Please don't repost NYT links, thanks. And quit chatting in Metatalk!

December 19, 2005 3:33 AM

This is the second–most prominant story in today's New York Times. Not what MetaFilter is for. Extra specialicious complaint: MeTa has become a chat forum. Also this, this, this, this, and this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh to etiquette/policy at 3:33 AM (129 comments total)

It took me a while to find this, maybe it would help the extra-specialicious complaint:

"MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself, ranging from bug reports to feature requests to questions of content. The posts are sorted by date, and tagged by category."

I'm pretty sure that means MeTa isn't limited to NewsFilter callouts.
posted by Plutor at 3:38 AM on December 19, 2005

Seconded. MeTa needs more relaxed lightheartedness, not less.
posted by By The Grace of God at 3:52 AM on December 19, 2005

Rage, rage!
posted by If I Had An Anus at 3:53 AM on December 19, 2005

Seconded. MeTa needs more relaxed lightheartedness, not less.

You are wrong, sir or madam. Please go to the back of the class and stab yourself repeatedly in the genitals until done.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:54 AM on December 19, 2005

If MetaTalk is a chat forum it generally means that AskMe is less of a chat forum and that's a good thing. What's wrong with the MeFi post?
posted by jessamyn at 3:59 AM on December 19, 2005

If MetaTalk is a chat forum it generally means that AskMe is less of a chat forum and that's a good thing.

I'm not certain I follow your logic there, ma'am, at least in terms of causation. Care to elucidate?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:01 AM on December 19, 2005

(Sorry about the ma'am bit. Librarians have always scared me a little.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:02 AM on December 19, 2005

People need to get their chat on someplace. Having MetaTalk available for chat spillover is a way of easing the chat pressure in AskMe. Granted only one of EB's links goes to a good example of that [and how can you prove anything causation-wise on MetaFilter anyhow...?] but I feel like it's true.
posted by jessamyn at 4:14 AM on December 19, 2005

jessamyn: "If MetaTalk is a chat forum it generally means that AskMe is less of a chat forum and that's a good thing. What's wrong with the MeFi post?"

stavrosthewonderchicken: "I'm not certain I follow your logic there, ma'am, at least in terms of causation. Care to elucidate?"

I believe that jessamyn is assuming that there will always be a certain amount of chattiness on Metafilter. Let's call this P. P is a complex function of the number of active users U_A. But more basically, it's the sum of the chattiness on MeFi, MeTa, and AskMe (P = P_MF + P_MT + P_AM). As the chattiness on MeTa increases, that on the other two halves of the site combined must decrease.

(Note, however, that chattiness on both AskMe and MeTa could increase at the same time. Due to the chattiness-removal factors R_Mathowie and R_Jessamyn, however, this can be safely eliminated from the equation.)
posted by Plutor at 4:20 AM on December 19, 2005

>MeTa needs more relaxed lightheartedness, not less.

I think the point of this post is that there's too much relaxed lightheartedness. If it was any more relaxed this place would be covered in egestive emissions.
posted by gsb at 4:26 AM on December 19, 2005

I believe, friend Plutor, that you are positing that chattiness can neither be created nor destroyed, but only transferred. That this new law of Conservation of Chattiness is defensible, however, I remain unconvinced.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:27 AM on December 19, 2005

The ghost of Miguel lives on.
posted by caddis at 4:34 AM on December 19, 2005

I'm not depending on any equations by an author who refers to "the other two halves" of the site.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:35 AM on December 19, 2005

EB, are you saying that there is somewhere else you would like us to go to meta-talk about MetaFilter? Or are you saying that nobody should do this, ever, neither off- nor on-site?
posted by chrismear at 4:42 AM on December 19, 2005

Interesting stuff that's happening online has always made for an acceptable post in MeFi.

MeTa has always been chatty.
posted by amberglow at 4:46 AM on December 19, 2005

i just like saying smock! smock smock smock!
posted by quonsar at 5:09 AM on December 19, 2005

MeTa has always been chatty

I read that as "MeTa has always been catty"
posted by terrapin at 5:11 AM on December 19, 2005

riiiiight
posted by terrapin at 5:11 AM on December 19, 2005

MeTa has always been catty!! I heart you, terrapin.

Oh, well. I made my first chatty comment here today after about a million years (or quite a few months, take your pick)... and I refuse to feel guilty, because I almost never speak.

nah.

about the prominent stories, though, I agree. nah.
posted by taz at 5:24 AM on December 19, 2005

You nailed it. I'm not exactly sure who or what I'm reffing to, but you nailed it. I both whole heartedly agree with you and am repulsed that you even suggested such a thing. Keep it up. And cut it out. Right now.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 5:41 AM on December 19, 2005

I don't see why being a prominent story disqualifies something for the blue...
posted by furiousxgeorge at 5:46 AM on December 19, 2005

I think that EB is right. We should not form a community. We should not skip over posts we don't want to read. We should instead chat, fight, and discuss on the blue, because it's not congested enough over there.

MetaFilter should be like work. You should show up, make your comments, and leave. Anything else is an abuse.
posted by Eideteker at 5:49 AM on December 19, 2005

Not being USian or being able to read much of the web outside of my lunch hour I find this sort of post fine. I only ever read the NYT or WaPo via MeFi or Google News.

I hate flash but I'm happy for others to enjoy it. Some people are political types. Others like nerd stuff. MRPGs. All that stuff. We're a broad church so we should learn to live with that up to a point.

I like this place because there is a certain level of humour, intelligence & liberal (as in open) mindset coming from a variety of backgrounds & experiences. That can lead to some excellent discussion & extra info arising from a very mundane or high-profile news story.

Funnily enough, this post seems to be chock full of people I've been chatty with.

And every now and again I like to get on EB's case cuz he's a tedious windbag. But I haven't got time now. Maybe we could fit something in between 1900 & 2200 GMT weekdays?
posted by i_cola at 5:53 AM on December 19, 2005

This is the second–most prominant story in today's New York Times

How can you tell? Font size? Don't tell me you actually got the dead tree version of the paper.

