September 27, 2006

4:52 PM

An interesting post that became ChatFilter. A subsequent post that IS chatfilter. What bothers me is the trend. More questions are becoming increasingly open-ended. (I don't think that occhiblu's phrasing was particularly wrong, but I think that a lot of people, just because they're guys, thought that their opinion was useful) Which allows people to simply take a stab in the dark, offer their "off the cuff" insight, or otherwise just give an unresearched opinion. IMHO, this sort of thing defeats the purpose of an answer-oriented site.
posted by SeizeTheDay to etiquette/policy at 4:52 PM (24 comments total)

It is chattier than AskMeFi's charter would condone, but I think both questions are entertaining and useful. I think in some cases, these chatty threads can tap into a phenomenon seldom recognized before (some people in these threads deny anything is going on), and are necessary before more specific questions can be asked. So yes, they are chatty, but considering the novelty of the phenomena, I don't have a problem with it.
posted by Brian James at 4:55 PM on September 27, 2006

I think occhiblu's thread was fine, although it seemed a bit chatty because it was (by its nature) mostly personal anecdotal statements. She could have, perhaps, indicated why she wanted the information, though. The second one is definitely chatfilter.
posted by dg at 5:02 PM on September 27, 2006

2+2=4
posted by sgt.serenity at 5:05 PM on September 27, 2006

Surely interesting chatfilter is OK and boring chatfilter is not. Threads that have little practical use to the questioner (like this one about memorised quotations) but are nonetheless interesting are spared the delete button. I think as an unspoken (and hence hopefully not exploited) policy, this works well.

Deleting vacuous, banal chatfilter questions is necessary to deter more of the same drivel, while keeping interesting albeit chatty questions like the male power-dynamics one is good because people like them. Everybody wins!

In answer to the obvious question, "who decides what is interesting?", the number of times the memorised quotations thread was favourited speaks for itself, and I'm sure Matt and Jessamyn are perfectly capable of deciding what's worth keeping without instituting some rigid set of guidelines.

In conclusion, more of this, keep an eye on this, and less of this.
posted by matthewr at 5:11 PM on September 27, 2006

Refering to the original power dynamics thread, maybe this type of chatfilter is the best way to answer the particular question, as there can be no definitive answer, and a cross-section of considered opinion and experience has proved both useful and informative (if a touch tainted with chat).

There is a problem to be solved, and to a large extent it has been solved, so why fret? I totally agree that AskMe should be about useful solution to problems, and if a little chat is necessary to get to the solution of a certain kind of problem, so be it.

The spin-off thread has started out shakily, but in principle could work out fine, if the next few answers aren't also from men.
posted by MetaMonkey at 5:30 PM on September 27, 2006

This sort of thing happened in the boxer thread as well. The question was why boxers wear hoods and a whole bunch of people were like "um, to keep their ears warm?" or similar stuff and it's pretty hard to tell if they actually know something, or if they're just taking a mad guess. krautland's makeup question was sort of like that, though I feel that 1) he explained why he wanted to know and 2) I headed off a few "makeup is a tool of the patriarchy" posts early on. I think "because I'm curious" is a fine reason for a question, but not if it's just a poll-the-audience type of question (I have my eye on that "help me find good art" question, for example).

In short, people are light on the flagging until something totally goes south and then they flag every damned thing. If you think a post is too chatty, let us know. I find the "along the lines of this chattyish question, here is my chattyish question" types of questions could probably be put in the original thread, but that's a touchy business sometimes.
posted by jessamyn at 5:43 PM on September 27, 2006

I propose a new rule: when people call out trends, they support the claim with numbers.
posted by solotoro at 6:48 PM on September 27, 2006

bah, I tend to think that occhiblu's thread went relatively well because occhiblu phrased it well and gave good followup and had the luck to find the first three-four commenters who didn't act like assholes and kind of set the tone. but then again, occhiblu's a smart poster, unlike others. smart posters do chatty well, or at least much better than others.
I for one don't give a damn about guys walking down the street and their power issues but I read the thread anyway, it was interesting


it's pretty hard to tell if they actually know something, or if they're just taking a mad guess

yeah, it's just like the many health-related questions -- most of the commenters, not having medical degrees, are taking "mad guesses", that's why those thread suck. I guess you should tell that to our admin-- oh, wait...
posted by matteo at 7:03 PM on September 27, 2006

