Seriously, do I need to answer more than I ask? September 2, 2006 10:14 AM Subscribe
What approximate Question/Answer ratio I should attempt to maintain to avoid this sort of static in responses to my own AskMe questions?
Ignore the assholes. There is no ratio (although I personally think there should be a longer waiting period between questions to avoid the free-riders).
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:22 AM on September 2, 2006
Oh my god. His ratio is less than 1:1! Burn him!
Leapingsheep, you're a fucking idiot. My answer:question ratio is over 27:1, and yours is only 13:1, so please accept my judgement and fuck off.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:27 AM on September 2, 2006
Leapingsheep, you're a fucking idiot. My answer:question ratio is over 27:1, and yours is only 13:1, so please accept my judgement and fuck off.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:27 AM on September 2, 2006
Respond sometimes and ask some times, just as you are doing and I imagine you won't catch any grief. It's a lot like other conversations that exist in the world. Please don't attempt to maintain a ratio.
posted by Aghast. at 10:30 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by Aghast. at 10:30 AM on September 2, 2006
Leapingsheep and veedubya both broke the most basic guideline for AskMe, which to answer the fucking question or shut up.
posted by spaltavian at 10:35 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by spaltavian at 10:35 AM on September 2, 2006
Eh? What are you all talking about? leapingsheep was making a joke about the question:
Is there a government website listing who receives welfare? [...] Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:36 AM on September 2, 2006
Is there a government website listing who receives welfare? [...] Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:36 AM on September 2, 2006
With editorializing like that in the question, the responses were legitimately peeved and snarky. This could just as easily be a callout of 5acres.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:38 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:38 AM on September 2, 2006
yeah, you people need to re-read the question & context; leapingsheep's comment was awesome.
posted by jonson at 10:40 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 10:40 AM on September 2, 2006
It was a legitimate question. Whether or not you personally liked the assumptions and direction of the question or the asker are irrelevant to answering the question.
I'm really, really getting tired of people "calling out" others simply because they have different political viewpoints (and even this conclusion is based on the assumption that the questioner in fact has said viewpoint).
If you don't like the tone or motive of the question, MOVE ON. There are plenty of other questions to read and answer. Seriously. Plenty.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:42 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm really, really getting tired of people "calling out" others simply because they have different political viewpoints (and even this conclusion is based on the assumption that the questioner in fact has said viewpoint).
If you don't like the tone or motive of the question, MOVE ON. There are plenty of other questions to read and answer. Seriously. Plenty.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 10:42 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
yes ... just go to the department of motor vehicles and print out the names of everyone that owns a cadillac
posted by pyramid termite at 10:43 AM on September 2, 2006
yes ... just go to the department of motor vehicles and print out the names of everyone that owns a cadillac
posted by pyramid termite at 10:43 AM on September 2, 2006
With editorializing like that
He provided some context for his thinking. That was some very, very mild editorializing, and I say that as someone who disagrees with his premise.
Thinking the question is a bit of a faux pas (and that's all a reasonable person ought to be able to call it—if he's said "what are the ethical implications of" instead of "shouldn't there be" even that level of objection would be silly) hasn't, last time I checked, been added to the list of exceptional cases where it's kosher to be just plain snarky on AskMe.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on September 2, 2006
He provided some context for his thinking. That was some very, very mild editorializing, and I say that as someone who disagrees with his premise.
Thinking the question is a bit of a faux pas (and that's all a reasonable person ought to be able to call it—if he's said "what are the ethical implications of" instead of "shouldn't there be" even that level of objection would be silly) hasn't, last time I checked, been added to the list of exceptional cases where it's kosher to be just plain snarky on AskMe.
posted by cortex at 10:45 AM on September 2, 2006
Those responses annoyed me in that thread when I saw them. If you don't like the perceived politcal, moral, ethical, etc. point of view of the asker, then stay the fuck out of the thread. Who cares about the context, it was clear what the asker was asking for. A perceived lack of moral standing shouldn't be a bar to receiving on topic answers to an AskMe question.
Although I am sure those brave snarky answers changed everyone's mind and the world is a better place now thanks to our corageous posters.
posted by Falconetti at 10:47 AM on September 2, 2006
Although I am sure those brave snarky answers changed everyone's mind and the world is a better place now thanks to our corageous posters.
posted by Falconetti at 10:47 AM on September 2, 2006
If you paid your $5 you are perfectly entitled to use the site to ask questions in accordance with pre-existing guidelines. Don't answer any questions if you don't have any answers. Posting useless answers is a far greater offense than knowing when to be silent.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:47 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 10:47 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm really, really getting tired of people "calling out" others simply because they have different political viewpoints.
Fine. But leepingsheep threw down a good line, and deserves a shoutout, not a callout.
That was some very, very mild editorializing...
It was very, very mild snark.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:48 AM on September 2, 2006
Fine. But leepingsheep threw down a good line, and deserves a shoutout, not a callout.
That was some very, very mild editorializing...
It was very, very mild snark.
