Am I the only one bugged/disconcerted by the format of this column? Is it a blog? There's barely any analysis, you have to scroll down to read the bit about the video vigilante, there are questions to--whom? Why does Saleton get away with publishing a roll of notes? Urggh. Anyone else feel this way?

Good point...it's confusing, because there are column-length pieces and an ongoing blog both published under the heading "Human Nature". The brand is a little diluted.

I like both aspects of Human Nature, but I think the essays should be published elsewhere in Slate.

There's also confusion generated by the way they feature articles from The Root. If they incorporate the teasers into their Slate's own editorial space, the reader assumes that by clicking on a link, one is going to stay at Slate.com instead of get whisked away to another publication. It's not how they handle cross-promotion for the Washington post or The Onion...why do they do this with content from The Root? I know they "brand" these links with the "R" logo of the root-sometimes-but, it's still not consistent with how they promote the rest of the Washington Post family of publications, and it's a small annoyance.

The short items are designed to be quick reads, so you can get the basics of the story without spending all day on it if you don't want to follow the links. They're actually way more time-consuming than they appear. Which is one reason I'm thinking of abandoning them.

I'm working on an overhaul right now that may address some of your concerns. Probably a mix of headlines, very short grafs (but less processed than the ones you see now), and more longer takes that feel more like essays.

I actually like the format.. quick reads, interesting questions, and the links to click through to if you find the topic worth the time.

I agree that it's crappy. Either come up with a complete article or don't write.

I pay a lot of attention to feedback from readers who seem genuinely interested in this subject area and have something constructive to say. For their sake, I try to discourage posts from people who don't really seem interested and who show a pattern of substituting insults for thoughts. The initial post in this thread is an example of the former. The previous post is an example of the latter.

Many of the subjects/topics merit more in depth work. The short snippets merely tantalize but are not enough to really inform. What is a problem is how Slate tags the commentary. Some get added to the prior subjects roster while others get entirely new rosters. When a new roster is started the old subject header gets removed. It is sort of like a pop blog, get in your comments before the opportunity is lost.

Thanks. That's helpful feedback. I think what I should do is start a thread to solicit input on the overhaul I have in mind. I'll go do that now.