Join 3,512 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)

Closed for archive on the same day?
March 18, 2007 7:55 PM   Subscribe

Why is this thread closed for new comments? A rather interesting discussion was brewing on desirability vs. feasibility.
posted by effugas to Etiquette/Policy at 7:55 PM (47 comments total)

This post was deleted for the following reason: LOL OPPONENTS - there's enough good stuff out there without trotting out wingnuts to play-argue with. -- jessamyn
posted by jmd82 at 8:04 PM on March 18, 2007


Closed for archive on the same day?

Probably just some glitch with daylight savings. The clock is off by one hour and thirty days or something.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:08 PM on March 18, 2007


Hurm. Guess I haven't been on the collateral damage side of quality control before. I have to admit, it does discourage posting, whether or not the deletion was justified. Maybe "deleted" threads should just go off the front page, but remain for users who had already posted to the thread, with a "removed from front page" comment for people still discussing the matter?

(For what it's worth, the entire story of the global warming debate is that that the problem is not scientific but political. Ignoring the wingnuts is quite literally ignoring the problem, and then wondering why it isn't solving itself now that we have this nice clear scientific consensus. Not to continue the thread in here -- more to illustrate that nuking a thread for being poor scientifically may not be helpful, when the mere existence of bad science is interesting in and of itself.)
posted by effugas at 8:23 PM on March 18, 2007


That's what deleted threads say on the bottom. It's not closed, it's deleted. I realize the difference may seem nitpicky but "closed" is what happens automatically after 30 days and "deleted" is what happens when that window is shortened through admin intervention.

Basically the thread was just pointing out a discredited there-is-no-global-warming documentary just to (and I quote) "show how silly the opponents are." A lot of the comments were of the "fap fap fap" variety and I didn't really see the thread changing from a "your favorite scientist sucks" thread into anything else. So, in short: flags + lame link + thread-o-noise = archiving 29 days early.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:24 PM on March 18, 2007


I didn't find the video (well I have only gotten through 25:21 of it so far) any more wingnutty than Al Gore's "documentary". At the point where I am they got Carl Wunsch, author of "The Ocean Circulation Inverse Problem", the definitive textbook. He has forgotten more about climate modeling than Al Gore is ever going to learn.

And he probably knows more about it than anybody who has ever posted on metafilter.
posted by bukvich at 8:35 PM on March 18, 2007


Jessamyn--

This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments

Nitpick all you want -- I was just quoting the Metafilter UI, which (at the time I made the post) gave me no clue at all why I couldn't respond.

I see your perspective, particularly given bb's rather inflammatory justification. I do think there was quite a bit of signal brewing in that thread; people were starting to discuss the politics of global warming denial, which cannot be done without seeing some of the more ridiculous things going on.

Good science is not enough. It worked for public health only because the causality was so clear and so localized. Global warming allows for neither, and thus we're going to have to suffer with Mr. Durkin's kind. (I can imagine another FPP that might explore this matter more directly; would it survive?)
posted by effugas at 8:39 PM on March 18, 2007


That's what deleted threads say on the bottom. It's not closed, it's deleted.

For the sake of clarity, maybe deleted threads should be annotated with a different archival message so as not to be confused with the 30-day closings?
posted by jmd82 at 8:39 PM on March 18, 2007


maybe deleted threads should be annotated with a different archival message

It's not a bad idea, though I believe this is the first time I've ever seen anyone confused by it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:48 PM on March 18, 2007


Apropos of nothing in particular, I heard a hilarious comment from an AM talk radio-loving acquaintance recently:

"It's not the scientific consensus; it's just the scientists' consensus."

Straight outta Limbaugh, I'm sure.
posted by mediareport at 8:51 PM on March 18, 2007


Nitpick all you want -- I was just quoting the Metafilter UI, which (at the time I made the post) gave me no clue at all why I couldn't respond.

There's also the big box at the top that starts with "This post was deleted for the following reason:" followed by the reason it was deleted.
posted by puke & cry at 9:16 PM on March 18, 2007


I would like to see deleted threads stay open. Or to see two different types of deletion one "removed from the front page" and another "removed and thread closed" Obviously it would suck to have to moderated deleted threads, but if a good discussion gets going I think it should be allowed to continue.
posted by delmoi at 9:18 PM on March 18, 2007


(jessamyn, I apologize for this)

bukvich,

Are you trying to be impartial? I guess you are not (wingnut? "documentary"?). Just in the hopes that I am wrong and you are not an idiotic sorry case of troll perhaps you want to read this? First sentence, punchline. So easy.
Carl Wunsch has commented on the the tactics the producers used and how his contribution was taken out of context:

There is nothing in the communication we had (much of it on the telephone or with the film crew on the day they were in Boston) that suggested they were making a film that was one-sided, anti-educational, and misleading. I took them at face value---clearly a great error. I knew I had no control over the actual content, but it never occurred to me that I was dealing with people who already had a reputation for distortion and exaggeration.
posted by carmina at 9:34 PM on March 18, 2007


Unless this is a double, I can't see how this is any more deletion-worthy than, say, the latest YouTube videos of masturbating monkeys.