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:48 AM on September 2, 2006
Jokey comments get deleted all the time in Ask -- because they are flagged. I don't see how this one is special, and I'm sure it will be deleted once the admins wake up.
posted by smackfu at 10:48 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by smackfu at 10:48 AM on September 2, 2006
I'd leap that sheep anyday.
posted by AwkwardPause at 10:58 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by AwkwardPause at 10:58 AM on September 2, 2006
I didn't pick up on any editorializing until veedub lifted the scales from mine eyes. Thanks, VD!
Also: Since when did AskMe become a Torrent Tracker?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 AM on September 2, 2006
Also: Since when did AskMe become a Torrent Tracker?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:01 AM on September 2, 2006
the most basic guideline for AskMe, which to answer the fucking question or shut up.
Really? I thought we were just meant to share amusing anecdotes.
posted by cillit bang at 11:05 AM on September 2, 2006
Really? I thought we were just meant to share amusing anecdotes.
posted by cillit bang at 11:05 AM on September 2, 2006
If you paid your $5 you are perfectly entitled to use the site to ask questions in accordance with pre-existing guidelines.
The $5 sense of entitlement. How I loathe the.
MeFi is supposed to be a community. Ask.Me is supposed to be a resource for the community. I don't think there should be any hard-coded limits, and I do think questions have value to the community. But if your sum-total contribution to any of the MetaFilter sites is a series of Ask.Me questions, I think you do need to ask yourself whether you're taking advantage of the generosity of a community you haven't bothered to really be part of.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:21 AM on September 2, 2006
The $5 sense of entitlement. How I loathe the.
MeFi is supposed to be a community. Ask.Me is supposed to be a resource for the community. I don't think there should be any hard-coded limits, and I do think questions have value to the community. But if your sum-total contribution to any of the MetaFilter sites is a series of Ask.Me questions, I think you do need to ask yourself whether you're taking advantage of the generosity of a community you haven't bothered to really be part of.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:21 AM on September 2, 2006
He apologized for being a sponge, and he clarified that he was "curious" about there being such a list, and was not urging that there should be such a list.
As worded it was an insanely bad question and should be deleted. It's like a big troll through the site.
Hopefully over time he will learn more about the community and become a fuller member.
posted by popechunk at 11:33 AM on September 2, 2006
As worded it was an insanely bad question and should be deleted. It's like a big troll through the site.
Hopefully over time he will learn more about the community and become a fuller member.
posted by popechunk at 11:33 AM on September 2, 2006
It broke the guidelines. I shouldn't have written it.
I will say, though, that I'd never criticize someone for there q:a ratio if it hadn't been so ironic given the tone of the question.
posted by leapingsheep at 11:33 AM on September 2, 2006
I will say, though, that I'd never criticize someone for there q:a ratio if it hadn't been so ironic given the tone of the question.
posted by leapingsheep at 11:33 AM on September 2, 2006
Ask MeFi runs on the goodwill of the community. Lots of communities that mature tend to build up a sort of virtual worth, where people feel bad asking favors if they haven't given enough in return, and longtime members that go easy on the community resource will notice newcomers that seem to just take without giving much.
So there's no magic ratio, but it would help if people answered more than they asked, probably in a 2:1 ratio at least.
But in this specific case, frankly it's a stupid question that I considered deleting and I think one member was looking into the poster's history so they could see if this was a ax-grinding trend or not and noticed the dearth of answers. The comment doesn't answer the question and shouldn't have been posted, but then again, the question is a piece of crap as well.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:34 AM on September 2, 2006
So there's no magic ratio, but it would help if people answered more than they asked, probably in a 2:1 ratio at least.
But in this specific case, frankly it's a stupid question that I considered deleting and I think one member was looking into the poster's history so they could see if this was a ax-grinding trend or not and noticed the dearth of answers. The comment doesn't answer the question and shouldn't have been posted, but then again, the question is a piece of crap as well.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:34 AM on September 2, 2006
probably in a 2:1 ratio at least.
AskMe would be broken if there were only two answers per question. The ratio needs to be much higher than that, I'm guessing.
posted by popechunk at 11:50 AM on September 2, 2006
AskMe would be broken if there were only two answers per question. The ratio needs to be much higher than that, I'm guessing.
posted by popechunk at 11:50 AM on September 2, 2006
I completely respect your POV, Matt, but a growing concern I've had is that more answers in AskMeFi are increasingly off-topic or ill-researched. I think that there will always be far more questions than answers (much like life) and to try and encourage more answers might be a mistake. I think that people who take the initiative to answer are more likely to have a "more correct" answer than those who remain silent right now (because there's absolutely no motivation to answer questions, ever).
Just my $0.02. But I believe that reducing total question volume will result in better, more valuable questions AND answers.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:53 AM on September 2, 2006
Just my $0.02. But I believe that reducing total question volume will result in better, more valuable questions AND answers.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 11:53 AM on September 2, 2006
it would help if people answered more than they asked, probably in a 2:1 ratio at least.
