hama7's getting grief for nothing.
February 1, 2007 6:40 AM   Subscribe

hama7's getting grief for nothing.
posted by cgc373 to Etiquette/Policy at 6:40 AM (158 comments total)

Complaints of opacity already derailed the post, but it's not too late to save future posters who read MetaTalk and so learn that single-link posts to the front page are perfectly a-okay by the site's protocols, as I, and other discerning readers, understand them.
posted by cgc373 at 6:41 AM on February 1, 2007


cgc373, it's not the "single link" aspect of the post that people are complaining about in the thread, it's the undescribed link. I'm not going to take a side on whether undescribed links are OK as posts, but it's disingenuous of you to imply that the objection stated by many in the thread is simply to post which only has one link. No one's complaining about that.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 6:45 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


That's some pretty mild grief. I'm pretty sure Hama7 can handle it.

It is at this point we grief the dickens out of you, no?
posted by loquacious at 6:47 AM on February 1, 2007


Yeah, I guess. But don't grief me too griefly, 'cuz I'm all heart at heart.

Really, though, in this specific case, it's a dude's name, and there's tags what says dude's a fine artist and does illustration and all, yeah? So . . . it's described enough for my tastes, and maybe that's all the trouble? My tastes?
posted by cgc373 at 6:49 AM on February 1, 2007


that single-link posts to the front page are perfectly a-okay by the site's protocols

I don't think anyone in your two linked comments is saying otherwise—they bemoan hama7's oblique, pithy style. There's often not a lot to go on with hama7's posts, though I've found that most of the links stand on their own without a lot of explanation.

But yeah, people that can't just fucking skip over it really heat me up! Why can't they just move on without dropping their shitty shit shit into a perfectly good discussion? Or why can't they let a perfectly good discussion get started at least before pooping on the poster? I get so worked up when someone can't just say "nice link" (implicitly commenting on the post composition by keeping the discussion oblique and inane) that I wanna just hit something! Someone! I don't get it! Move on! Just don't say anything about it! Keep that shit to yourself, or take it out on a tree or something. Go drive fast somewhere, or take a fucking break away from the GODDAMN KEYBOARD at least. If that's not possible, thread-shitters, at least take it to MetaTalk! ARGH! I just wanna hit these people who
CAN'T.
MOVE.
ON.
posted by carsonb at 6:50 AM on February 1, 2007


The Times They Are A Changin'
posted by phaedon at 6:50 AM on February 1, 2007


If it REALLY bothers him, he could put up a few more explanations.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:51 AM on February 1, 2007


shoulda previewed 'fore the griefing, sorry.
posted by carsonb at 6:51 AM on February 1, 2007


Oh, and I meant to say, too, that complaints about a post's format and whatall are supposed to come here to MeTa. Since I saw a lot of that behavior over there, I bethought to bring it here, where it belongs.
posted by cgc373 at 6:52 AM on February 1, 2007


It would be better for those comments to be in a MetaTalk thread, although that wouldn't necessarily go well.
posted by OmieWise at 6:53 AM on February 1, 2007


I HAVE SOME GRIEF. IN MY RANTS.
posted by loquacious at 6:54 AM on February 1, 2007


Hüsker Dü - Eight Miles High
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:58 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Are these YouTube music video links the new form of what used to be IMG derisiveness? "I care so little about this topic that I'd like to see a bunny hop with a pancake on its head" sort of thing?
posted by cgc373 at 7:02 AM on February 1, 2007


Unless a post is exceptionally horrid, the best course is usually to just say nothing at all. The whiners over there make themselves look bad.
posted by caddis at 7:05 AM on February 1, 2007


My guess is that a lot of the complaints aimed at hama7 are the kind that get aimed at the user whose name is the Spanish plural for god. Folks get their panties in a wad over him based on past interactions and can't seem to let them go.

hama7 disappeared for a while and over the last few months has been posting only single link posts. I have never seen him comment in any of his own threads (or any others) since his reappearance. Often times the posts are Asian-related, and sometimes a little too creepily so for my tastes. Rarely, if ever, do the links or text give an idea of what is behind them, so I rarely click... especially after his bouncing boobies link, which I believe turned out to be a double anyway.

*returns to slurping coffee*
posted by terrapin at 7:06 AM on February 1, 2007


It's not that I don't care but, uh, may I please see the bunny? With the pancake?
posted by carsonb at 7:07 AM on February 1, 2007


I think the OP gets the point—some minimal description or explanation on the FP is a good thing. Let's end this now, shall we?
posted by Mister_A at 7:08 AM on February 1, 2007


As if the tags on the post don't make it perfectly obvious that the linked site is an artist's portfolio. I really wish Matt or Jess would flush the annoying complaining comments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:11 AM on February 1, 2007


I hadn't looked at the link hama7 posted until after I posted my comment above. Looks like more of the same [possibly NSFW]
posted by terrapin at 7:12 AM on February 1, 2007


Those are fair comments. He's not getting grief so much as constructive criticism.

Single link posts are not going to get you banned, but they're not good form either.
posted by bshort at 7:12 AM on February 1, 2007


Wait, Mister_A, are you talking about me or hama7? I got the point to some extent before I posted, which point was, some people don't like opaque links, while others are okay with them, especially when they lead to someplace cool. This post means to address inappropriately bitching about the way a post is put together inside the thread, which isn't the way we do things, nuh-uh.

Also, I don't care whether this thread is derailed because it isn't significant enough to bother about. It can be closed if deemed so, or it can develop into a harshing of my mellow demeanor. All's fare for the MeTa crew.
posted by cgc373 at 7:15 AM on February 1, 2007


Leave off pooping on the poster.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:16 AM on February 1, 2007


bshort, threads aren't the place for constructive criticism; that shit's supposed to be here.
posted by cgc373 at 7:16 AM on February 1, 2007


and single link posts are perfectly fine form.
posted by caddis at 7:19 AM on February 1, 2007


I should have been more specific, sorry. I am agreeing with you that it's silly to beat on hama7 in the thread, while simultaneously calling for an end to this thread, which is not at all about dios.
posted by Mister_A at 7:19 AM on February 1, 2007


hama7's getting grief for nothing.

Literally.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:21 AM on February 1, 2007


Literally.

You're being paged in the thread below. Bring your reading materials.
posted by carsonb at 7:27 AM on February 1, 2007


As usual, languagehat says it well.
posted by amro at 7:35 AM on February 1, 2007


bob sarabia, in that thread:

I got it pretty easily, although I suppose a little explanation couldn't have hurt. Still, nice link.

Seems spot on. Not a big deal either way, here; and that griefing turned pretty quickly to goofing. Nothing to see here, folks.
posted by cortex at 7:36 AM on February 1, 2007


Wait, wait wait. dios did what now?
posted by Kwine at 7:45 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


bshort: "Single link posts are not going to get you banned, but they're not good form either."