Besides, it's a pretty amazing story that blows minds. Who in the hell could ever imagine a kid becoming a camgirl whore and actually turning himself into a real life whore? MetaFilter has a long history with camgirls and it was a fine post.

As to MetaTalk chattiness, yes, it has been chattier than normal lately, I chalk that up to people goofing around at work waiting for holidays to start. Sure, they have metachat and monkeyfilter to goof on, but jessamyn is right that at least some of those old threads act like a honeypot to keep noise out of the rest of the site. I don't really mind it if it's not hurting anyone (though there should be an equation somewhere about how as the length of a thread approaches infinity, the probability that one member will turn the thread into a fight between them vs. the rest of the membership approaches 1).
posted by mathowie at 5:56 AM on December 19, 2005

*Stands behing mathowie & jessamyn blowing rasberries at EB*
posted by i_cola at 6:03 AM on December 19, 2005

Item for the quonsar file:

Subject appears to be a Steve Allen fan.

Increase surveillance level to 3.

posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:12 AM on December 19, 2005

Don't tell me you actually got the dead tree version of the paper.

zing!
posted by matteo at 6:14 AM on December 19, 2005

Actually quonsar was quoting Hobbes. (The tiger, not the philosopher.)
posted by konolia at 6:18 AM on December 19, 2005

The ghost of Miguel lives on.

I take the ghost of Miguel over the ghost of Seth any day
posted by mr.marx at 6:30 AM on December 19, 2005

Where is seth?
posted by OmieWise at 6:35 AM on December 19, 2005

I just finished reading that article. Wow. Surprising, heartbreaking and fascinating, and exclusive to the NYT. It seems like just the sort of thing MetaFilter is for.
posted by caddis at 6:36 AM on December 19, 2005

Don't tell me you actually got the dead tree version of the paper.

If paper books had been invented after electronic books, they would be seen as a stunning breakthrough. Same with paper matches and lighters.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:38 AM on December 19, 2005

Hey Stav, would you mind not telling people to stab themselves in the genitals, please? Thanks. P.S. I'm sure it was meant as funny, and that no malice is intended by it, but I'd really prefer if you didn't.
posted by By The Grace of God at 6:39 AM on December 19, 2005

*stabs self in the genitals repeatedly*

(it doesn't really have to do with stavros, or anything here; just something that needed to be done. Though, I doubt that, without Metatalk, this would ever have occured to me)
posted by taz at 6:57 AM on December 19, 2005

ick. One of those eleventy million comments that I don't normally actually post. Except this time I accidentally hit the "post" button. Bleh.
posted by taz at 7:04 AM on December 19, 2005

That post is sooo against the rules.
Newsfilteresque, essentially single link posts are supposed to be about Bush or Iraq, people!!!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:13 AM on December 19, 2005

totally ick, taz

/chatty
posted by amberglow at 7:14 AM on December 19, 2005

I think your rent genitalia counts as a mitigating circumstance. You were likely distracted by all the blood.
posted by sciurus at 7:15 AM on December 19, 2005

"If MetaTalk is a chat forum it generally means that AskMe is less of a chat forum and that's a good thing..

(Also, paper matches were invented before modern lighters.)
posted by klangklangston at 7:17 AM on December 19, 2005

*dreams of stabbing taz repeatedly in the genitals*
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:23 AM on December 19, 2005

Good old Mteachat.

"What do you think of the tea?"
"Mmm."
"Righto."
posted by cortex at 7:37 AM on December 19, 2005

I agree with the mob re: friendly MeTa chats, but I agree with EB re: the FPP. I don't need MetaFilter to point out high-profile stories in the mainstream press.

My understanding of a good FPP is, "Hey, I found this online. It's really cool, and I figured you hadn't seen it so I posted it here." If we don't care about the second part, why do we object to double posts?
posted by cribcage at 7:37 AM on December 19, 2005

In my family we call them "the gentlemens"
posted by jessamyn at 7:37 AM on December 19, 2005

More for the quonsar file:

Subject may be Calvin & Hobbes aficionado.

Increase surveillance level to 3.6.24.


posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:40 AM on December 19, 2005

Increase surveillance level to 3.6.24 HotFix 5
posted by spicynuts at 7:49 AM on December 19, 2005

Well I hadn't seen the FPP article and it was likely that I wouldn't since I don't read the NYT here in Europe. Single link posts to things reported in worldwide media, I understand the occasional outrage. But I thought it was a very interesting post.

As to chattiness, I won't comment since one of the links was my own FPP but I don't think it has been at all disturbing overall as of late.
posted by keijo at 7:52 AM on December 19, 2005

What's wrong with the MeFi post?
posted by jessamyn

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before

That's what's wrong. We have links from cnn, msnbc, nytimes etc. and that's fine. But you might want to take that part of the guidelines out. It simply isn't true any longer.

As far as metatalk, it's become more chatty since metachat opened, and no, it hasn't always been that way. So it goes.
posted by justgary at 8:01 AM on December 19, 2005

Mmm tea, indeed.
posted by klangklangston at 8:14 AM on December 19, 2005

So are we assuming that chattiness is constant? I've always viewed it as a continuum, possibly a sliding scale, maybe even some sort of logarithmic contraption. There seems to be a critical mass of snarky comments (>20?) at which point the chattiness factor increases to insane proportions, resultng in threads with discussions of bunnies, pancakes and mushrooms, using words like "pasghetti" and "momatoes," where we make numerous threatening references to the UN, and at the end we repeat the words "Screw [insert username]!" over and over.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:17 AM on December 19, 2005

P.S If it's not on Metafilter, I haven't seen it. Metafilter is my web portal. If I can't get there from here, I can't get there. period.

(weeping softly to myself)
posted by blue_beetle at 8:18 AM on December 19, 2005

But you might want to take that part of the guidelines out. It simply isn't true any longer
posted by justgary at 8:01 AM PST on December 19 .

