article: 'Wikipedia Announces Tighter Editorial Control'


 * Keep in mind that some of the events listed above (e.g. June 26, a Sunday) happen to fall on low-traffic days, while others (April 18) are much higher traffic days by default. Slashdotting, which involves much more than just Slashdot itself (it triggers a wave of email, IM, IRC, blog and other repetition of the links in question) can vary greatly. -Harmil 19:55, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

Does November 5th count?
Does the November 5th slashdot date count? Read the article. (I added that to the list of dates but I'm not sure about it.) Tjdw 21:46, 5 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Wikipedia on Wikipedia
In accordance with our general goal of avoiding self-referential articles in the article space, I removed:


 * Note that after being "slashdotted", Wikipedia can suffer from vandalism and changes of viewpoints in articles that stray from the consensus reached. Join the volunteer fire department to help double check all changes made after slashdottings to ensure that a neutral point-of-view is maintained.

Why ref. to the marriage proposal
I don't understand why Cmdr Taco's proposal to Kathleen Fent is mentioned. That Slashdot story hold no link, so who got slashdotted - Slashdot ?

I understand that strictly the article only mentions this story as an example of an 'active' topic - but that story couldn't have generated the Slashdot effect - and is therefore irrelevant. Not ?

Time to rename
Is the slashdot effect really only when linked from Slashdot or can the same term be used for the same observed effect? Other web articles (see for example http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,289893,sid9_gci214064,00.html) seem to class it more generally, which I would additionally do. (posted by an anon a while ago)


 * I don't think Slashdot effect is the best name for this - the article could easily be expanded to discuss the effect large sites or other sudden exposure has (eg. 1901 census in the UK and more recently).  I'm trying to think of a better name for it and will move it soon if nobody objects. violet/riga (t) 18:32, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Anyway, yes, many other sites can cause something similar, but Slashdot was first, and any other time I've seen it named its always refered to along the lines of a "mini-Slashdot effect". Its becoming a generic term, like Hoover for a vacuum cleaner.

Kiand 18:45, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * I'd actually argue that Slashdot wasn't first, though it may have been the first majorly publicised occurence. I've seen many other times it's happened and it's not been called a "mini-Slashdot effect" - the world doesn't revolve around that website and neither should Wikipedia. violet/riga (t) 21:12, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Potentially true. I'm no advocate of Slashdot myself... But the term does seem to have come into use a lot more often since they came into existance.


 * Then again, before the time they, and many many other sites, came onto the net, the net wasn't really big enough for accidental DDOS's to happen....


 * Kiand 21:22, 27 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree, a rename is in order for the article. This "slashdot effect" is a breach in NPOV policy. Various other websites have noted similar effect, such as Digg (a heavy hitter similar to slashdot digg vs slashdot). Monkey Brain 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Bullshit. It has always been called slashdotting. It is the original name of the effect, the first time it was observed discussed and named. The fact the article is already trying to rename a known term to be suit their own favorite site is what makes it NPOV. Renaming the Slashdot effect would be similar to renaming SPAM. It doesn't make any sense. Wikipedia really needs to look out for fanboyism. There is a heavy mudslinging from fark and digg towards slashdot. Please don't let those mudfights spill over to wikipedia and cause rediculious renamings. Btw. Slashdotting aka. the slashdot effect is also in several printed dictionaries.

Slasdot effect, slashdotted, /.'ed are generic terms. I do not know if they were the first terms but it was definitely popularized by slasdhot. The idea of this name being in violation of the NPOV policy is absolute nonsense or otherwise you'd have to go change the name of the Osborne Effect as well. This name change reeks of some digg user trying to rename it the "digg effect" because they prefer it or just dislike slashdot in general.66.139.217.157 18:02, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Incorporate into web traffic article
The web traffic article is slowly expanding into a comprehensive article about the traffic going to web sites. The traffic overload section would be a perfect location to incorporate the information in this article into a more generic look into this effect. Anyone against this move? violet/riga (t) 19:52, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Yes. Me. The "Slashdot Effect" is an incredibly well known term, and just shoving this in with a redirect would be unsuitable in my opinion. Duplicating content is bad, I know, but this could be a suitable situation for it - I've only ever seen it called the "Slashdot Effect" or the "Heise Effect" - the term "server overload" seems to have died out lately. Kiand 22:55, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * Farked is another term for it. That makes three known terms for pretty much the same thing and we can't really have articles for all three.  By creating one central page we can avoid the duplication and mention these variants. violet/riga (t) 23:13, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * As well as Dugg or Digg effect. You will never hear "This page just got slashdotted!!! OhN0ez!!11!One1" in a Digg comment. Nor will you hear "This page got dugg!!! ZOMG" in a slashdot or fark. Obviously, the terminologies are popular only within the communities that created the term. Monkey Brain 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