I disagree, for several reasons. For one, as cgc373 said above, that's the sort of thing that should happen here, not there.

What's more, those whiny comments demanding context tend to bug the shit out of me, as they seem to me to reflect a total misunderstanding of what the internet ought to be about. Take this example: I was one of those who clicked the link to Alex Goss' work. It was immediately obvious what it was-- it was some images, probably paintings. They were somewhat surreal, with a bit of what seemed to me to be symbolism. I thought they were interesting, and while I didn't think they were great, they sparked a conversation with a friend of mine who was nearby.

I have a very, very hard time seeing what exactly the people who are complaining wanted. They say they were looking for context. Did they want the words "these are some pictures by a painter" in the post? Isn't that completely obvious? Did they want the words, "this painter, Alex Goss, lives in Pasadena, California?" That seems completely irrelevant.

What I suspect those people wanted was something on the order of "Alex Goss is a painter who creates images of surreal scenes that seem vaguely to be symbolic, and yet often contain objects that are difficult to assign a meaning to," or something like that. They wanted the post to explain the link to them. That's really silly, if you ask me, and especially in terms of art. You have to look for yourself.

I've seen plenty of posts around here where it's just the word "kabloo" that leads to a picture of a toaster or something. This wasn't one of them. It was obvious what we were looking at as soon as we clicked through.

It strikes me that those complaining need to try a museum exercise that an old friend of mine who's an artist taught me. He noticed that I had a habit of glancing at the little card next to the painting so I could know the name of the artist and the painting before I looked at the painting. He pointed out that I'd benefit from just looking at the painting for a while, without trying to contextualize it and explain it away. Some people seem to be complaining here in MeTa that the images they're looking at need to have explanations and context and all that shit. Step back, folks: those were obviously just paintings; why not just look at them? All the information I can find on the web about this guy was at that site; I think hama7 did a great job of not letting himself get in the way.

terrapin: "the user whose name is the Spanish plural for god..."

Really? I wasn't aware there was one.
posted by koeselitz at 7:48 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


dio's
posted by Mister_A at 7:50 AM on February 1, 2007



Single link posts are not going to get you banned, but they're not good form either.


False. Once again, utterly false.
posted by kosem at 7:50 AM on February 1, 2007


I think he's getting grief on a level of 3.
posted by Captaintripps at 7:51 AM on February 1, 2007


I have a very, very hard time seeing what exactly the people who are complaining wanted. -koeselitz

I have an easy time seeing what they wanted: They wanted to bitch and complain. It's easier to tear down than to build up.
posted by Mister_A at 7:52 AM on February 1, 2007


I've derailed my own thread. The single link is not the problem. The problem is, people complained about the way the post was put together in the thread, which they ought not to do, and instead, should complain here, in this forum, our People's Court.

Ignore everything about the single link and focus on the complaints in the wrong place. That's all I really meant to call attention to, and I botched it.
posted by cgc373 at 7:55 AM on February 1, 2007


bshort, threads aren't the place for constructive criticism; that shit's supposed to be here.

Yeah, in a perfect world that would happen. The fact is, meta-whining happens all the time in-thread. It only gets taken here when extra-super whining is necessary. Or, in your case, at the drop of a hat.

I still maintain that those criticisms were fair.

One-link posts with no explanation can be fine, but usually they're just the product of a lazy poster. MeFi is supposed to be the best of the web, but it's also supposed to be curated.

Give us a little context. Give us some opinion. Give us something to work with other than a single link to an artist's website. Yes, his paintings are strange and surreal. So what? Do a little legwork and give us some more links. The post will be better, but more importantly, the conversation will be better.

And that's really what this site is about.
posted by bshort at 7:57 AM on February 1, 2007


What fresh hell is going on over there? Put me in the camp of "there is nothing wrong with the post." The whingeing old-timers need to set an example for the noobs lest mefi degenerate entirely into complaints and they'll tell us I LEARNED IT BY WATCHING YOU.
posted by veronica sawyer at 7:57 AM on February 1, 2007


It strikes me that those complaining need to try a museum exercise that an old friend of mine who's an artist taught me

MetaFilter is not an art gallery. Each post is not a special snowflake. A *tiny* bit of effort put into the post will let people know wtf you're linking to - especially those of us who read MeFi via the RSS feeds. There are no tags in the RSS feeds, so all we see is "Alex Gross" - that single link to a name means nothing to me, and lord only knows what it could be, so I don't bother clicking it. Had I known it was some surrealist artist, I might have clicked, I might not have. But I wouldn't have dismissed it out of hand like I did, at any rate.
posted by antifuse at 7:58 AM on February 1, 2007


Ooh, bshort's gonna get me off the hook as people attack the idea that this site's more about the conversation than about the links! Sweet! Thanks, bshort!
posted by cgc373 at 7:58 AM on February 1, 2007


I've derailed my own thread. The single link is not the problem. The problem is, people complained about the way the post was put together in the thread, which they ought not to do, and instead, should complain here, in this forum, our People's Court.

Ignore everything about the single link and focus on the complaints in the wrong place. That's all I really meant to call attention to, and I botched it.


What do you want us to do, exactly?

Yes, people shouldn't bitch in the thread. It's a shame when it happens. If you see it happening, then flag and move on.

By taking this here, you're giving us a forum to talk about the original thread. Yes, people pooped in the thread. But it was very minor pooping.

Also, they were right. Single, unexplained links are great for bookmarks, but not for a MeFi post.
posted by bshort at 8:00 AM on February 1, 2007


I came for the links and stayed for the conversation. Get your pitchforks, torches, marshmallows, and latest editions of the Chicago Manual of Style ready!
posted by Mister_A at 8:00 AM on February 1, 2007


The thing that bugs me is that the people complaining think any anyone gives a shit that they don't want to click on the link. When I make an FPP, I know that there are certain people who will click it no matter what and plenty that will avoid it no matter what--both based on my posting history. Do I care either way? Not really. MeFi ain't a popularity contest and telling someone how to format their FPP so that they themselves will like it better is a rather baffling exercise--do they really think their own opinions on everything is that fascinating?
posted by dobbs at 8:05 AM on February 1, 2007


I don't want anybody to do anything, exactly, except to refrain from pooping in threads. That thread didn't feel to me like it'd seen "very minor" poop; it felt pooped upon. Most of the discussion concerned its format, not its subject, which pretty much defines a derail, due in large part to that first "um . . . I don't like these blind links" comment, coloring all the rest.

All those exclamation points were supposed to indicate a "jocular manner," bshort. I don't think my punctuation did the work I wanted it to do, though.
posted by cgc373 at 8:10 AM on February 1, 2007


Single, unexplained links are great for bookmarks, but not for a MeFi post.

If you don't like them, don't click on them. They're not breaking policy so there's really not much more to say about it than that, is there?

