Talk:Slashdot effect

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Internet culture (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Internet culture, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of internet culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Definition of slashdotted[edit]

The article introduction defines slashdotting as follows:
The Slashdot effect, also known as slashdotting, occurs when a popular website links to a smaller site, causing a massive increase in traffic. This overloads the smaller site, causing it to slow down or even temporarily close.
I think these two sentences imply that slashdotting means traffic overloading by links from a bigger popular website. However, I think slashdotting refers to being featured on slashdot. The traffic overload is a potential result, but is not necessarily part of slashdotting. I think this should be made clearer. Ben T/C 14:19, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Ben, being slashdotted does mean being overloaded. Or at least it originally did. Meanings of these sorts of things do sometimes morph. Crumley (talk) 16:25, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
No, it still means being overloaded. Sometimes people have wrong assumptions. - M0rphzone (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Requested Move (1st): Needs to be more generic[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Both 'sides' have asserted that one title or the other is more common, but neither have provided sources, so they carry the same weight. No prejudice against a new RM if sources are provided. Jenks24 (talk) 04:21, 23 June 2012 (UTC)



Slashdot effectFlash crowd

I actually wouldn't mind if the name "Slashdot" didn't ever appear in article title or content. The term is avoided for cases that don't involve the site Slashdot, and it has no longer been a phenomenon unique to Slashdot. Each time Slashdot is randomly mentioned, a bunch of other sites' names are obligatorily name dropped as well, which can be distracting. Flash crowd appears to be a generic term version. --Bxj (talk) 21:31, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this article should be merged/renamed into flash crowd, and this can be turned into a redirect page. The name Slashdot effect can be explained in a terminology or history section. - M0rphzone (talk) 23:55, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
As I said in the AFD, I'd support merging this article into flash crowd (the more generic term) rather than the other way around. Robofish (talk) 12:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Update: Some reasons are already listed at the deletion discussion. - M0rphzone (talk) 03:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Comment since the two articles were merged, you'd need to move the edit history somewhere... 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:45, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • That can easily be done. In cases like this it normally goes to something like Talk:Flash crowd/old. Jenks24 (talk) 06:20, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Shadowjams already has that problem addressed. He will take care of the proper moving/etc. if this proposal is agreed upon. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose; "Slashdot effect" (or simply "Slashdotted") is the far more common term. "Flash crowd" is older, but I've never heard it applied to web sites before today (oddly enough, just minutes ago on Know Your Meme). Powers T 11:53, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Go check the Jargon File, (or this article's sections). - M0rphzone (talk) 06:53, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
  • Support: To me, a more generic term seems better, and this generic term also seems more timeless. —BarrelProof (talk) 17:09, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
    • On second thought: The proposed name fails to capture the concept of association with web site loading, as opposed to a crowd of people (e.g. as in flash mob). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:18, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, someone just deleted the hatnote indicating flash mob. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
        • But someone (me) just restored it. (Drifting off topic – let's try to get back to the discussion of the article name.) —BarrelProof (talk) 16:49, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
          • A flash mob is not the same as a flash crowd. A flash crowd is not a virtual crowd of people, but rather a sudden burst in traffic. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
            • That is why we have different articles for the two, if they were the same thing, there would only be one article. 70.49.127.65 (talk) 04:38, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
              • Yes, the distinction between the the two terms is something important that readers ought to be informed about. Unfortunately, the hatnote that would tell people about that distinction has been deleted twice in the last couple of days (most recently by M0rphzone at 06:55, 18 June 2012 (UTC)). –BarrelProof (talk) 05:01, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
                • Well there's already a link provided in the see also section, not to mention that a quick read of the second bolded term should work. But on a second thought, since the two are different but may sound the same, there may need to be a hatnote. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:18, 20 June 2012 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Some Idea of Numbers?[edit]

Is there any way to ground this in some reality, i.e. give some idea of how many "hits" it might take to knock-down a small site? Is "hits" the unit of measure? Is this the friendly equivalent of a "DNS attack"? I'm looking for ways to connect the theory of the definition with some "real life" experiences.