There's a lot to say about global warming lately; MetaFilter thread seems as good a place to say it as anywhere else.
posted by ikkyu2 at 9:59 PM on March 18, 2007


jessamyn : archiving 29 days early.

I have no dog in the fight as I didn't see the post before it went away, but let me compliment you on this nice turn of phrase as a euphemism for having to delete a thread. It made me chuckle.
posted by quin at 10:03 PM on March 18, 2007


I disagree with this deletion, although I understand the logic behind it. Don't fear the enemy. Debate and overcome the enemy.
posted by caddis at 10:10 PM on March 18, 2007


It's not fearing the enemy. It's whether we're going to have the same abortion/circumcision/declawing arguments over and over again and whether anything is gained by starting off with a post that is designed to be a caricature of one of the "sides" (if you believe there are true sides, as opposed to scientists v. people with something to lose) of one of those arguments. Or put another way, I agree with ikkyu2 in general, but not about this thread in specific. Just because you like the topic doesn't make it a good post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:25 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


There's a lot to say about global warming lately; MetaFilter thread seems as good a place to say it as anywhere else.

I believe we used to call that, back in the good ol' days, "GYOBFW."

Mefi has become discussion-filter.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:27 PM on March 18, 2007


Well, Jess, it seems like you are trying to avoid the contentious subjects. That doesn't seem right to me. Yes, this is a one sided propaganda piece, but it is one which will be touted by the conservatives and so it seems there is some value in exploring its weaknesses. Whatever. Inclusion beats exclusion 99% of the time, don't forget.
posted by caddis at 10:32 PM on March 18, 2007


There's also the big box at the top that starts with "This post was deleted for the following reason:" followed by the reason it was deleted.

In fairness to the OP, I'm pretty sure that when you try to hit post right after something is deleted you get sent to the bottom of the page and the archival message, and it is pretty easy not to think to scroll up. The solution might actually be just to not send the browser to the bottom of the thread (I'm not sure why it would do that even).
posted by advil at 10:44 PM on March 18, 2007


The thread and links were actually interesting. It shouldn't have been closed, IMHO.
posted by homunculus at 10:48 PM on March 18, 2007


...I believe this is the first time I've ever seen anyone confused by it.

I can see it, posting a comment in your own thread then refreshing to check responses. The thread refreshes on the #comment anchor down at the bottom and all you get is the archival message, no comment box, and the deletion reason out of sight upscreen.

What about deletion notices at the top and bottom?
posted by carsonb at 11:11 PM on March 18, 2007


The tread was a tedious rehash of old never-ending arguments with new looking veneer and should have been imploded in place of the Stardust. What new can be said? This is like trowing up whatever latest iteration the ID crowd has come up and saying because it is a new form of shit it should be discussed and taken seriously. good fucking riddance.
posted by edgeways at 11:14 PM on March 18, 2007


Well, Jess, it seems like you are trying to avoid the contentious subjects. That doesn't seem right to me.

Nope, we're shooting for interesting stuff on the web first and foremost. Contentious subjects become contentious when someone links to something opinionated and it turns into a train wreck and then someone comes along a week later and a month later, and three months later and also posts about the same subject, merely to bring it up again so we can rehash the same old arguments.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:30 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


mathowie, you sounded exactly like dios in that last comment. It was eerie.
posted by cgc373 at 11:34 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]


Shit. I don't mean to make this about dios. I should probably keep my keyboard covered.
posted by cgc373 at 11:36 PM on March 18, 2007


I'm a bit disappointed, because what really surprised me was that Channel 4 actually produced this documentary (as opposed to simply airing it, which still would have surprised me), as I have always been under the impression that Channel 4 was a reputable organization similar to PBS in the U.S. - and I would have loved to hear from some Brits about that aspect of it.
posted by taz at 12:01 AM on March 19, 2007


I'm a bit disappointed, because what really surprised me was that Channel 4 actually produced this documentary (as opposed to simply airing it, which still would have surprised me)

They didn't, it was produced by Wag TV (who seem to veer wildly from making sensationalist pap to decent documentary/travelogue programmes).

As for airing it, Channel 4 tend to be quite keen on contrarian/alternative/polemical documentaries, which isn't always a bad thing.
posted by jack_mo at 3:03 AM on March 19, 2007


The thread was worth it for this comment
posted by afu at 4:19 AM on March 19, 2007


Ah! Thanks, jack_mo; the post read "produced by Channel 4" so I was confused, and thought that Channel 4 might have actually funded the production.