I oppose this - the slashdot effect is different from general web traffic. Trollminator 22:56, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * It's excessive web traffic causing traffic overload. violet/riga (t) 23:27, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * No, the slashdot effect is not simply excessive web traffic. It's excessive web traffic caused by being mentioned on Slashdot. I think we can create an article that deals with all these phenomena where a single site has the power to cause an influx in traffic that is capable of causing server overload. Merging into web traffic would be too narrow imho. That's like merging traffic accident or perhaps more appropriately traffic congestion into "traffic". &mdash; David Remahl
 * Picky! That's fine - my objection is to calling it Slashdot effect when other sites can do it. It should have scope to be a large enough article in its own right.  Now, what to call it..? violet/riga (t) 18:27, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I suspect that the importance of the phrase has declined as the influence of Slashdot has diminished, but it's still worth an article in its own right as a peculiar phrase that attracted widespread interest. On the other hand, the article should stay focused on this particular term, and on web traffic spikes from Slashdot itself, whereas more general web traffic phenomena should go elsewhere.  &mdash;Steven G. Johnson 05:03, Nov 22, 2004 (UTC)
 * Exactly, this article should be about the catch phrase itself, as Slashdot is by far not the only site that can and does cause server overloads, plenty of weblogs are known to have the same effect. Information about the effects of the influx of traffic from a single source should be in web traffic. To throw in an analogy as well, keeping the articles like this is like keeping seperate articles on three-person and two-person couches. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\talk]] 20:56, Nov 29, 2004 (UTC)

Right, I've made a few changes, incorporating some info and expanding the relevant web traffic section and rearranging this article a bit while still retaining a great deal of the information. violet/riga (t) 13:26, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I would probably support moving the Slashdot Effect page content onto a different name, like "Web Traffic Overload" or even "Distributed Denial of Service" or something, but I think it's incorrect to simply lump it in to Web Traffic. As someone further up in the discussion mentioned, that would be like rolling the article on "auto accidents" in with "traffic." (Besides which, the "Web Traffic" article is getting quite long anyway.) Frankly I think that the phrase "Slashdot Effect" is much more common than "digg effect" or "Fark effect," to the point where we would do best just to redirect those other terms to Slashdot Effect, but if that offends some people than I suppose I could support moving it all to some neutrally-titled page. However I think substantial note should be made that the behavior/effect in general is often just called the "Slashdot effect" or "Slashdot-like," regardless of the source. So, to sum up: I am against moving this into Web Traffic. I would reluctantly support moving it to a page with a more-neutral name, but only if there was overwhelming opposition to the current situation. - Kadin2048 17:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously needs a different one than Website Overload. Perhaps something like "Short-term traffic overload" or something. Monkey Brain 00:03, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Delete this page
All these Slashdot subarticles need to be combined under the main Slashdot article. There is no reason for one site to hav half a dozen articles.
 * Mr. Unknown: Although your arguement has merit, I would like to point out that the Wikipedia pages also span multiple pages.
 * Edit: Dang it, I always forget to add my name. Cheapy


 * I disagree strongly. If all the pages were simply about the site itself (Slashdot.org) then I might be able to see the point, but in this case the page is about a particular behavior/effect, which just happens to be named after a particular website. The connection between the two is obviously there, but it's not as if they're identical articles and deserving of a merge/delete. More generally, I think if there's ever any question of whether two topics deserve two separate pages, then the separate pages should be kept, since removing the pages (even if all content is retained on the combined page) destroys contextual information, and might discourage contribution by making the articles less specific. -- Kadin2048 00:03, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Google
Google, especially with regards to images, ought to be mentioned here.
 * Could you expand on that or Be Bold? violet/riga (t) 10:46, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Since there is only the sorting method of "most popular", there will, of course, be certain images (and the ones host) which will be viewed - viewed too much. Really, nothing I've Moogled was helped by the "popularity" sorting. The most used searches - I couldn't imagine otherwise - being porn searches (just enter a random obscenity! Fastest porn in the world!) is just really stupid for this sorting method. I wonder when 90% of all images you click on there displays 404 or "redirection limit exceeded", if Google will take a hint then. --Seas 12:02, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

Similar effects
Violetriga, if you're an administrator, you should know that it's against wikipedia rules to repeatedly revert changes without explaining them.

There is a clear and compelling case that Slashdot is maliciously profiting from others' inconvenience and choosing not to do anything about it as to have something to offer to paying subscribers (the chance to "beat the rush"). When I have time I will reintroduce this information into the article.
 * By all means you can add it back in - as long as it's not as POV as it has been before. violet/riga (t) 12:22, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

spelling
Normal rules of English spelling dictate the the word be spelled 'Slashdotted', unless you say it 'SlashDOTted'.