I second that.

I think Metafilter is becoming more like zombo.com.

You can post anything you want at Metafilter.com.
Anything at all.
The only limit is yourself.

Anything is postable.
You can post anything at Metafilter.com
The infinitely redundant is possible.
The unpostable is unknowable at Metafilter.com.
posted by dios at 8:26 AM on December 19, 2005

MetaFilter should be like work. You should show up, make your comments, and leave.

Where, after spendng day after day in your company, people tend to unconsciously regard you and treat you as part of their family of origin-
-that is, as their own personal emotional toxic waste dump.

PS. Dear Santa Matt,

Misspellings should show up in red in the preview field with clickable drop down menus of suggested alternates. This function is long overdue. I expect miracles. Instantly, to boot. Get to it. Thank you. And Merry or Happy Whatever.
posted by y2karl at 8:27 AM on December 19, 2005

This thread made me sleepy
posted by edgeways at 8:37 AM on December 19, 2005

I'm glad to see that User Number 1 appreciates my post, but I wasn't really worried. I'm very, very cautious about posting links; I debate each one with myself for at least an hour and probably have averaged under one per year. This story just really blew me away. It felt like I was getting punched over and over when I was reading it; every time I thought the meat of the story had been fully covered, the writer threw in another startling twist.

Clearly, this was a story that most people have not seen before. It is more of a feature story than a news story, and it certainly isn't a breaking news story, which I think is the major problem people complain about with regards to metafilter morphing into newsfilter sometimes (along with the Yet Another Bush Administration Outrage posts). It may be picked up by other media, but I really have no idea whether or how much it will, and I strongly doubt that this particular boy's story will be covered anywhere else in such depth; it'll probably just be some hysterical media outlets shouting "Danger! Danger! The Internet Is Evil! Run! Run!" Plus, I really don't think any mainstream media outlet was going to find his Amazon want list.

I did struggle with some things. I was tempted to list various possible possible lines of discussion, but I thought I'd look like an arrogant ass if I tried to tell fellow metafilter filters what to talk about, since most of the folks here are intelligent enough to think of these things themselves.

By the way, I finally realized that I have two accounts, spira and gspira, which is not something I did purposely. Is there any way to merge them, so I don't lose the history of either?
posted by spira at 8:49 AM on December 19, 2005

This is the second–most prominant story in today's New York Times. Not what MetaFilter is for.

We aren't all Americans you know. I don't read the Times let alone the New York Times. In this regard I feel the article was totally appropriate and a very good choice for an fpp.
posted by twistedonion at 8:52 AM on December 19, 2005

Excellent post spira, even if I did read the story on a bunch of dead trees. It's funny how some people can't tell the difference between the news of the day appearing everywhere courtesy of AP or whatever, and a major piece of investigative journalism available from one source.
posted by caddis at 9:08 AM on December 19, 2005

You don't have to get the NYTimes delivered to see the Front Page.
posted by OmieWise at 9:34 AM on December 19, 2005

I don't read the NYT here in Europe.
...
We aren't all Americans you know.

MetaFilter is a relatively small, private website run by an American; and although I obviously haven't seen the visitor logs, I'll (conservatively) wager that "a solid majority" of the visitors are American. I don't haunt European discussion boards and bitch about the obscurity of Le Monde.

And we're talking about the New York Times, not the Wichita Eagle. If I argued that Americans shouldn't bother following the BBC, you'd leap forward with a hundred quips about how the self-centered "USians" couldn't care less about the rest of the world. You're trying to be snotty about not being sophisticated and informed, and that's an odd contortion from a crowd that loves cracking about "Red States."
posted by cribcage at 9:40 AM on December 19, 2005

I thought it was an excellent post. I am in the US but not in NYC, so I wouldn't have been likely to see it if it hadn't been pointed out. It's an amazing story, worthy of discussion.
posted by SisterHavana at 9:45 AM on December 19, 2005

1) MetaFilter FPPs are supposed to be the best of the web!
2) You shouldn't post links to The New York Times.
3) Because only uniformed yokels wouldn't already have read it, that's why!
4) Why must all informed individuals read The New York Times? Well, because it's one of the best sources of...
5) Please do not link to the best of the web!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:54 AM on December 19, 2005

I get the NY Times headlines e-mailed to me, and this story was among them. I didn't read the FPP and I'm still alive.

What I could do without is the same mindless groupthink rhetoric about hotbutton issue #6 posted to MeFi four times a day. Perhaps all the "Man, the current administration is fucking up!" posts could be consolidated into one digest post a day. Perhaps then genuine news items would not be such a burden?
posted by Eideteker at 9:56 AM on December 19, 2005

Eideteker: ""Man, the current administration is fucking up!""

That's hotbutton issue #6? Shit, what are the first five?
posted by Plutor at 10:14 AM on December 19, 2005

Metafilter: Man, the current administration is fucking up!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:14 AM on December 19, 2005

Oh, and I like saying Bligh. Bligh Bligh Bligh Bligh!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:17 AM on December 19, 2005

Except I pronounce it "blig" to rhyme with twig.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:18 AM on December 19, 2005

posts could be consolidated into one digest post a day.

Won't happen.