I mean, really, why does everyone have to have the same posting style? Why does every post need to read like a goddamn encyclopedia or essay these days?
posted by dobbs at 8:11 AM on February 1, 2007


TRY ALL CAPS NO PUNCTUATION AND WANTON USE OF THE WORD MOTHERFUCKER CGC373
posted by Mister_A at 8:11 AM on February 1, 2007


For the record, I hate the encyclopedia posts and the "every character is a link" posts way more than I hate every other post.
posted by Mister_A at 8:12 AM on February 1, 2007


we're obviously suffering from post-post syndrome.
posted by jonmc at 8:13 AM on February 1, 2007


Dobbs: nobody's asking for an encylopedia entry. Take a look at the front page right now. A couple one link posts, with a one sentence explanation. That's all we need. It has nothing to do with a popularity contest, and everything to do with *making the site useful* to those of us who use it.
posted by antifuse at 8:18 AM on February 1, 2007


If you don't like them, don't click on them. They're not breaking policy so there's really not much more to say about it than that, is there?

Luckily, we don't have to get a hall pass to post a comment, and the poster doesn't have to be explicitly breaking a rule for us to register our displeasure.

Why do you care if people don't like hama7's posting style?
posted by bshort at 8:19 AM on February 1, 2007


bshort: "Give us a little context. Give us some opinion. Give us something to work with other than a single link to an artist's website. Yes, his paintings are strange and surreal. So what? Do a little legwork and give us some more links. The post will be better, but more importantly, the conversation will be better."

Try doing the legwork. Seriously. There are no other links.
posted by koeselitz at 8:24 AM on February 1, 2007


Try doing the legwork. Seriously. There are no other links.

Why should I bother?
posted by bshort at 8:29 AM on February 1, 2007


BOTHER MOTHERFUCKER DO YOU SPEAK IT

Like that, Mister_A?
posted by cgc373 at 8:32 AM on February 1, 2007 [2 favorites]

As if the tags on the post don't make it perfectly obvious that the linked site is an artist's portfolio. I really wish Matt or Jess would flush the annoying complaining comments.
The tags don't show on the main page. If the point is "I want to know whether to click on this or move on", then making it mandatory to click on the comments to find that out is kind of counterproductive.

Now, me, I glossed right past it because the post had insufficient data. I didn't complain because (a) I generally don't and (b) If I don't have the time to investigate if a post will interest me, I don't have the time to post a complaint about the format. (I have more time today than I had yesterday, so I can chime in here.)

Generally I prefer some vague attempt at contect. I don't need three paragraphs or ten hastily-googled backup links, but in this case, just making the post "The Art of Alex Gross" would have sufficed. It places the most relevant keyword on the main page instead of hiding it inside the fold.
posted by Karmakaze at 8:36 AM on February 1, 2007


What Karmakaze said.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:40 AM on February 1, 2007


Karmakaze: "Generally I prefer some vague attempt at contect.(sic)"

I'm sorry you don't have time to look at links. Why precisely are you wasting that precious time with Metafilter?
posted by koeselitz at 8:42 AM on February 1, 2007


"That's all we need. It has nothing to do with a popularity contest, and everything to do with *making the site useful* to those of us who use it."

Oh, bullshit. We're not doing brain surgery here, and AskMe is the site with the "useful" metric. It was a small, good post.

"Why do you care if people don't like hama7's posting style?"

Because there's no hope of having any sort of discussion in that thread now that a bunch of goddamned Nancies have taken it upon themselves to kvetch it up in a spectacularly retarded manner.
posted by klangklangston at 8:43 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


Did they want the words "these are some pictures by a painter" in the post? Isn't that completely obvious?

No, it's completely non-obvious. I don't think the fact that the post was tagged excuses the fact that there was no context given whatsoever. I shouldn't have to click into a thread to have some idea of why a link was posted. Single-link posts are fine, but just giving a dude's name and expecting me to care is asking too much.

(For the record, I agree with the callout for commenters that derailed the thread.)
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:43 AM on February 1, 2007


Why do you care if people don't like hama7's posting style?

Hama7's posts always have that strangeness in proportion without which no excellence is possible.

You all clattering in like a flock of dirty, diseased urban pigeons and depositing your noisome comments risks driving hama7 away.
posted by jamjam at 8:44 AM on February 1, 2007


Hmm, should have previewed....what Karmakaze said.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:45 AM on February 1, 2007


Are these YouTube music video links the new form of what used to be IMG derisiveness?

If I'm not mistaken, they started with me yesterday posting links to videos in some dumb metatalk thread or other. In all sincerity, I thought it a far better use of eyes/ears/attention/computer equipment than what was transpiring in the thread. A new form of derail.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:45 AM on February 1, 2007


Likewise (what Karmakaze said).

Sorry I bothered to explain what the "whingers" were on about. Hey, let's go back to single letter links, too. Those were fun.
posted by dreamsign at 8:47 AM on February 1, 2007


and hosted from Uranus: "I shouldn't have to click into a thread to have some idea of why a link was posted."

You're right. You shouldn't have to click into the thread.

You should have to click the link.
posted by koeselitz at 8:48 AM on February 1, 2007


getting grief for nothing is the point of MetaFilter
posted by matteo at 8:48 AM on February 1, 2007


And honestly, if loading a single page takes more time than you're willing to spend, I have no fucking clue how on earth you justify being on Metafilter.
posted by koeselitz at 8:50 AM on February 1, 2007


If getting grief for nothing is the point of MetaFilter, why'd I pay five bucks? Now I feel like a fool, parted from his money.
posted by cgc373 at 8:51 AM on February 1, 2007


Be thankful that you had an opportunity to learn about yourself.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:52 AM on February 1, 2007


At any given time, koeselitz, there are probably about a hundred links on the front page. I don't click them all, only the ones that are interesting to me.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 8:53 AM on February 1, 2007


And, this is rather strange (I think the little effigy is supposed to be Mark E. Smith).
posted by Burhanistan at 8:53 AM on February 1, 2007


Why precisely are you wasting that precious time with Metafilter?

Oh stop it, you elitist Veteran of Metafilter. Why do we even bother with words on the front page? Let's just all just link to a single dash for our front page posts. Doesn't provide enough information for you? If you can't be bothered to click inside you don't belong here. The name of the poster should be enough for you, noob!

A post that tells nothing about what it is is a bad post. It's not "style," it's not "pithiness," and it's definitely not clever. It's a combination of laziness and elitism.

You don't have to construct any kind of "package," for chrissake. One additional word would have been enough.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:58 AM on February 1, 2007


Oh, bullshit. We're not doing brain surgery here, and AskMe is the site with the "useful" metric. It was a small, good post.

In that case, why bother posting any explanations of ANY links? Why even allow the hypertext? How about every single link on MetaFilter be posted as a single link, with the text "Link". Then we can all do the legwork of clicking every single link to see what they are!

