Goats, and the Slashdot Effect || kuro5hin.org


	create account \| help/FAQ \| contact \| links \| search \| IRC \| site news

Everything

We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Goats, and the Slashdot Effect

By cvou in Internet
Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 07:03:06 PM EST
Tags: Internet (all tags)

On Thursday, July 12, slashdot.org posted a story about Anarchy Online that (used to) linked to a humorous review on somethingawful.com.

The manager (if that's the right term) of somethingawful, Lowtax, is in financial trouble. In short, he has problems paying net traffic bills, and once linked to by slashdot his site was sure to cop a lot more.

I found his tactic of "defense" amusing.

I understand Slashdot is supposed to have a policy about contacting sites before linking to them.
I'm not sure what the heck /. was thinking at the time - somethingawful is a fairly famous website (imho), and, while i'm not a very regular visitor, even I was aware that he was having problems keeping it all going. I'm wondering how the links got on there if they had such a policy, since its certainly rude (and financially cruel) to Lowtax.
Lowtax's "defense" from slashdotting - well, I figured I should leave it out of the intro, and to avoid unnecessarily scarring people, I'll be obtuse. From what I understand Lowtax made the linked article redirect away from his site to another website in the christmas islands domain - one with a rather disgusting picture decorating its front page. Visitors to somethingawful from slashdot instead found themselves staring at something rather unexpected (and unpleasant).
The links dissapeared from slashdot not long after. Some of the final comments on the article reflect the change - yet they were all modded to -1, Troll. Slashdot's update simply says "Links were randomly redirecting people". That's great - nobody needs to know exactly where. But what happened to an apology? Are such things unnecessary when your slashdotting target is some site whose owner isn't a megacorporation that can foot the bandwidth cost?
I suppose I would like to have seen an apology from slashdot. Slashdotting webservers isn't uncommon - i'm used to the fact that after 10+ posts on a topic, the linked story will be unavailable. But never before have I known that the guy on the other end really is going to proverbially suck it down. The linking from slashdot to somethingawful was removed because slashdot readers were getting redirect - not out of kindness or a realisation of the impact the links would have.
I'd like to close this article by asking for opinions and information. How do you feel about the slashdot effect? Should a site like slashdot ask before linking, given the amount of interest that inevitably falls upon the linked site? And was Lowtax's "defense" justified (amusement aside) - or was he just being an ass because he could?

Sponsors

Managed Hosting
VoxCAST Content Delivery
Raw Infrastructure

Goats, and the Slashdot Effect | 41 comments (38 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)

Hmmm (3.18 / 16) (#2)
by jd on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 03:47:36 PM EST

It's tough to critisise Slashdot on this. They get beaten up when they don't include links, and now they get beaten up -for- having links. They just can't win!

Having said that, SomethingAwful is quite capable of installing a different queueing system, or ECN, so that the network CANNOT send more than a certain amount of traffic per unit time. It's all in the HOW-TO's.

Then, there's a third aspect: Why the hell is SomethingAwful paying an ISP who charges per unit of data??? One DoS attack later, and they won't be able to afford room & board in a homeless shelter.

The fact is, I can't see anything wrong on the part of the Slashdot admins. (Except they took my karma away! Bastards! I -earned- that!) I can see quite a lot wrong on the part of SomethingAwful's admins. I can see a GIGANTIC wrong on the part of the ISP. (charging for traffic is an abuse of network privilages.)

this was a better solution by Delirium, 07/13/2001 04:09:24 PM EST (3.66 / 6)
uhmm.. by rebelcool, 07/13/2001 05:44:15 PM EST (4.33 / 3)

Oh, now I understand! by ucblockhead, 07/13/2001 06:00:20 PM EST (4.62 / 8)

Pah-lease (2.50 / 16) (#3)
by QuantumG on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 04:06:34 PM EST

I've had my web page posted on the front of Slashdot before, my site didn't go down, my dsl bill didn't increase (really, who pays by the megabyte?). My web logs filled up but hey, I've got plenty of hard drive space. Bitch and moan, I really dont see the issue. Maybe if people didn't use IIS or put 40 images on every web page or something they wouldn't have this problem.

