Comments on 12461

Why the need to type (YouTube) next to the link in a post that goes to YouTube? I don't care if your post links to YouTube, and since you posted it, neither should you. Following that logic, wouldn't we need to put (Txt File) next to links that go to pages of text, for example? YouTube seems to be a fully accepted internet format and as such does it need special deliniation? (say, unlike 'Flash")
posted by BrodieShadeTree to etiquette/policy at 9:03 PM (70 comments total)

It lets mr_crash_davis filterize it so his eyes are not accidentally soiled.
posted by peacay at 9:14 PM on August 5, 2006

posted by bob sarabia at 9:14 PM on August 5, 2006

It also allows those that view metafilter at work to avoid accidentally clicking on a link that projects the loud sounds of kittens renacting their favorite WoW battles...
posted by cyphill at 9:15 PM on August 5, 2006

so, like its to hard to mouse over and see where the ol' link goes on your own?!
Rooney is a personal hero, man!
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 9:18 PM on August 5, 2006

You know, YouTube is Flash embedded in HTML. Haven't you noticed how they play their videos?. So I think instead of a YouTube warning, a Flash warning would also be acceptable with a link to YouTube.

And the logic for warning about flash and movies are that they don't obey like a normal HTML page. A plain text file, in general, does, so no warning is needed. The reason given why the warning is needed even though the URL often gives it away is that a fair number of people browse without a status bar that shows the URL when moused over a link.

And, since you so strongly seem not to care about where a link goes, why do you care about what text follows the anchor text?
posted by skynxnex at 9:24 PM on August 5, 2006

I don't care if your post links to YouTube...

Lots of people do. That fact has been well established — many, many times.

like its to hard to mouse over and see where the ol' link goes on your own?!

Lots of people disable the status bar on their browsers. Regardless, we can just as easily turn your logic around and ask, Is it really that much of an inconvenience to you when people include the word "YouTube" in their posts?
posted by cribcage at 9:25 PM on August 5, 2006

But we don't have to label Google Video, College Humour, nor stuff from CNN Live, right?
posted by five fresh fish at 9:35 PM on August 5, 2006

It is not an inconvinience, I just noted that at the time of this posting, there were 8 different YouTube heads-ups on the main page. If it such a common occurance, ultimately, why bother noting it every time?
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 9:52 PM on August 5, 2006

YouTube seems to be a fully accepted internet format

Not around these parts. Some people absolutely hate YouTube/video posts.
posted by jason's_planet at 9:54 PM on August 5, 2006

Those people might consider the fact that the days of Gopher are over... :P
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 9:57 PM on August 5, 2006

Previously. Previously. Previously. Previously. Previously. Previously.

I don't think YouTube links are anywhere near "fully accepted" around here.
posted by Johnny Assay at 10:10 PM on August 5, 2006

BrodieShadeTree : "If it such a common occurance, ultimately, why bother noting it every time?"

Because some people absolutely hate it because it's so common. And they'll get pissed whether it's labelled or not, but they'll be more pissed if it's not labelled.

That's not a defence of the practice, just an explanation, on the slim chance that your copious questions about this might be actual questions, and not purely rhetorical.
posted by bugbread at 10:11 PM on August 5, 2006

"Those people might consider the fact that the days of Gopher are over... :P"
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 12:57 AM EST on August 6

It's attitudes like this that we'll deal with first, after gopherspace resurfaces.
posted by paulsc at 10:15 PM on August 5, 2006

Like [Newsfilter] it is a courtesy to those using MondoMeta to filter out that type of post.
posted by LarryC at 10:36 PM on August 5, 2006

(say, unlike 'Flash")

This made me laugh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:37 PM on August 5, 2006

Oh, come on. It has nothing to do with "hating" YouTube, and everything to do with noting that a plug-in may be required to view the content.
posted by mediareport at 10:43 PM on August 5, 2006

YouTube is Flash, isn't it?
posted by Astro Zombie at 10:53 PM on August 5, 2006

Everyone's opinions regarding MetaFilter and the Internet at large must be brought in line with mine immediately.
posted by Zozo at 10:53 PM on August 5, 2006

I'm concerned with the youtube links only because chances are good youtube won't be around a long time. I'd rather people start using google video more, although they seem to have more strict guidelines. Fuckers wouldn't let me post a Yuki video.
/rant
posted by bob sarabia at 10:54 PM on August 5, 2006

"Everyone's opinions regarding MetaFilter and the Internet at large must be brought in line with mine immediately."

damn straight!