I actually used the wrong word when I said "useful" - what I meant was "usable". If everybody did what hama7 did, the site would not be usable. That's enough for me to complain about it.
posted by antifuse at 8:58 AM on February 1, 2007


Also, what stupidsexyflanders said.
posted by antifuse at 8:59 AM on February 1, 2007


Badly-synched original version.
posted by koeselitz at 9:00 AM on February 1, 2007


Wow, this Meta is approaching the biggest load of bull yet. Let's see...

My guess is that a lot of the complaints aimed at hama7 are the kind that get aimed at the user whose name is the Spanish plural for god. Folks get their panties in a wad over him based on past interactions and can't seem to let them go.

Yes, hama7 just frickin enrages me. I see his name and I can't sleep at night. Who is he again?

that's the sort of thing that should happen here, not there.

Excellent. A Meta callout for every blind link. That should help the site.

Why does every post need to read like a goddamn encyclopedia or essay these days?

Yeah, that's what people were asking for. Paragraphs of description. Way to get the point.

And honestly, if loading a single page takes more time than you're willing to spend, I have no fucking clue how on earth you justify being on Metafilter.

*golf clap* Congrats. You've just justifed every bad post, stupid AskMe question, and other bit of detritus that clutters the front page, because everyone has so much time to dig through all the crap.

You know what? Nobody should have said squat. Let the post be ignored by those that don't either have hama7 on their hit list for good or ill. Who cares?
posted by dreamsign at 9:03 AM on February 1, 2007


It's a combination of laziness and elitism.

ssF for the win.
posted by dreamsign at 9:05 AM on February 1, 2007


stupidsexyflanders: "Oh stop it, you elitist Veteran of Metafilter. Why do we even bother with words on the front page? Let's just all just link to a single dash for our front page posts. Doesn't provide enough information for you? If you can't be bothered to click inside you don't belong here. The name of the poster should be enough for you, noob!"

I guess we're talking about two different things here. I mean, what I'm looking for is some explanation of links that aren't clear after you click through them. I'm fine with this one because I feel like the site itself was self-explanatory.

Other people feel as though there should be some warning as to what's coming. I can viddy that, I suppose. Sorry for undue harshness. Other people use metafilter differently, I guess.
posted by koeselitz at 9:07 AM on February 1, 2007


But please note that nobody has said that hama7's posts are justified just because some of us recognize his name. Elitism doesn't even begin to enter into it.
posted by koeselitz at 9:09 AM on February 1, 2007


MORE POLITENESS MOTHERFUCKER THIS WILL NOT DO WE GOTTA HAVE DRAMA
posted by cgc373 at 9:10 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


languagehat said that in the thread.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:10 AM on February 1, 2007


Languagehat said:Hint: if you know anything about anything, the poster's name is guarantee enough. If you don't, if you go all limp and fuzzy-brained at the thought of a bare link with nothing but a name and a few tags to go on, then go do something else. Don't piss in the fucking thread.

I guess that is why you're named languagehat. I couldn't have said it better.

Confession: I used to be one of you thread-shitters. Call it peer pressure, call it too much free time but I used to revel in unleashing a brown-bellied colon viper in the middle of a meh-thread. While the temptation comes back from time to time, it really does become of a matter of trusting the poster and where he/she is trying to take us. It's getting to the point now where if I see a single link thread, I can wager that the first few comments will be along the lines of WTF?111?? I DON'T UNDERSTNAD11!! Christ, please take time and reflect before you feel a need to cop a squat in someones post.

That said, I don't think most of the comments were too out of line in this particular case. Could it have used an alt-tag? Some Wiki? Some backup links? Sure, maybe. But again, it was Hama7 and I know his previous work.

Ok. I'm done beating a dead horse.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:11 AM on February 1, 2007


EXCELLENT MOTHERFUCKING WORK CGC373
posted by Mister_A at 9:14 AM on February 1, 2007


posted by koeselitz people use metafilter differently, I guess.

Indeed. Some people find amazing, new, and cool stuff and want to share it, and some other people just want to shit on the amazing, new, and cool stuff because they didn't find it first.
posted by fandango_matt at 9:15 AM on February 1, 2007


But please note that nobody has said that hama7's posts are justified just because some of us recognize his name. Elitism doesn't even begin to enter into it.

wendell: hama7 + art tag = enough for me to know it's good, if sometimes a little hoity-toity...

languagehat: Bullshit indeed. Christ, I don't think I'd realized until now how MeFi has gotten overrun by a bunch of whiny, demanding people who don't understand the first thing about it. The worthy hama7 has been making fine single-link posts without explanation since before you pups ever heard of MetaFilter, and until now has gotten nothing but respect for it: "Great stuff," "Thanks for the post," and "Bookmarked!" are typical comments. Suddenly it's "Wah wah I have to have my hand held and everything spelled out for me before I'll do the poster the tremendous favor of clicking on the link." Hint: if you know anything about anything, the poster's name is guarantee enough. If you don't, if you go all limp and fuzzy-brained at the thought of a bare link with nothing but a name and a few tags to go on, then go do something else. Don't piss in the fucking thread. Jesus.

languagehat, just so you know. you're a monumental ass.
posted by dreamsign at 9:17 AM on February 1, 2007


and some other people just want to shit on the amazing, new, and cool stuff because they didn't find it first.

Ok, I get it now. No link description needed because no one on this site actually reads. Check. I give. Fucking uncle already.
posted by dreamsign at 9:19 AM on February 1, 2007


And I should add that I don't have a problem with this callout. I'm not trying to defend the thread shitters, but rather I am just continuing their complaints here, since this is the appropriate place to discuss it - rather than creating a new thread about how no-explanation posts are annoying. :)
posted by antifuse at 9:20 AM on February 1, 2007


dreamsign, that's just an example of languagehat's patented Curmudgeonly Charm.

Also, it's an example of the way the thread was derailed, as languagehat unloaded on earlier complainers in a way he ought to have brought on over here, where we're playing now.
posted by cgc373 at 9:21 AM on February 1, 2007


hama7's getting grief for nothing.

Yes. Literally. BWAHAHAHAA!!

Well it was funny to me.

As one who gave him grief, I stand by my grief giving. Now, if anyone has been mean about it, that's not cool. My complain about cryptic FPPs is that they may link to valuable and worthy sites, but the very opacity of the post can turn people off to getting to the great content.

Personally, I do like FPPs that are a little cryptic and inspire a sense of curiosity. Just a name and a link to a site by the same name? Yeah I understand the complaint, and agree with it.

hama7's link was good, and I said so in the thread. I just thought it was worthy of a better introduction. If I took a friend to a party, I'd introduce him/her with a little info: "This is my good friend Charles Manson. He is the subject of many famous works of literature, and even major films! He has some interesting thoughts on religion and racial relations as well."

The no-explanation post is akin to me showing up with my friend. Saying "Charles Manson" and walking away.