But, really, I think we should just give up and quit trying to pretend links are important and go in to full-on Kos mode by having an "open thread" everyday. That would allow the usual people to do their "here is the daily blog churn link dump of all the bush sucks posts found on the net." It would also allow people to get their need to let us know how much they hate Bush/Christians/fat stupid Americans/Republicans etc. all out in one thread without the need to manufacture a pretext to start off the "discussion." Who knows, maybe the "open thread" would contain the stuff and prevent redundant posts every day.
posted by dios at 10:20 AM on December 19, 2005

Oh, and I realize, by my first comment above, it might seem I was criticizing the thread Ethereal_Bligh referenced, and I don't mean to give that impression. I am neutral on the boywhore post. While I generally appreciate and agree with the position regarding front page news posts that Ethereal_Bligh is suggesting, I don't find this one to be annoying because it is likely only found there at the NYT as as an investigative journalism piece. I would agree if it was a link to the front page of the New York Times on Bush's speech last night or some other event that is covered on every single newspaper and political website. But this specific one, while not interesting to me, at least has perceptible objective value.
posted by dios at 10:25 AM on December 19, 2005

Eideteker, at least my contribution to the "iraq" and "war" tags was about art. Notice how almost nobody gave a shit about it, by the way, presumably because I didn't include any hissing and spitting about the administration in the post.
posted by Gator at 10:26 AM on December 19, 2005

nice c&h ref, q.
posted by wakko at 10:28 AM on December 19, 2005

Gator: I had intended to single your post out. One or two posts is not so bad, but I really don't need to filter through Bush Bingo. Unfortunately, the vast majority of noise makes your post seem less like signal at initial glance. I didn't mind ortho's post that much either, but I could have done without the drama.

Metafilter: I'm a genetic dissenter.
posted by Eideteker at 10:57 AM on December 19, 2005

Also, it's prominent. I don't mean to be snotty, but hey, mispellings bother me.
posted by Eideteker at 11:00 AM on December 19, 2005

cribcage, you've got your analogy arse about face. Europeans pointing out that not all of us read the NYTimes (I do sometimes; not always) isn't the same as you pointing out the obscurity or otherwise of Le Monde, but if all the British people on MeFi started whining about how "[story x] was on the front page of bccnews.com/ The Guardian / The Times, so why are you bothering, because we've all read this?" then you'd have a point.
posted by Len at 11:03 AM on December 19, 2005

S'okay Eideteker, I actually agree with you about the AdministrationIsFuckedUpFilter. I was just bristling at what I hoped was an interesting art post seemingly being lumped in with "mindless groupthink rhetoric." Ouchie.
posted by Gator at 11:06 AM on December 19, 2005

Unfortunately, Gator, that's what ends up happening.
posted by Eideteker at 11:45 AM on December 19, 2005

I hadn't seen the story, and I'm a bit of a news junkie. This story didn't come across my news rss feeds. It's a feature story. It may have prominent placement on the NYT front page (dead or pixel), but this is not the NewsFilter you're looking for.

I think it was a good link, I think it engendered some interesting discussion and some add-on links. As FPPs go, I think this one certainly falls within the parameters.
posted by dejah420 at 12:04 PM on December 19, 2005

It is called MetaTalk.
posted by Count Ziggurat at 12:33 PM on December 19, 2005

justgary nails it. I mean, there are obviously people who use MeFi as their portal to everything, and have stopped going to other sites, resultantly. But is that how it should be? I would have thought we wouldn't want MeFi to become the one stop shop for all things web, but instead to just be a place to share those interesting little web tidbits most people wouldn't have found in their ordinary every-minute travels.

I'm not calling for deletion of the post EB called out, but I do agree that the very spirit of MeFi has changed, and the guidelines no longer reflect what is acceptable to post to the front page. justgary is also correct that this is most likely to be solved by changing the guidelines and simply acknowledging that we are now a web portal with discussion.
posted by shmegegge at 12:38 PM on December 19, 2005

deja, that's a problem with your aggregator, I think. it was the second story from the top of the nytimes feed for me all yesterday.
posted by shmegegge at 12:38 PM on December 19, 2005

Except I pronounce it "blig" to rhyme with twig - mr_crash_davis
Oh damn. Now it will be that in my mind forever.
posted by raedyn at 12:40 PM on December 19, 2005

what again is the argument for just having NewsFilter? i've forgotten.
posted by spiderwire at 12:44 PM on December 19, 2005

**argument against
posted by spiderwire at 12:44 PM on December 19, 2005

spiderwire - Matt haws repeatedly said "No, never".
posted by raedyn at 12:53 PM on December 19, 2005

Most of this particular callout can be ascribed to EB spending 10 hours a day on the internet (for reasons I understand and am not criticizing). Under those circumstances of course he has a shorter tolerance for stuff he has seen elsewhere.

However, the fact remains many, many of us don't spend that much time online, or that much time online 'recreationally", do not routinely read the NYT, are glad to see unusual, if widely disseminated, news items here, and even in the most newsfiltery cases are interested in the comments of other members of the community.

And chattiness on metatalk is not a problem for me -- it has to go somewhere or a lot of metafilterian heads will probably explode.
posted by Rumple at 2:13 PM on December 19, 2005

Something of mine was semi-called out? My name grows prominent! My life grows nonexistent.
posted by TwelveTwo at 2:14 PM on December 19, 2005

I'm sure it was meant as funny, and that no malice is intended by it, but I'd really prefer if you didn't.

Well, I'll try, but I'm not promising anything. It started as 'eyeball', but it struck me the operative part of that was 'ball' as opposed to 'eye', and I couldn't tell from your profile if you were male or female, so I went with genitals (although I do like 'gentlemans', I must say), because as we all know from Mad Magazine ('Air Genitalia is not the national airline of Italy') that's a Funny Word.

But I'll try.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:11 PM on December 19, 2005

Matt haws repeatedly said "No, never".

Yeah, I realize that, and it's his prerogative. I've heard him say it before. I'm just trying to remember what the reasoning was behind it, if any.
posted by spiderwire at 6:29 PM on December 19, 2005

I mean, there are obviously people who use MeFi as their portal to everything, and have stopped going to other sites, resultantly.

When I get busy, that is me; MeFi is a completely nutritious internet meal.
posted by caddis at 6:45 PM on December 19, 2005

"How can you tell? Font size? Don't tell me you actually got the dead tree version of the paper."

No, I can tell because a check of the day's front page, which OmieWise linked to and perhaps I also should have linked to not realizing that most mefites can't find something unless it's linked to from the front page of MetaFilter. (And if you don't know how the newspaper business works, you might think that this story is the lead story of today's NYT. But actually the order is right-top front page and then left-top front page, barring unusual typeface sizing.)