Thanks for laughing stavros, I was trying to be funny.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 10:58 PM on August 5, 2006

YouTube is Flash, isn't it?

Thus me chuckling quietly to myself.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:59 PM on August 5, 2006

I wouldn't be so quick to agree, Brodie. You haven't heard what my opinions are yet.
posted by Zozo at 11:01 PM on August 5, 2006

People like to be forewarned if there is a link to a page that is going to make noise (any embedded video, flash game, midi background music, etc) or require lots of bandwidth (so that those on a slow connection can skip it.) It just happens that Youtube is a popular source of this, but people have been labeling embedded video links forever.
posted by Rhomboid at 11:35 PM on August 5, 2006

so, like its to hard to mouse over and see where the ol' link goes on your own?!

Dude, since you are so woefully behind on MetaTalk drama and so confident that it's a non-issue, let me just fill you in. A lot of people around here hate YouTube content as posts and labelling them is a courtesy which allows them to steer clear.

I am not a YouTube hater, but you're acting like people are doing something entirely frivolous with no prompting. Oh, there has been prompting.
posted by scarabic at 12:04 AM on August 6, 2006

Get off my lawn!
posted by caddis at 12:58 AM on August 6, 2006

This thing is loaded with rock salt!
posted by caddis at 12:59 AM on August 6, 2006

Considering how rabidly some people despise YouTube (apparently, video content is somehow less worthy than the ordinary hypertext variety), adding a warning to one's posts seems only polite.

Personally, I'm all in favor of removing/suppressing worthless and stupid posts, but video != worthless.

The link to Why We Fight, some months back, was worth every silly kitten video ever posted. (I'd link it again, but it's gone now.) The Canadian documentary on American Conservatism, where they interviewed Anne Coulter, was also world-class.

I'd never have seen either if we forbade video links.

Some folks insist on extra foaming for stupid video links (as opposed to stupid links in general). Thus, putting in tags and warning text may help cut down on the spittle flecked all over the inside of your monitor.
posted by Malor at 1:00 AM on August 6, 2006

video content is somehow less worthy than the ordinary hypertext variety

true
posted by caddis at 1:16 AM on August 6, 2006

Malor : Go read this (one of the few comments I've liked and remembered long enough (and linked back to enough times) to make it all the way until I could offload my bookmark into the favorites system).

And note that the only spittle being sprayed in this thread seems to be coming from you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:50 AM on August 6, 2006

Somebody should designate a character specifically for Youtube. Like a caret.
posted by First Post at 2:11 AM on August 6, 2006

Youtube videos are flash.
posted by delmoi at 2:36 AM on August 6, 2006

Why do people disable their status bars?
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:37 AM on August 6, 2006

Because they like punishment, I guess. Or they're pretty dim.
posted by bob sarabia at 2:43 AM on August 6, 2006

Did I hear that there are episodes of The Flash on YouTube?
posted by Astro Zombie at 4:40 AM on August 6, 2006

*opens coat, flashes My Tube*
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 5:15 AM on August 6, 2006

I hate YouTube links and never click on them. I appreciate the warning.
posted by jayder at 6:32 AM on August 6, 2006

Why do people disable their status bars?

I disable mine, and the bookmark bar, because I have a small screen and want to see as much of the page as possible (I use the Fission extension for Firefox so can still see where links go before I click on them, though...)
posted by jack_mo at 6:42 AM on August 6, 2006

"And the logic for warning about flash and movies are that they don't obey like a normal HTML page."

