Most Q&A sites give each user the chance to give an answer (sometimes multiple answers). A lot of the content of each user's answers will overlap, resulting in duplication of information (thus more to read), or information being lost in noise (e.g. if someone sees existing answers and adds a missing point without copying existing information, their point will likely languish at the bottom of the list of answers as it did not answer the majority of the question).
Slant approaches this differently; rather than focusing on the users, it focuses on the points; Pros and Cons. Any user may amend the information in a pro/con, may vote based on how much that pro/con influenced their decision, and may add their own pros and cons if certain points are missing from the canon.
An enumeration of recommendations is easily viewed as a list, making it a good starting point for researching available options. This is the opposite of other sites in which multiple choices may be listed within a single answer, with the need for the user to read through paragraphs of information to pick out the key articles.
Since anyone can edit content on the site, the pace at which information changes are reflected on the site is not arbitrarily limited by the number of writers the site has.
Subjective questions may have more than one answer. Slant allows people to vote for more than one answer as being correct, and to append the pros and cons which influenced their decision to their vote; thus giving a context of in which situations each answer may be considered correct.
Unlike a number of other Q&A sites where the person asking the question picks the winning answer, Slant accepts that they're asking because they don't know the answer, so they allow everyone in the community to pitch in by upvoting the best answer.
Slant isn't financially tied to any products listed on it. All the categories (organized into 'questions'), products (organized as 'options'), and pros/cons are added, and edited by real users - there is no way for a company to pay to have a favorable review (and if they try to do it themselves, the community can report (flag) or edit any false claims.
You do not need to have an account to view existing content (questions or answers). People can see what they're getting into before deciding if they'd like to sign up for an account and contribute to the site.
If you have a suggestion or a bug to report to the Slant team, and you don't want to bother with the Discord chat, there is a "Contact" button hidden in the Slant's dropdown menu which uses "mailto:founders@slant.co" to try to invoke the installed email client. A lot of people today use a webmail (such as Gmail) and don't have the email client program installed (or setup) so the "Contact" button will simply silently fail (at least on the Firefox).
There is a bug where if you write a recommendation (and possibly some other actions), the existing "Pro" and possibly "Con" points written by other authors will switch to being written by you. This bug is possibly due to Slant's attempt to implement Pros & Cons "traveling" from question to question.
Slant.co's reason for being is to answer subjective questions. It was born with the knowledge that other sites existed to handle objective questions and answers, but they made no attempt to handle the intricacies of subjective answers. Slant.co is the only site focused on solving this specific area.
Each subjective statement needs to be backed up with objective information. An opinion has to be backed up with facts. An evidence for a claim on Slant can be provided with examples, sources, and facts.
"Most Reviewed" for popular restaurants, "Highest Ratings" for well-received restaurants, use the # of reviews the popular restaurants as an anchor for had to evaluate the restaurants with the highest ratings. For example, if popular restaurants have ~1000 reviews, then well-received restaurants with >4.5 stars and >200 reviews is pretty good. A restaurant with 5 stars an 20 reviews might not be as solid.
The best match is usually the result of some continuous feedback loop of recommending the same set of restaurants to people over and over again, instead of the best restaurants in the area.
If enough people have posted reviews repeating the same key words (e.g. tiramisu), Yelp will highlight them. A good sign of something you should definitely order if it's your first time at the restaurant, or something that the restaurant does particularly well.
They show from oldest to newest, even though the newest photos are more relevant. The desktop version of Yelp also has an old photo display system where you have to click to reveal each page of photos.
At the top of the page is a How We Rank button, which loads another page explaining the criteria of how they rank each company in a given industry. This is helpful to give some context behind certain criteria points, and helps you determine which aspect of an industry is most important to you.