Copyright violation callout March 21, 2006 6:31 AM Subscribe
you don't say?
posted by puke & cry at 6:33 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 6:33 AM on March 21, 2006
I was just looking at that. Maybe someone can try to make a new similarly-excellent post that goes to similar content without the "get these hollywood movies free" angle? The old teevee stuff was really great and now that it's linked here people will still see it. What was your point specifically, loquacious?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:36 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:36 AM on March 21, 2006
So, what is it about the flagging system that just doesn't seem to satisfy people? There has to be some way to make it so that people can press the flag on a post they don't like, and they get some sort of, I don't know, cookie that drops out of their disk drive or something. Something that will satisfy them enough not to feel the need to make a call-out on metatalk. Or is it that people need to feel a certain sense of moral superiority when they can grandstand a call-out? Pressing "[!]" doesn't let the world know of your moral outrage enough. Lord knows, derailing a thread from the inside, on the blue, is neither satisfying enough or even desirable enough.
No, the flagging system is definitely ineffectual, and we need to rethink the whole thing.
posted by crunchland at 6:41 AM on March 21, 2006
No, the flagging system is definitely ineffectual, and we need to rethink the whole thing.
posted by crunchland at 6:41 AM on March 21, 2006
If a cookie dropped out of my disk drive every time I flagged something, I'd be flagging every post. I'd need milk too.
posted by spaghetti at 6:45 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by spaghetti at 6:45 AM on March 21, 2006
crunchland : "No, the flagging system is definitely ineffectual, and we need to rethink the whole thing."
Well, depends how you define ineffectual. It was meant to decrease noise and to give pointers to Jessamyn and Mathowie about places that needed fixin'. It's satisfying the latter, but not the former, so I'd just say it's "less effectual than had been hoped", but not ineffectual, per se.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 AM on March 21, 2006
Well, depends how you define ineffectual. It was meant to decrease noise and to give pointers to Jessamyn and Mathowie about places that needed fixin'. It's satisfying the latter, but not the former, so I'd just say it's "less effectual than had been hoped", but not ineffectual, per se.
posted by Bugbread at 6:46 AM on March 21, 2006
No disrespect, crunchland. Normally I like your posts, but this one doesn't appear to be all that good for MetaFilter.
My primary concern isn't the quality of the post, or whether or not it involves TV or anything, but the piracy involved, and the for-profit nature of it.
It'd been flagged a bunch. Many people said, more or less "Uh... this isn't quite safe".
What part of that concern for MetaFilter's safety don't you understand?
posted by loquacious at 6:59 AM on March 21, 2006
My primary concern isn't the quality of the post, or whether or not it involves TV or anything, but the piracy involved, and the for-profit nature of it.
It'd been flagged a bunch. Many people said, more or less "Uh... this isn't quite safe".
What part of that concern for MetaFilter's safety don't you understand?
posted by loquacious at 6:59 AM on March 21, 2006
Or is it that people need to feel a certain sense of moral superiority when they can grandstand a call-out? Pressing "[!]" doesn't let the world know of your moral outrage enough.
Err, no. You do understand the difference between ethics and morals, don't you?
Moral superiority has jack diddly squat on an avocado sandwich to do with it. The ARRR..gh wording was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating and collectively self-acknowledging. Few here would be entirely innocent when it comes to viewing/downloading, shall we say, at least grey-area, copyrighted material. But is the front page of MeFi the place for such blatant, for-profit piracy?
posted by loquacious at 7:03 AM on March 21, 2006
Err, no. You do understand the difference between ethics and morals, don't you?
Moral superiority has jack diddly squat on an avocado sandwich to do with it. The ARRR..gh wording was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating and collectively self-acknowledging. Few here would be entirely innocent when it comes to viewing/downloading, shall we say, at least grey-area, copyrighted material. But is the front page of MeFi the place for such blatant, for-profit piracy?
posted by loquacious at 7:03 AM on March 21, 2006
For what little it's worth, last night, when whoever pointed out that they could download Let It Be was when I sent a note to Matt telling him I didn't realize the extent of the questionable stuff, and that he could delete the post. But, that is beside the point. Since the thread is now deleted, and Metafilter is now safe for the copyright respecting people of the world, I was aiming to re-route this otherwise useless metatalk callout to discuss the bigger picture.
posted by crunchland at 7:08 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 7:08 AM on March 21, 2006
Why are you so defensive and antagonistic, then?
