Bitching about one-link FPPs

October 28, 2005 12:56 AM

One-link FPPs: there's been a lot of bitching about these as opposed to multiple links. It happens a lot with breaking news, or an unusual site or article. Personally I don't think there's a problem with it per se: multiple link FPPs are not inherintly "better". As an example, come this Friday White House indictments will (likely) rain down, how would the naysayers begin a discussion thread about that?
posted by zardoz to etiquette/policy at 12:56 AM (37 comments total)

how about let's not and say we did
posted by angry modem at 1:22 AM on October 28, 2005

Um... By creating a series of links about indictments in White Houses past and present, perhaps referencing other administration-ending scandals (Teapot Dome, etc.)
By creating a larger context and narrative to discuss, and thus making the FPP more of a rounded experience to read, rather than just providing the opportunity for 166 comments worth of one-line snarks? By making a good FPP?
posted by klangklangston at 1:23 AM on October 28, 2005

(Are we considering this a pre-callout? The Bush doctrine applied to FPPs?)
posted by klangklangston at 1:24 AM on October 28, 2005

Personally I don't think there's a problem with it per se: multiple link FPPs are not inherintly "better".

If you don't have a problem with it, then why start a MeTa thread about it?
posted by 23skidoo at 2:07 AM on October 28, 2005

oh
my
god

but in a more worthwhile topic:

is anyone going to MeTa that mac weenies thread? I don't know if I have a weekly right now, but I also think that it'll be gone from sheer flagitude soon anyway, so one might not be warranted.
posted by shmegegge at 2:09 AM on October 28, 2005

i SECOND angeryModem's sentamints:

how about let's not and say we did
posted by gsb at 2:18 AM on October 28, 2005

I agree with zardoz here. A crappy post is a crappy post, and I'm against excusing it just because someone padded their op-ed or news fluff with some background links. Best of the Web, not Clumps of mediocre bits of the Web.
posted by fvw at 2:23 AM on October 28, 2005

Jesus, is this so hard for people to understand?

Single links: If it's a one link post to a good, interesting novel site then it's fine, if it's a shitty link to an obvious news story or half a page on whatever some driveling loon on TV has just said then it's not likely to be welcome. Contributors can apply personal judgement. If their judgement is crappy they'll get it in the neck and hopefully their judgement will get better.

Multiple links: A well researched FPP is more likely to have multiple links, these are welcome even if readers don't have time to look at all the links, it's not compulsory to do so after all - there won't be a test. Piling them in for the sake of it? Well what's the point? If you're doing that - STOP!
posted by biffa at 2:37 AM on October 28, 2005

zardoz

do you really want us to post putatitive multi link FPPs to something that hasn't happened yet, in order to prove you wrong?

Because, if you want, we can, but I'm not sure what it would prove.
posted by johnny novak at 2:45 AM on October 28, 2005

I'm so bored of newsfilterfilter, I wish I could stop reading it—but the men in white coats quiz me on every single thread.
posted by fleacircus at 3:14 AM on October 28, 2005

Best of the Web, not Clumps of mediocre bits of the Web.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:24 AM on October 28, 2005

My point is that what breaking news happens, folks want to talk about it. I guess I'm really talking about NewsFilter, as it's been dubbed. Are the indictments that will (likely) be handed down on Friday not worth discussing at all? Or only if there's more links to back it up?

do you really want us to post putatitive {sic} multi link FPPs to something that hasn't happened yet, in order to prove you wrong?

I'm not sure I understand. The whole point of "NewsFilter" is the discussion, not the link itself. I don't think MetaFilter should host links of a certain type--it makes more sense that there's a combination of the multilink stuff as well as conversation/flamewar fodder.

I'm just sayin'.
posted by zardoz at 3:48 AM on October 28, 2005

THERE IS NO DANA, ONLY ZARDOZ
posted by loquacious at 4:28 AM on October 28, 2005

Frankly the "Mac weenies" post is extremely shitty to start with and should be deleted -- even if there were more than one link in it.