That's my take. I don't think it's a deletion-worthy reason, though.
posted by The Deej at 9:28 AM on February 1, 2007


I found it funny too, Deej.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 9:30 AM on February 1, 2007


DevilsAdvocate writes "I'm not going to take a side on whether undescribed links are OK as posts"

I will. They suck. But I've come to terms with them and just skip them over along with all the youboob links. Matt doesn't seem to mind (or at least doesn't mind enough to delete them) so that's all you can do.
posted by Mitheral at 9:31 AM on February 1, 2007


At least charlie manson had the courtesy to carve a swastika in his forehead, so I had a bit of information before committing the faux pas of inviting him to my daughter's debutante ball.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:34 AM on February 1, 2007


I HAVE SOME GRIEF. IN MY MOTHERFUCKING PANTS.
posted by grapefruitmoon at 9:37 AM on February 1, 2007


There are ointments for that.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:41 AM on February 1, 2007


Languagehat said:
Hint: if you know anything about anything, the poster's name is guarantee enough.
With respect, I disagree. It may well be a guarantee that the linked site is of high quality (assuming I'm familiar with the poster's track record, which I'm not), but it certainly doesn't tell me that I'll be interested. That's what I expect the link text and accompanying copy to give me a clue about.
posted by No Mutant Enemy at 10:08 AM on February 1, 2007


THEY COME FROM THE LAND OF WIKIPEDIA BOOK REPORTS
posted by furiousthought at 10:16 AM on February 1, 2007


As if the tags on the post don't make it perfectly obvious that the linked site is an artist's portfolio.

Irrelevant. The whole point of MetaFilter is its front page. (FPP = Front Page Post.) We've said a million times, "It's about the links, not the discussion." Now you're arguing that I should have to click through to the discussion (where the tags are visible) to understand the links.

If you don't like them, don't click on them.

That doesn't make sense. If there's no explanation, how are you supposed to know whether you like the link without clicking?

Other people use metafilter differently, I guess.

Apparently. I click on relatively few FPPS, because most don't look interesting to me. I wonder how many people click on all of them.
posted by cribcage at 10:16 AM on February 1, 2007


What Burhanistan said; if this trend takes off, I predict either fewer meaningless callouts or much more interesting MeTas.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:17 AM on February 1, 2007


hama7 disappeared for a while and over the last few months has been posting only single link posts.

hama7 has never, to my recollection, posted anything but single-link posts. Good posts. And my point about recognizing his name was not that you should all bow down and worship him because he's been around a long time, but that those of us who have been around and paid attention know that the name hama7 on a post is pretty much a guarantee of a certain minimal level of quality; it may not make your day, but it's probably worth clicking on. If you don't recognize his name, that doesn't mean you're a Bad Person, but then we get to Part Two of my rant: there is nothing wrong with single-link posts with no explanation. If you think there is, you're wrong.

languagehat, just so you know. you're a monumental ass.

Thank you for your reasoned input.

As an aside, I find myself liking this koeselitz chap more every day.
posted by languagehat at 10:17 AM on February 1, 2007 [1 favorite]


languagehat, are you, by any chance, sitting by the fireplace in a tweed jacket, smoking a pipe and reading a Victorian comedy of manners? In my head you are.
posted by Mister_A at 10:22 AM on February 1, 2007


My feeling is that, while this sort of post would be a problem if everyone did it, it's a perfectly acceptable component of the varied gestalt that is the front page.

A rambling discussion of the pros and cons and utility of posting styles makes for fun discussion over here, but actually making a fuss in the thread seems short-sighted and inappropriate. It'd be better if people would leave off it.

Apparently. I click on relatively few FPPS, because most don't look interesting to me. I wonder how many people click on all of them.

Glancing through the logs, it looks like user Googlebot is an avid and thorough reader.

In all seriousness, I've wondered about that myself.
posted by cortex at 10:23 AM on February 1, 2007


koeselitz clicks on all of them. He couldn't justify being here if he didn't.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 10:26 AM on February 1, 2007


hama7 has never, to my recollection, posted anything but single-link posts.

Well there was one (especially if you count the first comment), but it got deleted and lead to him leaving the site for quite a while.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 10:34 AM on February 1, 2007


"In that case, why bother posting any explanations of ANY links? Why even allow the hypertext? How about every single link on MetaFilter be posted as a single link, with the text "Link". Then we can all do the legwork of clicking every single link to see what they are!"

Ah, so we're at the absurd stage of outrage. Why not have a fucking book on each of the links, including a mountain of verbiage to remind us all of the grand historical context they stand in?

"I actually used the wrong word when I said "useful" - what I meant was "usable". If everybody did what hama7 did, the site would not be usable. That's enough for me to complain about it."

And if everyone complained about every little bullshit moment where their hands aren't properly held, the site would be unusable. That's enough for me to tell y'all to shut the fuck up, especially in the fucking threads.
posted by klangklangston at 10:38 AM on February 1, 2007

I'm sorry you don't have time to look at links. Why precisely are you wasting that precious time with Metafilter?
I'm sorry you don't have the reading comprehension skills to have understood the part where I mention that some days I have more time than others. There's a world of difference between not having the time to read every word of every link and comment posted to the blue, and not having the time to read any of it. As it happens, both my work and personal projects come in droughts and floods. On busy days, I don't load the blue at all, on slow days, I read most of the posts, and skim over older ones that seem interesting. If they don't look like my cuppa or have insufficient information to let me know if they're my cuppa or not, I skip them. I probably miss some stuff I'd have liked, but, you know, life goes on.

Note also there's a fair amount of room between "I wish you could have formatted that in a more useful manner" and "The post should be deleted; and furthermore, the offending party should be taken out and shot." Treating folks who say the first as though they said the second is kind of silly.

And yes, darling koeselitz, sometimes I make typos and don't catch them, even with the spellcheck plugin turned on. I shall be sure to call the execution squad and set up an appointment. Next Thursday is good.


posted by Karmakaze at 10:42 AM on February 1, 2007


I'm disagree that "this is the way hama7 always does it" is proper justification for why "Alex Gross" makes a great, make-me-want-to-click on it FPP. One can argue that hama's quality has always been high, perhaps but I don't agree that one must recall the past, present and future contributions a user might make to determine whether a particular post is good or bad. "Alex Gross: Illustrator" would not have been incosistent with hama7's past posting profile and would have been a value-add.

I also found languagehat's tone disagreeable within the post. Take it to MeTa, buddy, isn't that right? Name-calling and grandstanding based on how-it-was-back-in-the-day and you-kids-take-everything-for-granted-these-days builds a poor community. Truthfully: did you really want to grow up to be that guy?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 10:43 AM on February 1, 2007


Double standards, confusion, and inconsistency are a part of metafilter. You don't have to hang around here for very long to see that veterans can often get away with things that n00bs can't. When users notice a pattern of inconsistent treatment, and come to MeTa to request (1, 2) more rules, clearer guidelines, more consistent enforcement, etc., (many of) the vets say "we like it they way it is. deal with it or get the fuck out."

And you know what? That's fair.

MetaFilter is a community with a culture. You can't come here and expect it to change just for you.* It is what it is, warts and all. It will grow and evolve, but not at your behest. If that doesn't work for you, then you need to find someplace else. Or just take what you like and leave the rest. It's really not that difficult (and it's why I am rarely spotted in the blue).

Personally, as a 40K, I expect I'll be treated like a second-class citizen around here at least until the 50Ks come along. Because everyone knows they're a bunch of punks. But I'm OK with that, because I think AskMe and MuFi are worth it. If it ever becomes "not worth it" to me, then I'll disappear. And no one will miss me, because I am not a Special Snowflake. End of story.

*That "you" isn't directed at anyone in particular -- "one" and "his/her" was just too tortured a construct to deal with today.
posted by somanyamys at 10:47 AM on February 1, 2007


Well put, somanyamys.
posted by Mister_A at 10:50 AM on February 1, 2007


Yeah, somanyamys.


Ya n00b!


(I kid, really I do).
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:55 AM on February 1, 2007


MetaFilter: I am not a Special Snowflake.
posted by Duncan at 11:02 AM on February 1, 2007


Karmakaze: "...some days I have more time than others. There's a world of difference between not having the time to read every word of every link and comment posted to the blue, and not having the time to read any of it. As it happens, both my work and personal projects come in droughts and floods. On busy days, I don't load the blue at all, on slow days, I read most of the posts, and skim over older ones that seem interesting. If they don't look like my cuppa or have insufficient information to let me know if they're my cuppa or not, I skip them. I probably miss some stuff I'd have liked, but, you know, life goes on."

Look, I'm the same way. We all are.

I guess the reason I reacted was this: I notice that it's very, very often around Metafilter that the description of a link is way off. In fact, this seems to be the case with ninety per cent of the posts here. That's okay-- I don't expect the post text to give me a whole lot of description. Sometimes, it annoys me; generally, that happens when the link is to some sort of "inside joke" or something that I have to go google or hit wikipedia to even begin to understand what I'm looking at.

I said something earlier about how this is sort of the nature of the internet. At least it's the nature of Metafilter: you never really know what you're going to get when you click that link. People are generally nice enough to tell you if it'll be offensive. Beyond that, you're often on your own.

That's a good thing, I think. Most of the links I really ended up liking here were posts that I clicked on despite their descriptions rather than because of them. Asking for more guidelines, or stricter moderation, or deletion in order to bring about some kind of mandatory "link descriptions" seems to me to betray the spirit of willingness to discover new things that the site is founded on. I also know that nobody's asked for those things, except for maybe Mitheral, but it seems like where this is leading. You could probably convince me otherwise.

Sorry if I said that glibly, but it's my feeling about the matter. Metafilter is about sharing good links. I tend to try to make my posts interesting and entirely too long, because I guess I have a lot of myself invested in getting people to enjoy what I'm linking. I don't mind that hama7, or mcgraw, or whomever doesn't feel the need to do that; it's really just about whether the links are good.
posted by koeselitz at 11:06 AM on February 1, 2007


languagehat, are you, by any chance, sitting by the fireplace in a tweed jacket, smoking a pipe and reading a Victorian comedy of manners?

Spot on, old chap! I am indeed! Miguel, pass me that carafe of port, would you? Splendid fellow. Now, back to our discussion of whether four or eight chukkas is the ideal length of a polo match...

I'm disagree that "this is the way hama7 always does it" is proper justification for why "Alex Gross" makes a great, make-me-want-to-click on it FPP.

No, but it's an excellent reason for not complaining about it. He's not going to change his posting style, and there's nothing wrong with the posts (links) themselves, so what exactly do you hope to achieve aside from adding to the acidic froth of MetaTalk?
posted by languagehat at 11:08 AM on February 1, 2007


BULLSHIT FPP
posted by Megafly at 11:12 AM on February 1, 2007


I'm sure this has been requested before, but could we just have the first few tags for each post displayed on the front page? I have a feeling I've suggested this before but it still seems like a good idea.

Obviously, there would be the risk certainty of an outbreak of people doing cute things with the tags, but I don't think it would last too long.
posted by teleskiving at 11:19 AM on February 1, 2007


Personally, as a 40K, I expect I'll be treated like a second-class citizen around here
Go on, prostrate yourself in abject submissal.
posted by jouke at 11:26 AM on February 1, 2007


submissal

It's called a 'torpedo', actually.
posted by cortex at 11:29 AM on February 1, 2007


I am glad there are a variety of posting styles around here - it keeps things interesting. I like the short quick hits from plep, hama7, and crunchland. I also like the expert, erudite posts from matteo and y2karl. And the fun posts from jonson that sometimes have a lot of context and other times are way cryptic.

There is nothing wrong with some single link posts. Maybe I wouldn't like it if everyone did that, but oh well, everyone won't.

Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? Great!

"Legwork" is not a prerequisite. Plus, doing legwork and providing exhaustive context is no protection from complaints. If you say "spectacular photos," ten people are there to say they suck; if you say "amusing video clip," ten people are there to say "meh." Early on in my posting here, I was stung by frequent metatalk posts that complained about multi-link, researched posts. The implication was that such posts were fabricated and contrived, not just something you "found" and wanted to share.

Times seem to have changed, but one thing hasn't: there will always be complainers no matter what. And as long as the complaints are all channeled here where they can make for an amusing read or a good debate, I am fine with that. I just hate to see them polluting a thread with negative crap. I'm a lover not a hater. ymmv.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:34 AM on February 1, 2007


Oh, and I just saw that you're stipulating "non-white/European."

One really great sci-fi/dystopia is a book called Black No More by George Schuyler, a southern black man writing in the thirties. It concerns a future where black people have been given the chance to change their skin color. He veritably skewers the leading lights of various "movements" on all sides, mocking Booker T. Washington, W. E. B. DuBois, the KKK, the NAACP, and just about everybody else available.

But if you meant "non-American," I guess that doesn't work.
posted by koeselitz at 11:37 AM on February 1, 2007


Crap. Wrong doorbell, wrong address, wrong neighborhood. And I always thought that would never happen to me.

That's what I get for keeping Metafilter open in several tabs.

posted by koeselitz at 11:39 AM on February 1, 2007


submissal

It's called a 'torpedo', actually.


Ok, that's what I get for having a beer after work and commenting.

The beer makes my confidence grow in speaking a second language and my mistakes increase likewise. But I'm generally blissfully ignorant of the latter.

Precies, onderwerp je maar als het weerzinwekkende onderkruipsel dat je bent.

That better?
posted by jouke at 11:49 AM on February 1, 2007


Looks like an interesting book though, thanks!
posted by Mister_A at 11:52 AM on February 1, 2007


At least charlie manson had the courtesy to carve a swastika in his forehead, so I had a bit of information before committing the faux pas of inviting him to my daughter's debutante ball.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders


That right thar's some funny shit I don't care who you are.
posted by The Deej at 12:21 PM on February 1, 2007


That better?

No, that looks nothing like 'torpedo'.
posted by cortex at 12:55 PM on February 1, 2007


Maybe it does from Space. I'll get back to you.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:59 PM on February 1, 2007


Nope - still doesn't.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:01 PM on February 1, 2007


Alex Goss, Painter.

See how a single word can destroy the possibility of us enjoying the wit of stupidsexyFlanders?
posted by Sparx at 1:01 PM on February 1, 2007


languagehat, we're all apt to display some level of contradiction, but would it be fair to say - working from memory here, I'm not about to trawl your history - that you have on occasion in the past criticized posters for being cryptic in their FPP style? See, I think that you're opinion here is influenced because you know hama7's posting history. I'm neither saying this is a bad nor even necessarily a hypocritical thing. But I'm less convinced by your vehemence on this issue than at other times.

I agree with Kamakaze and I also agree with madamjujujive (who could not agree with such a tender and consistent lover?).

It's great that there is diversity and I wouldn't expect hama7 to change their style. But sometimes these things are worth raising in the grey (the unconstructive threadshitting is unsupportable) because I hope that future posters who may happen to have read this thread might conclude that providing just a smidgin' of context is actually a considerate and community-minded thing to do. And if they care about their link (which seems obvious in that they will have posted it here) and the material/site it goes to, then they might find more eyes directed there if they give their audience just a hint, just a modest entrée to the nature of the destination.

Personally, I don't like having to click through to the thread (so much energy and time!) to see the tags to decide if it's my cup of tea. So, as I've said around here on numerous occasions, if you want people to see the stuff you post, please make it a little bit easier, a little bit more accessible.
posted by peacay at 1:46 PM on February 1, 2007


....
posted by Lentrohamsanin


It makes me happy that someone used the name of a hasnamus in Beelzebub's Tales as their username.
posted by Burhanistan at 1:53 PM on February 1, 2007


Um.. I'd just like to throw myself at your (collective) feet and loudly grovel for forgiveness for starting this whole shit-storm.

(oddly enough, my original comment was removed. Most likely because it crossed the whiny-threshold and should have been put in here)
posted by Parannoyed at 1:57 PM on February 1, 2007


No! Don't show them your belly!
posted by cortex at 2:00 PM on February 1, 2007


I usually connect via my Blackberry. It usually takes a while for any page to load. I follow links that sound interesting. Some dude's name? Since I didn't recognize it, I moved right on.

Now, I like art, and I usually follow art links on the front page. So I was disappointed, when I stopped by here, to find that hama7 had tricked me into not checking out something I would otherwise have clicked.

It's no skin off my back, since I'm really none the wiser. But why not make it clearer? I assume hama7 wants people who are interested in art to check the guy's site out, right? I missed out on it because of the way he phrased his FPP.

Now that I look at it, I kind of like the art. Thanks for making a big stink of it on MeTa, cgc373. Without you expanding on hama7's lackluster FPP, I would have missed it.
posted by breezeway at 2:02 PM on February 1, 2007


koeselitz writes "Badly-synched original version."

And reading this thread has now officially been made worthwhile. Thanks!
posted by mr_roboto at 2:06 PM on February 1, 2007


But why not make it clearer? I assume hama7 wants people who are interested in art to check the guy's site out, right?

That's exactly right. I'm not unsympathetic to koeselitz's point about the "nature of the Internet," but The Deej is right about this being a different circumstance: You post an FPP because you're trying to publicize something. There's good reason to avoid obscurity, and none to explain why you'd insist upon it.
posted by cribcage at 2:45 PM on February 1, 2007


I think that you're opinion here is influenced because you know hama7's posting history.

Well, sure, and also by my boggledness that anyone can have followed MeFi for any period of time and not be aware of hama7's posting history—love it or hate it, his style is what it is and it's not going to change. And seriously, go back through his earlier threads and see if you can find any examples of this kind of reaction—I did, and it was all pats on the back and gratitude. Now suddenly there's all this bile from the "posts must be encyclopedic" crowd. Since that attitude makes me break out in hives (as do encyclopedic posts at times), I went medieval on their ass. Now, it's true that I may have in the past complained about cryptic posts. What can I say? I am medium-sized, I contain a moderate quantity of multitudes.

Parannoyed: Thanks for the apology, and I hope anyone tempted to shit in a thread has learned a lesson—at least wait until a few comments have accumulated, so you don't get the thread off to a bad start, totally derail it, and end up having to show your belly to the raving wolverines.
posted by languagehat at 2:51 PM on February 1, 2007


Became a recluse
And bought a computer
Set it up in the home
Elusive big one
On the screen
Saw the Holy Ghost, I swear
On the screen
Where's the cursor?
Where's the eraser?
Where's the cursor?
Where's the eraser?
G-O-H-O-H-O-I-O
G-O-H-O-H-O-I-O
G-O-H-O-H-O-I-O
H-O-I-O-G-O-H-O

What's a computer?

EAT Y'SELF FITTER!

-m.e.s. and those immortal madmen from manchester, 1983
posted by koeselitz at 3:08 PM on February 1, 2007


Pure magic, koeslitz.
posted by Burhanistan at 3:15 PM on February 1, 2007


This is the spring without end
This is the summer of malcontent
This is the winter of your mind

FREE RANGE
posted by koeselitz at 3:19 PM on February 1, 2007


Folks get their panties in a wad over him based on past interactions and can't seem to let them go.

For my part, I defended the post (pithily) in the thread, despite the fact that there are few people on this site for whom I have ever felt as intense a feeling of dislike over the years. Nonetheless, languagehat has it right, even if he's being grumpy and a bit dismissive about it: the post was fine.

It's interesting that people speak only of hama7's posts, forgetting his politically-fueled phantastical screeds that were, if anything, waaaay to the right of dios (or 111 (the sockpuppet?) that had so many people frothing for so long) but rarely made anything like as much sense. It shows, to some extent, that the most valued coin of the realm here (on the blue at least) is the linkage. Which is as it should be. Regardless of how intense my dislike for him was back when he commented here (which was, for the most part, because he liked to follow me around personally and piss in my cornflakes, for some reason, not because he disagreed with my politics) I'm quite happy that hama7 came back and is posting while choosing not to participate in discussion: to me, that's the best of all possible worlds, because, as we've seen, his links are usually very interesting.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:09 PM on February 1, 2007


I only make FPP's so that I can preemptively plan to call out double posts. Being more cryptic would help me with that. Note to self...
posted by blue_beetle at 4:18 PM on February 1, 2007


Single link posts are not going to get you banned, but they're not good form either.

Where on earth are you getting that? Matt has stated in the past that some of the best posts here have been single-link posts; he's never had a problem with them. It's single-link *op-eds* that he's frowned on routinely. Email him if you don't believe me, but bshort, you're just wrong about the place of single-link posts at MeFi. And the idea that posts need opinion is just insane. Finding a link and presenting it as is has been perfectly fine MeFi form for at least the 5 years I've been reading.

*Undescribed* posts, now, are debateable. I agree that "mystery meat" links are annoying, but they're not a hundredth as annoying as the folks here now who rush to be first into a thread with complaints about the post. At least try to comment about the content first, and make the "constructive criticism" a secondary point. And if you can't find anything to say about the actual content of the post first, take your constructive criticism to MeTa.

People who show up in a thread to do nothing but say "crap post" should get a week's timeout.
posted by mediareport at 4:21 PM on February 1, 2007


the post was fine.

The link was kinda meh, I thought. I wish I'd skipped it or at least I knew why hama thought it was less-than-meh. Maybe I missed something. Those of us not looking into the tea leaves far enough will never know. Obviously the post itself is a matter of some contention, o'wise we wouldn't be klanging around here, would we?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 4:23 PM on February 1, 2007


I didn't recognize hama7's username, but I thought the complainers were right that some amount of description in a post is good.

There, that settles that.
posted by ibmcginty at 4:25 PM on February 1, 2007


languagehat writes "boggled..[..]..not be aware of hama7's posting history"
I wasn't aware. I try to follow along but things get through. I just don't think knowing someone's history ought to come too much into a debate about appropriate posting style or vague community expectations, that's all. The majority of people who hit the front page aren't members anyway. But I don't care hugely about all this (it varies). And certainly not enough to have crapped in the thread (I did look at the site yesterday and thought it was ok) nor too have brought it around to this headkicking neighbourhood.
posted by peacay at 4:30 PM on February 1, 2007


My deleted comment in that thread wasn't actually criticizing the post, I was just being a doofus. I don't care if a post is a one-character, one-link affair. I also do not care if it is a 100 link monster (I like those, actually) as long as the majority of it goes inside to keep the front page from getting smothered by it.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:30 PM on February 1, 2007


>the post was fine.

>>The link was kinda meh, I thought.


I didn't even follow the link. I rarely if ever do. I meant that the form was fine; the content of the destination, de gustibus non est disputandum and all that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:36 PM on February 1, 2007


stavros, there are some really neat illustrations and paintings at that site. Just sayin'.
posted by mediareport at 4:50 PM on February 1, 2007


This entire thread has been a joy to read. Were it not for the hama7's cryptic post and languagehat's curmudgeonly rebukes, none of this would have been possible. Thank you metafilter. As for the post, who cares?
posted by reformedjerk at 4:52 PM on February 1, 2007


It's interesting that people speak only of hama7's posts, forgetting his politically-fueled phantastical screeds

Yeah, 'tis. I myself was taken aback when Lentrohamsanin linked to this pathetic piece of tripe; it reminded me forcibly of what a twat hama7 has been over the years when he hasn't been making his art posts. I guess I've been separating the twat from the Master Poster in my mind for so long that in a discussion of his posts I completely forgot the former. But yes, now that you mention it, he's pissed me off royally too.

I just don't think knowing someone's history ought to come too much into a debate about appropriate posting style


Once again, trying harder to make myself clear: I don't think anyone should know hama7's posting style, or even recognize his moniker; I don't think I'm a better person because I do; I certainly don't think his posting history is relevant to whether this is a good or appropriate post. (That one Lentrohamsanin linked to certainly stunk up the place.) I was just trying to explain something about my own psychological reaction; it was as if a bunch of MeFites didn't know who Miguel was or what the whole pancake-on-a-bunny's-head thing was about. And it was so sudden: years of "great post, hama7!" (even from people who couldn't stand his politics), and then, boom, "This suxx0rz! You didn't tell me what I was going to see! Why should I care!!" And I got more bent out of shape than I might have if the post had been made by Nickie N00b. Not because I think hama7 is sacrosanct, but because... because... it makes me feel old! There, are you happy now? I shall wear the bottoms of my trousers rolled.
posted by languagehat at 5:33 PM on February 1, 2007


Well scuttled languagecrab.
posted by peacay at 5:45 PM on February 1, 2007


I now have a mental image of LH wearing a king crab on his head as he waggles a noob-admonishing finger, and it makes me chuckle.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:55 PM on February 1, 2007


curmudgerund
posted by cortex at 6:09 PM on February 1, 2007


You mean some people actually know what the whole pancake-on-a-bunny's-head thing is about?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:50 PM on February 1, 2007


and hosted from Uranus writes "You mean some people actually know what the whole pancake-on-a-bunny's-head thing is about?"

Oolong. The original Oolong thread. Note that the first two comments on the original Oolong thread are whiny complaints. Go, Metafilter!
posted by mr_roboto at 6:58 PM on February 1, 2007


Yeah, I still don't know what it's about though, in the Seinfeld sense. I always thought it was about something essentially unknowable. Picking up the field mice and boppin' 'em on the head.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 7:12 PM on February 1, 2007


All these people who have now idea who hama7 is. I wonder if they are familiar with one Miguel Cardoso.
posted by Kwantsar at 7:17 PM on February 1, 2007


You mean some people actually know what the whole pancake-on-a-bunny's-head thing is about?

I still don't know what it's about...


Lest we forget.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 9:14 PM on February 1, 2007


That's enough for me to tell y'all to shut the fuck up, especially in the fucking threads.

Note that I did not complain in the thread, and that I also said I don't condone the thread shitting that occurred. Nor am I asking for encyclopedic posts (I dislike those too, though to a lesser extent). A single word, "Artist", would have given enough contet for hama's post.

Another one word single link post - at least this one is a recognizable word, though, so it sorta defines itself. Still not really very good, IMO.
posted by antifuse at 1:01 AM on February 2, 2007


a great photography post. encyclopedic? needn't be.
posted by dreamsign at 5:59 AM on February 2, 2007


I think it all matters because all these people who shit on these threads keep people from making new posts. I know I won't post to the blue cuz everyone seems to delight more in pointing out why you shouldn't have posted than having a convo about the post.
posted by CwgrlUp at 7:30 PM on February 2, 2007


If you have something interesting, follow the guidelines and post it. Don't worry about the whiners, including me. In another thread (which I am too lazy to link to) I made the point that most readers were the "silent majority." Although some people seemed to think I was saying most readers AGREED with my specific post, that was not the case. The fact is, most readers are silent. Whether they agree or not, or like your post or not, most readers simply do not leave a comment. Very often, posts are favorited by people who have not even commented in the thread. Not to mention the lurkers who don't even have commenting ability.

So, CwgrlUp, post away!!! If it gets flagged, snarked, or even deleted, so what? It's part of the learning curve. Just let the snarking encourage you to make a good post, not a lazy post.
posted by The Deej at 10:21 PM on February 2, 2007


« Older Smells kind of self-linky to m...  |  We all know tax time is coming... Newer »

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