Or am I misreading the tone of plaintext?
I love your posts, man. My only purpose for posting this to MeTa was to bring deletion quicker 'cause I love MeFi and I love you, too.
This MeTa is now useless. Totally agreed. It can be nuked from the grey entirely, if that's acceptable to everyone.
I don't want to start a snark fest, unless it goes meta and we're all having fun with it. Otherwise, I'd be happiest if animosity was just, y'know, kept to a minimum. I mean no harm to you, nor your Id nor Ego.
when I sent a note to Matt telling him I didn't realize the extent of the questionable stuff
Noting that in thread for us would have been helpful and prevented the callout. It's an admission of accidental error, which is what I think most of us assumed it was.
posted by loquacious at 7:13 AM on March 21, 2006
Or am I misreading the tone of plaintext?
I love your posts, man. My only purpose for posting this to MeTa was to bring deletion quicker 'cause I love MeFi and I love you, too.
This MeTa is now useless. Totally agreed. It can be nuked from the grey entirely, if that's acceptable to everyone.
I don't want to start a snark fest, unless it goes meta and we're all having fun with it. Otherwise, I'd be happiest if animosity was just, y'know, kept to a minimum. I mean no harm to you, nor your Id nor Ego.
when I sent a note to Matt telling him I didn't realize the extent of the questionable stuff
Noting that in thread for us would have been helpful and prevented the callout. It's an admission of accidental error, which is what I think most of us assumed it was.
posted by loquacious at 7:13 AM on March 21, 2006
The ARRR..gh wording was supposed to be tongue-in-cheek, self deprecating and collectively self-acknowledging.
Then it was unclear. For the record the post was still unremoved when I saw this MeTa thread. Do the community a favor and don't assume they have a line-in jack to your mind.
I think the flagging system works okay for mathowie and I but it clearly doesn't work quickly enough for some people, or with enough confidence and assurance for others (as evidenced by other MeTa posts of this morning). I don't mind grappling with the occasional confused or redundant MeTa post, email or questioning IM, but there seems to be even a lack of understanding of how the flagging feature works even in a perfect world. In a perfect world it works like this:
- you see a comment or post that you think breaks the guidelines, sucks, or anything else. Instead of complaining in-thread, you flag it.
- mathowie takes time off from working on new features for the site to notice that a particular comment/post has received a lot of flags and goes to check it out. Subsequent checking it out may result in comment/post deletion, an email to someone, fixing a typo, or nothing.
[I also view the flag queue and keep my mod stuff mostly to AskMe and fixing typo/link stuff with the occasional Very Bad Post/Comment removal, unless mathowie is on vacation in which case I do more]
Clearly it's the "or nothing" aspect that is causing trouble. If your flag always resulted in something happening, people might flag with more confidence. But it doesn't, it's a Skinnerian black box. I'm not sure how much more transparent the system can be without it turning into another goofable hackable part of the site. We already see people flagging things they don't like three or four times in a row, or see things that are not good for the site flagged as fantastic. I know Matt is always scheming on ways to keep MeTa traffic down, but since it's the least moderated part of an already-lightly-moderated site, it seems to be somewhat immune to manipulation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 AM on March 21, 2006
Then it was unclear. For the record the post was still unremoved when I saw this MeTa thread. Do the community a favor and don't assume they have a line-in jack to your mind.
I think the flagging system works okay for mathowie and I but it clearly doesn't work quickly enough for some people, or with enough confidence and assurance for others (as evidenced by other MeTa posts of this morning). I don't mind grappling with the occasional confused or redundant MeTa post, email or questioning IM, but there seems to be even a lack of understanding of how the flagging feature works even in a perfect world. In a perfect world it works like this:
- you see a comment or post that you think breaks the guidelines, sucks, or anything else. Instead of complaining in-thread, you flag it.
- mathowie takes time off from working on new features for the site to notice that a particular comment/post has received a lot of flags and goes to check it out. Subsequent checking it out may result in comment/post deletion, an email to someone, fixing a typo, or nothing.