I always wondered about this. Is this really the reason? I'd always thought it was some sort html-coders' hate for the man or something. Most warnings for flash (and pdf, for some reason) read more like apologies than warnings. Which seemed odd, given that long string of marvelous crunchland Flash Friday posts.
posted by klarck at 6:49 AM on August 6, 2006

why bother noting it every time?

More pressing question: why bother dragging your random observation about people's harmless posting habits into MetaTalk?
posted by languagehat at 7:12 AM on August 6, 2006

YouTube is the bomb, and you wouldn't just hand someone a bomb, would you?
posted by blue_beetle at 7:18 AM on August 6, 2006

Some people care about YouTube links for the reasons listed above. It's polite, though not required, to make a note if you're linking to things that make noise, it's just a shorthanded way of saying embedded video which people often do note as well.
posted by jessamyn at 7:41 AM on August 6, 2006

^
posted by ericb at 8:58 AM on August 6, 2006

"It lets mr_crash_davis filterize it so his eyes are not accidentally soiled."

And for that, my eyes and I thank you.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:00 AM on August 6, 2006

What's wrong with noting it? I didn't even know Safari had a status bar until I switched it on the other day.

I like knowing where a link goes before I mouse over it, especially if its (yet another) YouTube link because that makes it that much easier to skip over and go to a post I have a chance of giving a damn about.
posted by fenriq at 9:25 AM on August 6, 2006

Some folks insist on extra foaming for stupid video links (as opposed to stupid links in general). Thus, putting in tags and warning text may help cut down on the spittle flecked all over the inside of your monitor.

Well actually I wouldn't mind it if Metafilter adopted automatic parenthetical link labels, so I can see at a glance which FPP are linking to The NYT, which FPP is yet another Daily Kos callout, which FPP is based on something cute from The Onion, and which FPPs have an excessive number of links to wikipedia. It would also solve the chronic stupidity of mystery meat navigation posts in which a post contains multiple links not clearly separated by whitespace or description.

There are a few problems with depending on link-rollovers for this kind of information. They can be manipulated in the anchor tag, and many people just don't use them.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:26 AM on August 6, 2006

iconjack: What is with you YouTube haters? I don't get it. Are you still running Lynx?

I wouldn't call it a matter of hate, but...

1: There is no point in going to YouTube when I'm at my second job, or surfing in a public space where the added noise is inappropriate.

2: Some people still surf on low-bandwidth connections and don't want to bother wasting time on high-bandwidth media.

3: Even when I'm on a high-bandwidth connection my desire for instant gratification might lead me to more promising entertainment.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:33 AM on August 6, 2006

LarryC: Like [Newsfilter] it is a courtesy to those using MondoMeta to filter out that type of post.

Check the check links checkbox, add youtube.com to the Delete if text field. Then no explicit text is required, the URL match will suffice.
posted by mdevore at 10:01 AM on August 6, 2006

"...on the slim chance that your copious questions about this might be actual questions, and not purely rhetorical."

You're so lovable when you act the starry-eyed optimist.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:51 AM on August 6, 2006

What is with you YouTube haters? I don't get it.

Yeah, don't y'all have Flashblock?? You really oughter, it'll change your life.
posted by Rash at 11:48 AM on August 6, 2006

put it in the TITLE attribut of the link.
posted by blue_beetle at 3:54 PM on August 6, 2006

What is with you YouTube haters? I don't get it. Are you still running Lynx?

I'm on a Mathematica mailing list. If someone throws an inline image into their post (you'd think that would be useful for discussing math) or otherwise uses HTML, a storm of hate messages comes forth. WTF? You're using a $1000+ program for doing math in 2006 and you can't read HTML mail? Are these people paying for internet by the character? What the fucking fuck??!??

