There is an entry on my blog about this malarky

June 3, 2006 6:10 PM

There is an entry on my blog about this malarky. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.
There is an entry on my blog about this malarky. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.
posted by Danelope to Etiquette/Policy at 6:10 PM (91 comments total)

On gay marriage, via my blog.
I've written a bit more about it on my blog.
This post includes a photo of the church I live beside in Oxford
I have some images from Google Earth on my blog.
I recently shifted the content management for my blog (www.sindark.com)
They say that it is being worked on

Et fuckin' cetera.
posted by Danelope at 6:10 PM on June 3, 2006

How to good-bye $5: if you spam Metafilter 100 times everyday. Malarkey? Or effective way?
posted by evariste at 6:12 PM on June 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

There is an entry in MeTa about this malarky. Feel free yo contribute to the pile-on
posted by atrazine at 6:13 PM on June 3, 2006

Certainly excessive, if not strictly prohibited by the rules and regulations of the Metafilter Bill of Rights.

A quick spanking and some ritual public humiliation should suffice for this one.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:13 PM on June 3, 2006

Malarky is a great word, though.
posted by cmonkey at 6:14 PM on June 3, 2006

I like "via my blog". Like, he didn't know about gay marriage, but then he saw it on his blog, and so it's "via" his blog.
posted by evariste at 6:16 PM on June 3, 2006

The thing is, none of this breaches any rules. These are all comments, not posts. Maybe a friendly email to explain that contributing nothing but self promotional links is frowned upon?
posted by atrazine at 6:18 PM on June 3, 2006

I have otters in my spinal column, feed me eggs.
posted by fire&wings at 6:19 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

These are all comments, not posts.

No, some are AskMe posts.
posted by evariste at 6:21 PM on June 3, 2006

Burn him!
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:33 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

Huh. I tried to leave comments on his blog in the posts that he linked to, saying "You might want to see the discussion on Metafilter that touches on this", but after the third, it rejected them as spam...
posted by Bugbread at 6:33 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

his blog is rejecting my comments as well.

'sindark is a spamming douchebag.'

so i tried 'sindark is a douchebag.'

no go.

so i tried 'sindark is a fine upstanding community blog contributor.'

rejected. so i gave up.
posted by quonsar at 7:22 PM on June 3, 2006

None of these comments are deceptive. None of these comments are irrelevant. The blog contains no advertising. If you still have cause to complain, go ahead. It troubles me not one bit.
posted by sindark at 7:40 PM on June 3, 2006

u r a spamr lol
posted by brownpau at 7:44 PM on June 3, 2006

Unrepentant, too! Cheeky bugger.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:45 PM on June 3, 2006

He's not a spammer. I'd recommend cooling it on the high percentage of links to his own blog, but he's right; the links are relevant.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:46 PM on June 3, 2006

It's counter to the implicit metafilter ethos, though. Very occasionally someone will write a comment to the effect of, "I wrote something on my blog about this, if it's okay with everyone, I'll just link to it...". But, for the most part, everyone knows that metafilter comments are not opportunities to promote your own blog/site, even if you've written something relevant. As you can see from my example, when someone does link to their own site, they are aware that it's not entirely kosher; they are careful and humble about doing it; and they honestly feel that it makes sense to do so because, for example, they feel silly quoting themselves or pretending to write something original that isn't or whatever. If you must do it, you do it reluctantly. This guy, in contrast, does it regularly and is clearly just hyping his own blog, even if with good intentions.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:48 PM on June 3, 2006

I hardly need to point out the irony of how this thread led to more blog hits than any MeFi comment I've ever made.

I get nothing beyond personal satisfaction, and the occasional interesting comment, from people finding my blog through MeFi. If it really bugs people, I will stop putting links here.

People don't need to be nasty or abusive about it.
posted by sindark at 7:56 PM on June 3, 2006

It sits precariously on the thin line between spamming and rampant site hype (Is there a difference? Yes, mostly because he hasn't linked in everything he's posted) Either way it isn't really very cool at all. sindark it makes it look like you are not so much a member as a parasite kinda thing. Whydontcha getit?
posted by peacay at 7:56 PM on June 3, 2006

sindark, apologize to the community, and don't self-link so often. Then all will be well.
posted by brownpau at 8:00 PM on June 3, 2006

@brownpau

Fair enough. Given that the consensus seems to be that such 'self-linking' is not acceptable, I apologize and shall desist.

