I'm running Firefox 1.5.0.1 (the most recent release) on a Windows 2000 PC and also couldn't get to the survey. On a brighter note, I have a FF extension that allows me to right-click on a link and open it in Internet Explorer ("IE View"). Once I did that, the survey magically appeared.

One of the biggest issues with this 2 way web thing is seperating the good stuff from the fluff,chaff,etc.... Democratic web does not mean that some people's content is just better than other people's content. So make it a real democratic web -- not the people's republic of web 2.0:

* Allow us to give feedback about each other. Then start maintaining a feedback store for each reader's contributed content. The higher a person's score, the closer to the top you float that person's content.

* Similarly, score people on how often they contribute and do other stuff. The more they contribute, the more visible they become (but it has to be "good" contribution -- thus the necessity for feedback scores or some such mechanism)

* Allow people to nominate "best contributor of the month" or best article or best blog. Basically do a web 2.0 awards show.

* Allow people to tag content

* Have a tag cloud showing what the current zeitgeist is

A lot of my suggestions are basically ways to "shape" the user-contributed content and allow the good stuff to become more visible.

It's an attention economy after all...

I tried to post with Safari as well, and it didn't take. Here then is my response to the survey:

For some time now, Salon has become more and more prone to publishing rambling, self-indulgent pieces about the life of the article's author. Not all of these pieces are bad, but the more Salon heads down this path, the less I turn to it for actual news.

If this site means that we will see more national and world news on the regular site, then I am all for it. If this new site is simply a continuation of the current trend in Salon, then I am strongly against it.

In a previous post I indicated that I'd like to see the "Editor's Choice" system continue (but posts shouldn't be penalized simply because the authors don't choose to use their real names). I think it would add some interest if readers could also select posts that are particularly interesting or worth reading ... maybe call it "Readers' Choice". Readers could "select" deserving posts and once a post receives a predetermined number of votes it would receive the coveted Readers' Choice designation. Perhaps you could get Diebold to come up with a system that would prevent people from voting for their own posts. (Err, come to think of it, maybe Diebold wouldn't be such a great choice for doing that, but then I'm from Ohio so what do I know.)

A tiny addition that I think would be helpful would be to add the time to the top of each screen (i.e., the time, hh:mm, when the page was loaded). Since I use Firefox, I tend to have 2 or 3 Salon instances (War Room, front page and Daou Report) open all day, each in its own tab. By adding the time to each of your pages, I'd at least know how long it's been since I refreshed each page.

As someone has already suggested, having all of the posts on a single scrollable page would be a very nice improvement (or at least give people the option of selecting whether they want multiple pages or a single really long page).

Last but not least, I spend most of my time in the War Room (3 cheers to Tim Grieve) ... I, for one, would like to see more political discourse at Salon (articles by Salon staff, guest writers and readers).

Thanks for giving us the opportunity to throw our 2 cents in !! I'm liking a lot of the suggestions that have been put forth so far. Gee, maybe we could vote for those too. (Sorry, it's this Ohio/voting thing I have.)

I'd love to take your survey, and will probably do so at home when I get back from work. When trying to get to that area of the site the filters here at work kicked in, and said the site was restricted as "games." Just to let you know...

I couldn't get the survey to work with FireFox either.

I like the new redesign of Salon, but there are a few things I miss: The old way things were sectioned out and how you could search through them. Also, bring back Sex, please! I feel so lost without it.

I would like to wholeheartedly thank Salon for the BroadSheet. I read it compulsively every day awaiting new updates.

--Patricia

Call it "interactivity," "blogging," or current-catchphrase-of-the-hour, what you are proposing is nothing more than traditional vox pop.

And when any periodical turns over more and more of its news hole to "the voice of the people" it's a sure sign that the well of editorial inspiration has run dry.

I don't care what readers at large have to say. Such writing is predicably over-long, under-witty, and more about the writer than his or her putative subject.

Please stick to paying writers who have expertise in their specialities to report on issues that matter, providing insights which are not available in the mainstream press.

The "cute" kitty images in Video Dog are bad enough. Please, stick to serious journalism.

As a subscriber suffering on a dialup connection, please make (and enforce) size limits on media posted! Also, knowing in advance about sizes and types of things before I view is very important to me. Sometimes I slog through a large download because I think the content will be worth it, but only when I know in advance what I'm committing to.

Being blindsided by a 4MB .pdf masquerading as a 60k text file, or a video download that I suddenly find is 20MB, are not what I'd like to have happen on this new site.

Setting limits on the number of contributions would be good, too. While I love flickr.com for the ability to share many of my photos with friends and family, I'd hate to see this become a repository for large amounts of "here's 20 photos of my cat". Contributors should have to be discerning about the items they submit, and pass through an editorial process. Nothing should go on this site without having been checked out beforehand. Nothing.At.All.

Anyone who wants to publish 83 bazillion photos, or 15 turgid essays, has the ability to start their own site and do so to their heart's content. This site should have standards, and dispassionate third party review for all posted items.

Another thought: don't segregate items. Don't put photos here and essays there. Mix it up! Just be sure to label the pieces properly.

All in all, this sounds like a delightful idea.