Comments on 11185

Must we really put on our Mefi detective caps for every single thread, now? They're not all airnxtz's, and this one appears genuine, despite the nature of the link.
posted by disillusioned to etiquette/policy at 3:13 AM (43 comments total)

Unfortunately, yes, we do have to investigate everything.
posted by crunchland at 3:32 AM on January 30, 2006

Anyone who questions the Metective hats must have something to hide. I'm deeply suspicious of your motives, sir.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:36 AM on January 30, 2006

Given this, I'd say the answer to your question is a resounding yes. Go, Mefi Junior Detective Team, go!
posted by CunningLinguist at 4:54 AM on January 30, 2006

Also - mischief, while this may be old, old news, I can't remember any examples of it happening on Metafilter, our marketing selflinkers have always been first time posters, or at least relative noobs.

I'm saying that perhaps we should be a bit judicious with our callouts and look at a user's history and the validity of a claim when they're not exactly brand-spanking new? And consider the context of how practical a self-link to a page like that would really be?

I'm just sayin'...
posted by disillusioned at 5:21 AM on January 30, 2006

Mojohand's posting history doesn't suggest an opportunist. Though he could have just linked to the jpg rather than the site, methinks this one is a cold case. If it "pops" up again, book 'em.
posted by moonbird at 5:59 AM on January 30, 2006

No one expects the Spanish Inquisition.

Just sayin'.
posted by thanotopsis at 6:49 AM on January 30, 2006

I am so naive (or stupid, if you prefer) about this that when I read Weapons-grade's comment this morning my first thought was, "Why would this get taken down? It's a cheesy picture to be sure, but it's not that bad..."

But then what I'd done became clear. Whoops. Sorry. Sorry. Sorrry.

Honestly, I was reading this thread, clicked a link, liked the picture, and despite what it revealed about how bad my taste is, wanted to know more about it. That's all. Really.

Like the man probably never said, "Never ascribe to malice that which is adequately explained by incompetence."

If there's ever a next time, I'll link to the jpg. You can take that to the bank.

And Cunning, really. You've met me. I'm wounded, Madam.
posted by mojohand at 6:54 AM on January 30, 2006

I'm wounded

Sorry! Sorry! I didn't really mean you, I meant to take issue with disillusioned, who questioned whether we should question posts linking to sites selling sex pills.
But really, how can you possibly like that icky twee painting?
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:16 AM on January 30, 2006

While I'll grant that such schemes are both nefarious and possible, take a closer look at the site being linked to. A bunch of text about a product not even available? Sans Google Ads? Hardly raison d’être for mojohand's question and link.

Well, let's see... if I were a stealth marketer, and my product wasn't available yet, I'd probably rig up a web page and put all kinds of keywords on it that are important to my product. Then, I'd figure out a way to link it from a highly trafficked site, like metafilter and others. Then Google would index my page, and based on the links, give it a higher ranking than it would otherwise deserve. So when my product finally does come out, I don't have to wait for the 3-6 months for Google to index and rank my page. Not implying that's what is happening here, but it raises suspicion.

If you're smart enough to link to a website, why aren't you smart enough to just link to the image by itself?
posted by crunchland at 7:20 AM on January 30, 2006

If you're smart enough to link to a website, why aren't you smart enough to just link to the image by itself?

Referrer redirects can block this image if linked to by itself, to prevent bandwidth "theft." I see your point, but reposting the image is obviously more work and a lot of social engineering would need to be done to retrain people to post images from their own servers.
posted by Rothko at 7:32 AM on January 30, 2006

a lot of social engineering would need to be done to retrain people to post images from their own servers. - Rothko

And ummm.. ya know, not everyone has their own servers.

Just saying...
posted by raedyn at 7:36 AM on January 30, 2006

Thing is Crunch, as correct as you are, some, I suggest probably most, people don't think that way. Even I, who sells advertising on Web sites (for business to business IT pubs where the most lascivious thing is a hard drive, hyuk, hyuk) missed it. Late at night it simply didn't occur to me that I'd be raising a potentially commercial site's Google page rank. I don't think I'm alone in that.

I did think about the fact I would be sucking bandwidth, but as it wasn't someone's personal site I didn't think about it much.
posted by mojohand at 7:44 AM on January 30, 2006

crunchland, again, I get it.

I'm saying in the context of both the question and the user, it makes little sense to lambaste here.

We'll leave the kids to their row. It's rather entertaining, like one of those clouded bar fights that moves slowly through, picking up debris and chairs and furniture nearby. And cats.
posted by disillusioned at 8:15 AM on January 30, 2006

May Mefites love puzzles and games, and are known to spend days working on point-and-click adventures like Myst or Case Of Crabs or whatnot. This type of real-life sleuthing is like a meta-game for some. No biggie.
posted by sourwookie at 8:48 AM on January 30, 2006

Sheesh. That site is part of one of thousands in the BLTC/Hedweb network, linked here many, many times. So far it has gotten <5000 hits. It's a guy called David Pearce who has this idea about abolishing suffering via bioengineering and is a psychopharmacology freak.
posted by Gyan at 10:25 AM on January 30, 2006

mojohand : "I did think about the fact I would be sucking bandwidth, but as it wasn't someone's personal site I didn't think about it much."