I just don't understand this attitude. All it does is encourage people to post more stupid "I don't know anything about it, but I'll take a wild guess anyway" nonanswers, just so they'll have the "right" to ask questions, and there are way too many of those anyway. If anything, people should be encouraged not to try to answer questions unless they really think they know or have a genuinely helpful clue to offer, and it should be emphasized that asking questions is not in any way contingent on having answered them. ("Damn, I really need to know how to get into my car—I should've posted some bullshit on that depression thread yesterday!") But it's your site, you make the call.
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
I just don't understand this attitude. All it does is encourage people to post more stupid "I don't know anything about it, but I'll take a wild guess anyway" nonanswers, just so they'll have the "right" to ask questions, and there are way too many of those anyway. If anything, people should be encouraged not to try to answer questions unless they really think they know or have a genuinely helpful clue to offer, and it should be emphasized that asking questions is not in any way contingent on having answered them. ("Damn, I really need to know how to get into my car—I should've posted some bullshit on that depression thread yesterday!") But it's your site, you make the call.
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
Or what SeizeTheDay just said.
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on September 2, 2006
posted by languagehat at 11:55 AM on September 2, 2006
I thought the question was redolent of the most rancid sort of whining, pea-brained, dirty-diaper conservatism.
I considered answering: "yes, there is a publicly available list. It's comparatively short, but accounts for a surprisingly large percentage of the total welfare outlay. It's the list of major donors to the Republican and Democratic Parties."
I'm glad I didn't, but it took an effort of will.
posted by jamjam at 12:03 PM on September 2, 2006
I considered answering: "yes, there is a publicly available list. It's comparatively short, but accounts for a surprisingly large percentage of the total welfare outlay. It's the list of major donors to the Republican and Democratic Parties."
I'm glad I didn't, but it took an effort of will.
posted by jamjam at 12:03 PM on September 2, 2006
Question/Answer ratio is a meaningless statistic. Providing quality answers is hard and/or requires expertise. Anyone can provide valid answers by just chiming into the many threads that encourage anecdote such as:
Do you unplug your toaster when you leave your house?
posted by vacapinta at 12:06 PM on September 2, 2006
Do you unplug your toaster when you leave your house?
posted by vacapinta at 12:06 PM on September 2, 2006
languagehat - have you tried the doors? Are they locked? Can you gain access via the trunk? Perhaps the back seat folds down...
posted by jonson at 12:10 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 12:10 PM on September 2, 2006
Not posting misinformed answers requires that the person knows they are misinformed. If they knew that, they wouldn't post it. So good luck solving that problem.
posted by smackfu at 12:23 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by smackfu at 12:23 PM on September 2, 2006
I don't get how being a part of *just* AskMe is not being a part of the community. I don't read the blue because I see many of the posts there in other blogs that I already read before I ever came here. But I don't just ask questions on AskMe... I answer too. Why does this make me less of a community member than those who participate in the blue? I'm not anti-social... it's just usually repeats for me.
posted by IndigoRain at 12:26 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by IndigoRain at 12:26 PM on September 2, 2006
I just don't understand this attitude. All it does is encourage people to post more stupid "I don't know anything about it, but I'll take a wild guess anyway" nonanswers
I'm not saying I am forcing anyone to post non-answers. I'm just saying as a general rule when I'm on say, a web design mailing list, I probably answer 20 to 30 questions for every one I might ask. I would hope people give back when they can, but there are no rules and I'm not saying there should be. I'm just talking about how to be a good participant in a community by being more generous with help for others than the help you request.
And again, there's no rule, I'm just talking from experience in other communities. And I don't expect anything to change because I made one comment in this thread, so I think it's premature to assume suddenly ask mefi will have loads of lame answers.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:31 PM on September 2, 2006
I'm not saying I am forcing anyone to post non-answers. I'm just saying as a general rule when I'm on say, a web design mailing list, I probably answer 20 to 30 questions for every one I might ask. I would hope people give back when they can, but there are no rules and I'm not saying there should be. I'm just talking about how to be a good participant in a community by being more generous with help for others than the help you request.
And again, there's no rule, I'm just talking from experience in other communities. And I don't expect anything to change because I made one comment in this thread, so I think it's premature to assume suddenly ask mefi will have loads of lame answers.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:31 PM on September 2, 2006
I don't get how being a part of *just* AskMe is not being a part of the community
I think there are certain people here who think that AskMe should only be used by Mefites, and that people who come here just for AskMe are not Mefites. They would most likely prefer that AskMe only show up for members, and appear to resent that AskMe is its own site (meaning that you can be a part of the green without ever hanging out in the blue).
posted by popechunk at 12:36 PM on September 2, 2006
I think there are certain people here who think that AskMe should only be used by Mefites, and that people who come here just for AskMe are not Mefites. They would most likely prefer that AskMe only show up for members, and appear to resent that AskMe is its own site (meaning that you can be a part of the green without ever hanging out in the blue).
posted by popechunk at 12:36 PM on September 2, 2006
I'm not saying I am forcing anyone to post non-answers.
