When I posted the links to Slate’s Web-related articles the other day, I hadn’t looked closely at either one of them; I was just startled that Slate would publish two articles about Web-only phenomena, which are subjects they usually avoid. When I took the time to read through both, the Ze Frank article was pretty much what I expected (though it did note the “give and take” aspect of “The Show” that some people ignore), but the TWoP article had very little to do with the acquisition.

Instead, it was mostly a review of the community aspects of that site and an attempt to explain its appeal. You’ve seen me take a look (twice) at what I think makes a site like Metafilter work and a site like Yahoo! Answers fail. Let’s see how the factors I describe compare with those described in the Slate article.

In Slate, Dana Stevens breaks down the appeal of TWoP (as it is known to fans) to three things: 1) Rambling recaps, 2) Talmudic forum commentary and 3) Rigid forum moderation.

I think we’re pretty much on the same page. I would attribute the first and third factors to the unique culture of the place, which was allowed to develop without the deluge of crap that you will see on bigger forums, like those run by the networks. The reason it was able to develop this way is because it was relatively obscure long enough to develop both its charming quirks and a strong culture focused on quality–people went there because they wanted to say something clever and read clever things from other people.

The third factor is part of what allows this culture to survive, even though the site has gotten much bigger and more popular. I think in the case of Metafilter, cheap, dumb posts are mostly avoided because of the nominal registration fee, and less so because of moderation, but I think if moderation is seen as fair, it can serve that purpose just as well.