Today has been quality February 17, 2006 1:18 PM Subscribe
Today, February 17, 2006, has seen the most quality, well written posts ever, or for at least during my time here. The bar has been raised. I'll try to keep up. Thanks!
Well almost I guess....
posted by wheelieman at 1:50 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by wheelieman at 1:50 PM on February 17, 2006
So now is the perfect time for me to submit my single-link fart joke post.
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:13 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by allen.spaulding at 2:13 PM on February 17, 2006
Incidentally, the “day in posts” page lists deleted posts. Is this a feature or a bug?
posted by ijoshua at 2:43 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by ijoshua at 2:43 PM on February 17, 2006
If Metafilter were a scalp, it would have a succeeding hairline.
posted by cortex at 2:43 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by cortex at 2:43 PM on February 17, 2006
Clearly this is because I put up my first FPP in six months.
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by raedyn at 2:49 PM on February 17, 2006
Also, ozomatli posted today. His posts have been consistently fantastic. I love it when new people show up with great things to share.
posted by vacapinta at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 3:01 PM on February 17, 2006
Maybe its just me, but I do wish Ask.Me got above the level of stuff like "Help me replace the mats on my Subaru" and had more stuff like "How do we really know how far Galaxies are?" or "What were the communications mechanisms that kept something as large as the Roman Empire cohesive in any sense" or "Whats the latest thinking in the identity of Shakespeare?" etc...
But again, maybe thats just me.
posted by vacapinta at 3:49 PM on February 17, 2006
But again, maybe thats just me.
posted by vacapinta at 3:49 PM on February 17, 2006
"maybe thats just me"
Not quite just you, but our numbers seem to be very few.
posted by mischief at 3:59 PM on February 17, 2006
Not quite just you, but our numbers seem to be very few.
posted by mischief at 3:59 PM on February 17, 2006
I find many of the posts most people seem to like here to be complete crap when taken in the context of MetaFilter's one time goal - "Best of the web". Now we have discussion starters, Google results, and obsessively researched answers to questions no one asked.
The place was better when we measured ffp epeens by whether you'd found something new and cool. Now we just pick a random topic and collect some links from Google. People actually praise posts as well researched and presented while admitting they don't have time to read any of the links. Read all the links? When did MetaFilter turn into a research portal?
I blame Miguel. His wine glass bullshit sucked all the hipness out of this place. Now we're a bunch of well read gits.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:01 PM on February 17, 2006
The place was better when we measured ffp epeens by whether you'd found something new and cool. Now we just pick a random topic and collect some links from Google. People actually praise posts as well researched and presented while admitting they don't have time to read any of the links. Read all the links? When did MetaFilter turn into a research portal?
I blame Miguel. His wine glass bullshit sucked all the hipness out of this place. Now we're a bunch of well read gits.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:01 PM on February 17, 2006
Maybe its just me, but I do wish Ask.Me got above the level of stuff like "Help me replace the mats on my Subaru" and had more stuff like "How do we really know how far Galaxies are?" or "What were the communications mechanisms that kept something as large as the Roman Empire cohesive in any sense" or "Whats the latest thinking in the identity of Shakespeare?" etc...
Write out the answers in advance. just in case.
posted by srboisvert at 4:04 PM on February 17, 2006
Write out the answers in advance. just in case.
posted by srboisvert at 4:04 PM on February 17, 2006
Yep. I know all the answers to these questions as well , it's such a pity no one has asked them.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:43 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:43 PM on February 17, 2006
The place was better when we measured ffp epeens by whether you'd found something new and cool.
Try that now and the first three comments will be variations on, 'Um, a single link? We don't do that here.', 'You should have included some background [Wikipedia link]', &c.
I even fleshed out my last post with a bunch of extra links in order to avoid getting shit for just, you know, posting a link to a great new site - I am weak!
posted by jack_mo at 4:45 PM on February 17, 2006
Try that now and the first three comments will be variations on, 'Um, a single link? We don't do that here.', 'You should have included some background [Wikipedia link]', &c.