No, of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that—just that that "you should contribute" attitude tends to reinforce a deplorable trend. You may "answer 20 to 30 questions for every one I might ask," but that's you, and you know a lot of stuff and presumably only answer things you know. A lot of people don't know very much but still need help with their questions.
jonson: Thanks, man! I got in! Actually, it wasn't technically my car, but... wow, look at all this cool shit...
posted by languagehat at 12:43 PM on September 2, 2006
No, of course not, and I didn't mean to imply that—just that that "you should contribute" attitude tends to reinforce a deplorable trend. You may "answer 20 to 30 questions for every one I might ask," but that's you, and you know a lot of stuff and presumably only answer things you know. A lot of people don't know very much but still need help with their questions.
jonson: Thanks, man! I got in! Actually, it wasn't technically my car, but... wow, look at all this cool shit...
posted by languagehat at 12:43 PM on September 2, 2006
"Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
yes ... just go to the department of motor vehicles and print out the names of everyone that owns a cadillac"
In the town in which I grew up, the only people who owned Cadillacs were either rich white folks or poor black families who pooled all their money to buy a much nicer car than they could afford individually, and ... oh. Never mind.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:06 PM on September 2, 2006
yes ... just go to the department of motor vehicles and print out the names of everyone that owns a cadillac"
In the town in which I grew up, the only people who owned Cadillacs were either rich white folks or poor black families who pooled all their money to buy a much nicer car than they could afford individually, and ... oh. Never mind.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:06 PM on September 2, 2006
welcome to AskMeFi... where the hive mind apparently deems the art of the Well-Turned Snark more worthy than an earnest answer.
so the original question was kind of crap. a troll? quite possibly... with a healthy side of quite possibly not.
regardless of whether that was originally a stupid question or not, please help me to understand: how does it solve anything to engage in an 8th grade masturbatory orgy of douchebaggery in response?
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:11 PM on September 2, 2006
so the original question was kind of crap. a troll? quite possibly... with a healthy side of quite possibly not.
regardless of whether that was originally a stupid question or not, please help me to understand: how does it solve anything to engage in an 8th grade masturbatory orgy of douchebaggery in response?
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:11 PM on September 2, 2006
Metafilter: an 8th grade masturbatory orgy of douchebaggery
posted by expialidocious at 2:44 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by expialidocious at 2:44 PM on September 2, 2006
So um, I got the gist, but what did leapingsheep actually say? (I hate coming into battles over comments after it's already been 86ed.)
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:57 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:57 PM on September 2, 2006
holycrap! Languagehat! What are you doing in my prius! For god's sake man, that's a hybrid, it's not mean to be exposed to celtic & mandarin cuss words!!! I'll have to recalibrate the center console now!!!
posted by jonson at 3:24 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 3:24 PM on September 2, 2006
lonefrontranger - it solved the issue of "me not being amused" quite nicely. And who's to say that the "jonson amusement index" is any less important than the "5acres list of the names & whereabouts of the poor who are taking our hard earned money"?
posted by jonson at 3:26 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 3:26 PM on September 2, 2006
Since AskMe questions can be about almost anything, I think it's harder to justify a particular question-to-answer ratio than it would be in a community about a particular topic. Presumably if you're on a web design list, you know at least something about it, or will soon enough. On AskMe, there are questions about lots of things that I know next to nothing about: Windows, Mac, cooking, health issues, psychology, home improvement, whole continents I've never been to, ...
posted by brett at 3:38 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by brett at 3:38 PM on September 2, 2006
Ratios, like, totally killed FTP. Keep them off AskMe, please.
posted by reklaw at 3:53 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by reklaw at 3:53 PM on September 2, 2006
I believe leapingsheep said: "I agree that people who sponge off the community should be ridiculed online." The word 'sponge' was a link to 5acres' user profile, which had a very small ratio of q/a at the time.
One point about askme: if the questioner has the wrong set of preconceptions for a moral or factual question, it's not wrong to correct her. If I ask, "Do green ideas sleep furiously?" it'd be silly to chastise the people who explained that ideas aren't colored, and don't sleep at all, for not answering the question as asked. In the same way, if I posted a question about cures or remedies, it'd be within bounds to make fun of my username in a playful way, especially if my question was about absurd natural cures or Christian Science or using motor oil to cure poison ivy.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:00 PM on September 2, 2006
One point about askme: if the questioner has the wrong set of preconceptions for a moral or factual question, it's not wrong to correct her. If I ask, "Do green ideas sleep furiously?" it'd be silly to chastise the people who explained that ideas aren't colored, and don't sleep at all, for not answering the question as asked. In the same way, if I posted a question about cures or remedies, it'd be within bounds to make fun of my username in a playful way, especially if my question was about absurd natural cures or Christian Science or using motor oil to cure poison ivy.
posted by anotherpanacea at 4:00 PM on September 2, 2006
that anonymous guy is getting away with murder on askme ... he NEVER answers anything
posted by pyramid termite at 4:11 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 4:11 PM on September 2, 2006
so the original question was kind of crap. a troll? quite possibly... with a healthy side of quite possibly not.