This whole episode has been a good test of my comment spam filters. Some of you have been extremely crude in your responses.
posted by sindark at 8:03 PM on June 3, 2006

Crude? Fuck that.

BURN the MOTHERFUCKER!!!!! With MASSIVE PILES OF MIGHTY COALS!!!!

Oh, wait - he apologized.

Nevermind.
posted by yhbc at 8:08 PM on June 3, 2006

I think certain people owe sindark some apologies.
posted by ColdChef at 8:09 PM on June 3, 2006

Some of you have been extremely crude in your responses.

I'm sure that's true, and it's inexcusable. However, it's also completely predictable. It may be unfortunate, but that's exactly the response you can expect when you jump into community discussions in the manner you have. What you did is a bit like, if you overheard three strangers talking about gay marriage, interrupting their conversation to say, "Hey, you might be interested in my college term paper about gay marriage..." It's quite rude — and while that wouldn't excuse one of the people if he decided to punch you in the mouth, it's nevertheless a response you should have expected.
posted by cribcage at 8:16 PM on June 3, 2006

a sibilant intake of douche.
posted by quonsar at 8:20 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

You've got to be kidding me, cribcage. This isn't a random discussion among strangers in a cafe, this is a weblog, what with the links and all. It's perfectly appropriate for a user to add a link to a relevant source of information and discussion in the comments, even to their own site. I agree with EB that a user ought to be cautious about self-links in comments to the extent that the link needs to actually add value to the thread, but it's certainly not rude, and it doesn't justify crude comments on sindark's blog.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:22 PM on June 3, 2006

I thought malarkey had an "e" in it.
posted by jonmc at 8:23 PM on June 3, 2006

and while that wouldn't excuse one of the people if he decided to punch you in the mouth, it's nevertheless a response you should have expected.

Oh, I think we should aspire to better manners than that.
posted by ColdChef at 8:24 PM on June 3, 2006

I wasn't crude at all, but my comment still didn't get through. Unless the word metafilter is slur.

(Metafilter has to be added to the spellcheck's dictionary, it is not a detailer)
posted by 517 at 8:25 PM on June 3, 2006

@jonmc,

The Oxford English Dictionary includes both spellings. It also posits that the first recorded usage of the word was in 1924, by T. A. Dorgan in the Capital Times of Madison, Wisconsin.
posted by sindark at 8:26 PM on June 3, 2006

I've linked to my own site in comments literally dozens of times over the years. It's just fine to do so, when relevant.

The question here is if doing it so often is self-promotion, because that kind of thing is rightly frowned upon, particularly if it's being done in a stealthy way.

I don't know the answer to that question, because I don't know what sindark's intentions were in self-linking so frequently. But I've got to admit it does smell a bit spammy.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:27 PM on June 3, 2006

don't be snarkey.
posted by jonmc at 8:28 PM on June 3, 2006

"Honey? Is this shrimp lo mein still good?"

"It does smell a bit spammy."
posted by ColdChef at 8:33 PM on June 3, 2006

Also, if you go through my 95 comments, only a small fraction link my blog. Most either link no pages at all or websites with which I have no personal connection.
posted by sindark at 8:34 PM on June 3, 2006

if you go through my 95 convictions, only a small fraction involve minors. Most either inolved no sex at all or children with whom I have no personal connection.
posted by yhbc at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

sindark : "This whole episode has been a good test of my comment spam filters. Some of you have been extremely crude in your responses."

Crude as in "vulgar", or crude as in "not very sophisticated/advanced"? My comments to your blog were all polite, so if you meant it in the latter form, I'll take it that was directed at me, but if the former, then that would be someone else.

sindark : "Given that the consensus seems to be that such 'self-linking' is not acceptable, I apologize and shall desist."

Yesish and noish. The concensus is that the type and degree of self-linking that you did was not acceptable, but you've apologized and desisted and all is good with the world. However, there isn't a clear concensus about minimal and unusual self-linking, so don't get the wrong impression. Some people think that any self-links in comments are evil, and others think they're ok as long as they're very very rare. So don't be too surprised or take it personally if you see someone somewhere self-link a comment without getting flack about it.
posted by Bugbread at 8:39 PM on June 3, 2006

if you go through my 95 convictions, only a small fraction involve minors.

if you go through my 95 pairs of underwear, you're a pervert

(worst.analogy.ever)
posted by pyramid termite at 8:43 PM on June 3, 2006

mathowie lets bevets do the exact same thing. Nothing is going to happen.
posted by popechunk at 8:57 PM on June 3, 2006

@bugbread,

"Crude as in 'vulgar', or crude as in 'not very sophisticated/advanced'?"