Also, it might be nice to have some kind of "What do do?" section, if your (presumably small) site gets slashdotted. Would an upgrade of the webhosting service be sufficient?Jonny Quick (talk) 17:28, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

Requested move (2nd)[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

All opposes and speedy closes, so no. ResMar 20:06, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


Slashdot effectFlash crowd

Re-submitted move request since previous request was closed too early (the following reasons re-posted from previous deletion discussion): The term "Slashdot effect" and other more specific terms (Farked, Reddit effect, Instalanche) generally pertain to the effect of traffic overloads from those respective sites, so instead of using a specific term with the site title in the name, the phenomenon can be referenced at this generic page. The term "flash crowd" is a more generic term that does not include a specific company name, such as Slashdot, or any associated name or idea involved with it. It's more widely used than "Slashdot effect" with 63200 results in a Google search for "flash crowd" -mob vs. 53500 results for "Slashdot effect". For more appropriate scholarly articles, there are 2690 results for "flash crowd" -mob vs. 541 results for "Slashdot effect". Many sources use the term "flash crowd", and it is improper to attribute the effect to any specific site. Supporting this, the entry in the Jargon File says that the term flash crowd is a more appropriate term to describe the phenomenon. "In a perhaps inevitable generation, the term [Slashdot effect] is being used to describe any similar effect from being listed on a popular site, [but] this would better be described as a flash crowd." Originally the term "Slashdot effect" was coined because the Slashdot site was one of the more popular link aggregation/user-submitted content sites back in the early 2000s. We're in the 2010s and now that Slashdot isn't as frequented as before, and many other popular sites also exist that cause the same phenomenon, I believe it's a better solution to move the content to "Flash crowd" to prevent any possible "favoritism". In fact, there are more results for "flash crowd" vs "Slashdot effect" for the past year with 2960 results for "flash crowd" -mob vs. 1900 results for "Slashdot effect". (Slashdot effect is too specific and will become obsolete as the site continues to decrease in site rank and fewer and fewer people know about the site, which is already happening). Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 05:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC) - M0rphzone (talk) 02:13, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

On a side note, instead of using a created term or possible neologism, perhaps a better solution is to use a descriptive sentence or noun phrase article title similar to something like ‎Statewide opinion polling for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. This eliminates the problems associated with using a coined term. For example, the title could be Sudden traffic overload or Unsuspected sudden traffic surges on websites. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

  • Speedy close. This move was just closed; if you have a problem with the closure, take it up with the closing admin, or post it on WP:MRV. Powers T 18:21, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
    • M0rphzone did ask me about this. I told him he could start a new RM as long as he provided some sources. The last RM was basically closed as "no consensus" because of the lack of participation and sources. A new discussion with sources could result in a clear outcome, IMO. Jenks24 (talk) 10:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
      • I still oppose this move. M0rphzone's Google search is fatally flawed, as there are an awful lot of false positives (see, e.g., [1] and [2]). Powers T 16:20, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
  • More scholarly articles use the term flash crowd instead of Slashdot effect, but regular sites use Slashdot effect more often. I'm not sure if you guys have any concern over the use of a specific company name in the name of a phenomenon, but I still feel that using a generic term is more appropriate in this article or any article title. Also, instead of using these two terms, is it possible to name the article specifically by describing its topic using a phrase like the examples I posted above? - M0rphzone (talk) 02:06, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
    • I don't see any reason to go through contortions to avoid using a specific company name. If that's the most common name, it's the most common name. Powers T 02:12, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose. I have not heard of the term "flash crowd" before this and the previous RM, it does not appear to have entered into common usage. If that ever happens, we can reconsider the issue, although personally I find it confusingly similar to the entirely different flash mob. At least the term "Slashdot effect" is unambiguous and has had considerable actual use. Although the site Slashdot.org is probably less influential than it once was, it is not up to us to promote any new term before it actual enters into widespread usage. — P.T. Aufrette (talk) 15:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Oppose per User:P.T. Aufrette -- just not known by this title yet. Mark Hurd (talk) 01:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Speedy close excessive renomination speed. If you want to reopen it, go to WP:MRV -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:04, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

"Flash mob" and "flash crowd"[edit]

Exactly what's up with removing the hatnote for flash mob? People at the two RMs have commented that "flash crowd", which redirects here, is confusable with "flash mob". -- 70.49.127.65 (talk) 06:05, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Good question. I think the hatnote is useful, because the reader shouldn't be assumed to already know exactly what the other term is or what is the difference in meaning between these similar phrases. The last person that deleted the hatnote was Mkdw (25 June 2012), who didn't participate in the Talk page discussions. —BarrelProof (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right, I did not participate in that discussion because I didn't think it necessary for the change that is consistent with the main usage of hatnotes and redirects (WP:TRHAT WP:RELATED). You should also realize your argument is not directly targeting flash mobs, but taking on two separate and monumental tasks.

  1. hatnoting every similar sounding article title to the primary topic and its inclusive redirects.
  2. educating people on the difference of two completely separate topics and ideas.