Yes, I don't understand why this was such a terrible question, except maybe the 'shouldn't there be?' bit — but the question itself doesn't seem at all trollish. Do people maybe not realize how many of their interactions with government are documented online as public record? I haven't had occasion to find out what's public here in Chicago, but in the county where I previously lived, I was able to look up:
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:34 PM on September 2, 2006
Yes, I don't understand why this was such a terrible question, except maybe the 'shouldn't there be?' bit — but the question itself doesn't seem at all trollish. Do people maybe not realize how many of their interactions with government are documented online as public record? I haven't had occasion to find out what's public here in Chicago, but in the county where I previously lived, I was able to look up:
- property records by address or owner, including sale prices going back years, aerial photography and surveyors' plats of properties, assessed values and taxes paid
- voter registration records including party affiliation, date of registration, and in which elections the voter had voted or not voted
- lots and lots of campaign finance stuff, of course
- an immense amount of data on corporations (the registration form for my on-the-cheap self-registered LLC which never made any money and only lasted a few months is available online, in facsimile, complete with the signatures of myself and my partners)
- civil and criminal court calendars including the names of defendants and litigants
posted by IshmaelGraves at 4:34 PM on September 2, 2006
'Yes, I don't understand why this was such a terrible question...'
because apparently anything that can possibly be remotely and in the most miniscule fashion construed as some kind of neocon pro-republicrat statement on the Green will cause the OP to be tarred, feathered, taunted, ridiculed and ridden out of the green/blue/grey upon a rail.
and for the record I'm a goddamn bedwetting liberal hippie living in Boulder for fuck's sake... but even I found this to be a rather obnoxious example of narrowminded liberalism
Metafilter: where you can post any sort of inane bullshit so long as it doesn't come off as remotely conservative.
even if you're a naive twit who didn't do it intentionally. so tread lightly, carry a big stick and remember to wear your anti-asshole armour.
all of which indicates that themob hive mind is merely comprised of sheeple of a different colour... or a clique. oh wait, same difference.
posted by lonefrontranger at 5:04 PM on September 2, 2006
because apparently anything that can possibly be remotely and in the most miniscule fashion construed as some kind of neocon pro-republicrat statement on the Green will cause the OP to be tarred, feathered, taunted, ridiculed and ridden out of the green/blue/grey upon a rail.
and for the record I'm a goddamn bedwetting liberal hippie living in Boulder for fuck's sake... but even I found this to be a rather obnoxious example of narrowminded liberalism
Metafilter: where you can post any sort of inane bullshit so long as it doesn't come off as remotely conservative.
even if you're a naive twit who didn't do it intentionally. so tread lightly, carry a big stick and remember to wear your anti-asshole armour.
all of which indicates that the
posted by lonefrontranger at 5:04 PM on September 2, 2006
because apparently anything that can possibly be remotely and in the most miniscule fashion construed as some kind of neocon pro-republicrat statement blah blah blah
The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare because it's funded by taxpayers. It seems pretty clear, and I imagine the thread (and any subsequent complaints) would have gone a lot better if those last 49 had been left out.
posted by advil at 5:34 PM on September 2, 2006
The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare because it's funded by taxpayers. It seems pretty clear, and I imagine the thread (and any subsequent complaints) would have gone a lot better if those last 49 had been left out.
posted by advil at 5:34 PM on September 2, 2006
The question was, in full:
Is there a government website listing who receives welfare?
I can find out how much teachers are paid in my school district. I can find how much a farmer recieved in government deficiency and subsidy payments each year. Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
advil: The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare
That is totally not how I read this question, but I was out for part of the day and missed leapingsheep's response. I don't care much about q/a ratios, but totally agree with mathowie in that trying to answer more than you ask seems like a good rule of thumb. I just think it's a good idea if people participate in the community and don't just use it as a go-to answer place and then leave. You've got your taxpayer-funded LIBRARY for that anyhow.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2006
Is there a government website listing who receives welfare?
I can find out how much teachers are paid in my school district. I can find how much a farmer recieved in government deficiency and subsidy payments each year. Shouldn't there be a database of names of persons recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?
advil: The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare
That is totally not how I read this question, but I was out for part of the day and missed leapingsheep's response. I don't care much about q/a ratios, but totally agree with mathowie in that trying to answer more than you ask seems like a good rule of thumb. I just think it's a good idea if people participate in the community and don't just use it as a go-to answer place and then leave. You've got your taxpayer-funded LIBRARY for that anyhow.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:56 PM on September 2, 2006
My god, have we all lost our minds!? Does NOBODY here care about the jonson amusement index??
posted by jonson at 5:59 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 5:59 PM on September 2, 2006
smackfu : "Not posting misinformed answers requires that the person knows they are misinformed. If they knew that, they wouldn't post it. So good luck solving that problem."
