September 26, 2005

10:40 PM

Is there a taxonomy for mifi posts? Specifically, posts like this and posts like this are inherently different in how they are made.

The first one describes the post with links, and the second describes links in the post. Am I stupid for even thinking about this?
posted by bigmusic to etiquette/policy at 10:40 PM (17 comments total)

I dunno, they look pretty similar to me.
posted by dersins at 10:47 PM on September 26, 2005

doh, second link should be this

One of these days I'll make a post with no mistakes.
posted by bigmusic at 10:48 PM on September 26, 2005

Yes, you are a dork for thinking about this. Welcome.

This seems rather chatty to me. Is there a specific issue that you are trying to raise about either type of post?
posted by mai at 10:53 PM on September 26, 2005

There is nothing dorky about taxonomies. I mean, there is, but they're fucking awesome regardless.

FWIW, I try to tag my Ask.Mes with LOC Subject Headings.
posted by stet at 11:00 PM on September 26, 2005

No, there is not an established taxonomy, and I don't think you're stupid for thinking about it. I do prefer the "describes links in the post" version since I prefer knowing something about the link before clicking on it but when we have so many individual users posting there are bound to be a myriad of different styles of "doing it". That's what makes it fun, isn't it?
posted by keijo at 11:08 PM on September 26, 2005

in the first one you have absolutely no clue where you're going and thus, whether you even want to go there.

Many people on metafilter have said they look upon this as bad form.

However, some people like surprises.

I think we can sum this up neatly by saying: to-ma-to, to-mat-o.

Also, everyone who likes surprises is totally wrong.
posted by fishfucker at 11:21 PM on September 26, 2005

there have been some posts like the former that have been specifically lauded on MeTa for being clever and engaging. No I won't look them up. There are others that have been called out on MeTa for being obscure, difficult and annoying.

I don't tend to read links like the former due to time constraints but then... I like to comment on posts without reading and then insist that I know more about the subject than anyone else in the thread.

But no, you're not stupid for thinking about it. It is a little chatty, though.
posted by shmegegge at 12:14 AM on September 27, 2005

If you are going to contruct a post that is just a single link or several links without a description of the content it would be nice to use the mouseover feature so that people can get a little idea of what they are about to click on. Also the usual NSFW/.pdf/quicktime warnings are always handy depending on content.

Of course, you can do what the hell you like and if the link is the smartest thing since self toasting cheese sandwiches I'll punch my mom in the mouth with excitement.
posted by longbaugh at 2:02 AM on September 27, 2005

I personally view the first example as bad form, and am less likely to click on a link when I have no idea where I am going to end up. I think many viewers feel the same (particularly those at work). Surely the point of an FPP is to get people to follow the link to the information. Formatting the post in such a way as to discourage this negates much of the reason to make said FPP.
posted by Joeforking at 3:56 AM on September 27, 2005

Ugh, a Link mistækus duplicous comparing the ever-so-common Link mysterious and the elusive Postista thisisgoodia.
posted by Plutor at 4:25 AM on September 27, 2005

mifi? try mefi.
posted by gleuschk at 4:46 AM on September 27, 2005

longbaugh:

that's it, I'm calling you out for that mother-punching comment.
posted by shmegegge at 5:09 AM on September 27, 2005

Mifi.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:33 AM on September 27, 2005

At least my name isn't derivative of cock-cheese.

/calls self out
posted by longbaugh at 5:56 AM on September 27, 2005

At least my name isn't derivative of cock-cheese.
posted by longbaugh

Noun 1. shmegegge - (Yiddish) baloney; hot air; nonsense
posted by agropyron at 7:27 AM on September 27, 2005

[fixed bigmusic's link]
posted by jessamyn at 7:42 AM on September 27, 2005

"Good usability practice" is to describe the link somehow via the linked text -- "microcontent" is one phrase used to describe that. (You can also use a "title" attribute on your anchor tag to add a little bit of information, like the full title of the linked page. Hover to see...)

That said, you can use the linked text (or the hover text) for ironic purpose. In clever hands, it can be amusing or even thought provoking. Sometimes it's sophomoric. But I'd rather keep the whole lot than throw out the good stuff to eliminate the sophomoric, personally.
posted by lodurr at 8:00 AM on September 27, 2005