I turned the sensitivity on my main filter way up after the site started getting almost one hit per minute (way, way above normal). No doubt, some perfectly innocent comments related to this issue got flagged as well as some 'crude as in vulgar' variants.

Given that it's already 5:00am in Oxford and many of my relatives, classmates, former teachers, etc read my blog on occasion, ramping up the filtering was really the only way I could go to sleep. As you can see, I am still feeling compelled to wake up and check things.
posted by sindark at 8:59 PM on June 3, 2006

Today's lesson is: self-link in comments sparingly, and even then only with humble self-deprecation, and full expectation of reprisals and retribution. Thus saith Metafilter.
posted by brownpau at 9:02 PM on June 3, 2006

sindark - just let it go and go to sleep ... it was a minor infraction at worst and you've apologized ... if the horde of metavillagers insist on harassing you with glow sticks and plastic sporks, THEY have the problem, not you
posted by pyramid termite at 9:06 PM on June 3, 2006

It's perfectly appropriate for a user to add a link to a relevant source of information and discussion in the comments...it's certainly not rude, and it doesn't justify crude comments on sindark's blog.

Regarding the second, I'm pretty sure I said that about 47 times. Regarding the first: Yeah, it's rude. Compare:

Exhibit A

The gay marriage issue is troublesome. On one hand, I think homosexual couples should be afforded the same civil benefits as heterosexual couples. On the other hand, "marriage" is a man and a woman, and two guys is no more a "marriage" than it is a "hamburger." Moreover, while Rick Santorum is a jackass, he's correct insofar as you can't claim that restricting "marriage" to man/woman is any more arbitrary than restricting it to two consenting adults as opposed to five. (I just made this argument in expanded form last week on my blog.)

Exhibit B

There is an entry on my blog about this malarky. Feel free to contribute to the discussion.

The first is cool, and the second is rude — because, in part and ironically, it doesn't contribute to the discussion. It's like saying, "Yeah, this is a great topic but your forum sucks donkey eggs. Let's move this conversation over to my website, 'cause AdSense kicks ass."

Do you think it's OK for every blogger whose written about the Iraq war to drop an otherwise content-free link to his blog (e.g., "More about this here!") into every thread related to that topic? Because I've gotta tell you, that's possibly the only thing that will make Iraq threads suck worse.
posted by cribcage at 9:12 PM on June 3, 2006

Do you think it's OK for every blogger whose written about the Iraq war to drop an otherwise content-free link to his blog (e.g., "More about this here!") into every thread related to that topic?

Only if that blogger is IraqWarWrong.
posted by evariste at 9:33 PM on June 3, 2006

every blogger whose written...

Goddammit.
posted by cribcage at 9:43 PM on June 3, 2006

The thing is, this is a community weblog. If you have something to say on gay marriage, say it here, if you have some cool images from Google Earth, link them here. Sending people to your own blog is a waste of time, and it is an obvious effort to drag traffic to your site and boost your own ego. It is anti-community. If you have thoughts on gay marraige, just bloody well write them - that's what everyone else does. You're not the only user on here with one of them new-fangled weblog thingies...compare how many people are linking to their blogs in comments, with how many people just bloody well write what's on their mind.
posted by Jimbob at 9:53 PM on June 3, 2006

Do you think it's OK for every blogger whose written about the Iraq war to drop an otherwise content-free link to his blog (e.g., "More about this here!") into every thread related to that topic?

Yes, because if it's got a link to a substantive discussion of a relevant topic, it's not content-free. Certainly no more than ceiling cat, anyway. It's a comment, for god's sake, not a working of fucking art.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:54 PM on June 3, 2006

Also, if Matt would turn trackbacks back on, this wouldn't be an issue.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:56 PM on June 3, 2006

The moment where he crossed the line between "new user misunderstanding the ethos of participation in discussion here" and "irritating spambot" is when he began using the exact same comment in different threads to drive hits to his weblog.

The subsequent cavalcade of self-promotion is merely icing on the shit cake, as it were.
posted by Danelope at 10:00 PM on June 3, 2006 [1 favorite]

using the exact same comment in different threads to drive hits to his weblog.