Mirrors
The article says (after my copyediting to hopefully state the same thing more clearly or concisely):


 * MirrorDot and Network Mirror are systems that automatically mirror any Slashdot-linked pages to ensure that the content remains available even if the original site becomes unresponsive. Suffering sites may be able to mitigate the Slashdot effect by temporarily redirecting requests for the targeted pages to one of these mirrors.

I, not having experience with it (been slashdotted myself, but didn't try using a mirror), wonder if it works like that. I.e., the potential problem I'm wondering about is, what happens when a mirror site tries to mirror a site that redirects to the mirror site? (Got that? ;-) If the mirror(s) grab a copy once when the site first appears on Slashdot's front page, then a redirect could be added after that happens. If that's all that happens, fine and good. Do these mirrors not come back checking for updates? -- Kbh3rd 20:06, 4 November 2005 (UTC)
 * I think mirrordot and network mirror only grab once and generally only mirror for a relatively short period (so don't bookmark a mirrordot or network mirror page if you actually wan't to get back to it later) but i'm not entirely sure. Plugwash 02:15, 5 November 2005 (UTC)
 * FWIW, I think this is the case -- they just grab the content once, and then mirror it for the next 24 hours or so. So usually they get the page early on, before the site operator would have a chance to change it and cause the linked URL (in the Slashdot article) to redirect to Coral Cache or whatever. - Kadin2048 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

rename this page to slashdotted and add a redirect? anyone?
 * I think it's more appropriate to have the page under the noun form of the term (the "Slashdot Effect"), and put a redirect from "Slashdotted" to here, if people think that searchers are likely to type in that term instead. I don't know of many articles that are saved under the past-tense verb like that. - Kadin2048 17:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

What happened to digg?
This article redirects from the "digg effect" but this page makes no mention of digg. Why? &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.36.188.106 (talk &bull; contribs) 02:47, January 4, 2006 (UTC).


 * Digg is similar to Slashdot in that it's a very popular, high traffic website, which links extensively to external articles, often on servers which aren't used to high load conditions. The "Digg Effect" is the exact same effect as the "Slashdot effect," that is to say, effectively a non-malicious distributed denial-of-service attack by virtue of the very high number of requests to a server. So I don't think it's really wrong to just redirect "Digg Effect" (or "website x effect", where website is any other high traffic site that produces the same effect and is referred to as such) to Slashdot effect. Unless someone can come up with evidence that suggests that some other term both predates and is currently in as wide use as the term 'Slashdot Effect.' -- Kadin2048 23:58, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Digg effect" is the standard term for Digg. The "Slashdot effect" for Slashdot. The effect is same, yet the article promotes only Slashdot effect's POV. This article is Slashdot POV not NPOV. NPOV Breached???? Monkey Brain 00:46, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I mentioned earlier that some of the renaming effort reeked of a digg user who's jealous and look what I find. I use both, but Slashdot was around (and hitting sites with the slashdot effect) before digg was even a concept in their creator's mind. Your argument of POV vs NPOV is irrelevent.  Perhaps we should add a page for digg effect, and fark effect, google news effect, netscape.com effect, myyspace effect...should I keep going? (PS I use Digg far more than slashdot now, but the correct term is slashdot effect).66.139.217.157 18:10, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Because as mentioned throughout this talk page, slashdot really was the first big name site to have this influence and be the notable source. the "Slashdot Effect" will always be the slashdot effect, no matter what fad sites pop up in the mean time. Exactly like how a kleenex is a kleenex. Of course competing products won't refer to themselfs as kleenex, but if I had some generic brand kleenex on my desk and you asked for a kleenex, I wouldn't be a dick about it and say "DONT HAVE ANY THIS IS BRAND-X TISSUE-WIPE 50000". --Semi 09:44, 26 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I completely agree.. I came to this talk page specifically intending to defend against digg fans :) it's CALLED the slashdot effect D\=&lt; (talk) 08:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Regardless of who coined the phrase, I would like a statistical representation (aka NUMBER) of hits per second a page receives due to this effect. I know the info is out there somewhere. MC Dupree 15:18, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Bugzilla blocks Slashdot no more?
I read this story and it had a link to Mozilla's Bugzilla site. When I clicked on it, I didn't get any "link from Slashdot disabled" message. --  Denelson83  15:48, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV edits
Obviously this page was heavily into the slashdot POV. So I have edited and added other effects listing as well. Now that think about it, I think there also needs to be change in the name of the article. From slashdot effect to "blah blah blah effect"; of course, if there is no better terminology, then we'll keep using slashdot effect until a NPOV title can be assigned. Monkey Brain 23:17, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Errr the only other thing thats related to this topic is Denial of Service. Merge this article into the other one??Adam Y 13:49, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

citation for wanged
This term is mentioned in the commentary by the Penny Arcade guys in their book, "Attack of the Bacon Robots".

Java
What happened to the part of the article referring to the Java test site that got slashdotted? I would have thought that was ideal for this page. 193.122.137.1 (talk) 13:53, 25 July 2008 (UTC)