MeFi makes ink in the Globe and Mail

January 26, 2007 1:11 PM

Good news, bad news. The good news: Metafilter got a shoutout today in the National edition of Canada's Globe and Mail newspaper (along with boing boing, and a couple others: story here). The bad news? Something called metafilter.org. Oh well, he nearly got it right. And it does redirect to Mefi. One step forward....
posted by jokeefe to MetaFilter-related at 1:11 PM (33 comments total)

BTW, here's the text for the Mefi-related bits:

MetaFilter (http://www.metafilter.org) is a site where community members hunt for "the best of the Web," and usually turn up nothing of the sort. It is, however, one of the most entertaining ways of staying on top of what's out there.

The site is an open weblog where anybody can post items linking to interesting places around the Web. The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point to multiple websites in each blog entry they post. So you'll find postings that will link to three different Oscar nominees for Best Animated Short, hosted on different video-clip websites, or to pages on "eefing," a "100-plus-year-old vocal technique from rural Tennessee" in which the vocalist makes an astounding variety of farting and wheezing noises. (The audio-visual links from that one were something.) Tastes on MetaFilter run toward the liberal and eclectic; commentary on everything abounds.

Anyone can read the site, but before they can contribute, they have to pay a one-time $5 (U.S.) membership fee, which helps weed out the no-goodniks. The site's moderators keep a tight rein on self-promotion and weed out duplicate and nonsense posts. The result is an exceedingly snarky community of users who alternate between being very excited about engaging posts and very catty about dull ones.

posted by jokeefe at 1:14 PM on January 26, 2007

"they have to pay a one-time $5 (U.S.) membership fee, which helps weed out the no-goodniks."

Heh, I'm still a no-goodnik -- and I paid my five bucks!
posted by ericb at 1:18 PM on January 26, 2007

metafilter: an exceedingly snarky community of users who alternate between being very excited about engaging posts and very catty about dull ones.


That was a bit too on the nose, wasn't it?
posted by empath at 1:24 PM on January 26, 2007

You say that like being exceedingly snarky is a bad thing.
posted by loquacious at 1:27 PM on January 26, 2007

Catty comment about Ivor Tossell.
posted by Rhomboid at 1:28 PM on January 26, 2007

MeFi also top post at Andrew Sullivan's site, re: silent miaow's post.
posted by ibmcginty at 1:29 PM on January 26, 2007

a site where community members hunt for "the best of the Web," and usually turn up nothing of the sort

Heh.

*weeds out ericb*
posted by cortex at 1:30 PM on January 26, 2007

yeah, i emailed andrew sullivan about that about two hours ago.
posted by empath at 1:36 PM on January 26, 2007

Did you email him about him, too?
posted by ibmcginty at 1:37 PM on January 26, 2007

That was a little too on-target.

Ivor Tossell is writing from INSIDE THE METAFILTER!!
posted by Terminal Verbosity at 1:41 PM on January 26, 2007

Everything I have ever gazed on has been the best of the Web. I am blind to anything else. If it's not the best of the web, all I see is a blank screen.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:41 PM on January 26, 2007

Delicious. I hope he writes a followup about how we were alternately excited and snarky about his recognition.
posted by boo_radley at 1:44 PM on January 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point to multiple websites in each blog entry they post.

Wrong.
posted by Dave Faris at 1:48 PM on January 26, 2007

The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point and laugh.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:50 PM on January 26, 2007 [1 favorite]

The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point to multiple websites in each blog entry they post.

People believe this to be the case, but it's not necessarily true. Still, I'm glad that infuriating wikipedia caret is no longer used.
posted by delmoi at 2:12 PM on January 26, 2007

The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point to multiple websites in each blog entry they post.

Where the hell did people get this idea??

Own up, whoever started it, you're going to get a beating.
posted by Jimbob at 2:14 PM on January 26, 2007

is a site where community members hunt for "the best of the Web," and usually turn up nothing of the sort.

I CAN'T FEEL MY LEGS, DOC. EVERYTHING'S GOING DARK.
posted by The God Complex at 2:19 PM on January 26, 2007

The MetaFilter ideal is for contributors to point to multiple websites in each blog entry they post.

Wrong.

Actually, from all the snark about "one-link posts", I can see where he'd get that impression.
posted by jokeefe at 2:19 PM on January 26, 2007

Jimbob : "Where the hell did people get this idea??

Own up, whoever started it, you're going to get a beating."

Unfortunately, technically, mathowie probably started it. Or, rather, people misunderstood him. Mathowie dislikes, and has been vocal about disliking single-link op-ed pieces (with good reason). However, people misread that to be "op-ed is bad, and single-link is bad, and thus single-link op-ed is like bad squared", instead of "single-link is good, but an op-ed isn't enough to stand on its own, so in the case of op-eds, there needs to be more".
posted by Bugbread at 2:46 PM on January 26, 2007

I for one welcome our little brothers to the north.
posted by LarryC at 3:40 PM on January 26, 2007

That was a little too on-target.

Ivor Tossell is writing from INSIDE THE METAFILTER!!

Yes, he is. After he emailed me this afternoon in response to my dweeby email correcting his URL usage, I happen to be in possession of his Mefi identity. But wild horses will not drag it from my lips.