I think comments from people who actually know what they're talking about, and comments from people who're mostly guessing are both good, as long as they're addressing the question and providing a decent theory or rationale. The lack of a "Warning, I have no clue what I'm talking about" before aithoritative-sounding posts is something you just have to get used to, both on and offline.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 7:08 PM on September 27, 2006

I don't think that occhiblu's phrasing was particularly wrong, but I think that a lot of people, just because they're guys, thought that their opinion was useful)

I don't understand how their opinion wouldn't be useful in this instance. Every person is going to have a different perspective on the answer, based on their own experience.
posted by delmoi at 7:55 PM on September 27, 2006

4 = 2²
posted by blue_beetle at 8:03 PM on September 27, 2006

Is a question chatfilter if it doesn't have a single 'best answer'? Occhiblu's question, and my follow up on it, are about behaviours that differ between people and between cultures, so the answer will be made up of a range of responses that indicate how widespread, noticable, understood or explanable the behaviour is. A single answer cannot answer the question.

In Occhiblu's thread she mentioned that some female behaviours went unnoticed by men. My question was an attempt to find out more about these behavious which I, as a male, apparently aren't noticing. Yes, it is an open ended question, but it is not an aimless "so, let's talk about stuff". It has a goal, which is to find aspects of female behaviour that most men wouldn't notice.

It is still an answer oriented site, it's just that answers to these questions aren't as cut and dried as answers to "why is my laptop broken?".

As for why I didn't ask it within Occhiblu's thread, I didn't want to derail from the original question.
posted by twirlypen at 8:34 PM on September 27, 2006

They are chatfilter. We've had them before about various other topics, usually of the "how the other sex" kind. They are worth keeping for their unique ability to educate us.

The first question was the better of the two: it referenced a very specific, universal exeperience ("passing one another") and universal emotion ("power trip"). Turned out to be barking up the wrong tree, but the thread saved itself by talking about social hierarchy from the male perspective.

The second question failed to set a good stage, but the thread rescued it by providing insights into the same emotion in other social situations. I found it a more interesting thread, but that's probably because I already know about the male experience.

IMOYMMVetc.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:24 PM on September 27, 2006

If it helps, I was following my own rule of "Teach me about this" being OK, "Let's talk about this" being not OK.

And I asked about it because I feel like it's info I'm often missing or mystified with when interacting with men on some occasions, but I didn't mention that because I was trying to head off as many of the "Your boyfriends are assholes"or "You need to find new men to talk to" comments as possible (I was expecting them, but was pleasantly surprised at how few of them I got).

Also, I know I have a reputation as a women's rights commenter, and I didn't want to get too hung up in the boys vs. girls thing, because (as I actually got into on the women's behaviors thread) I do think it's more a power issue than a gender issue.
posted by occhiblu at 11:21 PM on September 27, 2006

(Though I do agree that some of the comments in my thread were totally chat. But I think they were chat because they did not answer the question, rather than because they did answer the question. Which I would argue is evidence that the question's probably OK, but I'm a bit biased on that.)
posted by occhiblu at 11:23 PM on September 27, 2006

The first question was the better of the two: it referenced a very specific, universal exeperience ("passing one another") and universal emotion ("power trip"). ... The second question failed to set a good stage, but the thread rescued it by providing insights into the same emotion in other social situations. I found it a more interesting thread, but that's probably because I already know about the male experience.


I thought Twirlypen's question was fine under this logic though; it specifically asked about situations where women compliment each other and the hidden dynamics of that communication. It wasn't a general, "Tell me how women are catty." type question. The responses of "OMG, I would never associate with people like that" seemed chatty. I only wish I could live my life like that, I face catty women all the time (mostly at work though). It's really tough if you're a gullible, trusting person.

Unfortunately I can't get the page to load right now, so this response is based on memory of reading it last night.
posted by ml98tu at 6:48 AM on September 28, 2006

Well, I'd find it to be the strangest version of chat filter I've ever seen. The question seemed constructed to verify and reinforce a certain perception; the followups merely alluded to or directly referenced the bevy of bizarre anecdotal references, suggesting a narrow focus. Reinforce my preconceptions filter. Thrilling indeed.
posted by prostyle at 7:00 AM on September 28, 2006

Hmm, hadn't clicked through to the followup. How charming... "what's with that?"
posted by prostyle at 7:06 AM on September 28, 2006

The first of the two is fascinating and I'm glad to have caught it, if only because it was flagged and brought to the grey.

Concerning the complaint, though, I'm not sure I understand.