I even fleshed out my last post with a bunch of extra links in order to avoid getting shit for just, you know, posting a link to a great new site - I am weak!
posted by jack_mo at 4:45 PM on February 17, 2006
(Not that I don't appreciate a meaty post, mind you.)
posted by jack_mo at 4:48 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by jack_mo at 4:48 PM on February 17, 2006
vacapinta: most of that information can easily be found in Wikipedia and/or supporting sites linked from it. Replacing the mats in my . . . well, I wouldn't be caught dead in a Subaru - in my car at any rate - isn't in Wikipedia.
Should be a reasonably easy Google, though, so that's a bad example. At any rate there's a lot of seemingly stupid questions along those lines that can't be trivially found with fifteen minutes of leg work.
posted by Ryvar at 4:59 PM on February 17, 2006
Should be a reasonably easy Google, though, so that's a bad example. At any rate there's a lot of seemingly stupid questions along those lines that can't be trivially found with fifteen minutes of leg work.
posted by Ryvar at 4:59 PM on February 17, 2006
Ok, I just made up those questions off the top of my head and maybe they are easily googlable. My general point was interesting, larger questions rather than the banal.
Even those questions where someone asks "What is it like in the X industry" and someone from the X industry answers. I learn something new.
I guess I am advocating for the large, invisible third party in ask metafilter. Not the askers or the answerers but, the readers - those of us who encounter something we wouldnt have even thought to ask and yet learn something new.
posted by vacapinta at 5:03 PM on February 17, 2006
Even those questions where someone asks "What is it like in the X industry" and someone from the X industry answers. I learn something new.
I guess I am advocating for the large, invisible third party in ask metafilter. Not the askers or the answerers but, the readers - those of us who encounter something we wouldnt have even thought to ask and yet learn something new.
posted by vacapinta at 5:03 PM on February 17, 2006
I kind of had the impression those kinds of questions were almost frowned upon as too chatty. If not, great.
posted by atchafalaya at 5:54 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by atchafalaya at 5:54 PM on February 17, 2006
vacapinta:
Fair point. I agree. I don't really think there's any real possible solution, but I do agree.
I think of the questions I've asked this one is the only one that fits what you're talking about, while the rest are pretty banal.
posted by Ryvar at 5:56 PM on February 17, 2006
Fair point. I agree. I don't really think there's any real possible solution, but I do agree.
I think of the questions I've asked this one is the only one that fits what you're talking about, while the rest are pretty banal.
posted by Ryvar at 5:56 PM on February 17, 2006
By the way, the answers are: Redshift, Roads and Roger Manners. :)
posted by vacapinta at 6:18 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by vacapinta at 6:18 PM on February 17, 2006
I think those broad, thought provoking questions are interesting, but fundamentally, they are not what AskMe is really all about. AskMe is not about readers; it's about members asking questions and getting answers. Most of those questions will necessarily be banal; we live in a banal world, after all. Sure, I like to think about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire as much as the next guy, but that doesn't mean I can't also ask about my car engine, or my computer, or chili recipe recommendations.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:24 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:24 PM on February 17, 2006
There are often broad questions asked about scientific things that the person asking doesn't know or understand the science behind and when an expert answers, I learn something new about a scientific process or I learn a better way to explain what I undersand (there have been several biochem and biology questions).
Questions can be broad without resorting to chatty, open-ended "what's your opinion on this?" kinds of questions.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:16 PM on February 17, 2006
Questions can be broad without resorting to chatty, open-ended "what's your opinion on this?" kinds of questions.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:16 PM on February 17, 2006
mathowie listened to David Allen - Getting Things Done: The Art of Stress-Free Productivity Part 1 of 2 @ 18:30, 17 February 2006
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:16 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:16 PM on February 17, 2006
mathowie listened to A Flock of Seagulls - I Ran-(So Far Away) @ 16:44, 16 February 2006
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:17 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by Protocols of the Elders of Awesome at 8:17 PM on February 17, 2006
I thought Bush seemed to suck a little less than usual today, but I couldn't figure out why...