To accomplish 1) your permutations are already in the thousands. Consider how many articles even have the word flash, crowd, and effect -- let alone all the other redirects. You cannot add a hatnote for each and in fact there are a few other articles with even a closer name to slashdot effect than flashmob. Let's exclude redirects, because you don't hatnote for redirects -- after the move this argument is moot anyway. A hatnote does not have to appear even in similar sounding circumstances. If it did you would certainly see things like: All pages with titles containing "Effect". For example, Elizabeth II as the hatnote Elizabeth II (disambiguation) but not Elizabeth nor Elizabeth (given name). Secondly, hatnotes are not meant to educate people on the difference of two separate topics and ideas. Snow and Snowplow do not hatnote each other even with the fact that they centre around the same fundamental element. Again, the permutations would be largely defeatist of the purpose of hatnotes. Mkdwtalk 20:03, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

That seems like a rather grand argument against a "straw man" characterization. This is a discussion of one specific hatnote in one particular article. No one suggested to establish the extreme policy that is characterized above, and the notion of confusing a snowplow with snow seems like a bit of a snow job. —BarrelProof (talk) 12:17, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
As does the idea of using hatnotes to educate readers to the difference of two completely separate ideas because one has a redirect that sounds like another article. Mkdwtalk 20:26, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm sure there is quite a precedent for hatnotes "redirecting" users to terms similar to redirects that are entirely unrelated to the page. Mark Hurd (talk) 17:45, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

A thing of the past?[edit]

My crappy little blog run on a mate's creaky and all-but-unmaintained VM got slashdotted. Total hits from Slashdot? ... around 6,000, server barely noticed. The Slashdot effect has gone unmentioned in public for a while now, and it appears to be a thing of the past. But this is of course anecdotal - has anyone done any recent surveys as to how big a Slashdotting is these days? - David Gerard (talk) 17:53, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

Factors in low hitcount could include:
  • 3 links in submission (single links presumably get way more, possibly more than all 3 combined got?)
  • name of submitter matches name of domain (a self-promotion turn-off for many geeks)
  • a legal story (oh god, another legal story on slashdot, just what we didn't want! ;)
  • and lastly, it included the word "Brands" alongside "Wikimedia" which if misread as "Brandt" may cause twitching in some test subjects... ;)
Now, if you'd invented a revolutionary new GUI on a home-whittled beowulf cluster of arduinos, and still not gotten slashdotted, then I'd worry. *hums innocently* —Quiddity (talk) 20:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
I can't recall the last time I saw a site knocked over by Slashdot. I've put the article in the past tense as even it notes there was evidence the effect was wearing off in 2005; to take it out of past tense, we'd need evidence it was still occurring - David Gerard (talk) 20:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
Found this: http://www.makerbot.com/blog/2012/01/13/were-getting-old-school-slashdotted/
and this: http://cmdrtaco.net/2011/09/the-slashdot-effect-from-the-other-side/
and this: http://www.trotch.com/blog/why-google-cares-about-social/
which are varied and interesting perspectives.
I think the last time I personally read about it was 2006: http://kottke.org/06/01/digg-vs-slashdot
Boingboing and Reddit are usually the culprits in recent slashdottings, afaik. (People are also claiming Digg, but noone still uses Digg! >.> ) Plus any urls mentioned in broadcast tv.
I can't see anything citable in either direction. I agree with the past-tense for /. itself though. —Quiddity (talk) 21:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
For comparison, the site just got submitted to Hacker News and I'm noticing its effect, even through WP-SuperCache. I'll report back with numbers - David Gerard (talk) 14:46, 10 September 2012 (UTC)
About 3300 hits from HN, mostly over an hour or two (while it was on the front page). The server did whimper slightly at this, until I slightly reconfigured WP-SuperCache - I expect it'd cope a lot better with load now, though WP-SuperCache is still in PHP mode rather than the faster mod_rewrite mode - David Gerard (talk) 20:37, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
I had cause to add the Hightraffic template to an article recently, with interesting permutation: reddit linked to Berners Street Hoax in 2010 and again in 2012, both times in /r/funny. See Talk:Berners Street Hoax for links, incl. the traffic stats on those days. (2010 = 180,000. Same caption/link in 2012 = 400,000 ). —Quiddity (talk) 19:10, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This is why I suggested moving this to Flash crowd, where we can go over the main overview of the topic and mention/analyze the history and all terms being used, instead of using a dated term like this for ever-evolving Internet phenomena/culture. What do you guys think about this? - M0rphzone (talk) 07:00, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

You have a point, though it still gets called "slashdotting" even if that's a misnomer - David Gerard (talk) 09:38, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Sorry, but I'm not buying that "flash crowd" has overtaken "Slashdotting" in popularity; and confusion with "flash mob" is highly likely. Powers T 21:06, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
Traditional news sources are slow to report on newer terms or adopt the constant changes in Internet culture/phenomena, so that's not a surprise. - M0rphzone (talk) 02:30, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

sites such as...[edit]

