Is this a double post? January 4, 2007 7:55 PM   Subscribe

Would this be considered a double post? [details inside]
posted by Falconetti to Etiquette/Policy at 7:55 PM (49 comments total)

In 2002, y2karl made an excellent post about Trent Lott and included a number of background links. One of them was to the Jim Crow Museum. I was going to make a post about that Museum until I discovered it would technically be a double. Nobody really discussed the link at all in the previous thread and there is a wealth of fascinating information on the site. What is proper here?
posted by Falconetti at 7:56 PM on January 4, 2007


It was just a link to the museum, not a post about the museum, so making a post that's about hte museum itself is fine.

Include a link to previous post that first mentioned it though.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:03 PM on January 4, 2007


Make a post about the museum and note that you have engaged in due diligence and unearthed the previous link/post, file it in triplicate with the Official MeFi Head Complainer and you should be good to go (in the new "ready to go" sense, though what do I know?).
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:16 PM on January 4, 2007


Should I get a comfort letter from the accountants first? I promise that the post meets GAAP standards.
posted by Falconetti at 8:22 PM on January 4, 2007


though what do I know?

As we know,
There are known knowns.
There are things we know we know.
We also know
There are known unknowns.
That is to say
We know there are some things
We do not know.
But there are also unknown unknowns,
The ones we don't know
We don't know.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:23 PM on January 4, 2007


What Jessamyn FORGOT (typical of everyone involved in running this sinking ship of digital excrement) to tell you is that you'll need to fill out those forms in black ink ONLY or your request will be summarily rejected. And hey, while you're giving me yet MORE work to do despite the front page being FILLED with pending Newsfilter callouts, why don't you just include a Youtube or Wikipedia link in it and REALLY make my day, huh? Bastards. I swear none of you understand my burden to make this site OBJECTIVELY good.
posted by Official Mefi Head Complainer at 8:31 PM on January 4, 2007 [8 favorites]


I'd hug you, but there's too much broken glass.
posted by Dizzy at 8:41 PM on January 4, 2007


that the best use of 5 dollars this site has seen.
posted by nola at 9:19 PM on January 4, 2007


In 2002, y2karl made an excellent post about Trent Lott...

Nuh uh. I made a post about Jim Crow, as in the history of segregation. But obviously it was posted in relation to the Lott affair, if not about it. No link has a thing to do with the person Trent Lott and there is nothing in the text about Trent Lott in my post apart from the phrase l'affaire de Lott. All the links are about the history of Jim Crow.

It was one link in the Front Page Post and it was the best link for images in my post about Jim Crow. It certainly is something seen here before in a post about Jim Crow, not Trent Lott. Whether reposting one link in a front page post that is technically a double post, I don't know. You can repost it if you wish but let's not fudge on what I posted about.
posted by y2karl at 11:17 PM on January 4, 2007


Pardon me for being less than gracious there but saying the post was about Trent Lott when it obviously was not rubbed me the wrong way. Otherwise I don't have a problem. I think the concept expressed Brandon Blatcher's comment is not without merit. It was one link in several. If you think it deserves its own post, do so. Perhaps you might note that it was part of a multi-link post not about Trent Lott posted previously on MetaFilter. That hardly seems necessary now, though.
posted by y2karl at 11:31 PM on January 4, 2007


Meh, I changed my mind after reading down. The thread, in which I liberally took part, was certainly about Trent Lott. So it was two! two posts in one! So fire away. Pardon my huff. You were very polite and considerate to ask.

Whenever I look at my posts on the history pages for them, I don't see the threads that came with. I had little experience online before I joined here--all I had was a little online radio program. Man, I hate re-reading so many of those comments I made, let alone what other people have said to me.

Man, I guess I got to go back and tag those things...
posted by y2karl at 11:47 PM on January 4, 2007


Sorry, y2karl, I didn't mean to misrepresent your post (the part where I said it was excellent was not a misrepresentation). It was definitely about Jim Crow, but Trent Lott was the inspiration it seemed and that is what everyone talked about. I vacillated on what to say, not wanting to get bogged down in whether posts were about links or discussion, etc. To be fair, I was only interested in whether my potential post would be a double or not, so I just read the thread and didn't spend any time going through the links. Now, more pressing concerns, such as do I dare to eat a peach?
posted by Falconetti at 7:50 AM on January 5, 2007


You know, as much as I want to like you, y2karl, as you consistently provide excellent content, you persistently come off as... well, you know... just read what you wrote.