I don't think the complaint is about misinformed answers. The complaint is about uninformed answers. If you think you know something, and you answer, and you're wrong, well, that sucks, but it's hardly your fault. After all, if you knew you were wrong, you wouldn't have thought you were right.
However, if you think you don't know something, but you answer anyway, that sucks, and it's your fault, because you knew that you were just guessing. That's entirely your fault.
advil : "The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare because it's funded by taxpayers."
I'm not sure how "We can see monies received by group A, because it's funded by taxpayers. And we can see monies received by group B, because it's funded by taxpayers. Shouldn't we be able to see monies received by group C, because it's funded by taxpayers?" qualifies as a 'rant'. People must be heavily luded up where you live for this to be ranty. The only part which seems ranty to me is the word "shouldn't" (languagehat: is a contraction considered a "word", or is there some other unit used for it?), which I admit sucks. So I'd say "58 words long, 1 of which is ranty".
Yes, the whole question seems like it could be the product of a reptilian conservative babykilling fascist oppressor, but the key word is "could". If he'd said "Shouldn't there be a database of names of the leeches recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?", the whole response would make a hell of a lot more sense. As it is, it seems like people are making a leap too far and attacking the poster not for what he said, but for what they suspect he was probably thinking when he said it.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2006
I don't think the complaint is about misinformed answers. The complaint is about uninformed answers. If you think you know something, and you answer, and you're wrong, well, that sucks, but it's hardly your fault. After all, if you knew you were wrong, you wouldn't have thought you were right.
However, if you think you don't know something, but you answer anyway, that sucks, and it's your fault, because you knew that you were just guessing. That's entirely your fault.
advil : "The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare because it's funded by taxpayers."
I'm not sure how "We can see monies received by group A, because it's funded by taxpayers. And we can see monies received by group B, because it's funded by taxpayers. Shouldn't we be able to see monies received by group C, because it's funded by taxpayers?" qualifies as a 'rant'. People must be heavily luded up where you live for this to be ranty. The only part which seems ranty to me is the word "shouldn't" (languagehat: is a contraction considered a "word", or is there some other unit used for it?), which I admit sucks. So I'd say "58 words long, 1 of which is ranty".
Yes, the whole question seems like it could be the product of a reptilian conservative babykilling fascist oppressor, but the key word is "could". If he'd said "Shouldn't there be a database of names of the leeches recieving state and government aid since it is funded by taxpayers?", the whole response would make a hell of a lot more sense. As it is, it seems like people are making a leap too far and attacking the poster not for what he said, but for what they suspect he was probably thinking when he said it.
posted by Bugbread at 6:10 PM on September 2, 2006
leapingsheep was leaping, is that what you said?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:11 PM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:11 PM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
jonson : "Does NOBODY here care about the jonson amusement index??"
Yes, I care.
The "jonson amusement index" is the index of amusement you cause me with your frequently entertaining FPPs on the blue, right?
jessamyn : "I don't care much about q/a ratios, but totally agree with mathowie in that trying to answer more than you ask seems like a good rule of thumb."
I think the whole "answer ratios are good! answer ratios are bad!" disagreement could be cleared up by changing what matt said to:
"So there's no magic ratio, but it would help if people provided more useful, accurate answers than they asked questions, probably in a 2:1 ratio at least."
I think the "you should answer more than you ask!" contingent and the "you shouldn't post crappy answers, only good answers!" contingent would both agree with that.
posted by Bugbread at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2006
Yes, I care.
The "jonson amusement index" is the index of amusement you cause me with your frequently entertaining FPPs on the blue, right?
jessamyn : "I don't care much about q/a ratios, but totally agree with mathowie in that trying to answer more than you ask seems like a good rule of thumb."
I think the whole "answer ratios are good! answer ratios are bad!" disagreement could be cleared up by changing what matt said to:
"So there's no magic ratio, but it would help if people provided more useful, accurate answers than they asked questions, probably in a 2:1 ratio at least."
I think the "you should answer more than you ask!" contingent and the "you shouldn't post crappy answers, only good answers!" contingent would both agree with that.
posted by Bugbread at 6:14 PM on September 2, 2006
I've noticed that my personal "jonson amusement index" has been trending downward since about 1986, after peaking multiple times daily for the prior ten or so years.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:21 PM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:21 PM on September 2, 2006 [1 favorite]
'Does NOBODY here care about the jonson amusement index??'
posted by jonson at 5:59 PM PST on September 2
no. you're operating on the spurious assumption that we all have a jonson to be amused with.
silly wanker.
posted by lonefrontranger at 9:55 PM on September 2, 2006
posted by jonson at 5:59 PM PST on September 2
no. you're operating on the spurious assumption that we all have a jonson to be amused with.
silly wanker.
posted by lonefrontranger at 9:55 PM on September 2, 2006
lonefrontranger, can you please leave off the references to "the hive mind"? There is no such thing here. If there were, AskMe would be blank, because there would be only one answer to any question, and "the hive mind" would already know it. This is a community of people who have different thoughts, not a commune of uniform thinking.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:16 AM on September 3, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:16 AM on September 3, 2006
I don't get how being a part of *just* AskMe is not being a part of the community.