I had thought that NewsFilter was bad because the reposting of prominant stories in the national media was bad. However, apparently the rule is that it's bad if a) it's about Bush or the War; or b) someone on MetaFilter doesn't follow the national US media.

Good to know.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:17 PM on December 19, 2005

ike a honeypot to keep noise out of the rest of the site

fighting the chatters in MeTa so we don't have to fight them in MeFi.
posted by Hat Maui at 7:25 PM on December 19, 2005

I know I don't mind reposting of prominant stories, because such things don't exist. Prominent stories, on the other hand...I don't mind either. I wouldn't have seen a feature story from the NYT because I don't read it, though I do follow American news. I read feature stories in my dead tree copy of the Globe and Mail, or in magazines, or, when people post them to Metafilter.

Newsfilter is less useful as a post, but I don't mind it too much. Opinionfilter falls into that category a lot also, as the types who get linked are usually partisan, shrill, or whatnot, and I already have opinion writers I enjoy and respect. But Featurefilter is a great use of Metafilter, imo.
posted by livii at 7:43 PM on December 19, 2005

EB, did you even read the comments here? This isn't just a national media story. It is a story available from a single source, a source that not everybody reads. Stop trying to discern rules, your compass seems completely demagnetized.
posted by caddis at 7:48 PM on December 19, 2005

And with this comment, dios gets multiball.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:10 PM on December 19, 2005

Ethereal Bligh : "I had thought that NewsFilter was bad because the reposting of prominant stories in the national media was bad."

EB,

I think the problem is in the parsing. There are at least two ways to parse "the reposting of prominent stories in the national media [is] bad":
1) The reposting of stories which are prominent in the national media (media being used as a plural) is bad
2) The reposting of stories which are prominent somewhere in the national media (media being used as the newer form of "medium") is bad

You seem to be parsing it the second way; most people are parsing it the first way. As such, you saying "This is wrong. The reposting of prominent stories in the national media [is] bad" is correct given your interpretation, and yet someone saying "This is fine. The reposting of prominent stories in the national media [is] bad", while being the opposite, is still correct, given their interpretation. It isn't an indicator of hypocrisy or selective bias, just a natural result of parsing differences.
posted by Bugbread at 1:51 AM on December 20, 2005

I'm totally confused now. I thought we were talking about 'media' in the sense of 'newspapers and TV and stuff'.
posted by chrismear at 2:49 AM on December 20, 2005

"Sure, they have metachat and monkeyfilter to goof on, but jessamyn is right that at least some of those old threads act like a honeypot to keep noise out of the rest of the site."

I agree entirely - this is why it's generally misguided to close MeTa posts, in my opinion.
posted by nthdegx at 2:49 AM on December 20, 2005

Couldn't we just depend on people to behave like adults, at least most of the time?



No, no, I didn't think so.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:50 AM on December 20, 2005

I just want to add a a few things.

1) The good old days of mefi, when all that was posted were links to strange unique web sites, never really existed, as is true of most good old days. I looked back at the archive from March of 2000, and lo and behold, there are lots of news links, from Washington Post (Flag Amendment dead!), Variety (Angelina Jolie signs to do Tomb Raider!), CNN (Court rules against Nude dancing!), USA Today (Judge okays deep linking!), Seattle Times (Anti-spam law unconstitutional) , News.com, Excite News, CNet, Yahoo, etc. In fact, there were probably a lot more wire service posts than there are these days. (Maybe the first few weeks of metafilter were "purer," but that's about it.)

Of course, people back in March 2000 were also arguing about what metafilter posts should be like, too (Posts should be longer! Shorter! No, longer!, No, shorter!). So metafilter really hasn't changed all that much, except in size.

2) As I see it, the key to good posting is the content of our character and not the color... opps, wrong speech, let's try again - it's the content of the articles, not where they came from, that's important. It doesn't matter if the article is from the Times or the Podunk Monthly PTA Newsletter or Jane's First Web Site. People complain about Newsfilter posts because they often are just wire service copy that's appearing on half a zillion sites simultaneously. Wire service copy is rarely interesting and by definition not unique. The object of posting is, of course, to bring new interesting material to the attention of people who haven't seen it before. It's pretty unlikely that anything that is posted will be unfamiliar to every single metafilter reader, of course, so there's no reason to be concerned that a small portion of metafilter readers will not find the item new, let alone interesting. And since there is no publication that is universally read by all metafilter readers (or 3/4 of them, or 1/2 of them, or 1/4 of them), anything that's new and unique from any site will be new and unique to most metafilter readers.
posted by spira at 3:33 AM on December 20, 2005

this is why it's generally misguided to close MeTa posts, in my opinion.

Mine too.

Also, what spira said.
posted by languagehat at 6:31 AM on December 20, 2005

I have a pea under my mattress should be added to the category list for MetaTalk.
posted by y2karl at 7:25 AM on December 20, 2005

Which should be heard as being read in a pouty princess helium voice.
posted by y2karl at 7:28 AM on December 20, 2005

I looked back at the archive from March of 2000, and lo and behold, there are lots of news links

EB, your response?
posted by mediareport at 7:38 AM on December 20, 2005

*crickets*
posted by raedyn at 11:51 AM on December 20, 2005

Except I pronounce it "blig" to rhyme with twig.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:18 AM PST on December 19

So instead of saying, "Die, Bligh, die!" you say, "Dig, Blig, Dig"?

I have a pea under my mattress should be added to the category list for MetaTalk.
posted by y2karl at 7:25 AM PST on December 20

What about "I have a bean up my nose" which could be read in a snot-nosed seven-year-old boy's voice.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:10 PM on December 20, 2005

The good old days of mefi, when all that was posted were links to strange unique web sites, never really existed, as is true of most good old days.