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:11 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 9:11 PM on February 17, 2006
This post showed that an often controversial poster can use a bit of criticism to make a much better and more comprehensible FPP.
posted by aburd at 9:37 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by aburd at 9:37 PM on February 17, 2006
We ain't raising the bar. We're lowering it for a limbo.
posted by loquacious at 10:04 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by loquacious at 10:04 PM on February 17, 2006
Hey, just what the hell is wrong with my question about floor mats (and choice of automobile)? :-)
posted by DakotaPaul at 10:05 PM on February 17, 2006
posted by DakotaPaul at 10:05 PM on February 17, 2006
This post showed that an often controversial poster can use a bit of criticism to make a much better and more comprehensible FPP.
I agree, but can we please stop obsessing over Dios?
posted by gsteff at 10:21 PM on February 17, 2006
I agree, but can we please stop obsessing over Dios?
posted by gsteff at 10:21 PM on February 17, 2006
I agree, but can we please stop obsessing over Dios?
Fair enough. But since he takes a lot of criticism it is only fair to point out the positive as well. Especially considering this topic is so inviting for a well deserved compliment.
posted by aburd at 10:33 PM on February 17, 2006
Fair enough. But since he takes a lot of criticism it is only fair to point out the positive as well. Especially considering this topic is so inviting for a well deserved compliment.
posted by aburd at 10:33 PM on February 17, 2006
monju:
The transverse V8 only works for a front wheel drive, try rebooting in safe mode, and use habanero instead of jalapeño.
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:16 AM on February 18, 2006
The transverse V8 only works for a front wheel drive, try rebooting in safe mode, and use habanero instead of jalapeño.
posted by horsewithnoname at 1:16 AM on February 18, 2006
And then, it got ugly. Literally ugly, that is, formatting-wise.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:23 AM on February 18, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:23 AM on February 18, 2006
"Now we have discussion starters, Google results, and obsessively researched answers to questions no one asked."
No need to thank me, all part of the service. Besides, I'm an old guy, and if I actually had to wait for the right questions, I'd take a unique lifetime accumulation of factual deletrius and observational trivia to the crematorium. That I'm putting it here, instead, in one out-of-the-way corner of an ephemeral Web, is mainly a favor to various public librarians I've known, who have uniformly discouraged all the book projects I've proposed.
Wouldn't want anyone to feel they aren't getting their $5 worth.
posted by paulsc at 6:40 AM on February 18, 2006
No need to thank me, all part of the service. Besides, I'm an old guy, and if I actually had to wait for the right questions, I'd take a unique lifetime accumulation of factual deletrius and observational trivia to the crematorium. That I'm putting it here, instead, in one out-of-the-way corner of an ephemeral Web, is mainly a favor to various public librarians I've known, who have uniformly discouraged all the book projects I've proposed.
Wouldn't want anyone to feel they aren't getting their $5 worth.
posted by paulsc at 6:40 AM on February 18, 2006
Technically, crash, that was posted by an antipodean on the 18th (subjective time), so it doesn't tarnish the magnificence that was February 17.
Also, jessamyn cleaned it up so it's not fugly anymore.
posted by Ritchie at 7:45 AM on February 18, 2006
Also, jessamyn cleaned it up so it's not fugly anymore.
posted by Ritchie at 7:45 AM on February 18, 2006
For a minute I thought about making this a separate MeTa post, and perhaps eventually I will. I'm responding to this frequently raised idea:
I find many of the posts most people seem to like here to be complete crap when taken in the context of MetaFilter's one time goal - "Best of the web". Now we have discussion starters, Google results, and obsessively researched answers to questions no one asked.
Best of the Web. It's a mission statement of sorts, and I gather it's been around since day one. If Metafilter were a cultural institution, or a startup company, at five years in it would be high time to revise the mission statement. Any organization goes through changes as it matures. Best of the Web was the initial concept, and it has worked. Yet the organization (f you will) has grown more complex.
In an art museum, say, or any community organization with open membership, early members create the energy and build an attractive entity. This attracts newer members, who increase the vitality and health of the organization while bringing in a diversity of viewpoints unkown before. Each new member will bring their own interests and desires to the community, and the community will gradually change shape. New pools of skill and knowledge will develop. Membership will spread through real-world networks, as various 'audiences' discover something they'd like to be part of (basically, friends bring on friends). New possibilities will be discovered and identified - ones that even the visionaries who began the project wouldn't have forecasted. Dumb ideas will get floated, but so will good onces. Organizations can grow in surprising ways, depending on the will of the supporting community.