Don't worry about that. Pearce owns the ISP which hosts the site.
posted by Gyan at 10:27 AM on January 30, 2006

Cunning,
I dunno. High art it ain't, but the work displays strong technical mastery with the figures and their drapery, good use of light and shadow, and boobies. Let's not be too critical.

Seriously, some people like Victorian art, it puts others into insulin shock. And while our perpectives obviously differ, I found it to be pretty erotic stuff. Not as erotic as this, but not bad.
posted by mojohand at 11:39 AM on January 30, 2006

I found it to be pretty erotic stuff. Not as erotic as this, but not bad. - mojohand

Must. Resist. Temptation. To. Click.
posted by raedyn at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2006

I was dealing with the diabetes I contracted from the cloying expressions and totally overlooked the boobies angle. My bad.
Is the rothko/dreamghost show over?
posted by CunningLinguist at 11:57 AM on January 30, 2006

Psst. Mojo. For my penance, I offer these links:

John Collier, Alma Tadema, Godward, Waterhouse, and lots of Bougereau.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:06 PM on January 30, 2006

Waterhouse fucking rulez, yo. That Lady of Shalott is awesome. I've adored that painting (and the poem) for years.

raedyn, that link is fine to click, especially if you're familiar with "La Belle Dame Sans Merci."
posted by Gator at 12:15 PM on January 30, 2006

Sorry, raedyn. You're right to be careful. But the previous link is to a jpg (a jpg! See! See!) of a Waterhouse painting "La Belle Dame Sans Merci", perfectly safe to open and tamer, at least on its surface, than the painting that started this affair.

Cunning,

Thanks. John Collier I was unfamiliar with. As you'd imagine, my 'collection' is full of Alma Tadema and Godward, and John William Waterhouse has got my number but good. Bouguereau is a bit much, though, even for me.
posted by mojohand at 12:30 PM on January 30, 2006

I take your penance, and raise you Egon Schiele...
posted by hototogisu at 12:31 PM on January 30, 2006

If it was subversive marketing (obviously not) it would be the shittiest subversive marketing ever done. AskMetafilter posts don't have a lot of time on the page, the link did not reference at all the product (nor was it related, research chemicals and a late nineteenth century painting?). So don't be so paranoid.
posted by geoff. at 12:55 PM on January 30, 2006

How about Flaming June? It has a boobie.
posted by Alison at 12:58 PM on January 30, 2006

Re John Collier: does anyone else think Charles Darwin looks old, surly, and extremely out of place among all the nubile wenches?
posted by languagehat at 1:06 PM on January 30, 2006

Alison, It does indeed, though I'd like to believe that not the reason it's an all-time favorite. hototogisu, no criticism implied or intended, in fact it's probably to their credit, but Schiele's work leaves me cold, as does Klimt's.
posted by mojohand at 1:57 PM on January 30, 2006

I also suspect the guy with the Chuck Norris t-shirt legal problem on AskMe as well as Ask Dr Amy on Projects. There, I said it.
posted by poppo at 2:01 PM on January 30, 2006

Well, let's see... if I were a stealth marketer, and my product wasn't available yet, I'd probably rig up a web page and put all kinds of keywords on it that are important to my product. Then, I'd figure out a way to link it from a highly trafficked site, like metafilter and others. Then Google would index my page, and based on the links, give it a higher ranking than it would otherwise deserve. So when my product finally does come out, I don't have to wait for the 3-6 months for Google to index and rank my page. Not implying that's what is happening here, but it raises suspicion.

Except that anyone with some sense would recognize the site as being from these guys (that is as 'main' a website as they have, they own hundreds of drug based domain names -- very strange sites). I've never seen any advertisements on any of them.

Really, it's like if someone linked to something on TSG and you're like "OMG, why are you trying to promote this TSG site!??!?!!111"
posted by delmoi at 2:34 PM on January 30, 2006

I also suspect the guy with the Chuck Norris t-shirt legal problem on AskMe as well as Ask Dr Amy on Projects. There, I said it.

I told that guy to post the question here, since he was asking me about it. It is totaly legit. He is a local friend of mine.
posted by delmoi at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2006

Bouguereau is a bit much, though, even for me.

There's hope yet!
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:10 PM on January 30, 2006

Apparently delmoi is the cause of all of our problems.
posted by crunchland at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2006

Apparently delmoi is the cause of all of our problems.