[I also view the flag queue and keep my mod stuff mostly to AskMe and fixing typo/link stuff with the occasional Very Bad Post/Comment removal, unless mathowie is on vacation in which case I do more]
Clearly it's the "or nothing" aspect that is causing trouble. If your flag always resulted in something happening, people might flag with more confidence. But it doesn't, it's a Skinnerian black box. I'm not sure how much more transparent the system can be without it turning into another goofable hackable part of the site. We already see people flagging things they don't like three or four times in a row, or see things that are not good for the site flagged as fantastic. I know Matt is always scheming on ways to keep MeTa traffic down, but since it's the least moderated part of an already-lightly-moderated site, it seems to be somewhat immune to manipulation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 AM on March 21, 2006
How about an option for the immediate deletion of posts by the poster themselves?
For example, I just accidently posted a double post. I would have deleted it myself ASAP given the ability.
A simple mea culpa is often all it takes to prevent a MeTa post.
posted by loquacious at 7:33 AM on March 21, 2006
For example, I just accidently posted a double post. I would have deleted it myself ASAP given the ability.
A simple mea culpa is often all it takes to prevent a MeTa post.
posted by loquacious at 7:33 AM on March 21, 2006
jessamyn : "We already see people flagging things they don't like three or four times in a row"
Oops. I didn't know it worked that way. Some of that may have been me (ok, not three or four times, but twice), as I'll flag a few noise comments, realize they're part of a big ole derail, then go to the top of the derail and work my way down it, flagging each entry, and inevitably not remembering which of the comments below I had flagged before I decided to work more methodically.
So, sorry about that.
posted by Bugbread at 7:35 AM on March 21, 2006
Oops. I didn't know it worked that way. Some of that may have been me (ok, not three or four times, but twice), as I'll flag a few noise comments, realize they're part of a big ole derail, then go to the top of the derail and work my way down it, flagging each entry, and inevitably not remembering which of the comments below I had flagged before I decided to work more methodically.
So, sorry about that.
posted by Bugbread at 7:35 AM on March 21, 2006
I've yet to manage to download something from rapidshare, the internets' lamest website evar, with the possible exception of geocities
posted by matteo at 7:45 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by matteo at 7:45 AM on March 21, 2006
"then go to the top of the derail and work my way down it, flagging each entry"
It's easier to just post a MeTalk.
posted by mischief at 7:50 AM on March 21, 2006
It's easier to just post a MeTalk.
posted by mischief at 7:50 AM on March 21, 2006
Hey, thanks for pointing out this post, I'd have missed it otherwise.
posted by majick at 8:04 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by majick at 8:04 AM on March 21, 2006
***SPOILER ALERT***
At the end of the Krazy Kat cartoon, Ignatz hits him with a brick.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:06 AM on March 21, 2006
At the end of the Krazy Kat cartoon, Ignatz hits him with a brick.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:06 AM on March 21, 2006
Alvy, you only read the first half of it; at the end, Ignatz is put in jail by Officer Pup.
posted by beerbajay at 9:05 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by beerbajay at 9:05 AM on March 21, 2006
AJAX flagging would be a lovely addition. I hate having to go through a few screens just to get back where I started when flagging. And of course, only allowing a comment/post to be flagged one time per user. Unless of course "fantasic/double/offensive" is desirable flagganation.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:06 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 10:06 AM on March 21, 2006
What's wrong with other?
posted by Pollomacho at 10:38 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by Pollomacho at 10:38 AM on March 21, 2006
"Other" doesn't really mean much. If there's an obvious typographical error or formatting problem, or a comment points out the reason for the flag, then "other" is helpful. It doesn't really convey "this is lame."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:57 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:57 AM on March 21, 2006
Lame posts should probably just be ignored.
posted by crunchland at 11:12 AM on March 21, 2006
posted by crunchland at 11:12 AM on March 21, 2006
AJAX flagging would be a lovely addition
If you use Firefox and Greasemonkey, there's Metafilter Asynchronous Flagging.
posted by jack_mo at 1:01 PM on March 21, 2006
If you use Firefox and Greasemonkey, there's Metafilter Asynchronous Flagging.
posted by jack_mo at 1:01 PM on March 21, 2006
AJAX flagging would be a lovely addition
but then someone would demand COMET flagging.
posted by quonsar at 7:05 PM on March 21, 2006
but then someone would demand COMET flagging.
posted by quonsar at 7:05 PM on March 21, 2006
Jimi Hendrix at the Isle Of Wright.mpg
Heheh. Spellcheck is evil.
posted by scarabic at 9:42 PM on March 21, 2006
Heheh. Spellcheck is evil.
posted by scarabic at 9:42 PM on March 21, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by loquacious at 6:33 AM on March 21, 2006