<rant>

Because those using civilized (!= Outlook) mailreaders can't, in fact, view HTML e-mail, since it is a fucking oxymoron. And not only is it rude to shit tag soup all over the screen of anyone not sucking at the teat of MSFT or its misguided imitators, some of us — even those of us whose delusional mailreaders think that they are Web browsers — configure our mailreaders to display mail the way we want it displayed. We pick fonts, colors, and spacing in a way that is legible to us, which kind of makes sense when you think about it, since we're the ones who have to read it, and then some miserable degenerate throwback comes along and tells our mailreader, "Hey! To hell with what you want, you're displaying this motherfucker in purple-on-pink Comic Sans!" And then you set your mailreader not to display HTML mail, except now you can't read it<![CDATA[ because it looks]]>like this and you can't filter it because the <center>markup is an unparsably bad joke and sooner or later you end up with a high-powered rifle on top of a clock tower and your sobbing mother is telling the news crews, "But he was always such a good boy."

That's fucking what the fucking fuck.
</rant>
posted by IshmaelGraves at 5:57 PM on August 6, 2006 [12 favorites]

IsmaelGraves: That was *snif* beautiful.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 6:08 PM on August 6, 2006

What is with you YouTube haters? I don't get it. Are you still running Lynx?

MY COMPUTER IS FAST THAT MAKES ME COOL.
posted by cribcage at 6:18 PM on August 6, 2006

beep beep beep beep. That's all I want out of my computer.
posted by blue_beetle at 7:00 PM on August 6, 2006

Hi:
jI'm drunk.

Amuise me with your flagging of this comment.
Biotches
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 8:09 PM on August 6, 2006

Nice rant, Ishmael Graves. However:

I don't use Outlook, and I can't imagine why you claim only Outlook can read HTML mail. There are very few e-mail clients around that can't display HTML, and obviously all the web-based clients can. Even Pine displays HTML! You seem to be saying your e-mail client can't read HTML. What the heck mailreader are you using?

Secondly, a plain text version always comes with HTML mail, so no need to whine about not getting plain text.
posted by iconjack at 12:18 AM on August 7, 2006

iconjack: Secondly, a plain text version always comes with HTML mail, assuming that the sender has properly configured their client to do so.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 5:52 AM on August 7, 2006

assuming that the sender has properly configured their client to do so.

...which, trust me, they often don't and usually don't even know they can. I get my MetaFilter email in gmail but my personal/family mail goes to a shell account where I read it in elm. On the other hand, I generally like YouTube links.
posted by jessamyn at 6:31 AM on August 7, 2006

You seem to be saying your e-mail client can't read HTML.

No, he seems to be saying that your stupid font choices and colours and gewgaws *DO NOT HELP HIM READ YOUR MAIL.*

You have a choice: you communicate with us using proper email — which is plain text, as defined by a decades-old spec — or your mail hits the trash. *YOU* choose.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:23 AM on August 7, 2006

"which is plain text, as defined by a decades-old spec"

Really? I'd like to see, first the RFC which defines "straight-text" (an ambiguous term) as the only allowable content of the body text of an email and, second, proof that if the first exists there's never been a subsequent RFC which allows mark-up in the body of the email.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:35 AM on August 7, 2006

EB: Actually, you are correct, RFC 2822 explicitly acknowledges that the contents of a mail message may be multimedia or structured text. This was expanded by MIME with RFCs 2045-2049. RFC 1855 assumes plaintext but also provides some guidance suggesting that MIME attachments should only be sent if your recipient can decode and desires them.

On the other hand, many email-mediated communities request plaintext for a wide variety of reasons: differences in client implementation, compatibility with mailing list achive and digest software, lack of a consistent quoting mechanism, and a need to limit message size. All communities have similar norms. Here on Metafilter, the default is latin text with minimal formatting. If someone insisted on posting in Tibetan, Thai or Arabic, or wildly creative formatting, there would doubtless be complaints. If you participate in such a community, is neighborly behavior to respect their norms.

MIME-encoded mail messages are great if your recipient desires and can decode them. If you don't know whether your recipient desires and can decode your MIME-encoded work of art, it's safest to stick to plain text.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 9:24 AM on August 7, 2006

Well, I have no problem with the arguments you're making for plaintext email. Those are good arguments.