I have checked the corresponding references. The named examples are not included in references. As such, those are original research. we don't include them without references. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 02:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Fuck, how lazy/ignorant are you? Can you not delete shit just because you don't see it or you're unfamiliar with it? There are plenty of sources: Reddit effect, Farked, Drudged And btw, I don't mean this as a personal attack; I'm just pissed at the way you're handling things in your edits. - M0rphzone (talk) 04:21, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
You failed to read my comment. I stated they're not addressed in corresponding reference. You should have added the references when you restored it, but you didn't. You need to support the claim " The effect has been associated with other websites or metablogs such as Fark, Drudge Report, Reddit, Twitter and Digg, leading to terms such as being Farked or Drudged, or being under the Reddit effect" with reliable secondary source per WP:VCantaloupe2 (talk) 04:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And you failed to be patient. Next time try waiting before pulling the trigger so quickly.
Also, how many times have I told you not to revert the entire edit? Only revert the part that you have a problem with, not the entire edit. Do you not know how to read? - M0rphzone (talk) 05:02, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
And like I said, find the fucking refs yourself instead of getting others to do it, or deleting it out of ignorance and stubborn adherence to policies, which hinders the advancement of articles. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:05, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Stop swearing at me. You're deviating from Civility policy. I believe its the other way around. If someone types something up, its on them to provide supporting references. So far, you have been proactively restoring contents without adding references. You want them to stick? Add references. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:10, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Heh, I didn't add those sentences. And besides the vandals, deletionists are who fuck up the articles. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:14, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
WP:V and WP:RS are there so that Wikipedia doesn't become a litter ground for cobweb of he said, she said and essays written up by someone. This article may not be up to its own notability criteria and I may need to nominate for deletion. Deletionists keep them in check. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:23, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Overdoing it doesn't help. Because all you're doing is removing the work that other people spent their time/efforts on. Maybe they miss a few refs or don't provide enough footnote refs. In that case, it's better to try searching for refs and see if what they wrote is correct/true, rather than blanking without even checking/verifying the content. - M0rphzone (talk) 05:37, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
One can't expect to just free write things and expect that others will build references for them. Write something up, that writer should be adding references as they go. The claim "late 2000" is your assessment, thus original research, which we're not supposed to do. If you find otherwise, please provide an argument supported by policies. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 05:40, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Diminishing effect[edit]

I've moved the edit comments to the talk page: - M0rphzone (talk) 05:58, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

"diminishing since 2005" is supported by 2005 article how? Also, the other claim needs to be directly supported by inline references. (Cantaloupe)

The date supports it; they report on it as is occurs or close to the occurrence. Why would someone say, "As of now, we have observed an increase in xxx"? (M0rphzone)
"Over the past year, the Slashdot effect has begun to fizzle." as quoted. Not "declining since 2005" Stop ASSUMING. (Cantaloupe)
"Stop *ASSUMING*", and it's not a primary source. Besides, many online sites may directly link to the primary sources (M0rphzone)
"latter half of the 2000s" did not originate from the reference, thus original research (Cantaloupe)
Again, the date supports it; they report on it as it occurs or close to the occurrence. Why would they say, "As of now, we have observed a decrease in xxx?" (M0rphzone)
Latter half of 2000s as in 2005-2010? The article was written in 2005. Therefore, it can not tell the future. WP:CRYSTAL provide the quotation that supports the claim in talk page. stop making editorial comments.

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── The ref specifically says, " Over the past year, the Slashdot effect has begun to fizzle. Nowadays, a mention on Slashdot typically increases Tom's traffic by just 5% to 10%." *Nowadays* means 2005, *over the past year* means starting from 2004. We don't need a direct year stated in order to understand what they meant. But if you still don't understand, then I don't know what to say to you, except: stop being stubborn. - M0rphzone (talk) 06:01, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The current version more accurately reflects whats said in the source, the way its supposed to be. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 09:55, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
Which is why I reworded it. - M0rphzone (talk) 22:39, 24 October 2012 (UTC)
How many times did we have to go back and forth before you finally figured that out? I've been saying all along how it was said before was improperly editorialized by an Wiki editor that added that, as well as your "latter half of 2000s". it's not that difficult to precisely say what the source says. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:03, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
I changed it after I found the specific sentence in the article. Before, I remembered the gist of it after reading, but didn't remember the exact wording of the sentence, which is why I worded it the way it was before. - M0rphzone (talk) 00:21, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
Are you basically saying that you went through all that back and force based on your poor recollection before finally making you decide to visit back to the reference? Double checking the reference is the first thing to do. Cantaloupe2 (talk) 00:23, 25 October 2012 (UTC)
My recollection is far from being poor, but next time I'll check the refs more thoroughly. I basically skim-read articles when I read them online, and it's not like a lot of people don't do that. - M0rphzone (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2012 (UTC)