And 0.45% of all of our comments :P

I need a hobby. Or a girlfriend.
posted by delmoi at 4:31 PM on January 30, 2006

none of what I'm about to say is meant to imply anything regarding mojohand. I have no opinon, one way or the other, about his validity as a legitimate human being instead of marketing scum.

that said, I have two points.

1. Detective work isn't the problem. Leaping to conclusions can be, but just checking up when it MIGHT be is how we've caught all the people we've caught. We just have to make sure we don't make the same mistake cops often do, which is to say that we don't assume someone did it and then just look for evidence until we've satisfied our suspicion.

2. the jonson quote above: our marketing selflinkers have always been first time posters, or at least relative noobs. This would be very convincing if it were true. Allow me to rephrase it to be more accurate: our marketing selflinkers that we have caught and are aware of have always been first time posters, or at least relative noobs.
posted by shmegegge at 5:56 PM on January 30, 2006

Alison, Flaming June is a favourite of mine and I've never noticed the boobie (a nipple, really) before. Thanks! ;^)

Waterhouse and Alma-Tadema are my favourites of the genre. A-T was rather blatant about his reasoning: he liked the nekkid wimmins. To avoid censure he painted them in "historical" settings.

I once had a whole site (well, several pages on Geocities) devoted to Pre-Raphaelite Brotherhood artwork (the above artists were either part of the movement or on the periphery) and poetry.
/PRB geek
posted by deborah at 6:04 PM on January 30, 2006

Oh sure shmegegge, no offense taken.

But I should have known I couldn't fool you and the MetaPoletzi forever. You got me. I joined MF over three years ago, posted links, questions, comments and answers on everything from the Emancipation Proclamation to watch repair, just so I could seize this opportunity to marginally increase the search page rank of a site from organization in another country that doesn't sell a product that doesn't exist. Hell, I even attended a meetup to hide my tracks, but I couldn't fool you guys, nosiree.

I know the link spammers are rapacious and relentless, and constant vigilance is in order, but maybe, just maybe you people ought to use a little, uh, what do you call it, common fucking sense.

Ah, to Hell with it. I've already got my username linked with that of a common thief from now til the heat death of the universe. I'm past caring about this. If I screwed up I've paid.
posted by mojohand at 8:15 PM on January 30, 2006

mojo, FWIW, I don't think any permanent damage was done. :)
posted by Malor at 10:38 PM on January 30, 2006

>>does anyone else think Charles Darwin looks old, surly, and extremely out of place among all the nubile wenches?

Yes! Can we update him with a rasta hat and a surfboard? Perhaps go hip-hop style too?

With a little photoshop work someone can turn this into Santa Darwin.
posted by skallas at 11:14 PM on January 30, 2006

posted by matteo at 12:31 AM on January 31, 2006

mojohand, I wasn't being facetious. My comment was in now way intended to imply your guilt or my believing you are guilty. I know nothing about your posting history, and I don't intend to look it up. I'm simply staying out of it.

I only intended to say that there are good reasons why we check these things, so long as we don't get carried away.

Also, did you miss the MeTa thread over here? See, there are people who engage in the kind of subterfuge you're claiming proves your innocence. Again, I'm not saying you did anything, just giving reasons why we have Metectives in the first place.
posted by shmegegge at 6:49 AM on January 31, 2006

shmegegge, this comment is in no way intended to imply you think mojohand is an evil bastard and are sure he's guilty. I know nothing about your beliefs, and I don't intend to find out. I'm simply staying out of it.

I only want to say that there are good reasons we imply bad things about other posters, so long as we don't get carried away.

You know, there are people who go around saying nasty, unprovable things about other MeFites without any sound basis. Again, I'm not saying you did anything, just giving reasons why I'm saying I don't know whether you think mojohand is an evil bastard and are sure he's guilty.

See how that works? That's why people with the slightest awareness of social interaction preface remarks with yours with statements like "mojohand, I'm sure you weren't doing anything wrong, but..."—even if they're not literally sure. Loud insistence on "I don't know one way or the other" comes off sounding like an accusation. It's perfectly clear mojohand meant no harm and is taken aback by all this turmoil, and you're making him feel worse. If you're cool with that, I guess that's your business.
posted by languagehat at 7:35 AM on January 31, 2006

I told that guy to post the question here, since he was asking me about it. It is totaly legit. He is a local friend of mine.

Ok, however, I still suspect Dr Amy
posted by poppo at 10:43 AM on January 31, 2006

fair enough. I do not think mojohand is doing anything wrong. I only meant to say that I hadn't bothered even checking the thread in question because I'm not a metective. I was trying to chime in on the side of "metectives do good things" without siding one way or the other on mojohand's thread, but languagehat's point is well made.

Please understand, I don't think mojohand is a marketer in any way. I never did. I apologize for my unfortunate phraseology.
posted by shmegegge at 2:13 PM on January 31, 2006

January 30, 2006 3:13 AM Subscribe

January 30, 2006
3:13 AM Subscribe