But I think the ship has already sailed on the HTML in email matter. I'd bet most email clients support markup in email and most users are using markup, though probably unknowingly.

If end-users and application developers more closely conformed to some convention on markup that almost all of us could live with, the world would be a better place. Encouraging that, not fighting a losing battle against markup in email, is probably where we should focus our efforts.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:35 AM on August 7, 2006

No, he seems to be saying that your stupid font choices and colours and gewgaws *DO NOT HELP HIM READ YOUR MAIL.*

What the heck is all that uppercase between asterisks? If emphasis is what you're going for, I'd suggest the tag. The beauty of it is that it lets the reader choose how to view emphasis, rather than having to look at the author's ugly-ass attempts at it.
posted by iconjack at 10:27 AM on August 7, 2006

This was a beautiful descent into a very, very geeky derail.
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 5:15 PM on August 7, 2006 [1 favorite]

Except that the tag looks fugly on *everything* that can read email.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:03 PM on August 7, 2006

Auntie Em, you were there too!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:14 PM on August 7, 2006

I like the [youtube] comments because that way I don't actually have to reach out, grab my mouse and move the cursor to see where the link is going to go. I can just ignore it on those days when I don't have speakers plugged in or don't feel like imbedded videos. I have an old nerve injury in my right shoulder caused by bad computer setup, so anything that reduces the amount of mouse work I have to do is great. On those days I can barely lift my arms I can just sit here pushing the down arrow looking for things to interest me.

I'm sure there are many other reasons people have too. It doesn't hurt to note things that not everyone is going to want to look at (which you tube certainly qualifies for), so why not?
posted by shelleycat at 9:32 PM on August 7, 2006

"You seem to be saying your e-mail client can't read HTML."

five fresh fish writes "No, he seems to be saying that your stupid font choices and colours and gewgaws *DO NOT HELP HIM READ YOUR MAIL.*"

Actually, he seems to be saying both:

IshmaelGraves writes "those using civilized (!= Outlook) mailreaders can't, in fact, view HTML e-mail"

IshmaelGraves writes "some of us...configure our mailreaders to display mail the way we want it displayed."
posted by bugbread at 12:07 AM on August 8, 2006

BrodieShadeTree writes "It is not an inconvinience, I just noted that at the time of this posting, there were 8 different YouTube heads-ups on the main page. If it such a common occurance, ultimately, why bother noting it every time?"

We're hoping it'll pass.

jayder writes "I hate YouTube links and never click on them. I appreciate the warning."

Me too though I admit I'll occasionally get sucked in.

iconjack writes "What is with you YouTube haters? I don't get it. Are you still running Lynx?

"I'm on a Mathematica mailing list. If someone throws an inline image into their post (you'd think that would be useful for discussing math) or otherwise uses HTML, a storm of hate messages comes forth. WTF? You're using a $1000+ program for doing math in 2006 and you can't read HTML mail? Are these people paying for internet by the character? What the fucking fuck??!??"

Are you still running Lynx? Sometimes, or a screen reader.
Are these people paying for internet by the character? They could be, many mobile plans are byte metered. Or their mailbox could be limited in size.

When some completely over-the-top piece of html mail drives my blood pressure up I like to relax by imagining what the sender's dead tree mail must look like. Full of mixed block writing and cursive in multiple colours (including multiple highlight colours). Maybe there are assorted star stickers adorning the margins and the sig block (which itself would be appropriate for Alt.Warlording) is written in glitter. For extra effect every third page or so is written on a A2 sheet that has been fan folded to fit in the envelope.

iconjack writes "Secondly, a plain text version always comes with HTML mail, so no need to whine about not getting plain text."

Not only not true, but at least one main stream email program (Outlook) doesn't handle this very well at all. I've got my corporate outlook set to display plain text and it's not unusual for it to completely mangle an html formatted message, even when sent from outlook using exchange.
posted by Mitheral at 2:40 PM on August 8, 2006

August 5, 2006 9:03 PM Subscribe

August 5, 2006
9:03 PM Subscribe