There are two communities nowadays, or it's getting that way, and there's nowt wrong with being an active member of one, the other, or both.
posted by jack_mo at 4:35 AM on September 3, 2006
There are two communities nowadays, or it's getting that way, and there's nowt wrong with being an active member of one, the other, or both.
posted by jack_mo at 4:35 AM on September 3, 2006
I don't get how being a part of *just* AskMe is not being a part of the community.
I don't think it does. I think there are lots of people who participate primarily in Ask.Me. I've become one of them actually - I read the Blue once a day or so, cherry picking a few things that interest me. But I read Ask.Me several times a day because I find it really interesting.
But there's a difference, I think, between participating in Ask.Me and dumping questions on Ask.Me. There are thousands of questions on Ask.Me, and the poster of the post in question never ever found one, not even of the chattier more pollish nature, that he could be bothered to offer up an answer to.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:54 AM on September 3, 2006
I don't think it does. I think there are lots of people who participate primarily in Ask.Me. I've become one of them actually - I read the Blue once a day or so, cherry picking a few things that interest me. But I read Ask.Me several times a day because I find it really interesting.
But there's a difference, I think, between participating in Ask.Me and dumping questions on Ask.Me. There are thousands of questions on Ask.Me, and the poster of the post in question never ever found one, not even of the chattier more pollish nature, that he could be bothered to offer up an answer to.
posted by jacquilynne at 7:54 AM on September 3, 2006
"I'm not sure how "We can see monies received by group A, because it's funded by taxpayers. And we can see monies received by group B, because it's funded by taxpayers. Shouldn't we be able to see monies received by group C, because it's funded by taxpayers?" qualifies as a 'rant'."
It (maybe) qualifies because there's an important respect in which group A and group B differ from group C*, and this in conjunction with the fact that group C is very politically controversial. In other words, the three groups appear to be carefully picked to support the implied point of what seems a rhetorical question.
You could probably reverse the implied politics of the question by selecting appropriate groups A, B, and C.
* The first two are related to the government with regard to their business, the last is not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:37 AM on September 3, 2006
It (maybe) qualifies because there's an important respect in which group A and group B differ from group C*, and this in conjunction with the fact that group C is very politically controversial. In other words, the three groups appear to be carefully picked to support the implied point of what seems a rhetorical question.
You could probably reverse the implied politics of the question by selecting appropriate groups A, B, and C.
* The first two are related to the government with regard to their business, the last is not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:37 AM on September 3, 2006
'lonefrontranger, can you please leave off the references to "the hive mind"?'
no. who died and elected you boss of teh intrawebs? good lord and I thought *I* was a pompus asshole.
it isn't my reference to begin with, I'm merely borrowing it. it's the tagline used on the AskMeFi header icon, thusly:
AskMetaFilter
querying the hive mind
besides if you can't read hyperbole and realise that was an (admittedly lame) attempt at irony... oh you know what?
fuck it.
posted by lonefrontranger at 10:02 AM on September 3, 2006
no. who died and elected you boss of teh intrawebs? good lord and I thought *I* was a pompus asshole.
it isn't my reference to begin with, I'm merely borrowing it. it's the tagline used on the AskMeFi header icon, thusly:
AskMetaFilter
querying the hive mind
besides if you can't read hyperbole and realise that was an (admittedly lame) attempt at irony... oh you know what?
fuck it.
posted by lonefrontranger at 10:02 AM on September 3, 2006
The question was 58 words long. 49 of those words were basically a rant about how we should be able to see who's on welfare because it's funded by taxpayers. It seems pretty clear, and I imagine the thread (and any subsequent complaints) would have gone a lot better if those last 49 had been left out.
Personally, I didn't think that it was a rant. I had no particular objection to the question. If I had to criticise it, I'd say that it was perhaps a little ill-judged.
My comment was one of those that was deleted. Which was strange, because I thought that it answered the question. I simply reworded the question to indicate that there may not be a source for the requested information because to provide the information might infringe upon the dignity of those on welfare.
No matter. I don't care that my comment was deleted. There are much more important things to get upset about. However, what I do care about is the comment, made by spaltavian in that thread, that accused me of making a derogatory comment about 5acres. I did no such thing. My apologies to 5acres for any perceived slight.
On the subject of a question:answer threshold. I don't see what the problem is with signing up just to ask a question. Some of us get a kick out contributing arcana. The way I see it, somebody paying $5 to ask a question on AskMe is a cool way of helping to fund the site. It's also a compliment, in a way, that those of us who contribute the occasional answer are worth $5 to somebody.
posted by veedubya at 10:37 AM on September 3, 2006
Personally, I didn't think that it was a rant. I had no particular objection to the question. If I had to criticise it, I'd say that it was perhaps a little ill-judged.
My comment was one of those that was deleted. Which was strange, because I thought that it answered the question. I simply reworded the question to indicate that there may not be a source for the requested information because to provide the information might infringe upon the dignity of those on welfare.
