Self-Linking Callout

December 13, 2006 3:21 PM

kirkaracha might need to be reminded of the "no self-link" policy.

Self-link
Evidence

Personally, I think it's a relevant and useful link, but I don't think it should be up to the poster to make the judgment call, do you?
posted by Mr. Gunn to etiquette/policy at 3:21 PM (41 comments total)

There is no policy against self-links in comments.
posted by dios at 3:23 PM on December 13, 2006

Mr. Gunn, brace yourself. This is gonna hurt.
posted by brain_drain at 3:24 PM on December 13, 2006

and ... scene!
posted by fishfucker at 3:24 PM on December 13, 2006

There is no policy against self-links in comments.

Sure there is. It's just a matter of whether or not this falls under that "guideline". People can't go around linking to their own project all the time in comments The only time I ever appreciate it (in the blue) is when they're just saving the trouble of re-writing a long-winded article about the very topic--but even then I'd prefer a cut-and-paste job with a "which I wrote about at my blog" after-link than I would just a plain link to their blog (as it doesn't seem like a cry for traffic).

I'm a bit torn on this example. It fits as an answer, but but it seems a bit weird for someone to link to their own project as an answer without even mentioning that it is, in fact, theirs. If he'd made that clear I wouldn't have a problem with it.
posted by The God Complex at 3:26 PM on December 13, 2006

From the wiki:

"In contrast to a self-link in a front-page post, a self-link in a comment is usually OK, as long as it adds to the discussion and/or saves space because you've written a reply elsewhere. It's considered good practice to note the relationship yourself, because if you don't, someone else will probably call you out on it and then someone else will have to post "hey, that's allowed." Just put "(self-link)" after the link. Self-linking in AskMetaFilter and MetaTalk posts should also be okay, subject to the same guidelines, although it's hard to imagine a need for it."
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:28 PM on December 13, 2006

I don't think that word means what you think it does.
posted by mzurer at 3:29 PM on December 13, 2006

Wiki? It means "absorbed through foreskin," right?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:30 PM on December 13, 2006

- but

For example, it would be a problem if everytime someone on AskMe posed a question about new reading material, one of our resident authors linked to an amazon page for something they've published. That would likely violate the spirit of self-linking in a comment.

Now, if the question dealt specifically with a type of fiction they'd written, then the area (like the one in question) becomes somewhat greyer (ahem). As such, I would expect that if the linked material suitably answered the question, as this one does, that the author would at least casually mention that they wrote the linked material in question. This seems obvious, no?

So, in the future, Kirkaracha should point this out, and Encylopedia Brown closes another case.

(Sorry. I just Delmoi'd all over this thread.)
posted by The God Complex at 3:31 PM on December 13, 2006

It was kirkarcha! In the Green! With the SpoFi!
posted by kosem at 3:32 PM on December 13, 2006

It would be a problem if everytime someone on AskMe posed a question about [xx], [yy].

But they don't. So - no problem.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:35 PM on December 13, 2006

*pushes through crowd*

Okay, okay, hold on...who needs to have their torch lit? You, okay...here, pass that along. Right, everybody set? Pitchforks ready?

Normally, Mr. Gunn, you'd have a 5 second sprint. But as you know, it's the holiday season...
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:35 PM on December 13, 2006 [2 favorites]

It was completely relevant and there's extremely little enforcement of any relevance requirement anyway. The only self links in comments that get deleted are generally rank spam or persistent and widespread campaigns of "check out my site." I've seen a lot of very questionably relevant self-links in comments slide by, and I personally think that's totally fine.
posted by scarabic at 3:41 PM on December 13, 2006

I've seen a lot of very questionably relevant self-links in comments slide by, and I personally think that's totally fine.

Same, but I'd prefer they mention it's a self-link when they do it. Otherwise it just seems a bit tawdry.
posted by The God Complex at 3:42 PM on December 13, 2006

It would be a problem if everytime someone on AskMe posed a question about [xx], [yy].

[Not a Self-Link.]
posted by The God Complex at 3:44 PM on December 13, 2006

Puppies!
posted by smackfu at 3:47 PM on December 13, 2006

Sure there is.

No, there isn't. Really there isn't. There could be, if someone made a practice of spamming comments with spammy self-links, but there it would be the spamminess that was the problem, not the fact of self-linking. I've self-linked in comments with and without notice when I felt it was an efficient way of conveying information, and I intend to keep doing so. You know where to find me.

*nods meaningfully, pats holster, rides off down Main Street*
posted by languagehat at 3:48 PM on December 13, 2006

Cool. I'd never heard of SportsFilter before this callout. Thanks for the great link, Mr. Gunn!
posted by slogger at 3:51 PM on December 13, 2006

Mr. Gunn might need a refresher the "no self-link" policy.

*sharpens needles*
posted by eyeballkid at 4:02 PM on December 13, 2006

Hey, don't get me wrong. I think the site's great and so was the comment, but I thought I remembered something about not linking to your own stuff in a blatantly self-promotional way, which is what's happening here, with no disclosure of the fact it was a self-link, and that's really the issue, isn't it?
posted by Mr. Gunn at 4:10 PM on December 13, 2006

Can you go pick a fight with a hobo and leave us alone?
posted by cillit bang at 4:19 PM on December 13, 2006 [1 favorite]

Oh yeah smackfu, it's on. I don't care that it was a self link, you promised me puppies. Where the fuck are the puppies?