*taps toes, waits for him to post here*
posted by jokeefe at 4:03 PM on January 26, 2007

Who you calling 'little' there LarryC? Once I get my parka, boots, two pairs of sock, gloves, toque, scarf, snow pants and sweater off I will give you such a noogie.
posted by Razzle Bathbone at 4:10 PM on January 26, 2007

(Discovers thread, outs self.)

I wrote the article. And I've been set straight, by those who know, about MetaFilter's ideal, and, uh, URL.

My reasoning in assuming that multiple-link posts were ideal was based partly - as was pointed out above - on the amount of snark that single-line posts seem to receive, and partly on the posts that get sanctioned in the sideblog, and have Wiis showered upon them.

I should add that, as someone who writes about the Web as part of his living, MeFi is invaluable. Besides, I like it here.

All the same, sorry if I was off the mark (and for that .org business). You're very gracious, in addition to catty and excitable. You should have seen what they said when I wrote about Free Republic.

(Climbs back inside the MetaFilter.)
posted by bicyclefish at 9:41 PM on January 26, 2007

Hi, Ivan! As the less excitable folks have suggested, you weren't really unjustified in your reasoning about multiple links. Certainly it's not a practical requirement of posting aesthetics—the gloriously compelling or odd single link to something great is a big part of what make Mefi work—but it does represent the spirit of substance that makes many Mefi posts great. Having seen the blue in Contest Mode certainly would support that.

Regardless, we're glad to have you. Just don't fuck up the .org thing anymore. :)
posted by cortex at 9:48 PM on January 26, 2007

I think the basic idea is:

Links should be to good stuff.
In some cases, a single link is good. In these cases, posting a single link is good.
In some cases, a single link is ok or bad. In these cases, posting a single link is bad.
In some cases, multiple ok or bad links, when put together, result in an ok or bad quality post. In these cases, posting multiple links is bad.
In some cases, multiple ok or bad links, when put together, result in a good quality post (the sum is greater than its parts). In these cases, posting multiple links is bad.

So the only case where linking to something that isn't by itself good still makes for a good post is when it's one of those situations where multiple links to ok stuff somehow result in the sum exceeding its parts, resulting in a good post. Which is why, when people link to single ok things, other people exhort them to improve their post with other links: not because adding multiple links makes an ok link good, but because it can, in some cases.
posted by Bugbread at 3:54 AM on January 27, 2007

not because adding multiple links makes an ok link good, but because it can, in some cases.

Yeah, but I don't even like calling attention to that (not all that common) possibility, because the harm done by the emphasis on multiple links to my mind far outweighs whatever harm there is in the occasional weak single-link post. And cortex, I entirely disagree that multiple links "represent the spirit of substance that makes many Mefi posts great." What makes MeFi posts great is having found something great on the net. Very often this will be a single thing, and very often the resultant post is significantly diminished by a terrified poster having run around digging up "supporting" links so they won't get yelled at. This is an example: it may be a fine post, but I see all those links and just think "too much trouble" and move on. And a lot of the time those multiple-link posts are not motivated by having found something on the net but by a desire to tell MeFites about some obscure topic the poster cares about, or (in the worst case) doesn't even particularly care about but notices hasn't been posted before, so he can check off that box on the infinite list of Postable Topics: "Yep, now we've done Basil the Bulgar-Slayer." And that's not what MeFi is about. This isn't Wikipedia, it's a place to post cool stuff you found on the internet. And one link is not just acceptable, it's ideal.
posted by languagehat at 7:10 AM on January 27, 2007

languagehat, I don't think link padding is a good thing, but I don't see how presenting (well!) a collection of information is not in line with the tradition of substantial posts that make a up a happy chunk of mefi's finer moments.

Good single links are a vital and excellent part of the mefi tradition and should not be mindlessly shunned, but if folks are reacting in-thread to single links because they don't Have More Links, we need to treat that at the root, not come down on multiple-link posts in general.

Either, done well, is good. Either, done poorly, is bad. That people have trouble acknowledging that in threads is itself bad, but doesn't speak ill of good multilink posts.
posted by cortex at 8:14 AM on January 27, 2007

Oh, I agree, and if there were a growing consensus that multiple links = bad, I'd be stressing the other side. But that doesn't seem to be a problem, so I'm going after the anti-single-link folks.

*slams shells into shotgun, looks around sternly*
posted by languagehat at 9:18 AM on January 27, 2007

That author must be a member--he's just as snarky as the rest of us, no?
posted by amberglow at 11:47 AM on January 27, 2007

Signal vs Noise just linked to the silentmiaow post, too.
posted by empath at 12:24 PM on January 27, 2007

actually, that thread seems to have struck a chord
posted by empath at 12:26 PM on January 27, 2007

"That author must be a member--he's just as snarky as the rest of us, no?"

Yeah.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 1:41 PM on January 27, 2007

I think languagehat hits the nail on the head. It's usually blatantly obvious when a multi-link post is the result of mad Googling of a topic, or the result of fear that the first link "won't stand up on it's own".

That's pretty much why I avoid making a post unless it can be done in one, maybe two links. If I need more than that, I'm probably pushing the limits of "best of the web".
posted by Jimbob at 1:57 PM on January 27, 2007