No matter. I don't care that my comment was deleted. There are much more important things to get upset about. However, what I do care about is the comment, made by spaltavian in that thread, that accused me of making a derogatory comment about 5acres. I did no such thing. My apologies to 5acres for any perceived slight.
On the subject of a question:answer threshold. I don't see what the problem is with signing up just to ask a question. Some of us get a kick out contributing arcana. The way I see it, somebody paying $5 to ask a question on AskMe is a cool way of helping to fund the site. It's also a compliment, in a way, that those of us who contribute the occasional answer are worth $5 to somebody.
posted by veedubya at 10:37 AM on September 3, 2006
Metafilter: good lord and I thought *I* was a pompus asshole.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:21 AM on September 3, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:21 AM on September 3, 2006
no. who died and elected you boss of teh intrawebs? good lord and I thought *I* was a pompus asshole.
You may be. You certainly are unreceptive to a polite "please don't do that" request, so I guess your oblique name-calling is more "lame attempt at irony." It may interest you that I was going to post the request after the first comment in this thread where you used it, but chose not to. When you used it again, it looked like it was going to be a trend, and I would rather not see that. I carefully explained why I think the phrase is wrong when applied to any of the Metas. You want to take umbrage at that, while at the same time acknowleging that it isn't even very original, go right ahead, bub.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:36 PM on September 3, 2006
You may be. You certainly are unreceptive to a polite "please don't do that" request, so I guess your oblique name-calling is more "lame attempt at irony." It may interest you that I was going to post the request after the first comment in this thread where you used it, but chose not to. When you used it again, it looked like it was going to be a trend, and I would rather not see that. I carefully explained why I think the phrase is wrong when applied to any of the Metas. You want to take umbrage at that, while at the same time acknowleging that it isn't even very original, go right ahead, bub.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:36 PM on September 3, 2006
the irony level here on MetaTalk is such that one must, please, read the entirety of a comment before taking umbrage with a portion of it.
posted by carsonb at 1:28 PM on September 3, 2006
posted by carsonb at 1:28 PM on September 3, 2006
"Does NOBODY here care about the jonson amusement index??"
Upon reaching a certain age, a man stops caring about the Jonson Amusement Index and begins to worry about his performance on the Bristol Stool Scale. Concern for one's jonson goes out the window when your number two is #1.
Thanks, horsewithnoname!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:18 PM on September 3, 2006 [2 favorites]
Upon reaching a certain age, a man stops caring about the Jonson Amusement Index and begins to worry about his performance on the Bristol Stool Scale. Concern for one's jonson goes out the window when your number two is #1.
Thanks, horsewithnoname!
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 2:18 PM on September 3, 2006 [2 favorites]
ok, I was overreacting (I think the post here that I responded to annoyed me more than the question actually under discussion). Sorry.
posted by advil at 2:19 PM on September 3, 2006
posted by advil at 2:19 PM on September 3, 2006
I claim this thread for the King of Spain!
posted by blue_beetle at 3:55 PM on September 3, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 3:55 PM on September 3, 2006
"even if you're a naive twit who didn't do it intentionally. so tread lightly, carry a big stick and remember to wear your anti-asshole armour.
all of which indicates that the mob hive mind is merely comprised of sheeple of a different colour... or a clique. oh wait, same difference."
THE FOOD HERE IS TERRIBLE AND IN SUCH SMALL PORTIONS.
(Or: I hate this website we both contribute to, and to prove so I will regail you with inarticulate profanity and general carping about the "assholes" who are like me, yet not me.)
posted by klangklangston at 6:21 PM on September 3, 2006
all of which indicates that the mob hive mind is merely comprised of sheeple of a different colour... or a clique. oh wait, same difference."
THE FOOD HERE IS TERRIBLE AND IN SUCH SMALL PORTIONS.
(Or: I hate this website we both contribute to, and to prove so I will regail you with inarticulate profanity and general carping about the "assholes" who are like me, yet not me.)
posted by klangklangston at 6:21 PM on September 3, 2006
I really like the 'hive mind' metaphor.
Hives of bees do seem to have a mind which is not intrinsic to, and is yet superior to that of any individual, even the queen (sorry Jessamyn); and many threads I've read here have achieved a collective understanding greater than that of any individual contributor, in my opinion.
At times the sense of an overmind has been very compelling.
posted by jamjam at 4:41 PM on September 4, 2006
Hives of bees do seem to have a mind which is not intrinsic to, and is yet superior to that of any individual, even the queen (sorry Jessamyn); and many threads I've read here have achieved a collective understanding greater than that of any individual contributor, in my opinion.
At times the sense of an overmind has been very compelling.
posted by jamjam at 4:41 PM on September 4, 2006
Mr. Klangston, I tip my toque in your general direction.
jamjam, maybe it's just that I don't want to play the role of a bug.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:10 PM on September 4, 2006
jamjam, maybe it's just that I don't want to play the role of a bug.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:10 PM on September 4, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by anotherpanacea at 10:20 AM on September 2, 2006