I looked at a random day from 2000 and found one link to time.com. The rest were more obscure. In reality, though, you're right. But quality is a little more important with 30,000 members than it was with 5000. Besides, if you believe front page cnn links are bad for metafilter pointing to their existence in the past misses the point entirely.

Of course, people back in March 2000 were also arguing about what metafilter posts should be like, too (Posts should be longer! Shorter! No, longer!, No, shorter!).

Which is predictable since that's one reason metatalk exists in the first place. Five years from now the same debate will rage. No one's ever claimed otherwise. Again, not sure what your point is.

It's pretty unlikely that anything that is posted will be unfamiliar to every single metafilter reader, of course, so there's no reason to be concerned that a small portion of metafilter readers will not find the item new, let alone interesting. And since there is no publication that is universally read by all metafilter readers (or 3/4 of them, or 1/2 of them, or 1/4 of them), anything that's new and unique from any site will be new and unique to most metafilter readers.

Basically what you're saying is this: Since there's no publication read by the entire metafilter membership any post is ok. Which goes against the guideline that "MOST people haven't seen it before".

You're using the lowest common denominator. Since someone here doesn't watch tv, doesn't own a radio, and only visits metafilter on the web, every link is new to someone.

Which is fine if you believe that. Just take it out of the guidelines, because you've chosen to completely ignore it.
posted by justgary at 6:07 PM on December 20, 2005

""*crickets*""

What justgary said. I've no interest in participating in this thread because I've stated my arguments clearly, and at length, in the past. They're also obvious, as justgary demonstrates.

BTW, I also posted this to MeTa specifically because of the recent discussion about pissing and moaning in the thread itself. After this, I'm inclined to continue complaining in the blue.

I'm also very dissappointed in matt for a) not knowing that the camboy story was an above-the-fold FPS in the NYT; and b) defending the post anyway. As justgary points out, by spira's and matt's criteria, there could be twenty posts a day which are "interesting" stories that are unique to some specific example of the bastions of worldwide media. If the NYT doesn't count as among the handful of daily newspapers that can be defined a priori as "widely distributed", I don't know what can. I'd be willing to bet that the number of people worldwide who see the front page of the NYT (outside metro edition), including web visitors, is comparable to those who see the front page of CNN's web site. A story exclusive to CNN that is played as the lead story is not an appropriate mefi post.

I really could not fucking care less if a substantial number of mefites see the major news stories first here on metafilter. This is also why I despise what y2karl and amberglow are doing because aside from narcissistic ego-stroking of standing on their soapboxes and lecturing, they're also presuming that the majority of the mefi readership needs their guidance in discovering and interpreting the major US political news stories of the day. In other words, they think most of you are fucking imbeciles.

I'd like to think they're wrong.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:41 PM on December 20, 2005

Seth EB, it was not a major news story. NYT is big, but not that big. You have a lot of complaints about the posts for someone who almost never makes one.
posted by caddis at 8:47 PM on December 20, 2005

I don't read NYT or WaPo unless my company has been written up in them, same thing for many other news sites but I do regularly read WikiNews and Google News, this story didn't appear on either that I saw. I appreciate stories like this being brought to my attention. And strangely, I hadn't seen it on the front page so, um, thanks EB, for whining about it and bringing it to my attention.

How flippin' hard is it to pass over the FPPs that offend your delicate sensibilities? If I had a half a penny for each comment I don't reply to from PP or dios or any of a handful of other members who seem to get their jollies by being dinks then I'd be retired by now. Same thing for threads that don't work for me. JUST SKIP THEM, dang, do you really have to be so repetitive about this crap? Flag it, move on and try not to be such a spaz. I'm glad you only get one MeTa a week.

And y2karl gets a zinger in! A damned fine one at that!
posted by fenriq at 9:09 PM on December 20, 2005

do you really have to be so repetitive about this crap?

Metaphysician, attend thyself.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:40 PM on December 20, 2005

"You have a lot of complaints about the posts for someone who almost never makes one."

Does it not occur to you that the virtue relationship might be the inverse of the one you are supposing? Perhaps not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:01 PM on December 20, 2005

I'm also very dissappointed in matt for a) not knowing that the camboy story was an above-the-fold FPS in the NYT; and b) defending the post anyway.

a) dude, like I said, I only read shit online, and I have never seen the NYT front page scan until now. Even so, there's no way to tell a story on NYT.com showed up on A1 or J38 when it goes to HTML. My joke about font-sizes was hinting at that -- everything looks equally important online, so stories are judged by their content, not the layout in an edition I never see. It's bizarre and stupid criteria to dump a post over.

b) I defended it because it is original, investigative reporting about an internet phenomena many are familiar with here -- if Time magazine or Newsweek did an in-depth with Jimbo Wales of wikipedia, I'd say that's an article worth sharing here, even if it was found at the most mainstream of sources. You can't find that story anywhere else, and it was interesting reading about interesting subject matter.

EB, you seem to be clinging to some invisible rules. Everything here is expressed in guidelines because there are situations (like this post) that escape the rules set out to curb the lazy posts about uber-popular news items. Almost everyone on this thread besides you gets this key point that yes, it was at the NYT, but it was also a unique story worth sharing.

I'm baffled why you can't see that, and everyone else can.
posted by mathowie at 11:03 PM on December 20, 2005

Because I think that perhaps a majority of people find the Bush posts which are links to mainstream media to be "unique stories worth sharing". I just don't see the huge gulf of increasingly quality between the two that you see. And, to me, the story itself is almost yellow journalism. Of course an attractive teenage boy could make as much, or more, being a camboy for gay men as teenage girls do for straight men—and get away with it for longer. The story is an unfortunate combination of "will someone please think of the children?!" and "oh noes, the internets!!" that doesn't seem to me to be of much real interest. Even so, if it weren't one of the lead stories for the NYT, I wouldn't have complained.

The NYT is the closest thing we have to a national paper; and—with due regard to the non-Americans among us—we are a majority American site and I simply don't see a distinction between a lead CNN story and a lead NYT story.