I think that's what's happened with MeFi - but I'm in favor of it. If were running a not-for-profit whose membership had multiplied exponentially in five years, yet whose program remained of such high quality, I'd be raking in millions on speaking tours.
There is still a lot of what is traditionally thought of as 'Best of the Web' here; but I can point you to seven or eight other sites in my bookmarks which also present "new and cool" web sites every day. And yet, I don't spend even a tenth of a percent of the time at those places that I do here. I come here because of the community and its intelligence and expertise. A good front-page day for me is one filled with 'discussion starters and obsessively researched answers to questions no one has asked'. Besides which, people who put together those 'answers' often are presenting little-known corners of knowledge that genuinely are the BotW, even in the traditional 'that's a cool site' sense.
The place was better when we measured ffp epeens by whether you'd found something new and cool. .
When this feels disappointing, also consider history. In the years between 2000-05, most of us could find something new and cool about every three days. Those days are winding down, as web observers never tire of telling us. Innovations on the web are developing more slowly, but more elegantly. I'm not suggesting there aren't wonderful new sites coming into existence every day - there are - but as the web changes, so must MeFi, if it's to present the 'Best of'.
Perhaps our definition of 'Best of' could change. Where once 'best of' might have meant a 'Billboard Top 100 model' -- essentially a list -- perhaps now the phrase 'Best of' could be understood to incorporate the most recent philosophical constructions of what the web is and can do. That is: organize and help you find the most interesting information and experience out there, by building social networks and forging links between them, creating trans-physical communities of knowledge and social connection.
That's what I want the web to do for me, anyway. I think that well-crafted posts about new developments in culture and science, obsessive interests, and arcane knowledge, follwed by literate discussion by interesting people from many fields, representthe Best of the Web as we should understand it in 2006. After all, consultants are being paid piles of cash right now to tell their clients that this is what the web is best at.
So if we can broaden the definition of "best of", we don't have to write the new mission statement, and that's one less committee.
posted by Miko at 8:13 AM on February 18, 2006
I find many of the posts most people seem to like here to be complete crap when taken in the context of MetaFilter's one time goal - "Best of the web". Now we have discussion starters, Google results, and obsessively researched answers to questions no one asked.
Best of the Web. It's a mission statement of sorts, and I gather it's been around since day one. If Metafilter were a cultural institution, or a startup company, at five years in it would be high time to revise the mission statement. Any organization goes through changes as it matures. Best of the Web was the initial concept, and it has worked. Yet the organization (f you will) has grown more complex.
In an art museum, say, or any community organization with open membership, early members create the energy and build an attractive entity. This attracts newer members, who increase the vitality and health of the organization while bringing in a diversity of viewpoints unkown before. Each new member will bring their own interests and desires to the community, and the community will gradually change shape. New pools of skill and knowledge will develop. Membership will spread through real-world networks, as various 'audiences' discover something they'd like to be part of (basically, friends bring on friends). New possibilities will be discovered and identified - ones that even the visionaries who began the project wouldn't have forecasted. Dumb ideas will get floated, but so will good onces. Organizations can grow in surprising ways, depending on the will of the supporting community.
I think that's what's happened with MeFi - but I'm in favor of it. If were running a not-for-profit whose membership had multiplied exponentially in five years, yet whose program remained of such high quality, I'd be raking in millions on speaking tours.
There is still a lot of what is traditionally thought of as 'Best of the Web' here; but I can point you to seven or eight other sites in my bookmarks which also present "new and cool" web sites every day. And yet, I don't spend even a tenth of a percent of the time at those places that I do here. I come here because of the community and its intelligence and expertise. A good front-page day for me is one filled with 'discussion starters and obsessively researched answers to questions no one has asked'. Besides which, people who put together those 'answers' often are presenting little-known corners of knowledge that genuinely are the BotW, even in the traditional 'that's a cool site' sense.