Bingo.
posted by evariste at 10:06 PM on June 3, 2006

Jimbob : "If you have something to say on gay marriage, say it here, if you have some cool images from Google Earth, link them here. Sending people to your own blog is a waste of time, and it is an obvious effort to drag traffic to your site and boost your own ego. It is anti-community."

Well, hold on. There are certain cases where linking to your own blog is better than putting it all here.

For example

• If your blog is primarily photos/videos of the subject in question, people would probably prefer that you link to it than that you inline it all.
• Same if it has a whole bunch of graphs.
• Same if it has some really long information that is extremely unusual or rare about the subject (this sounds pretty vague, but let me give an example: let's say we were talking about someone who had just gotten arrested for trying to blow up the Vatican. Some virtually unknown guy, who you could only find basic information about on the internet. Except, on your site, you just happened to do a one hour interview with him the week before the attempt. You wouldn't want to cut and paste an entire one hour interview into MeFi. However, the interview on your blog would be extremely notable, and people in the thread would be very, very likely to want to read it. So linking to it would be the best course of action.)

So, generally, if you have something to say, you should say it here, but there are exceptions.
posted by Bugbread at 10:11 PM on June 3, 2006

Jimbob and bugbread have it.

Some of you have been extremely crude in your responses.

I want to shit in your heart, you ego-mongering adwhore. Even snivelling worms like Kottke don't stoop to these tactics. Metafilter is not your fucking ad agency.
posted by Ryvar at 10:42 PM on June 3, 2006 [2 favorites]

Confirmation bias.
posted by bingo at 10:42 PM on June 3, 2006

I think it was also a bit raw to drop into a thread five days after it went dormant to add a self-link at the end. (Look at the dates on the last two entries.)
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 11:02 PM on June 3, 2006

I think Ryvar just invented a new tagline.
posted by Saucy Intruder at 11:29 PM on June 3, 2006

I think Ryvar just invented three new taglines.
posted by chrismear at 12:17 AM on June 4, 2006

What, no love for "Jimbob and bugbread have it"?
posted by cribcage at 12:28 AM on June 4, 2006

Metafilter: Jimbob and bugbread have it.

Yeah, that'll work.
posted by Bugbread at 12:31 AM on June 4, 2006

I don't have it, I had a test just last week.
posted by Jimbob at 2:19 AM on June 4, 2006

This shit is seriously weak. Why is this less egregious than matthewchen? I think ego spamming is worse than product spamming.

His disingenuous attitude here is even worse; he can't admit that he was, cynically and explicitly, taking advantage of a high traffic community to advertise his woefully under-trafficked blog.

Danelope nailed it, and there are a number of more examples. Linking to your own blog is fine in 1000 contexts, but this is a clear antisocial behavior pattern.
posted by dgaicun at 2:51 AM on June 4, 2006

Eh, I think he was over the line a little, but he pulled back with reasonable grace, so why don't we drop it and talk about something more interesting. For instance, that first OED citation from the Capital Times (Madison) is:
"Malachy—you said it."
So it wasn't spelled malarky or malarkey!
posted by languagehat at 6:39 AM on June 4, 2006

Cribcage made a very nice point about what would and wouldn't work, so I'm just going to add "go away, you spamming dumbfuck."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 6:59 AM on June 4, 2006

Classy!
posted by OmieWise at 7:20 AM on June 4, 2006

Danelope nailed it, and there are a number of more examples. Linking to your own blog is fine in 1000 contexts, but this is a clear antisocial behavior pattern.

Who told Dr. Phil about this thread?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 8:29 AM on June 4, 2006

Optimus Chyme writes "Cribcage made a very nice point about what would and wouldn't work, so I'm just going to add 'go away, you spamming dumbfuck.'"

Man, the guy apologizes, says he won't do it again, and still he gets the boiling oil treatment...
posted by Bugbread at 8:46 AM on June 4, 2006

Man, the guy apologizes, says he won't do it again, and still he gets the boiling oil treatment...

He's getting the boiling oil treatment because it's inconceivable that anyone with half a brain wouldn't know that what he was doing was anti-community, as Jimbob put it. Getting the spotlight and then laughing at how it boosted traffic was just asking for another pot of oil to be dumped on his head. Folks obliged. What a shocker.
posted by mediareport at 8:56 AM on June 4, 2006

Danelope has it and has the best tagline:

Metafilter: Icing on the shit cake.
posted by The Bellman at 9:02 AM on June 4, 2006

Getting the spotlight and then laughing at how it boosted traffic was just asking for another pot of oil to be dumped on his head. Folks obliged. What a shocker.