I think the disagreement here is that I differ from you and the majority here only moderately in any specific aspect, but for me the cumulative effect makes this post manifestly unacceptable. Also, not just because in aggregate it is, but because it continues to blur the line between MetaFilter and NewsFilter.

I generally respect greatly your wise ad hoc judgments because I think you are wise to recognize that this is a messy, complex affair and if you approach it with the best intentioned judgment you have, with good humor, things will largely work out okay in the end. But that doesn't mean I agree with every particular example of your decisions and this is one of those times I do not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:07 AM on December 21, 2005

"EB, you seem to be clinging to some invisible rules. Everything here is expressed in guidelines because there are situations (like this post) that escape the rules set out to curb the lazy posts about uber-popular news items. Almost everyone on this thread besides you gets this key point that yes, it was at the NYT, but it was also a unique story worth sharing."

"I generally respect greatly your wise ad hoc judgments because I think you are wise to recognize that this is a messy, complex affair and if you approach it with the best intentioned judgment you have, with good humor, things will largely work out okay in the end. But that doesn't mean I agree with every particular example of your decisions and this is one of those times I do not."

This is a post-modern enterprise, EB, with regard to accepting ambiguity, encouraging conflict and irreducible plurality, and inviting micro-community within a larger structure. If you want to influence policy through the only empowered institutional actors (Matt/Jessamyn), you're going to have to form a faction, shore up your position, and use a plurality to hector them until the norms are more to what you'd prefer. While the idea of that is kind of icky (it requires internal organization and isn't so far removed from the tactics of the religious right), it's likely the only thing that's going to be effective in the realization of your political project. Up to you to decide whether or not it's worth it, or whether you're better served by disagreeing with Matt's general capitulations when they come up.
posted by klangklangston at 7:11 AM on December 21, 2005

After several days of this, the two dejected men went back to Charlie's house to regroup. There, Charlie's neighbor was out in the yard, washing her carriage.

"Hey honey," Charlie said to her. "My business deal fell through. Got some time on my hands. What say we go out and have a bite to eat."

"Sorry, Charlie," said the maiden. "I'm exhausted. I didn't get a wink last night. I think there was a pea under my mattress."

"Did you try maybe reading anything by John Updike?" asked Charlie. "Wait a sec. Didn't sleep a wink?"

Yes, Charlie had figured it out. This really was a princess.  The real thing. The girl that would get the million gold crickles and all the titles of her realm. Before you could say "greedy no-goodnick,"Charlie had taken the girl to meet the king.

"Oh darling," said the king giving his daughter a hug. "Here's a million gold crickles---minus thirty percent for taxes---plus your choice of any man in the kingdom."

"Wow!" said the princess. "Any man in the kingdom?" ; She smiled, looking over at her escort---and his friend. "Oh Clyde. Will you be mine?"

"For keeps!" said Clyde.

That's the story. The king had his daughter, the princess had her gold, and Clyde had the princess and they all lived happily ever after. Ooops. Almost all lived happily ever after. Poor Million Laughs Charlie spent the rest of his days unsuccessfully trying to sell unauthorized fairy tales of the king and his court.

Fractured Fairy Tales: Princess & The Pea.
posted by y2karl at 9:51 AM on December 21, 2005

stavros, reasonably decent snarky point. I ignore dios, I'll just add EB to the list as well.

And I usually do avoid these posts but I opened this one, read it and that was that, I had to comment. I'll try harder next time.
posted by fenriq at 11:12 AM on December 21, 2005

EB, I'm afraid you (and I) are fighting a losing battle.

Any post can be defended by:

1. Not everyone reads anything.
2. If you don't like it, just skip it.
3. It's a big story so it needs to be discussed.

Basically, I've come to the conclusion that shmegegge came to. Metafilter is "a web portal with discussion". Filter in name only.

It's big business now. Mo' eyes, mo' money.
posted by justgary at 12:13 PM on December 21, 2005

I should add that I still enjoy metafilter. It just isn't my vision, which is fine, because it's matt's baby and there are 30,000 other members that disagree with me.
posted by justgary at 12:24 PM on December 21, 2005

I dislike Newsfilter almost as much as you, EB, but I don't quite get your final conclusion here. Newsfilter has two definitions, from what I've seen: posting of local or otherwise completely unnotable news ("Man found shot near Bracken Street 7-11."), or posting of national/world news. Posting of unnotable news breaks the part of the MeFi posting guidelines that says links should be to something interesting. National/world news is (should be) verboten as it breaks the part of the posting guidelines that says links should be to something most members have seen before. If Bush gets reelected, that should not be posted: it's information that appears in the NYT, Washington Times, LA Times, CNN, Fox News, BBC News, and everywhere else in the world. Sure, even then, there's always some guy living in a yurt with a sheep powered generator whose sole contact with the outside world is Mefi, and who therefore doesn't know about it, but in general, most MeFites know about the issue, so it breaks guidelines and thus is bad. The whole aspect of national news that makes it bad is its ubiquity, not the name of the medium carrying the info.

However, here we have a case where an issue is not national news in the sense we're using "national news". Sure, it's an article in a national paper. But it's an article in a single national paper, not replicated in other news sources. It is not ubiquitous. Unless the majority of MeFites read NYT, it does not violate the "most people have seen it" aspect of the rules.
posted by Bugbread at 5:17 PM on December 21, 2005

Well, for what it's worth, justgary, I agree that the bar for news-related posts has sunk horribly low since Sept 11/Iraq invasion/the '04 election (choose one). But it's always been an issue here, EB chose exactly the wrong article to address it (the content places it squarely in MeFiland), and his argument comes dangerously close to the absurd statement that no items from mainstream news sources should ever be posted to the front page. Overall, it was a dumb callout/defense from him, and I say that as one of the many (minority) members here who agree with the general principle that MeFi news posts should be much more rare and far better crafted than they currently are.
posted by mediareport at 7:39 PM on December 21, 2005

Or, had I refreshed the page before posting after a break, what bugbread said.
posted by mediareport at 7:41 PM on December 21, 2005

What's wrong with a bit of chat-like babbling every once in a while? There's a (little) place for a bit of banter to offset all the Important Topics. Some of the chattish threads -- e.g. "the stupid things you did as a child" thread -- have been cited as some people's (and these are some of the more erudite members) favorite MeTa/MeFi threads of all time, and they serve a purpose in making this place a warmer community and providing some levity. I don't think we're in any danger of becoming an AOL chatroom.
posted by Devils Slide at 8:30 PM on December 21, 2005

What's wrong with a bit of chat-like babbling every once in a while?