I think that a lot of people, just because they're guys, thought that their opinion was useful) Which allows people to simply take a stab in the dark, offer their "off the cuff" insight, or otherwise just give an unresearched opinion.

What level of research do you think was appropriate -- which of course should mean what level do you think the questioner was looking for?

Let's see. I'm a man. But my off-the-cuff insights are no good here. I've noticed and thought about the phenomenon in a way that resembles the questioner's description. Still too off-the-cuff? I've an honours psych degree, specializing in social psych. But... I didn't do any research into this. Certainly not my thesis subject, males on sidewalks. So not researched. I guess I have nothing to offer.

Just out of curiosity, whatever happened to letting the person who asked the question decide what is useful? We've seen a whole rash of these kind of flags lately, by people who, apparently, think they're in a better position than the person asking the question to decide what is useful to that person.

For my own research, SeizeTheDay, what brand of glue are you sniffing?
posted by dreamsign at 7:10 AM on September 28, 2006

I thought the two posts questioned were very interesting; I much prefer this type of question over those that ask technical details about mailserver setup. Its not like these guys asked, whats your favourite colour and why? They asked for insight into a complex social order / relationship thing. Fair game in my books.
posted by maxpower at 11:00 AM on September 28, 2006

krautland's makeup question was sort of like that

Far from verging on chatfilter, krautland's makeup question smacks an awful lot of "Hmm...how could we sell more makeup to educated 25 - 35 y.o. women" MarketResearchFilter, especially coming from a guy who likes to boast about what a big, important advertising guy he is...
posted by dersins at 1:27 PM on September 28, 2006

whoa, a lot of unchecked hostility there, dearest dersins.

no, I am not working on any kind of makeup account. look at the work that is running in that category, I'd rather shoot myself in the knee than work on that.

besides, I don't do research, I'm a creative. I do whatever I think is fun and interesting and let the suits worry whether it actually moves products off the shelf. numbers don't interest me. I consider research (and focus groups, actually) a complete waste of time.

the mac article I quoted was in fast company. last weeks episode of boston legal, as a commenter remarked correctly, talked about the transformative power of makeup. I was curious to hear what makeup did to those wearing it, whether they wore it because they hoped to be seen differently by others or because it did something to them.

in this case I was being the septuagenarian asking what possibly could be that made all the kids like emo. I didn't get it but I wanted to know.

someone wrote funky colors gave her the same glow as those cool new sneakers in the shop window. I got that. it was a perfect translation. another person mentioned the transformative power. I sat in front of the screen and thought of how I feel the day after I go to the gym and work out extra hard, burning and kind of proud. it clicked. I understood why they did it. that alone made the thread worth it to me.

and, to tell you the truth, the last time I asked a girl point blank she blushed and responded because I can. that kind of answer didn't exactly satisfy me. I desired to know why, if I were in her position, I would want to do it. I understand this is a potentially embarrassing subject but the taboo nature of this made it all the more intriguing to me.

so there you have it.

next time you wish to question my motives, you could just send me an email. I'm always happy to justify my ...errr... evil actions.

now please excuse me, I am writing my question for next week. it has to do with female perceptions of male genitalia.
posted by krautland at 2:42 PM on September 28, 2006

whoa, a lot of unchecked hostility there, dearest dersins.

Huh? I don't feel hostility toward you at all. Hell, I even gave you (admittedly one of many, but still) a best answer for your excellent suggestion of kafka as bar reading.

I'm just saying your question seemed like, is all. Perhaps I did not phrase it as well as I could have, though. In retrospect, "MarketResearchFilter" was probably a little harsh. It seemed more like a "hmm...i need some jumping-off points to brainstorm about the direction of this campaign."

I have known and worked with a fair number of advertising creatives (not as many as you, obviously, but still...), and that has been the sort of question they would often ask of groups of friends and / or acquaintances when they were trying to come up with a new approach to a campaign.

If that's not the case, then, well, I'm wrong. That's happened before and will no doubt continue to happen on a pretty regular basis until the day the earth finally (blessedly!) opens beneath my feet and sucks me deep into its maw to die a horrible, dark, painful death, alone and whimpering.

Sorry if you feel that I should have addressed this through email.
posted by dersins at 3:29 PM on September 28, 2006

krautland's question was awesome, as were a number of answers. I've never been able to grok makeup. I still don't, but at least now I have some idea as to why others do.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:05 PM on September 28, 2006