His "laughing" occured before the apology (laughter and subsequent wising up). He seems to have learned from his mistake, enough to follow the consensus rule on it. What more can he do?

He's getting the boiling oil treatment because it's inconceivable that anyone with half a brain wouldn't know that what he was doing was anti-community, as Jimbob put it.

The irony is that everything that happened post apology is also very anti-community. Public shamings do noone any good and happen way, way too often around here. There needs to be a margin for "half a brain" users to make their mistakes and learn from them in a way that doesn't make the community look like a bunch of assholes who are waiting for their next opportunity to pour oil on someone.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 9:03 AM on June 4, 2006

SO MANY BLOG HITS. MUAHAHAHAHA. E-PENIS SWELLING TO MASSIVE SIZE.
posted by darukaru at 9:04 AM on June 4, 2006

Public shamings do noone any good

Um, this one got sindark to stop the uber-shilling for his blog. Public shaming is all we have, sometimes.
posted by mediareport at 9:10 AM on June 4, 2006

MetaFilter: If you don't say it here, don't say it at all.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:26 AM on June 4, 2006

If it wasn't for my blog going from 100 hits a day to more than 40 an hour, I never would have even noticed this discussion. The first few comments on the blog were such that Spam Karma 2 has blacklisted everyone referred from Metafilter.
posted by sindark at 9:35 AM on June 4, 2006

Um, this one got sindark to stop the uber-shilling for his blog. Public shaming is all we have, sometimes.

Um, that happened 20 comments in. The rest of this is what is not helping anyone.
posted by dflemingdotorg at 9:41 AM on June 4, 2006

cribcage and bugbread have it.

Public shaming is of great use-- as mediareport says, it produced results in this case. Also, it alerts everyone to who to tune out. For example, there's no need to ban bevets, because everyone knows he's incapable of communication.

Also, I think darukaru a couple posts up actually has the best tagline so far this thread.

MetaFilter: MUAHAHAHAHA.
posted by ibmcginty at 9:42 AM on June 4, 2006

Tis nobler to say a bit here, so we may judge one's clarity of mind, before we jump link to one's simple blog o'mine.

There is an entry on my blog about this malarky. Free feel to contribute to the discussion or not.
posted by fuckwit at 10:24 AM on June 4, 2006

Is this something you need an ego to understand? :-)

Seriously, though... doesn't everyone who links to a blog or personal website (in projects or in their profile) and then contributes to metafilter have some egoism? Is that such a bad thing? My crappy blog got mondo hits after my first front page post... felt sort of good, even though I had some stupid livejournal-y entry up front and center. (PS- I just checked... still a little boring, so don't bother visiting.)

Plus I've -found- some great blogs through the profiles of really smart contributors. (I recommend languagehat, for instance.) The guy went overboard, apologized, and is clearly not the machiavellian schemer everyone pretends.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:32 AM on June 4, 2006

Have you guys read my blog?
posted by bardic at 11:58 AM on June 4, 2006

Bardic: I thought that was a joke site... but it's NOT! OMG.
posted by anotherpanacea at 1:02 PM on June 4, 2006

My blog is better.
/ehardon
posted by IronLizard at 3:34 PM on June 4, 2006

Oh, I think we should aspire to better manners than that.

ColdChef is a good man.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:11 PM on June 4, 2006

If it wasn't for my blog going from 100 hits a day to more than 40 an hour, I never would have even noticed this discussion. The first few comments on the blog were such that Spam Karma 2 has blacklisted everyone referred from Metafilter.

Wow, first you use use our website to promote your blog, then you ban everyone from our site. Super awsmo
posted by delmoi at 6:42 PM on June 4, 2006

I like it how he thinks it's deliciously ironic that his site is getting more traffic from this callout than from all his little comment spams. How painfully clueless; as if anger over Pepsi Blue spamming is the same as anger over the Pepsi product. We don't give a fuck how much traffic you do or do not get, you ass - you could get a million fucking new regulars from this callout for all I care - we just don't want you abusing the community with your blog ads. Thank you.
posted by dgaicun at 8:33 PM on June 4, 2006

Um, that happened 20 comments in.