Nothing. But too much of anything is too much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:56 PM on December 21, 2005

EB chose exactly the wrong article to address it

Maybe so, mediareport. My comments had more to do with metafilter as a whole, and direction in general.
posted by justgary at 10:19 PM on December 21, 2005

It's a pleasure to read these thoughtful and civilly stated opinions. Well, the ones that are. Anyway, for whatever reason (and it's not entrenchment) I still believe this was a bad post because it's an above-the-fold story of the most prominent newspaper in the US. I'm not so inclined as some here to think that "anything that appears in the national media is verboten" is a insane point of view—although I certainly agree that any sort of absolute blanket prohibition is silly. I'm certainly much less inclined to agree that there are special mefi topics—like camboys—that put a link squarely in the "belongs on mefi" category even if it's a very high-profile story. Even if I were to agree with that idea, I don't think I'm that inclined to see this particular kind of story as being especially mefi-related. If the story had been a major piece of work appearing in a second-tier or below media outlet, I do think I would feel differently. So perhaps this largely comes down to my strong sense that NYT headline story is about the equivalent of a the most prominent story featured on, say, CNN.com. I don't know if it's that I am on the web "10 hours a day" (to quote someone quoting me), but it probably does have to do with the fact that the NYT stories are featured front and center in how I've my "my yahoo" page I've used for ten years now. And although I can certainly think of other newspapers that rival or exceed the NYT in quality, there's still certainly nothing (except USA Today, I suppose) with an equally high or higher profile.

If the newspaper weekend-insert Parade magazine were available online (maybe it is, I don't care to check) and had an exclusive story about camboys, I'd have complained then, too, were it the subject of a FPP.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:52 AM on December 22, 2005

It's big business now. Mo' eyes, mo' money.

Ah, gary, why you gotta play it like that?

I've probably been too lax on the third point "It's a big story so it needs to be discussed." and should delete more top news stories that appear everywhere anyway (Michael Jackson verdict, Bush wins, etc), but to be perfectly honest fighting the "why in the hell did you delete that you asshole" battles are harder to fight than "why did you let that through?" battles.

It's not about money. If it was, I'd delete a lot more and try and keep the site as cordial and readable as possible, expunging any and all politics from the site completely. I'm just trying to keep the users happy and it's a tightrope walk.

And I know EB doesn't want to hear it and it won't sway his opinion, but I need to restate obvious points. There is no concept of "the cover story" for the New York Times online. They make zero distinction. "Above the fold" is a meaningless phrase as well. The lamest little tech review I write looks exactly like the giant top story when it hits their webservers. Calling it "the national newspaper" doesn't make much sense to me, because I can't locate a copy within 30 miles of my home (I've tried). If it really was as ubiquitous in our culture as you say, it'd be available everywhere. The story itself wasn't a huge news story available in multiple outlets, just one.

Now you consider Parade Magazine newsfiltery too? EB, you appear to define newsfilter by the domain names that URLs start with, when bugbread totally nails what newsfilter really means.
posted by mathowie at 1:39 AM on December 22, 2005

fighting the "why in the hell did you delete that you asshole" battles are harder to fight than "why did you let that through?" battles.

Can you elaborate on why you feel it's harder? Does it make you more uncomfortable to be called a "censoring asshole" than to be called an "absentee landlord" who lets everything through, or something along those lines?
posted by Gator at 8:11 AM on December 22, 2005

Ah, gary, why you gotta play it like that?

Sorry matt, meant more as a joke.

I simply meant that with metafilter now being a job and not some little side hobby keeping the masses happy is more important than a small section of users who have a different vision.

Believe me, if any website of mine could ever become a full time job, I'd be a happy camper.
posted by justgary at 10:35 AM on December 22, 2005

Can you elaborate on why you feel it's harder?

Deletion battles involve people's comments/word/ideas being removed, and that tends to make people upset on a personal level in addition to possibly on a "this site sucks" level. Leaving things in usually just involves people being grouchy in a "this site sucks" way, although often people will say "you left THIS in, why did you remove MY POST?" and there are more variables than just a thumbs-up/thumbs-down opinion on the post itself.

Post and comment deletion brings up the "what if" option. No matter how lame an AskMe post is, if it makes it to MetaTalk because it was removed there will always be someone saying "I really wanted to know what the answer to that question is and now I don't have that opportunity" which is a pretty weird allegation to have to respond to, but it's regular like clockwork. Erring on the side of inclusion means that more often you can give people the benefit of the doubt, but it also sometimes means being hoodwinked by spammers, frustrated by people who want "one more chance" a fifth time and, yes, posts that are more newsfilter than some folks like. For what it's worth, I really don't see the New York Times distinction being a major one, but I also wouldn't mind if we were a bit harder on newsfilter posts generally.
posted by jessamyn at 10:42 AM on December 22, 2005

well, aren't you one of the very few people capable of doing just precisely that?
posted by shmegegge at 6:40 PM on December 22, 2005

I also wouldn't mind if we were a bit harder on newsfilter posts generally.

PLEASE BE A BIT HARDER ON NEWSFILTER POSTS GENERALLY.

Thankee. Oh, thankee thankee thankee in advance.
posted by mediareport at 9:51 PM on December 22, 2005