Geez.
posted by kbanas at 8:16 AM on January 5, 2007


I like praise as much as the next person but excellent should be reserved for the superlative. The post was maybe better than just OK, as far as presenting some informative links on a topic. No need to make more of it than that.

As to what is and is not a double post--like the moderators, my opinion on the matter changes day by day, post by post, depending on my mood and how I feel about the particular person posting. And I don't dare eat a peach.

On preview--I don't know what to say. I started out in a huff and backed off in increments. The problem with online ocmmunication is you can reply instantly. But, then again, you can add something later when your mind changes. You can jump to a conclusion and then decide you were wrong late ron. Most of the trainwrecks around here come from people being unable to ever admit an error.
posted by y2karl at 8:50 AM on January 5, 2007


God, oh, god, I wish there was a spell check.
posted by y2karl at 8:51 AM on January 5, 2007


y2karl, use Firefox and use their built-in spellcheck. If you are waiting for a spell check to come back to MetaFilter as a feature, you will likely wait forever. I would argue that you may actually need a different sort of check on some of your metatalk posts.

The double-post guidelines are actually pretty well codified.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:57 AM on January 5, 2007


Sorry, I spoke too soon. FF2 has one built in, here's how to install spellcheck in an older version.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:07 AM on January 5, 2007


No hard and fast rule. This was my understanding, too.

I only wish I could comment only when I had peace of mind. When I don't, all I can do is try to retract what I said. It's not easy for anyone to admit error in front of strangers. We are all stung by what others say or, rather, what we think they are saying, responding especially to what we think are slights. I really try not to call names, insult tastes or bring up other people's worst moments. I'm doing better than I used to.
posted by y2karl at 9:09 AM on January 5, 2007


or bring up other people's worst moments.

Crappy posts aside. And I don't plan to do that again soon.
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on January 5, 2007


Well, for what it is worth, I think the substance of your complaint was dead on. As for regretting the tone of comments and whatnot, I've made some nasty comments while in a bad mood recently that I very much regret, so no hand wringing necessary. Rereading my Metatalk post, I can easily see where you are coming from.
posted by Falconetti at 9:18 AM on January 5, 2007


Oh, not really.You were really nice just to bring it up at all. And I'm glad you did. I tend to bust people for double posting things I remember, whether mine or not, if it looks like they didn't do a search. I looked at the post and not the thread and got all legalistic about making a mountain out of a molehill about what the post was about. I got huffy because I was in a bad mood.
posted by y2karl at 9:31 AM on January 5, 2007


Oh man ...enough with all the mushiness already, Christ almighty everyone is so damned polite these days on the blue. Why back in my day I remember I once bit the head off off of a badly researched FPP and broiled that there offending fucker for dinner.....ya darn tootin' ya dainty lace curtain scally wag poofsters !!

/Crotchety old guy from Sierra Madre mode...
posted by Skygazer at 10:13 AM on January 5, 2007


Nuh uh. I made a post about Jim Crow...

y2karl it's my understanding that we can't say what our own post is about.
posted by The Deej at 10:23 AM on January 5, 2007


I think that saying the post is what the readers make it is a bit much, especially considering the way people here can profess to read the minds of or make malicious insinuations about people in rooms thousands of miles away, people, who they don't know and mostly have never met. We can say what our intentions are or were or, in this case, what we thought they were, though even that changes upon closer reading. But it's true you can not control what people make of it.what you say.

It does not hurt to be aware of what provokes people and sets them off on sensitive topics like religion. I didn't comment in that thread but I wasn't surprised at the reaction to your post. It was not unlike the Pope's recent speech. Whatever, he may have meant in the rest of the speech, the quote he used was gasoline on a fire and that quote was all that most people saw.

As was your quote in your post to a much lesser extent. I wouldn't have put it on the front page or even inside, not without some explanation and framing and probably not at all. That one I would let people find.
posted by y2karl at 10:56 AM on January 5, 2007


I think that saying the post is what the readers make it is a bit much

An understandable viewpoint coming from someone who actually spends time crafting posts. I've noticed you say before that you "are working on a post about...."

People who craft posts, instead of posting whatever they come across organically, are likely Trying to Make a Point.

When the post exists to lecture at us, the poster is probably not going to like the idea that the reader gets to define the post and choose what to talk about within it.

So a disagreement here is likely due to a difference in emphasis. If we were to come across Zombo.com back in 1948 (or whenever it was fresh and new), and I decided it was interesting and posted it to MeFi, I would have little claim to expect people to grasp some narrative to me. That post and the reaction would indeed be whatever people made of it.
posted by dios at 11:22 AM on January 5, 2007


MetaFilter: I would have little claim to expect people to grasp some narrative to me.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:24 AM on January 5, 2007


Ack! You bastard!