Gun fire is the sound of freedom.

heh... by rebelcool, 07/13/2001 05:41:13 PM EST (4.00 / 2)

DSL > professional hosting by QuantumG, 07/13/2001 06:39:43 PM EST (2.00 / 1)

that is. by rebelcool, 07/13/2001 06:43:00 PM EST (3.00 / 1)

it was a personal web site I posted on slashdot by QuantumG, 07/13/2001 11:26:40 PM EST (3.00 / 1)

Yet more uninformed bias by wonko, 07/14/2001 02:38:58 PM EST (2.40 / 5)

I wonder if this was engineered? (3.45 / 11) (#5)
by Anonymous 242 on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 04:16:31 PM EST

Isn't every /. trolls dream to get a front page /. story that points there?

Either some accomplished by accident what the geekizoid crowd have attempted to do intentionally for years or some troll finally hit the jackpot.

Umm.. by flikx, 07/14/2001 03:56:47 AM EST (3.20 / 5)
No by Quick Star, 11/07/2002 04:18:12 PM EST (none / 0)

Apology? (3.55 / 20) (#7)
by SPrintF on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 04:37:24 PM EST

But what happened to an apology?

If you meant, when is somethingawful going to apologize to the people redirected to the "goat," then that's a good question.

If you meant, when will slashdot apologize for posting a link to another Internet site, then I don't think you understand the concept of the Internet yet. You put up a site. People visit it. Sometimes a few. Sometimes a lot. If it gets too busy for you to handle, you take the site down. Simple, no?

Not so fast by FlinkDelDinky, 07/13/2001 06:39:53 PM EST (3.40 / 5)
Linking with brains by spoon00, 07/13/2001 07:44:31 PM EST (4.00 / 7)

funny by fluffy grue, 07/14/2001 03:59:43 AM EST (4.00 / 6)

its only a matter of time... (3.38 / 13) (#9)
by rebelcool on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 05:39:12 PM EST

before someone sues slashdot over things like this.

That will be an interesting precident - can the mere link provider be sued for the bandwidth costs of another site? Perhaps if the massive crush was knowingly brought on.

It's going to happen, probably soon.

COG. Build your own community. Free, easy, powerful. Demo site

GET /herds.txt (4.42 / 14) (#16)
by Apuleius on Fri Jul 13, 2001 at 07:19:15 PM EST

Slashdot.org::Mirror::Yes; Others::Mirror:EmailFirst;

This might be a good time to standardise on a file format that allows other sites to know ahead of time whether you can handle a sudden load, and if not, whether you would like your content to be mirrored rather than linked to by places like Slashdot. What do y'all think?

There is a time and a place for everything, and it's called college. (The South Park chef)

Or just use mod_throttle! by mattbee, 07/14/2001 05:52:27 AM EST (3.75 / 4)

But that's how the web works... (2.15 / 13) (#19)
by cbraga on Sat Jul 14, 2001 at 12:07:26 AM EST

The way I see things, when someone puts a website up it's there for everyone to see, whether it's a personal page on Geocities or a site hosted in a colocation facility.

Furthermore, if the content on your site is useful, it follows that many people will want to visit. Therefore, the person, by putting it online, shows the willingness to pay for the bandwidth.

Therefore, Somethingawful's webmaster acted like a big @$$hole. If he isn't willing to pay for his site's costs, and doesn't want it to be visited, then why does he keep it online in the first place? Why won't he kill it and save the cash?

Moreover, I think that therefore no webmaster in the world has any right to sue anyone for linking. Quite the contrary, I suppose Slashdot could sue Somethingawful for obvious reasons.

In closing, if Somethingawful's owner didn't want the bill, he could just put a 100-byte html page saying so.

ESC[78;89;13p ESC[110;121;13p

uh.. by rebelcool, 07/14/2001 01:23:50 AM EST (3.50 / 4)
Websites are like any private-public space by Sunir, 07/15/2001 11:17:54 PM EST (4.00 / 2)

(applauds Lowtax) (3.66 / 9) (#24)
by Kasreyn on Sat Jul 14, 2001 at 05:57:32 AM EST

What, you're saying there was someone left on slashdot who had not yet seen the goatse.cx man?! What rock has he been under this year? =P

Honestly. I applaud Lowtax for finding a cool way to prevent /. arrogance from trashing his site. There's a possible added bonus that the bandwidth hit from this might send the goatse.cx site under, but it's unlikely. That site already gets the vast majority of its hits from /. (I bet their referrer logs are 99% /.), so it probably won't. Still, hats off to Lowtax for a cool move. =)

-Kasreyn

"Extenuating circumstance to be mentioned on Judgement Day:
We never asked to be born in the first place."
R.I.P. Kurt. You will be missed.