I got my eye on you, bub.
posted by quin at 4:35 PM on December 13, 2006

dude, it's not a "blatant self-promotional way" he was answering the question (albeit in a one-word way, but still).

And again, things in comments don't equal "self-links" and shouldn't be called such.
posted by mathowie at 4:43 PM on December 13, 2006

Sorry quin, fixed now.
posted by smackfu at 4:43 PM on December 13, 2006

Today I fried up slices of pancetta, straight pancetta, and not the common rolled variety seen in the U.S. Have you seen pancetta? Surely the rolled kind, so common to our shores, is known well, served in various sauces amatriciana, complementing pastas and lasagnas, but the rustic simplicity of straight pancetta, sliced thicker, much thicker than its rolled cousin is what excites me when pancetta is discussed, and is probably quite foreign to most. Even prosciutto, slivered into delicate wisps reminiscent of stained glass for salad or antipasto, does not move me in the way that pancetta does.

I paired this rare treat with an equally unusual taleggio cheese. This Italian beauty is a raw cheese, and as such, illegal in America, but I know a guy, and sometimes I get something good from him. The taleggio, soft in texture, but not runny, yielding to the knife and clinging to it after the cut, crisp and pungent and acidic to the nose, had been spiked with nuts and lemon zest, and salt crystals glittered on its rind. If there were company at my house, I would pair this with cantelope, thin sliced, and suitably chilled.

But today there was no entertaining, only the furtive joy of the sandwich. I sliced a hearty pane and lovingly layered on the cooling meat, observing carefully how eagerly the crisp, airy bread took in the grease. Next came the cheese, pried slowly from the knife in unwieldy bits and pieces, arranged carefully, as though mimicking the original whole could undo the violence my eager fingers brought to it. Then the mustard -- you will no doubt have expected me to enjoy such a creation with pesto (as I have so frequently engaged on the virtues of this amazing sauce), but today I turn to mustard, thick and ascerbic, to offset the sweetness of the cheese and enhance the pancetta with a savory tang. Stone ground, sold to me by a Swissman, one ounce in a tiny stone crock.

Assembled, I pressed my sandwich, my tongue and eyes lolling as though I were a man insensate by seizure, absorbing the angelic fragrance of my lunch cooking under the press. Sufficiently cooked, I extracted the sandwich, cut (triangular, always triangular) and devoured it as I would a lover.
posted by boo_radley at 4:43 PM on December 13, 2006 [9 favorites]

People can't go around linking to their own project all the time in comments...

As long as it's relevant to the thread, they absolutely can.

with no disclosure of the fact it was a self-link, and that's really the issue, isn't it?

Not as far as I'm concerned. It's not relevant. We're not talking about someone plugging his website out of the blue by posting it onto the front page, or jumping into a random conversation with, "Hey, you guys should check out this unrelated-but-awesome website..." He's pointedly answering a question.
posted by cribcage at 4:46 PM on December 13, 2006

Sorry, I was in a hurry or I would've put "self-link" or something.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:53 PM on December 13, 2006 [1 favorite]

I think it needs to be said that one reason (but not the only reason) this call-out is an uphill, losing battle is that its kirkaracha - a longtime, respected member of the site. Nobody doubts his intentions.

And to see him slapped on the hand by Mr. Gunn - well, as much as we'd all like to think we're all egalitarian and stuff - well that bird just wont fly.
posted by vacapinta at 4:54 PM on December 13, 2006

Whee! Puppies! All is forgiven smackfu.

[And is it just me, or does the one on the left look like he's plotting something?]
posted by quin at 4:57 PM on December 13, 2006

Man, I wish this was a self link.
posted by yeti at 4:58 PM on December 13, 2006

Posts get lots of eyeballs, so self-links are bad.
The second half of this comment is an exercise left to the reader.
posted by Khalad at 5:01 PM on December 13, 2006

spamming comments with spammy self-links
posted by soundofsuburbia at 5:02 PM on December 13, 2006

sorry, kirkaracha, I have the sand removed from my tender areas now. I'm not this cranky most days, I promise.
posted by Mr. Gunn at 5:22 PM on December 13, 2006

Sportsfilter!
posted by yerfatma at 5:26 PM on December 13, 2006

That's technically not a self-link, so it's cool. If you were rocketman on the other hand...
posted by jerseygirl at 5:30 PM on December 13, 2006

Jumped the gunn.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 5:46 PM on December 13, 2006

Hey, you guys should check out this unrelated-but-awesome website...
posted by anotherpanacea at 6:42 PM on December 13, 2006

Tell me I look good.
posted by carsonb at 7:02 PM on December 13, 2006

SportsFilter?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 7:46 PM on December 13, 2006

Sorry, I was in a hurry or I would've put "self-link" or something.

Nah. SpoFi's part of Metafilter history. Somebody don't know it, that's their problem!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:47 PM on December 13, 2006

SportsFilter
posted by robot at 12:24 PM on December 14, 2006

Today I fried up slices of pancetta, straight pancetta, and not the common rolled variety seen in the U.S. &c, &c.

Shouldn't this be in the Miguel thread?
posted by carter at 1:13 PM on December 14, 2006