But then that's just my opinion.
posted by clevershark at 6:03 AM on October 28, 2005

Um... By creating a series of links about indictments in White Houses past and present, perhaps referencing other administration-ending scandals (Teapot Dome, etc.)

What a load of crap. The only point in dragging in stuff like that would be to ward off the "ooh, one link, bad!" people. I sigh whenever I see one of those ostentatiously multilinked posts where the poster obviously wanted to share a cool site about, say, Picasso's mistresses, but thought "I can't just post this, what will klangklangston say?" and went around trawling for more links about art and mistresses and Paris just so it would pass muster.

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ONE-LINK POSTS.
posted by languagehat at 6:06 AM on October 28, 2005

multiple link FPPs are not inherintly "better"
i SECOND angeryModem's sentamints

inherint sentamint makes me all angery.
posted by quonsar at 6:15 AM on October 28, 2005

inherintly (sic)
posted by johnny novak at 6:21 AM on October 28, 2005

THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ONE-LINK POSTS.

I would say there's nothing inherently wrong with one-link posts. When the subject matter is either common knowledge, or adequately explained by the link, one link is fine. A cool link to some sort of new scientific research (for example), might be better off with some other links offering some background to help readers understand what's going on.
posted by Godbert at 6:26 AM on October 28, 2005

One-link FPP's are fine if that one link is pure best-of-the-web gold. But the Newsfilter crap really needs to stop. People want to talk about stuff, I know, but there are plenty of other places on the web to do that. Try here. Or here.

Because, seriously, Metafilter is about great web-based artifacts and experiences. It's not supposed to be about breaking news.

Thanks.

Oh, and also, FFPs that link to Geocities pages (the ones that break after three page views) are the suck!

Oh, and I hate broccoli!

And fennel!
posted by mds35 at 6:27 AM on October 28, 2005

ummmm, kneel before Zod?
posted by blue_beetle at 6:53 AM on October 28, 2005

Friends don't let friends host on Geocities.
posted by clevershark at 6:55 AM on October 28, 2005

languagehat writes "THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH ONE-LINK POSTS."

Yes. The recent OLP on found photos for example was just fine. Now single link, single word FPPs are something to rail against. If edgeways had just coded his link to the single word "photos" I wouldn't have bothered reading.
posted by Mitheral at 6:57 AM on October 28, 2005

I think the problem with one-link and newsfilter is that people are getting confused about the difference.

there's nothing wrong with news posts.

there's nothing wrong with one link posts.

there had been a time when the front page routinely filled up with single link news posts on just about any old garbage, and THAT was dubbed "NewsFilter."

a lot of people objected to that. eventually, calling out NewsFilter became so common that #1 himself felt the need to come out and say "enough with the newsfilter callouts!" (anyone got the link for that? too lazy to go look. it's a MeTa thing). IIRC, he even said that while the newsfilter problem exists, that problem is not links to news, but rather congestion on the front page due to excessive one link news posts on every stupid thing that happens.

but no one remembers that, or at least no one cares. I personally am not a fan of thousands of posts on the same topic just because there's been a breaking development. Conversely, I am a fan of when someone actually makes a post detailing the history of one particular facet of the event, because it is enlightening and informative. But that doesn't mean every mention of the topic needs to be a history lesson.

I am right. You are wrong, and don't bother arguing because I am the best.
posted by shmegegge at 7:03 AM on October 28, 2005

While calling this a "double post" would be a little snarky, I can't help mentioning that this exact topic is covered in these two MeTa threads less than a week old.
posted by soyjoy at 7:30 AM on October 28, 2005

