Slant vs AwesomeSearch

Context such as purpose, limitations, and situations change what options should be recommended and what pros and cons should be surfaced. For example, a comparison of Linux distributions for general use and Linux distributions for development will discuss the topics in different ways.

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.

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.

When upvoting existing answers, you can associate the pros and cons which influenced your choice of chosen answer(s).

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.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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

On the left of the site are a bunch of categories, and each of those are divided into sub-categories. this makes it very quick and easy to find what you're looking for without wading through other content. Once you've selected the list you want, the bigger lists have a table of contents where you can skip ahead to what you're looking for.

The information may not be extremely detailed, but there is a lot of content on the site. This is one of the best sites to look through if you want a list of virtually every choice possible.