Jessamyn, when are we going to have the automatic proofreader installed in Mefi? Or does FF take care of that, too?

posted by dios at 11:26 AM on January 5, 2007


People who craft posts, instead of posting whatever they come across organically, are likely Trying to Make a Point.

I don't see the phrase "Trying to Make a Point" in the defined terms. Also, why would you think that people who take time to craft posts about some subject are trying to make a point? Was I trying to make a point with this post? Or this one? Or this one? I "crafted" each of those in the sense that I took some time to write the post and find related and interesting links to include, but I certainly wasn't trying to make a point, at least not in the sense you seem to suggest, other than I thought the links were interesting.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:29 AM on January 5, 2007


Also, why would you think that people who take time to craft posts about some subject are trying to make a point?

Eh? I wasn't using 'Trying to Make a Point' in a negative way. I was using it as shorthand to describe two disparate posting styles.

So what I was merely saying was that when you take time to craft something, you are trying to put together a bunch of information on a topic so that the user understands something you thought they should understand.

I contrast that with a post where you just come across something and want to share it. Such as this one you posted. You saw something, thought it was neat, and wanted to share it. You didn't search stuff out to try and find stuff you thought we would need/want to know.

So... if I post Zombo.com, there is no telling what people want to discuss about it or react to it, nor can I lay claim to being able to define the scope of the conversation.

If I go out and get a bunch of posts to make a point about conflict diamonds or a new Rule of Civil Procedure, and the users on that post want to talk about the site design or whether a fiancee would get pissed about getting a conflict diamond or something else, I would probably feel that people weren't talking about what I want them to talk about since I presented the information for a purpose.

People approaching those two posts would probably have different perspectives about whether the post defines the subject or the readers do.
posted by dios at 11:37 AM on January 5, 2007


Plus they wouldn't grasp some narrative to them.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:44 AM on January 5, 2007


Eh? I wasn't using 'Trying to Make a Point' in a negative way.

Really? Then why do you follow your suggestion that "[p]eople who craft posts, instead of posting whatever they come across organically, are likely Trying to Make a Point," by arguing that such a "post exists to lecture at us." You are obviously referring, however obliquely, to posts that you think support a preconceived agenda. However, your argument simply doesn't apply to all posts that are "crafted."
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:44 AM on January 5, 2007


monju_bosatsu, I was trying to make a distinction between two different posting styles and why they would perceive the question differently. I wasn't making a qualitative judgment with that distinction (I suspect people here have seen me state a qualitative opinion here, and it should be obvious that was not it...). But I think you know that and are just arguing for fun.

What is your opinion about whether the poster or the post defines the discussion?
posted by dios at 11:56 AM on January 5, 2007


I was trying to make a distinction between two different posting styles and why they would perceive the question differently.

Sure, but you did so badly. Or rather, once you described your two identified "styles", you ascribed to one characteristics that not all posts of that "style" possess. As a result, your conclusion is faulty. QED.

Also, the post never defines the discussion, at least not in the way you seem to mean.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:00 PM on January 5, 2007


They all possess that characteristic if you understand what the characteristic is to which I am referring. You seem to think I meant the characteristic is a "Listen fuckers! This is what you have to think about this topic." But all I can do is tell you that isn't what I meant vis-a-vis the characteristic. I was referring more to a tone of "I think this topic is interesting and you should read this stuff about it to see why it is interesting and discuss it." Crafting a post always entails that because the poster is filtering what they think the reader should know when thinking about the topic.

Again, this is distinct from coming across and just posting Zombo.com wherein the reader reacts how they see fit without direction. There is no amount of direction in presenting something without comment.

If you are getting caught up in the specific words I used and are missing the point, maybe we could discuss something analogous such as the distinction between DX/CX; open/leading questions. But we don't want to bore anyone.
posted by dios at 12:10 PM on January 5, 2007


They all possess that characteristic if you understand what the characteristic is to which I am referring. ... I was referring more to a tone of "I think this topic is interesting and you should read this stuff about it to see why it is interesting and discuss it."

If that's what you meant, why would you describe that kind of post as one that "exists to lecture at us?" That's the characteristic that you attributed to "crafted" posts, which I think you will now agree is misplaced.

If you are getting caught up in the specific words I used and are missing the point...