"What a load of crap. The only point in dragging in stuff like that would be to ward off the "ooh, one link, bad!" people. I sigh whenever I see one of those ostentatiously multilinked posts where the poster obviously wanted to share a cool site about, say, Picasso's mistresses, but thought "I can't just post this, what will klangklangston say?" and went around trawling for more links about art and mistresses and Paris just so it would pass muster."
You cranky old jackass, try responding to what I say instead of what you think you read in a fit of pique. At your advanced age, beating straw men is detrimental to your health.
A single-line link to Picasso's mistresses is fine. A single-line link to a one sentence stub on the wires about Miers withdrawing is not (or Fitz indicting). Again, Metafilter IS NOT A PRIMARY NEWS SOURCE, nor should it be. And if the point is to have a discussion, having high quality material that portrays the issue in a way that people hadn't considered is a good thing.
Especially for something like the Fitzgerald indictments. We've had MONTHS nay YEARS to read about this scandal. We all know what's likely to happen, and while there will be a few surprises (likely), putting the indictments in a larger context would be far more interesting than just seeing a recap of what you hear on the radio or see in a real newspaper. And since you're not likely one to add a whole lot to the discussion, aside from a general complaint about 20k posters and their insufferable impudence, some broader links would probably help you give somethign useful to think about.
posted by klangklangston at 8:03 AM on October 28, 2005 [1 favorite]

A problem is that in the past better crafted posts have been deleted in favor of quickie SLPs (single link posts), because the discussion had already started. So the poor posting behavior is rewarded with 1) having a (usually) high comment post, and 2) not having a poor post deleted.

Unless we address this we can whine all we want, but we will always end up with SLPs, especially when it involves breaking news.
posted by edgeways at 8:22 AM on October 28, 2005

One-link FPPs: there's been a lot of bitching about these as opposed to multiple links.

No, there hasn't. I challenge you to find a single comment bitching about a one-link post that a) isn't NewsFilter, and b) adequately describes the content of the link in the FPP.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:55 AM on October 28, 2005

"Newsfilter: Indictments in Plame Case" would be the appropriate FPP as far as I'm concerned. If someone takes the time to provide depth, their FPP will be deleted as a double-post anyway.

It's stupid how we feel we need some sort of excuse to talk about what we all want to talk about.

Let people killfile the "newsfilter:" prefix and everybody's happy. Except people who don't want others to have newsfilter, either.
posted by callmejay at 9:22 AM on October 28, 2005

You all may be used to seeing it but the form for submitting FPPs is DESIGNED for one link posts. Please shut up about it already.
posted by Mr T at 9:41 AM on October 28, 2005

You cranky old jackass

I'm adding that to my user page pronto!
posted by languagehat at 9:42 AM on October 28, 2005

It's stupid how we feel we need some sort of excuse to talk about what we all want to talk about.

We don't all want to talk about it. Some of us are sick to death of it already. Don't assume that everyone is as consumed by american political minutia as you are.

A rousing to-and-fro on the Gomery commission, on the other hand, is something everyone can get behind.
posted by timeistight at 10:41 AM on October 28, 2005

Ha! Making it to the 'hat user page! If it weren't such a thin quote, I'd say that I had finally arrived.
posted by klangklangston at 10:50 AM on October 28, 2005

timeistight: okay, I misspoke with "all." However, it's clear that a LOT of mefites want to talk about it. For those that don't, I suggested the "newsfilter:" killfile.
posted by callmejay at 11:35 AM on October 28, 2005

Now single link, single word FPPs are something to rail against. If edgeways had just coded his link to the single word "photos" I wouldn't have bothered reading.

Oh, come on.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:50 AM on October 28, 2005

multiple link FPPs are not inherintly "better".

I agree. But the more single link news headlines we have on the homepage, the more MeFi resembles an RSS newsreader. Without freaking out and making a slippery slope argument, I point this out as a simple fact.
posted by scarabic at 2:12 PM on October 28, 2005

People might want more links, but the fact is, 19 times out of 20 the coversation will be about the first link you post. In this post my main links were those linked with the words "terrible film director". This was a poorly devised post on my part because I sought to set context with my opening links by framing them with prior MetaFilter references, but it led to the view we were rehashing the same ground.

In short, a lot of the time, one link posts are the best because they keep the post on the subject in question. In future, when I post lots of links, I'm going to try and make the context of each incredibly obvious, and give the post some sort of narrative structure, like I did in my new games journalism post.
posted by nthdegx at 4:03 PM on October 28, 2005

Can we get back to the broccoli thing?
posted by mds35 at 8:57 PM on October 28, 2005