I love it when a thread comes together. Just wanted to share my respect for a perfectly crafted question and answer.
"People aren't "filtering" the best and most interesting of the web to bring here, they're grabbing the first thing that happens to be on the web and supports their position, then they bring it here for the sake of furthering their point of view or starting a discussion."
I've noticed a trend of increasingly common political commentary in front page posts. Most recently, some of the links have been to news stories specifically for the purpose of criticizing them. Should we adopt an explicit policy of links on the outside, commentary on the inside?
What constitutes a good post? Although there is no simple answer, perhaps we can get a general idea. Respond with a link to a post or thread that you think is good, and (briefly) explain why you think it is good. This thread can then serve as a database of good posts (and without needing any new code!) for future reference.
I’m really confused. This happens often so do try to help me out. The guidelines describe a good post as a web page that most people haven’t seen which contains interesting content and might warrant discussion. Does a story that ran in a few national newspapers and recieved play on several news networks fit that criteria? Remote Rats, The Clinton Show, Powell Peace Conference, the missing Florida girl and two Massaoui stories can't seem to be defined — according to the guidelines — as a good post. So why are there so many?