So with more than 800 votes cast, it's pretty clear that philosophical readers are, overwhelmingly, not at all happy with where things stand, though most remain optimistic that the series can be salvaged. Here are the responses to the question what the Times ought to do with "The Stone" series:
|Discontinue the series, overall it has not been good, though some individual contributions have been fine||7 %||60|
|Continue the series, but with a new editor/moderator and higher editorial standards||82 %||672|
|Continue the series as it is||11 %||91|
Skepticism that it can be salvaged was a minority position (that's my own position, but everyone knows I haven't much confidence in journalists), but the overwhelming majority--82%--would like the series to continue "but with a new editor/moderator and higher editorial standards." 11% are happy with the status quo (the same minority who confessed to being on the political right in the earlier poll? OK, probably not. But I did notice a slight surge in votes for the status quo after Michael Rosen's devastatingly hilarious comment about "Jewish poker" philosophy got picked up in the "Jewish poker" part of the philosophy blogosphere--that would be the benighted moderator's constituency, without a doubt).
Let us hope the majority of knowledgeable readers, i.e., philosophers, are heard on this issue.