Interesting, though... I found this article ("Channel 4 savaged by television watchdog over green stitch-up") about an earlier (different) anti-environmentalism Channel 4 airing also by the same film-maker (Martin Durkin) that begins, "Friends of the Earth has welcomed today's devastating ruling by the Independent Television Commission (ITC) over Channel 4's anti-green series “Against Nature”. Following the ruling, Channel 4 are to be forced to issue on-screen apologies to the Campaigns Director of Friends of the Earth,Tony Juniper, and three other environmentalists." (Apparently, creative editing of footage misrepresented interviewees, something that has also been charged about this production.)

"The Independent" commented today, saying, "Martin Durkin, for his part, achieved notoriety when his previous series on the environment for the channel, called Against Nature , was roundly condemned by the Independent Television Commission for misleading contributors on the purpose of the programmes, and for editing four interviewees in a way that "distorted or mispresented their known views".

Channel 4 was forced to issue a humiliating apology. But it seems to have forgiven Mr Durkin and sees no need to make special checks on the accuracy of the programme*."

* referring to "Swindle"

wtf, Channel 4?
posted by taz at 4:36 AM on March 19, 2007


There's also the big box at the top that starts with "This post was deleted for the following reason:" followed by the reason it was deleted.

As a few others have said already: some people, when following a thread, click on the timestamp of the last comment and refresh the page. If they do they will see the closed/archived comment and not the deletion message. Echoing the deletion message at the bottom would help this confusion.
posted by terrapin at 4:44 AM on March 19, 2007


I'M TALKING ABOUT SCIENCE!
posted by loquacious at 4:48 AM on March 19, 2007


HAPPY MONDAY EVERYONE WELCOME TO WORK
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:35 AM on March 19, 2007


Global warming is about as contentious on MeFi as LOL BUSH SUCKS.
posted by smackfu at 6:17 AM on March 19, 2007


If they do they will see the closed/archived comment and not the deletion message.

I agree with the suggestion to make the bottom of deleted threads more explicit about their deletedness, and realize this is basically a response to jess' suggestion that we haven't heard about confusion on this before, but, really: scroll up.

It's an uncommon enough case that I'd like to think that maybe blinking and looking a bit more carefully at the thread would be the common sense move. But then it's hard to look at it through fresh eyes, I'll admit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:35 AM on March 19, 2007


Generally when I writing up a flamebait, or responding to one in a contentious Newsfilter post, and I take too long to hit the "submit" button, I have a pretty good idea of why I'm seeing the "archived" message at the bottom. Though sometimes it makes me sad, like when I composed a really great limerick that my browser then swallowed.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:14 AM on March 19, 2007


Only Durkin and the RCP make that thread at all interesting. I wonder if they inspired the lefties-turned-anarcho-capitalists in Ken MacLeod's novels.
posted by octobersurprise at 7:16 AM on March 19, 2007


Wait, Bush sucks?? WTF? Sorry, I missed that memo. Can someone forward it along to me in an inter-office thingy? kthxbye.
posted by nevercalm at 7:29 AM on March 19, 2007


You're a bunch of tards.
posted by Burhanistan at 8:06 AM on March 19, 2007


nevercalm---
I'd like to send you my entire collection of "Try For Free 1000 Hours Of AOL" CDs.
I think they're Amiga-compatible.
CUL8R!
posted by Dizzy at 8:08 AM on March 19, 2007


B-Han--
A PRIDE of Lions.
A MURDER of Crows.
An ASKME of Tards.
posted by Dizzy at 8:10 AM on March 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


"Inclusion beats exclusion 99% of the time, don't forget."

You seem to have mistaken MetaFilter for MetaEverythingWithURLs.
posted by klangklangston at 8:34 AM on March 19, 2007 [2 favorites]


OK Diz, I'll take 'em. I make wall murals out of them for $10,000 a pop. You'll help replenish my stock.

And besides, I already have AOL on my Amiga.
posted by nevercalm at 9:48 AM on March 19, 2007


Oh come on. If you see that a thread is archived, and you know the site well enough to know that doesn't happen unless it's 30 days old, then you should also know well enough that if it happens before 30 days, it's a deletion. Or something. Pretend you have to hunt for clues. Scroll up.
posted by Iamtherealme at 12:30 PM on March 19, 2007


You seem to have mistaken MetaFilter for MetaEverythingWithURLs.

Yes, less of the Meta and more of the Filter, please.
posted by Devils Rancher at 1:04 PM on March 19, 2007


can this callout be for real?

I mean, a basic and almost total failure to understand the nature of one of the site's most common administration tools from a 10k user?! for real?
posted by shmegegge at 4:00 PM on March 19, 2007


Shmegegge--

*shrugs*

I guess some of us see more of our threads deleted than others.

For real.

Anyway, not that big a deal either way. I certainly can't fault Jessamyn's position, inconvenient or otherwise.
posted by effugas at 8:29 PM on March 19, 2007


Maybe the site name should be changed from "MetaFilter" to "FilterFilter" or "Please,Please,OhGodPlease,Filter". Though I suspect some folks might still get confused.
posted by Bugbread at 6:21 AM on March 21, 2007


« Older City of the Big Shoulders MeFi...  |  New York meet-up photos, if yo... Newer »

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