Not me. by your_desired_username, 07/14/2001 12:40:38 PM EST (3.25 / 4)

ME neither by Mitheral, 07/16/2001 01:14:04 PM EST (3.00 / 2)

Ha by markb, 07/16/2001 03:25:03 PM EST (4.00 / 3)

Curiosity by Mitheral, 07/17/2001 04:50:28 PM EST (3.00 / 1)

The ASCII version by davidmb, 07/19/2001 11:38:10 AM EST (4.00 / 1)

What about That Other Site's bandwidth costs? (3.57 / 7) (#25)
by ajf on Sat Jul 14, 2001 at 08:23:41 AM EST

If it's so inconsiderate of Slashdot to encourage that many hits on somethingawful.com, why is it OK for Lowtax to do the same thing to the infamous goat site?

"I have no idea if it is true or not, but given what you read on the Web, it seems to be a valid concern." -jjayson

That Site by Matrix, 07/14/2001 04:16:11 PM EST (3.80 / 5)

That's your opinion by anon 17753, 07/16/2001 09:25:19 PM EST (4.00 / 4)

Why does Lowtax object to increased readership? (2.16 / 6) (#29)
by wilson on Sun Jul 15, 2001 at 07:15:44 PM EST

Granted, if /. has a policy of contacting linkees and failed to do that, they're in the wrong, but what puzzles me is why Something Awful would mind.

I just visited SA because I had to double-check this. The only visible source of income on the site is banner ads. Isn't the basic calculus of web advertising: more viewers=more money ? If he's having difficulty paying his bills, wouldn't this help Lowtax address that problem?

Wouldn't it actually generate an even higher profit on ad revenue because the rates that he pays for traffic should go down as usage goes up?

On top of that, by virtue of the fact that SA is a website (therefore made public) and that Lowtax puts a lot of work into it, isn't he really looking for more readers? If a lot of people are reading something interesting on the site, isn't that the best way to promote to potential regular readers?

Magazine and book publishers don't complain about paper and costs when their first printing sells out, so why should websites?

-Wilson

Did you really look? by ODiV, 07/16/2001 10:29:32 AM EST (4.50 / 4)

slashdot is unique. its so weird. (2.60 / 5) (#34)
by juln on Mon Jul 16, 2001 at 06:26:53 PM EST

Whatever else slashdot is, it certainly is unique. You have to love it. LowTax has incredibly intuitive humor, also. His work seems so moronic on the surface yet he reveals himself to know much more about the gmae scene than a casual dork. Also he's quite clever. hah ha. Linking to the goatse .cx site is cutting right to the heart of Slashdot!! Ha! The lowtax ICQ tricks were pretty funny also. How the hell much traffic does slashdot get anyway?? Who are these insane readers??? I think theres no harm in linking to a page - if it is available no the interenet publicly, you are inviting the public, in whatever numbers, to view your page. I feel Lowtax's response is cruel. I was not a victim this time, although i have been a victim of links to there in the past. I used to read stuff on his site, but I was not aware that he was experiencing financial difficluties related to it. I think possibly the retarded images take up a lot of bandwiddth.

A simpler solution for lowtax? (4.00 / 2) (#38)
by onegin on Sat Jul 21, 2001 at 06:01:14 PM EST

Why not just create an account on a free hosting site, mirror the single page, then redirect to that? Jeez, you don't have to be a dick to accomplish a goal.

Heh by Spendocrat, 04/13/2002 08:34:09 PM EST (none / 0)
Heh. by delmoi, 04/13/2002 08:36:40 PM EST (none / 0)

Goats, and the Slashdot Effect | 41 comments (38 topical, 3 editorial, 0 hidden)

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest � 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
My heart's the long stairs.