Now that you've clarified your point, such as it is, I guess I'm not missing it. Your point seems to be that people who make a post with an agenda seem to get upset when the comments don't conform to or discuss favorably that agenda. Fine, but that's independent of whether the post was "crafted"; there are plenty of shitty one-link axe-grinding op-ed posts that support a preconceived agenda, just as there are plenty of "crafted" posts that do not. You are comparing apples and oranges.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:21 PM on January 5, 2007


Matthew Lawrence Haughey, you put those sockpuppets away and come to the dinner table this instant!
posted by cortex at 12:40 PM on January 5, 2007


People who craft posts, instead of posting whatever they come across organically, are likely Trying to Make a Point.

So, madamjujuive, plep, jonson and Effigy2000 are all Trying To Make A Point ?

With all the single link posts, made by people who just came across them, that consist of a title, an editorial comment and/or loaded rhetorical question that appear on the front page daily, that's a pretty funny thing to say. Finding an article, posting the link and adding one's two bits is organic as it comes.
posted by y2karl at 12:41 PM on January 5, 2007


If that's what you meant, why would you describe that kind of post as one that "exists to lecture at us?" If that's what you meant, why would you describe that kind of post as one that "exists to lecture at us?" That's the characteristic that you attributed to "crafted" posts, which I think you will now agree is misplaced.

'Lecturing' is not a negative judgment. Lecturing is when a person wants to tell someone about something. It's lecturing because its not a discussion. It's one person presenting their thoughts.

If a person is crafting a post (that is, spending a long time putting one together and doing searches for purposes of making the post), then that person is lecturing. Or, presenting a topic and their thoughts about what people need to know about it.

So, I would say: all 'crafted' posts are lecturing. But not all lecturing posts are crafted. As you noted, there are plenty of single link posts that lack any craft that are lecturing.

But again, I think there is a clear distinction between these posts and posts which clearly are little more than the presentation of something organically found (as distinct from sought) on the internet) that likely effects their opinion about whether the post defines the subject or the reaction.

I don't think I said length or number of links was outcome determinative on which style a post is. I was pointing out that someone who goes to an effort to present a point with a post is someone who probably rejects the idea that the discussion defines that substance of the post (such as the examples I mentioned above). It's a bit like porn, we all know it when we see it.

So to bring this all back to my original point: y2karl always spends a lot of time crafting his posts to present a topic through his eyes. He does this (I suspect) because he has a specific topic he wants to present and wants us to consider specific things with respect to that topic. I don't condemn that; he makes some great posts and some bad posts. It's just his style. That he is motivated in making a post by that desire is probably why he thinks the post defines the subject. Lord knows if I spent hours putting something together, I'd hate it too if people wanted to discuss something I consider unrelated to my point.

I would contrast that with... say, jonson. jonson finds stuff on the web that he finds interesting and tosses it up without comment. It is no condemnation of his posts that he doesn't spend lots of time crafting them. But it is unlikely (in my mind) that jonson would disagree with the view that the post is whatever the readers make of it.
posted by dios at 12:44 PM on January 5, 2007


So, I would say: all 'crafted' posts are lecturing.

Only under your rather strange interpretation and defense of the phrase "lecture at us." I don't think many readers will take your point from that phrase, because it has obviously negative connotations that relate to agenda-promoting, and not the kinds of posts that y2karl and I are referring. Your underlying assumption is that if someone puts energy into a post, they (a) want to promote a certain agenda, and (b) expect a certain type of discussion. Neither conclusion follows.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:50 PM on January 5, 2007


Case in point, top post in the blue right now. This post. It looks like an interesting post to me, but I haven't read it yet. The poster clearly spent some time putting it together and crafting it.

Now if the topic becomes the spill proof lids of the McDonalds cups, then the poster is likely to be frustrated since it appears the poster wanted to discuss something akin to punishments for road rage.

Suppose the poster had just found the article about the lady getting jail for throwing a bag of McDonalds food and found it interesting and tossed it up as is. The poster would have less of a claim to what the discussion turned on. It could have gone different directions, and I suspect the user knows that which is he posted more links on the issue of road rage and traffic.
posted by dios at 12:54 PM on January 5, 2007


Only under your rather strange interpretation and defense of the phrase "lecture at us."

How many times do I have to explain it before I quit getting beat over the head for saying something I have explained I did not intend to say?

"Fine, but I thought you meant something different and that would be wrong."
"But I didn't mean that. I meant this."
"But if you had, you would have been wrong."
"Ok. But I didn't, I meant this."
posted by dios at 12:58 PM on January 5, 2007


Well, should have hit preview before posting that last comment.

Myy connection si so slow that I can't keep up.