Right. But it was public shaming nonetheless. Don't overstate your case.
posted by mediareport at 8:40 PM on June 4, 2006

I like it how he thinks it's deliciously ironic that his site is getting more traffic from this callout than from all his little comment spams.

Sure, especially since he dosn't have ads, and now (as we know) he won't get any comments either.
posted by delmoi at 9:49 PM on June 4, 2006

How to do a self-link right. The comment was so substantive that the self-link was not resented as an imposition, but welcomed as an invitation. Sorry, sindark, but you don't have good enough "mental PageRank" to just say "I also wrote about this malarky on my blog, come one, come all". You can earn a pass for a self-link by contributing substantially to the discussion, but what you were doing was blatant and cheesy.
posted by evariste at 9:58 PM on June 4, 2006

I made out with a lawnmower on my blog
posted by cellphone at 12:40 AM on June 5, 2006

Metatalk: Public shaming is all we have, sometimes.
posted by beth at 4:02 AM on June 5, 2006

@beth

Actually, a simple email from either a MeFi administrator or a polite user would have been a better approach. I would have respected it, particularly from someone with authority within the site, and it wouldn't have led to this whole extended debacle.

I don't think the 'offence' I committed is terribly egregious. As several people have pointed out, it isn't in violation of any specific rule. Regarding the double posted comment, you will note that it's on a double thread: one of which has been deleted. Linking a photo of the Church in Oxford I live beside in a thread about churches in Oxford doesn't seem problematic. Indeed, I got some positive emails from people who lived in the same area before. Likewise, I think the link to the Google Earth photos was a more elegant way of conveying the information than a series of links to the image files themselves would have been.

I dispute the fact that the AskMetaFilter posts count as spam. Yes, they are about a blog, but the whole purpose of AskMeFi is to connect those with questions to those with answers. I appreciate the help people gave me, but asking the questions here was much more a reflection of my recognition of computing expertise within the MeFi community than any kind of attempt at boosting traffic.

All told, I am sorry to have offended some people's sensibilities. As I said before, I shall not do it again. The most trenchant criticism, I think, relates to the inappropriateness of shifting discussion elsewhere, when there is no specific reason to do so. Of course, one could raise the same criticism about a great deal of MeFi posts themselves, since they are lifted from other sources so they can be discussed here.
posted by sindark at 4:34 AM on June 5, 2006

The most trenchant criticism, I think, relates to the inappropriateness of shifting discussion elsewhere, when there is no specific reason to do so.

Glad you're on board.

Of course, one could raise the same criticism about a great deal of MeFi posts themselves, since they are lifted from other sources so they can be discussed here.

Not quite. There's a difference between sharing something cool on the Web and hyping your own work. The point isn't to avoid linking, sindark. The point is to avoid repeatedly linking pages whose value is probably not best judged by yourself.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on June 5, 2006

Of course, one could raise the same criticism about a great deal of MeFi posts themselves, since they are lifted from other sources so they can be discussed here.
posted by sindark at 4:34 AM PST on June 5

I don't think you "get" MeFi.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:15 AM on June 5, 2006

Sindark:

I agree that the AskMe references were justified, as was the church photo. The other ones aren't against any expressed rules, but are against the fuzzy general philosophy/guidelines. That's why it annoyed me that you did it, but I'm not waving a torch and demanding bannination (which is what happens to people who break the FPP self-link rule).

sindark : "The most trenchant criticism, I think, relates to the inappropriateness of shifting discussion elsewhere, when there is no specific reason to do so. Of course, one could raise the same criticism about a great deal of MeFi posts themselves, since they are lifted from other sources so they can be discussed here."

The big difference is that things elsewhere are linked here for discussion here. This is fundamentally different from linking things here for discussion elsewhere. The closest analogue to what MeFi does is not you linking on MeFi for people to discuss stuff on your site, but for either:

• Someone on MeFi linking to your site for other people to discuss here what you've written elsewhere, or
• You putting a link on your site linking to MeFi for other people to discuss there what you've written here

Sure, what you did involved linking and discussion, but the important point in this discussion isn't "linking" or "discussion", but where the link is in relation to where the discussion is supposed to happen.
posted by Bugbread at 8:31 PM on June 5, 2006

Sindark, the trick is to either apologise outright and completely, or to not apologise at all. This wishy-wash "I'm sorry. It wasn't so bad as all that, though. And other posts derail threads too!" crap is not an apology of any sort, so don't even bother with it.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:18 PM on June 5, 2006