A common error is to think that rolling release would mean that you have to have always the latest and greatest, while it means nothing more that you get continual updates instead of versioned releases.

Not a panacea but, simply, a less disruptive way of doing things. Upgrading from one Debian or Ubuntu release to the next is, in my experience, more disruptive than running Debian Sid and I think that others have noticed this too (as an example).
The Ubuntu release cycle has never worked for casual users wanting something more modern than the last LTS (TobiSGD's point notwithstanding) due to the sudden deluge of potentially conflicting updates on a dist-upgrade. Microsoft almost seem to have got over that with the Windows 10 upgrade but one can't help but think that by releasing it in a series of updates it may have worked smoother.

Interesting. I never had a problem with stable upgrades whether Debian or Slack. Rolling is not difficult either as long you read the changes first and don't upgrade daily. When I ran rolling (Arch pre-systemd), every two weeks or once per month was usually ok.

Also, helps if the distro is designed to be rolling. Arch seemed more "stable" to me then Sid, but with that said Slackware "current" also seems very stable. Horses for courses I guess.

Still, I find myself preferring point releases, maybe its habit.

The last Debian one I read of was here. I don't follow the Slackware forum to the same extent and I know there will be fewer problems since there is no "dependency hell" associated.
The number of problems with Ubuntu dist-upgrades seems to be pretty large also.