Jonson crafts his posts as much as anyone else in that he designs the way they look on the page. He doesn't just throw it up there. Presentation matters to him. Making a post is fun for me, a form of play--I suspect it is the same for jonson. I play around with them sometimes a great deal. How it looks matters to me as much as what links are in it, in that we may be different. What people make of them after is another matter.
posted by y2karl at 12:59 PM on January 5, 2007


Now if the topic becomes the spill proof lids of the McDonalds cups, then the poster is likely to be frustrated since it appears the poster wanted to discuss something akin to punishments for road rage.

See, I don't understand why you assume that. I make my posts without any presumptions about the directions the comments may take.

The poster clearly spent some time putting it together and crafting it.

So what? The vast majority of the people who read a post don't participate in the discussion at all. To the extent the post serves some purpose, it is merely to convey the links to the reader. The discussion thereby engendered is secondary.

How many times do I have to explain it before I quit getting beat over the head for saying something I have explained I did not intend to say?

Only three more. In any case, your argument relies on your supposition that the poster has a vested interest in guiding the discussion simply by virtue of the fact that they put time into writing it, a supposition that seems to me to be related to your characterization of the posts as "lecturing." I don't think that supposition is valid.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:02 PM on January 5, 2007


How it looks matters to me as much as what links are in it...

Except when I'm just lazy.
posted by y2karl at 1:02 PM on January 5, 2007


Jonson crafts his posts as much as anyone else in that he designs the way they look on the page.

I just want to be clear lest I offend jonson (because he is one of, if not the best, posters): I don't mean to suggest that no art goes into what he does. My comments with regards to him are informed by my belief that mosts of his posts are just things he comes across that are interesting and he presents in an organic method. I do not get the impression that he spends lots of time looking for stuff to put into a post with the goal of presenting a particular view of something. When I read his posts, I get the feeling of him saying, "Hey, I saw this. Enjoy!" Other posters who give me the similar impression are crunchland, hama7, and mjj.
posted by dios at 1:08 PM on January 5, 2007


dios, for some bizarre reason I understand exactly what you are trying to say. I'm not quite sure why it's not clear to other people.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:43 PM on January 5, 2007


Yeah, it makes perfect sense to me, too.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:50 PM on January 5, 2007


If a person is crafting a post (that is, spending a long time putting one together and doing searches for purposes of making the post), then that person is lecturing.

Dios I understand what you are saying as well.

But sometimes, it does take a lot of searching and crafting to make a post interesting enough to be read. Otherwise, there wouldn't be so many shouts of "try harder" on posts that are not well-crafted.

For example, my post about Tiger Stadium being for sale is probably as non-controversial as any post can be; aside from the "your favorite team sucks" kind of thing. (And I am not pointing to this as an example of extreme quality by any means.)

I could have just linked to the article and called it done, but I spent a substantial amount of time finding the other links and putting it in perspective. You are correct that this might be considered "lecturing." I did have an "agenda," which was to help others understand the special place in history this ballpark has, and of course why it would mean something to me and other fans.

So yes, you could say it was a lecture with an agenda. Not everyone will agree that it's sad to lose Tiger Stadium. And that's how it should be. I always learn more from people I don't agree with than with those I do agree with. I already know what I think; I like to hear what others think.

It is true that "lecturing" and "agenda" are so often used negatively that many people are seeing your usage that way.

I would rather see a well-crafted, thoroughly researched post on a topic or opinion I disagree with, than I would a flimsy post on something I do agree with.

Overall, I would say that MetaFilter has an astonishingly high level of quality posters and commentors, which is why it is such a success. Not at all dimishing Mattamyn's roles of course; they set and maintain the high level of quality through judicious administration.
posted by The Deej at 3:44 PM on January 5, 2007


My comments with regards to him are informed by my belief that mosts of his posts are just things he comes across that are interesting and he presents in an organic method.

This pretty much describes every post I have done apart from music, arts or literature posts.

When I spend time on a post, it's something like ragtime or Stardust or Dark Was the Night. For those, I collect links. I made 50 posts last year. 50 posts out of nearly ten thousand. I spent more than a day on looking for links with about ten to fifteen of them. All but one were about music or art. Most of the rest took a matter of minutes.

If it's a post on a topical subject, I provide a quote and a link or two and it is almost always something I found that day. People complain about single link posts, so if I find something interesting, sometimes I Google the writer's name or a phrase and something tangentially comes up. If it's interesting, I put it in. Bada bing bada boom.
posted by y2karl at 4:00 PM on January 5, 2007


« Older In which I post a bunch of meaningless statistics   |   Snap Previews Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments