Why are multiple links to the Astronomy Picture of the Day OK?

February 6, 2007 1:44 PM

Why isn't this APOD post considered to be a double, triple or quadruple? [MI]

APOD doesn't seem to be an aggregator like BBC or CNN, all they do is post invariably awesome pictures of space everyday. Is it going to be acceptable to post to the front page every time something interesting is posted there (ala the proliferation of youtube links)?
posted by Mitheral to etiquette/policy at 1:44 PM (114 comments total)

Dunno. Because it's the best of the web and a bunch of people failed to flag it?
posted by tkolar at 1:47 PM on February 6, 2007

Tell you what - when you've successfully eliminated all the single-link YouTube FPPs, then I'll join the hunt for APOD posters.
posted by Banky_Edwards at 1:48 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

They're not double posts because they're not the exact same image. Seems pretty obvious to me. Also, I don't see what the big deal is when someone notices a really amazing image once every year or so.

Like you said, if it was youtube and people posted a link to a youtube video once a year, that wouldn't be double or triple or quintuple posting.

And of course yes, if there was an astronomy photo of the day posted often around here, we'd do something to curb it but it seems to happen about once a year and the images are pretty interesting so I don't see a problem.
posted by mathowie at 1:48 PM on February 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

It's a great image, I wouldn't have seen it otherwise, and I'm glad it was posted. APOD, like YouTube and your favorite periodical, is a delivery vehicle for content. If the content is good, the post is good. Period.
posted by languagehat at 1:55 PM on February 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

There's no real win from blindly blocking every-great-once-in-a-while links to stunning APsOD, I figure. And there's the quiet affection for pure visual nerdy awesomeness. And your 'quadruple' link is really an LPOD post.

It seems harmeless and very, very low impact. This isn't the same as double-(or treble- or quadruple-)posted news articles and obit announcements, and I don't think it's even qualitatively the same as the endless links to different Onion articles that have become so maligned in the rich tapestry of Mefi history.

Like Matt said, if it gets to be a problem, then it's a problem, but for now ain't nothing wrong.
posted by cortex at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2007

Why isn't this Metafilter post considered to be a double, triple or quadruple? [MI]

Metafilter doesn't seem to be like BBC or CNN, all they do is post invariably awesome links everyday. Is it going to be acceptable to post to the front page every time something interesting is posted there (ala the proliferation of youtube links)?
posted by WCityMike at 1:58 PM on February 6, 2007

Wait, we only get one APOD post for every one (1) year now? I had these damn time limits. Can we horde our APOD posts? When I signed up we were allow twice as many as we are now. This'll make Metafilter unusable.
posted by yeti at 2:06 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I can't believe this is the post that ruins a day free from MetaTalk posts. I can't believe it.
posted by cgc373 at 2:10 PM on February 6, 2007 [5 favorites]

Good content seems like an awfully low bar to waiving the no doubles policy. I really love Raymond Chen's blog and rarely does a month go by that he doesn't post some awesome story or explanation of some quirk of windows. Previously I would have thought repeated postings of the Old New Thing would have been justifiably deleted as doubles. Should that not be the case?

I'm fine with exceptions being made, NASA knows I love the APOD. I'm concerned that youtube was the blunt edge of the wedge that is going to see a proliferation of front page site repeats. Besides self linking the no doubles was the only bright line rule we had and that seems to be softening.
posted by Mitheral at 2:11 PM on February 6, 2007

I want to say that I hit the 'favorite' button on cgc373's comment really really hard.

Also, that APOD is my dual-head desktop right now
posted by Skorgu at 2:16 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

It comes down to a question of content versus portal. I would hazard a guess that most people everyone come here to find links to content (unless the link is about the site itself) and doesn't care so much about the delivery site to said content unless the site is horrible to navigate through.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:17 PM on February 6, 2007

Why isn't this APOD post considered to be a double, triple or quadruple? [MI]

Because it was FUCKING AWESOME. What the shit is wrong with you!?
posted by loquacious at 2:18 PM on February 6, 2007

NASA knows I love the APOD

Enough to diaper-up and show them yourself? That's love, my man.
posted by joseph_elmhurst at 2:21 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Good content seems like an awfully low bar to waiving the no doubles policy.

Since when did the "no doubles policy" include the URL string of the server? We have flickr, nytimes, bbc, youtube, apple, and other sites mentioned all the time. A double post is exactly that -- the same thing was already posted before, either the same URL or the same story from a different site. Different photos once a year that happen to be on the same site doesn't make for a double post. It's not the same thing at all.

I don't know why this is so hard for you to get Mitheral.
posted by mathowie at 2:24 PM on February 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

Since I made a more or less rational post above:

Surrendering your sense of self to the shifting vortexes of the Unknown can be be at once terrifying and pleasurable, but there really is no other way.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:28 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I'm concerned that youtube was the blunt edge of the wedge that is going to see a proliferation of front page site repeats.

Doubles get deleted all the damn time. Your concern is a good one, but I think it's off target.
posted by cortex at 2:35 PM on February 6, 2007

What double Mitheral? I think you've lost the plot. APOD wasn't the single link post, a spectacular image or article on APOD was the post. It's kind of like a post from CNN or NPR. CNN or NPR isn't the post, the content of the article on CNN or NPR is.
posted by substrate at 2:38 PM on February 6, 2007

Close now?
posted by cgc373 at 2:41 PM on February 6, 2007

I fear Burhanistan. Many, many more YouTube links may be in the offing.
posted by cgc373 at 2:41 PM on February 6, 2007

If it was the blunt end of the wedge, then the worst is already over with, and it should taper off to nothing soon.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:46 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

MetaFilter: Good content seems like an awfully low bar to waiving the no doubles policy.
posted by potch at 2:49 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Close now?

No way! He hasn't even started cutting off his hand!
posted by loquacious at 2:50 PM on February 6, 2007

Me, I can't believe what passes for [more inside] these days.
posted by Partial Law at 2:51 PM on February 6, 2007

We shall overcome. Do you ever feel that your mind has started to erode?
posted by Burhanistan at 3:13 PM on February 6, 2007

You're killing me. Softly.
posted by loquacious at 3:19 PM on February 6, 2007

Mitheral— Ignore Matt's response on this and realize that in reality, it's because the moderation is inconsistent and when the quality of some content is really good, it doesn't really matter where it was found. That there are a lot of blogs that repeatedly post good stuff is an excellent point, as they're likely to be deleted if linked again, but in this case the exception is a small one and is justified. Arguing for absolutes in policies administered by humans, and especially here, is counterproductive.
posted by klangklangston at 3:31 PM on February 6, 2007

Gastronomy picture of the day.
posted by gigawhat? at 3:40 PM on February 6, 2007

The APOD Yeti horde is gonna ruin this place.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:41 PM on February 6, 2007

There must be order!
posted by smackfu at 3:42 PM on February 6, 2007

Pastrami, rye, spicy mustard, extra onions.
posted by loquacious at 3:57 PM on February 6, 2007

Mitheral— Ignore Matt's response on this and realize that in reality, it's because the moderation is inconsistent and when the quality of some content is really good, it doesn't really matter where it was found.

No klangklangston, the reality is that Mitheral is trying to expand the meaning of "double post" which literally means posting a link to the same page or story twice to include posting links to the same server. I said that it most definitely is not a double post in every sense of the word and that he is mistaken.

This isn't some fluffy throw-up-your-hands-because-they're-unpredictable-humans thing. It's a very basic definition of a term we use a lot around here. We delete 2-5 threads every day on MeFi because it's already been posted before, and this case wasn't one of them. I've being extremely consistent on what a double post means.
posted by mathowie at 3:59 PM on February 6, 2007

I've being extremely consistent on what a double post means.

Yep, you consistently call it axe-grinding when you delete stuff you're tired of seeing, not double-posting.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 4:09 PM on February 6, 2007

I think the problem is that some people just naturally desire rigid, clearly-defined rules or they have trouble operating. This reminds me of a similar MeTa post that asked some questions about rules recently from WCityMike who had a similar difficulty. Please understand, I'm not saying that either of you are stupid. I too sometimes get frustrated when there aren't clear lines. But you have to understand that here there really aren't any "rules", just trends/guidelines that are nebulous and have vague boundaries. You should try to stick to them in general, but often you just have to use your best judgment based on your opinion and what you've seen go on before.
I don't claim to be an expert on anything here as I was until a couple of years ago merely a lurker and am now an occasional commenter, but after reading things for a while you get a general sense of what the community and the admins feel is okay. People upthread are right: content is king. If you've got something really awesome, it often can bend the "rules", but not always, and especially if the presentation is poor. When posting, it seems like you should really take a look at what you're about to do and think:
1. Is this really something truly interesting, that hasn't been posted before, that's organized in an appealing, thoughtful way?
2. If you're unsure as to whether you're breaking the rules/customs, try to think of other threads you've seen. Some issues can bypass the normal MeFi no-nos (You-tube linkks, single-link posts, NewsFilter, Celebrity/EntertainmentFilter, doubles), but knowing that you're treading on dangerous ground should make you take extra care. Unfortunately, it really is vague and nebulous. What makes a post about the entertainment world vacuous, and what makes it brilliant? (Generally, if it falls towards gossipy "Brittany Spears got a new dog today" end, avoid it...) Also certain issues are tolerated much less than others (people are tired of yet another Iraq/abortion/religion/smoking/obesity/circumcision thread), so if you're posting about those, try really hard to find an angle or an aspect not yet seen, or don't post it.

If you evaluate your posts thusly and still feel that it passes these tests and can stand, then post away. I think doing this will help you to generally avoid deletion or controversy.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:11 PM on February 6, 2007

That there are a lot of blogs that repeatedly post good stuff is an excellent point, as they're likely to be deleted if linked again [...]

This is not even always the case:
1 2 3
Everyone loved #3, even though it was the third link to the same blog (within 3 months, no less). But it was cool content that hadn't been seen before.

Another example:
1 2
posted by Partial Law at 4:12 PM on February 6, 2007

Even if you admit Mitheral's point, which I don't the solution is simple. APOD always cites their sources so the post could have been:

Here's this great photo (found via APOD)

Same content but now, newer and more Mitheral proof!
posted by vacapinta at 4:25 PM on February 6, 2007

I think the problem is that some people just naturally desire rigid, clearly-defined rules or they have trouble operating.

What could be clearer than this:

"double post" [...] literally means posting a link to the same page or story twice
posted by timeistight at 4:27 PM on February 6, 2007

Honestly I thought posting the same site (admittedly an ill defined nebulously concept) or story rather than server was the definition of double. The policy you've clarified here is alot more liberal. Places like No Words, cellar ITOD (hey look it's the APOD beach image), and EPOD could generate an endless stream of amazing stuff.

As an aside APOD wasn't even necessary, the artist has a web presence featuring the beach pic.
posted by Mitheral at 4:29 PM on February 6, 2007

Must preview faster
posted by Mitheral at 4:30 PM on February 6, 2007

timeistight
But that's what I'm saying. You shouldn't take that as an absolute truth, because there are instances where some things are allowed. Hence, don't try to impose a rigid set of rules, just try to feel for what is the general consensus.
posted by Sangermaine at 4:31 PM on February 6, 2007

Places like No Words, cellar ITOD (hey look it's the APOD beach image), and EPOD could generate an endless stream of amazing stuff.

True, they could. But it has to be amazing stuff. It has to stand on its own regardless of whether there is an external site that is relevant.

In this sense, the APOD framing and URL is just metadata. Its not a double post because its not the same content.
posted by vacapinta at 4:37 PM on February 6, 2007

You shouldn't take that as an absolute truth, because there are instances where some things are allowed.

But I do take it as absolute truth. Show me an instance where a double (i.e., the same page or story) has been allowed.
posted by timeistight at 4:39 PM on February 6, 2007

The front page has been just chockers with high quality posts since before the last contest, and pretty consistently thereafter. I don't really think we're in any danger of sledding down the slippery slope that posting to new, excellent content on servers that have been linked before might present.

That said, a link to single picture, no matter how splendid, is maybe a wee bit weak. No harm done, though, I don't think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:42 PM on February 6, 2007

Mitheral is trying to expand the meaning of "double post"

I don't agree. You cited NYTimes and YouTube as examples of how URL alone doesn't constitute a double-post, and that's true — but the URL isn't the only factor, here. With NYTimes, you're posting an Op-Ed written by the Dalai Lama or an interview where Keith Jarrett bashes Wynton Marsalis or a series of articles about the Ten Commandments. With APOD, you're saying, "Hey, check out this cool astronomy picture. And check out this astronomy picture. Here's a cool astronomy picture. And here's another astronomy picture."

It's somewhat like posting a new FPP every time Penny Arcade makes me laugh. The content is different, right? Sure, it's still a funny comic about video games at the same URL — but it's a different comic about video games, just like these are different astronomy pictures.
posted by cribcage at 4:46 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Ironclad rules are for boneheads and children. Think about what you want to post, and use your discretion.

I mean, come on, for goodness sakes. What else really needs be said?
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:50 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

19 hours, pretty good for a weekday
posted by edgeways at 4:53 PM on February 6, 2007

They're not double posts because they're not the exact same image. Seems pretty obvious to me.

This post was deleted for the following reason: we have seen sandwichgirl here before.
posted by cillit bang at 4:56 PM on February 6, 2007

Ironclad rules are for boneheads and children.

Agreed, but irrelevant. Nobody's arguing about whether this should have been an exception. We're debating whether the rule applies at all.

What else really needs be said?

Well, we're all screwing around on the Internet instead of being productive, so none of this needs to be said — but if we're going to have an etiquette/policy category, then we might as well use it to discuss etiquette and policy.
posted by cribcage at 4:57 PM on February 6, 2007

Show me an instance where a double (i.e., the same page or story) has been allowed.

catscan! Screw the rules.
posted by smackfu at 4:58 PM on February 6, 2007

There has been an unspoken 1-year rule for allowed doubleposts of fine quality - even for identical items.

Whatever. Why are you tilting at this windmill, Mitheral? This place used to operate pretty good without very many rules, unspoken or otherwise and it's drowning in them now.

More certainty == less freedom.

That's about as plain as it gets. You either have a totally static, predictably moderated MetaFilter that's boring as all fuck, or you have a less predictable place that ruffles some feathers but is so interesting you'll forgo sleep for days to keep up with it.

Choose wisely.
posted by loquacious at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

Agreed, but irrelevant. [...] We're debating whether the rule applies at all.

Precisely the opposite of irrelevant. Some people want to argue about rules, I said that there's no need for rules, just a need for smart adults to act like smart adults and get on with it.

if we're going to have an etiquette/policy category, then we might as well use it to discuss etiquette and policy.

I know, I know, and have at it, if you must. But honestly, I don't see what's worth discussing in this case, particularly if some sort of outcome is expected. Discretion exercised by posters; discretion exercised by admins. If it's good (and sometimes, rarely, even if it is a double, as Matt has said before in the past) it stays.

Whatever, though: perhaps it's just me that doesn't see an issue. Carry on.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:13 PM on February 6, 2007

cat-scan!
posted by cortex at 5:20 PM on February 6, 2007

To support stavros, I believe in the earlier days Matt was even more liberal about self-links: Hey, if it was good stuff and your intentions seem to be good, then why not?

The point is that there are exceptions to every rule and that is what makes it all work beautifully as long as people exercise judgement. This applies to things like Law too where if you allow the judges to take into account that every case is different then justice is better served than arbitary BS like three-strikes laws.

If you start pointing the spotlight at exceptions and asking for consistency you might back Matt into a corner where he'll say: You know what? Fuck it. I'm tired of debating this. From now on, no X are allowed, ever.

The thing is, nobody gains by this.
posted by vacapinta at 5:23 PM on February 6, 2007

Ok. I've thought about this deeply, pondered the imponderables, spoken the vowel words and micurated the camel.

Here's the idea. We throw out all the rules and start over with new ones.

Rule Number One: STOP WHINING.

Ok, what's next?
posted by loquacious at 5:32 PM on February 6, 2007

Rule Number Two: Don't be a jerk.
posted by smackfu at 5:33 PM on February 6, 2007

These damn science links keep pushing the latest news about the Downing Street Memo right off the front page!
posted by LarryC at 5:39 PM on February 6, 2007

Rule Number Three: If you're going to whine or be a jerk, at least be ENTERTAINING.
posted by tkolar at 5:40 PM on February 6, 2007

Precisely the opposite of irrelevant. Some people want to argue about rules, I said that there's no need for rules, just a need for smart adults to act like smart adults and get on with it.

I don't understand that distinction. MetaFilter has lots of rules (most of them unspoken and almost none "ironclad" — don't post multi-paragraph FPPs, keep comments brief, bring complaints to MeTa, criticize the comment not the commenter, etc.) that establish the consistent, intelligent tone most of us enjoy, and it seems a bit of a cop-out to claim, "Those aren't 'rules' per se, that's just how smart people behave."

But there are two arguments, here. I agree with the first, that moderation is inconsistent and this was an okay exception; but that's irrelevant to the second, which is that APOD doesn't constitute a double-post. Mitheral thinks it does, and I agree. Why is it worth discussing? Because as Mitheral points out, double-posting is one of the few "ironclad" rules of MetaFilter. If there's confusion about the term's meaning, it would seem helpful to clarify.
posted by cribcage at 5:45 PM on February 6, 2007

for christ's sake, people, he already said that if it happens too often, then APOD posts will get the axe. this is the fourth one in the entire history of the site. it's not inconsistent moderation, it's precisely consistent with the same "i'll delete it if it looks like a problem" moderation we've always had.

the rules are flexible. if they were inflexible on a subject like this, that would be the inconsistency.

go to bed.
posted by shmegegge at 5:48 PM on February 6, 2007

it seems a bit of a cop-out to claim, "Those aren't 'rules' per se, that's just how smart people behave."

Well, OK, but I disagree. I'd say there are rules and there are accepted behavioural norms (which to a large extent grow organically from the natural interactions, discussions, and, yes, meta-discussions of the members of the site). Along the spectrum from 'clear and binding' down to 'generally understood as wise but lacking consensus', Metafilter has few to no items in the former direction and many in the latter. As (in my humble) it should be, even if it does make it hard for new users.

(But I would argue that such a structure has and always has encouraged new users to tread lightly, lurk a bit, try and figure out 'community standards', and that in doing so, they actually become more engaged in the site before they jump in, and so it's win-win for everyone -- less disruption to the hive, more investment in the site from new members who want to actively take part in the fun...)

Overdependance on 'clear and binding regulation' does everyone a disservice. In the cases of avoiding double posts, self-linking and ass-grabbery in AskMe (arguably just about the only three) I think there is a sufficient (and necessary) level of clarity and a sufficient (and necessary) level of flexibility.

I don't mind if you don't think that's the case, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:10 PM on February 6, 2007

Rule Number Four: Try email before MetaTalk. JFGI before email. Coffee before JFGI.
posted by jessamyn at 6:10 PM on February 6, 2007

Mmm. Coffee.
posted by loquacious at 6:13 PM on February 6, 2007

Hey, what does JFGI mean?
posted by loquacious at 6:16 PM on February 6, 2007

As a counterpoint to what I described above, I'd point to the (huge) SA Forums, which have a large and bewildering (to new members) array of sometimes-conflicting ironclad rules, violation of which you will get you probated or banned. This is in some ways the opposite of Metafilter, and it's not very pleasant.

I do think that a part of the reason that that is the way things are there (besides the younger average age) is that Lowtax actively seeks to milk maximum revenue out of his site and his userbase. Not that there's anything wrong with that in principle, but the way it plays out is a bit dodgy, I think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on February 6, 2007

"Jeez, Fussy Gastro-Intestinals!"

That's why it comes after coffee, see; and right before you email your proctologist.

If your proctologist is not available, you bring it to Metatalk.
posted by cortex at 6:18 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Poop^Poop?
posted by loquacious at 6:33 PM on February 6, 2007

I've got my own personal rule of thumb for evaluating double postingness.

A post where I think "oh, I've seen that before" is a double post.

The post in question here made me think "whoa, that's a cool photo", and thus not a double.

Is it really more complex than that?
posted by xiojason at 6:35 PM on February 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

Why is MetaTalk post considered to be a double/triple/ad infinitum? It is yet another whinge about something that simply isn't a problem, same as about 3/4s of MeTa posts.

I yearn for the day when the internets give me the ability to deliver a smack upside the head to whiners. Oh, the fun I shall have!
posted by five fresh fish at 6:37 PM on February 6, 2007

(something deep inside of me knew this would be MeTa'd)

I knew that APOD itself had to be a double, but the picture itself wasn't and I wanted to share it as the best of the web for the reason languagehat mentioned: so other members that might not see it would.

In retrospect, I would have rather posted a link to the photographer's site with a via APOD, as vacapinta suggested.

But I think I'll also take Skorgu's suggestion and make it a multi-monitor background. Because that would be the shit.
posted by ztdavis at 6:42 PM on February 6, 2007

#4281 +(24246)- [X]
[Zybl0re] get up
[Zybl0re] get on up
[Zybl0re] get up
[Zybl0re] get on up
[phxl|paper] and DANCE
* nmp3bot dances :D-<
* nmp3bot dances :D|-<
* nmp3bot dances :D/-<
[[SA]HatfulOfHollow] i'm going to become rich and famous after i invent a device that allows you to stab people in the face over the internet
posted by loquacious at 7:11 PM on February 6, 2007

cribcage summed up my hypothetical concern better than I did and Matt has said he's fine with that happening occasionally so I'm OK with it to. It's not what I thought the guideline was but it's hardly the first time I've been mistaken and I doubt it'll be the last either.

jessamyn writes "Rule Number Four: Try email before MetaTalk."

I've tried emailing Matt three times to get my ridiculously weak password changed, apparently there is some kind of SMTP black hole between him and me.
posted by Mitheral at 7:22 PM on February 6, 2007

Pastrami, rye, spicy mustard, extra onions.

del.fucking.icio.us. Add melty swiss+macaroni salad and that was my dinner. GET OUT OF MY HEAD LOQUACIOUS
posted by Kwine at 7:38 PM on February 6, 2007

In Mongolia this crazy nomad who was once a distinguished leader of a monastery taught me a neat trick to short circuit my navel with my crown chakra using a length of stripped phone cord and a magnet from a shoddy old Russian television.
posted by Burhanistan at 7:41 PM on February 6, 2007

I've tried emailing Matt three times to get my ridiculously weak password changed, apparently there is some kind of SMTP black hole between him and me.

Email or IM me and I can do it.
posted by jessamyn at 7:41 PM on February 6, 2007

I'm concerned that youtube was the blunt edge of the wedge that is going to see a proliferation of front page site repeats. Besides self linking the no doubles was the only bright line rule we had and that seems to be softening.

incinerated japanese babies and all of darfur wring thier hands in a frenzy of harrowing misgivings about precisely this scenario.
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on February 6, 2007

B-han:
You are my new Personal God!
posted by Dizzy at 8:04 PM on February 6, 2007

I can't believe this is the post that ruins a day free from MetaTalk posts. I can't believe it.

It seems that for all the comments I've seen to this effect, someone should have noticed (it wasn't even that long ago).

Ladies and gentlemen, I give you November 11, 2006 (PST).
posted by malocchio at 8:07 PM on February 6, 2007

Ah, Dizzy at best I'm a foggy window.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:24 PM on February 6, 2007

Sweet!

*Gets ready Webshots photo of the day post*
posted by dreamsign at 12:59 AM on February 7, 2007

If I'm not misremembering, malocchio, the whole site was down that day for basically the whole day, and so, it wasn't counted as the Fabled and Foretold Day of What We Devoutly Hope Will Be Free From MeTa.
posted by cgc373 at 5:44 AM on February 7, 2007

the second, which is that APOD doesn't constitute a double-post. Mitheral thinks it does, and I agree.

But you're both wrong. As Matt very clearly explained. A double post would be a second post to the same photo. A link to a site that's been linked before is not in any sense a double post. Why is this so hard to understand?
posted by languagehat at 5:59 AM on February 7, 2007

Why is this so hard to understand?

Because people (dios comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others) have argued certain topics (and the sites those topics are featured on) should be deleted for "essentially" being doubles, and Matt has never come out as strongly against those arguments as he has here against Mitheral.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:16 AM on February 7, 2007

No, that's completely different. Sure, certain topics have been done to death, and I've been among those who have suggested deletion for new posts on them that don't do anything but provide further opportunities for the same people to argue the same points (I/P, religion, etc.), but that has nothing to do with double posting. Double posts are posts to the same thing, the same picture or news story or whatever. (Not necessarily the same URL, and lots of double posts have been caused because the URL on the old post was different.)
posted by languagehat at 6:29 AM on February 7, 2007

Yes, it's all dios's fault. Let's talk about editing now.
posted by Roger Dodger at 6:32 AM on February 7, 2007

Semicolons are the tool of the devil, and those who deploy them should be shot.
posted by cortex at 6:35 AM on February 7, 2007

cortex's secret agenda is now revealed before us all!
posted by cgc373 at 6:36 AM on February 7, 2007

No, that's completely different.

Correct. I'm just suggesting that may be a source of confusion.

Yes, it's all dios's fault.

I said nothing of the sort.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:39 AM on February 7, 2007

This must be what I'm thinking of. There is some discussion of the definition of a double, but mathowie does not weigh in.
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:52 AM on February 7, 2007

Cortex, you have been kicked out of my imagination forever now. Bastard.
posted by dame at 6:53 AM on February 7, 2007

Correct. I'm just suggesting that may be a source of confusion.

Gotcha. We're in agreement, then.

dame, perhaps you meant to say:

"Cortex, you are a bastard; you have been kicked out of my imagination forever now."
posted by languagehat at 7:04 AM on February 7, 2007

No way, languagehat; dame had to mean "cortex, you are a bastard; you have been kicked out..." etc. You know, for capitalization.
posted by cgc373 at 7:19 AM on February 7, 2007

cortex taught me how to code this—SO BACK OFF!

"this" being the em dash.
posted by Mister_A at 7:26 AM on February 7, 2007

If I'm not misremembering, malocchio, the whole site was down that day for basically the whole day, and so, it wasn't counted as the Fabled and Foretold Day of What We Devoutly Hope Will Be Free From MeTa.

I was getting ready to hang my head in shame, but then I remebered my cardinal rule: never admit to being wrong. So I checked: there were 18 posts to the blue, and the usual amount of volume in AskMe, all posted pretty much throughout the day.

*sighs*

What has become of us, when our greatest dreams come to pass, and yet we fail to even notice?
posted by malocchio at 7:36 AM on February 7, 2007

If you were to use a Mac, Mister_A, you wouldn't have to "code" it. Did cortex teach you to be a savage too?

I hate cortex; he makes me sad. I love languagehat; he is the best.
posted by dame at 7:40 AM on February 7, 2007

The em dash is pointy and manly, like me. Semicolons are fine for discussions of kitty-cats, daffodils, and fluffy clouds.
posted by Mister_A at 7:54 AM on February 7, 2007

Oh, wait a minute, I think I had a typo up there. Let me try again:

MLM scams are the tool of the devil, and those who deploy them should be shot.

If you were to use a Mac, Mister_A, you wouldn't have to "code" it. Did cortex teach you to be a savage too?

First against the wall, Macster; your candied interfaces will afford you nothing in the grim landscape of near-future post-apocalypse.
posted by cortex at 7:54 AM on February 7, 2007

Crap, malocchio; you're totally right about November 11, 2006. If I'm mapping the event onto another day, it's not easily found, and regardless, I am now abashed and stand corrected.

But where's the commemoration? Where is the love? If our dreams have come, and gone, and we've neglected them, who are we now? What sad remnants do I now behold of once-mighty MetaTalkers?
posted by cgc373 at 8:06 AM on February 7, 2007

your candied interfaces will afford you nothing in the grim landscape of near-future post-apocalypse

They are the only thing that can help me forget the pain: my interfaces and my iPod. Happiness is a cool white plastic gun.
posted by dame at 8:20 AM on February 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

*sniff*

Aww, now I feel bad about that kitty-cat crack; here's a tissue, dame. See, I used a semicolon there and everything.
posted by Mister_A at 8:26 AM on February 7, 2007

cgc373, I think we need to officially recognize 11-Nov as MeTArmistice day in the future. If not for ourselves (for I fear it is already too late for us), then most assuredly for the children. And countless generations of Mefites to come.

11-11-06...never forget!
posted by malocchio at 8:47 AM on February 7, 2007

Aw, thanks Mister_A; I am renewed. In emails though, cortex said he hoped I was disfigured. Isn't that mean?
posted by dame at 8:58 AM on February 7, 2007

dame, I think it has been established through his continued hectoring vis-a-vis punctuation that cortex is, in every way it's possible to be mean, in fact, mean. A mean meanypuss of meanininity. So mean it makes me meaner just to consider how mean he is.

Please stop being mean, cortex? It's just a website.
posted by cgc373 at 9:03 AM on February 7, 2007

*punches cgc373, steals lunch money*
posted by cortex at 9:13 AM on February 7, 2007

Gah!
posted by cgc373 at 9:15 AM on February 7, 2007

*hunts for admins' email addresses to tattle*
posted by cgc373 at 9:17 AM on February 7, 2007

*hacks into cgc373's email account, sends abusive messages to admins*
posted by cortex at 9:22 AM on February 7, 2007

GAH!
posted by cgc373 at 9:27 AM on February 7, 2007

*shows belly; begs mercy*
















*but secretly nurses plans for vengeance*
posted by cgc373 at 9:29 AM on February 7, 2007

*tickles belly*
posted by dame at 9:39 AM on February 7, 2007

<GAH>
*laughs, cries*
</GAH>
posted by cgc373 at 9:42 AM on February 7, 2007

*laughs, tents fingers, commences plotting*
posted by dame at 9:51 AM on February 7, 2007

*eats, shoots and leaves*


I'm sorry, someone just left it on my desk
posted by Mister_A at 9:52 AM on February 7, 2007

I read this thread and I'm left thinking, "So THIS is why we have lawyers..."
posted by Deoridhe at 11:45 AM on February 7, 2007

You people need to calm down and go bake a pie.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:56 PM on February 7, 2007

Didn't we have another day without Meta since November 11? The 24+ hours were just broken over two PST days.

and hosted from Uranus writes "(dios comes to mind, but I'm sure there are others)"

The talk about dios tweaked my memory for another discussion on same site, different articles doubles. Careful attention reveals that Matt didn't squash dios second post (third if you count monju_bosatsu's) to the same site because it was a double.
posted by Mitheral at 7:24 AM on February 8, 2007