The place was better when we measured ffp epeens by whether you'd found something new and cool. .
When this feels disappointing, also consider history. In the years between 2000-05, most of us could find something new and cool about every three days. Those days are winding down, as web observers never tire of telling us. Innovations on the web are developing more slowly, but more elegantly. I'm not suggesting there aren't wonderful new sites coming into existence every day - there are - but as the web changes, so must MeFi, if it's to present the 'Best of'.
Perhaps our definition of 'Best of' could change. Where once 'best of' might have meant a 'Billboard Top 100 model' -- essentially a list -- perhaps now the phrase 'Best of' could be understood to incorporate the most recent philosophical constructions of what the web is and can do. That is: organize and help you find the most interesting information and experience out there, by building social networks and forging links between them, creating trans-physical communities of knowledge and social connection.
That's what I want the web to do for me, anyway. I think that well-crafted posts about new developments in culture and science, obsessive interests, and arcane knowledge, follwed by literate discussion by interesting people from many fields, representthe Best of the Web as we should understand it in 2006. After all, consultants are being paid piles of cash right now to tell their clients that this is what the web is best at.
So if we can broaden the definition of "best of", we don't have to write the new mission statement, and that's one less committee.
posted by Miko at 8:13 AM on February 18, 2006
What she said.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:32 AM on February 18, 2006
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 9:32 AM on February 18, 2006
"Technically, crash, that was posted by an antipodean on the 18th (subjective time), so it doesn't tarnish the magnificence that was February 17."
That was what I meant - after 2/17, everything changed.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:35 AM on February 18, 2006
That was what I meant - after 2/17, everything changed.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:35 AM on February 18, 2006
Maybe its just me, but I do wish Ask.Me got above the level of stuff like "Help me replace the mats on my Subaru" and had more stuff like "How do we really know how far Galaxies are?" or "What were the communications mechanisms that kept something as large as the Roman Empire cohesive in any sense" or "Whats the latest thinking in the identity of Shakespeare?" etc...
Here you go : > (i really do want answers, if there are any)
posted by amberglow at 10:05 AM on February 18, 2006
Here you go : > (i really do want answers, if there are any)
posted by amberglow at 10:05 AM on February 18, 2006
"Best of the web" is deprecated. Originally, the post page stated: "Just to be clear: the point of metafilter is to find the best and most interesting of the web to share with others, not things described here." Now it just says: "Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? Great!" The phrase "best of the web" is not found on either the about page or in the guidelines.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:44 AM on February 18, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:44 AM on February 18, 2006
Try that now and the first three comments will be variations on, 'Um, a single link? We don't do that here.', 'You should have included some background [Wikipedia link]', &c.
That is entirely and demonstrably untrue. There are currently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 single-link posts on the front page, not one of which has gotten the sort of complaint you describe. One of them ("6") did get a number of complaints about the post, but they were not "this is a crappy post because it has a single link," but rather "this is a crappy post, period." Several of them ("8", "11", "12", "14") got multiple compliments on the interesting link.
It's true that crappy single-link posts (news story which is already on the front page of every major news site, opinion piece which is barely more than an average blog entry, latest movie trailer) will get savaged by the populace. Addition of background links is sometimes suggested because they can make an otherwise crappy single link into a halfway-decent (but never truly good) post. But I've never seen the sort of complaints you describe applied to a good single-link post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:21 AM on February 20, 2006
That is entirely and demonstrably untrue. There are currently 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 single-link posts on the front page, not one of which has gotten the sort of complaint you describe. One of them ("6") did get a number of complaints about the post, but they were not "this is a crappy post because it has a single link," but rather "this is a crappy post, period." Several of them ("8", "11", "12", "14") got multiple compliments on the interesting link.
It's true that crappy single-link posts (news story which is already on the front page of every major news site, opinion piece which is barely more than an average blog entry, latest movie trailer) will get savaged by the populace. Addition of background links is sometimes suggested because they can make an otherwise crappy single link into a halfway-decent (but never truly good) post. But I've never seen the sort of complaints you describe applied to a good single-link post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:21 AM on February 20, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Plutor at 1:25 PM on February 17, 2006