If this trend continues, by July the Blue will be nothing but links to viral ads.
Can we throw something on the posting guidelines page or something, asking people to think twice before they post that awesome link to the video with the cars going up and down the vert ramp, or whatever next inanity happens to capture someone's easily-amused eye? posted by BeerFilter at 7:40 AM on June 8, 2007
Well, sometimes they are. I don't much like the posts that are a link to one ad, though. Somebody collects a bunch of good ones, especially if there's some kind of theme - that's worthwhile. posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:52 AM on June 8, 2007
One should try to avoid looking at advertising as much as possible. Even if a person thinks he is strong and willful and not influenced by consumerist propaganda and can simply just find it amusing in an ironic way, the advertising is still doing its work underneath the surface. Look away, friends. posted by Burhanistan at 7:59 AM on June 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Oh, christcocksuckerpickleshitfuckfuckfuck. We've gone over this eight-million times here on MetaTalk. Ads are okay posts if they're worth posting. If they're not, they're not. Usually they're not. Occasionally they are. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:05 AM on June 8, 2007
To stop those monsters 1-2-3, Here's a fresh new way that's trouble-free, It's got Paul Anka's guarantee... (Guarantee void in Tennessee.) Just don't look!
Can we do the ones about Christians and fat people next? posted by Greg Nog at 8:07 AM on June 8, 2007
I don't remember precisely what I said the last time we had this exact same discussion, or the time before that, but if anyone wants my input they can just go back to one of those and check. posted by ND¢ at 8:10 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Oh. I thought you were joking about the beer thing. Because, well... you know.
Unless this is part of the joke... posted by crackingdes at 8:12 AM on June 8, 2007
I tend to believe that ads should be held to a higher standard, and would likely have deleted most of those. But I also recognize that this topic invites intractable rancor for a variety of reasons (from the "Deletions is censorship" crowd to those who liked whatever ad to those who feel that every decision should be based on axiomatic principles). posted by klangklangston at 8:13 AM on June 8, 2007
Anybody have any videos of themselves riding a luck dragon? posted by ND¢ at 8:13 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
AN ALARMING TREND!
Is the end near? You say July, but I'm guessing that the four horsemen of the metapocalypse are nigher than that. posted by kosem at 8:17 AM on June 8, 2007 [2 favorites]
Can we... [ask] people to think twice before they post that awesome link to...whatever next inanity happens to capture someone's easily-amused eye?
If this is the gist of your request, why limit it to adverts? Your favorite inanity sucks, video or not, and is cluttering the front page. Now if you'll excuse me, I'm off to find my next favorite slightly stupid early 20th century scholarly journal article and post it to the front page. Fuck this video shit. Fuck it right in the eye. posted by carsonb at 8:18 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Haha. Fine. Consider me sufficiently chastised. Pulled the trigger on MeTa instead of reading through older threads. Lord knows no one else ever acts impulsively around here from time to time.
But this shit's getting more frequent. It lowers the SNR, makes the site less valuable. Sorry for caring. TTYL. posted by BeerFilter at 8:21 AM on June 8, 2007
Can we throw something on the posting guidelines page or something, asking people to think twice before they post that awesome link to the video with the cars going up and down the vert ramp, or whatever next inanity happens to capture someone's easily-amused eye?
"Note: You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to whatever inanity you easily-amused proles think is funny this nanosecond will result in some morally-superior asshole strutting about in MetaTalk under the mistaken impression anyone cares about his hippy teenage bullshit."
Oh c'mon, don't give up now! How about this: did you know there are advertisements on Metafilter itself?! Sometimes you see 'em even if you're logged in! Once there was even an ad for AT&T! posted by mullacc at 8:28 AM on June 8, 2007
But this shit's getting more frequent.
That's kind of the crux of the thing: it might be getting more frequent, but it might just be a bump, and I'm not convinced it isn't the latter. The sunglasses post and its ensuing metatalk thread shot the issue into a state of high visibility, and all four of the proceeding posts you linked have some sort comment from the poster on the subject. I get the feeling that sort of self-awareness is driving the recent stuff.
If it really keeps growing and getting out of control, that'll be a worry, but I'm not sure the problem is really that big right now, and there's nothing absolutely forbidden about linking to a clever ad in good faith. The shitty ones will get flagged to death and deleted, the decent ones not so much. posted by cortex(staff) at 8:29 AM on June 8, 2007
As much as I hate seeing the ads, too, it's inevitable. Thanks to DVRs and the internet, advertisers have lost lots of eyeballs, and they will have their way, one way or another. They've got the money and the people with the ingenuity to come up with the catchy little videos that are so easy to link to on youtube or whatever other site. It's only really, really a problem here when the person posting it is doing it for personal gain. In all of the cases you cited, that's almost surely not the case, so all we can do is grumble about it. posted by Dave Faris at 8:45 AM on June 8, 2007
The Federalist Papers were an advertisement for this document people were shopping around. No one should ever link to the Federalist Papers.
Hell, the vast majority of political threads are nothing more than advertisements for a politician/ideology. posted by dios at 8:45 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
I totally agree. Ads suck.
Ok, I'm off to my advertising job now. Wheee. posted by miss lynnster at 8:50 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sorry for caring. TTYL.
Oh c'mon, you can do better than that. posted by joseph_elmhurst at 8:57 AM on June 8, 2007
Well since he gave up, can we talk about the potty mouth issue? I mean seriously, some of you need to have your keyboards washed out with soap! posted by Big_B at 8:57 AM on June 8, 2007
Remember the old Little Caesar's ads? (Pizza pizza? Pan pan.) posted by Tuwa at 8:58 AM on June 8, 2007
It lowers the SNR, makes the site less valuable.
Whiny, question-begging, self-righteous blowhards who think that everyone needs to be protected from advertising make the site less valuable, too. posted by 23skidoo at 9:00 AM on June 8, 2007
BeerFilter: "But this shit's getting more frequent. It lowers the SNR, makes the site less valuable. Sorry for caring."
No it isn't. No it doesn't. No you're not. posted by Plutor at 9:20 AM on June 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
If this trend continues, by July the Blue will be nothing but links to viral ads.
As I'm sure you spent much time plotting the info points and charting this data, I demand to see the resulting graph, complete with the trend lien, showing us how you arrived at this startling calculation. Otherwise this is, you know, pretty damn whiny sounding. posted by piratebowling at 9:21 AM on June 8, 2007
Bravo for the grocers' apostrophe. posted by Tuwa at 9:28 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
Don't you mean the grocers' "apostrophe"?
I'm tired of seeing ads linked on Metafilter. posted by Nelson at 9:30 AM on June 8, 2007
Don't you mean the grocer's apostrophe? I didn't know there was more than one of them abusing it simultaneously. Hmm. posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:41 AM on June 8, 2007
Metafilter: Shoot the messenger. posted by googly at 9:43 AM on June 8, 2007
Metafilter: Shoot the messenger.
but first, BASH HIS HEAD WITH A SHOVEL!!!!!! posted by quonsar at 9:45 AM on June 8, 2007
Wikipedia seems to favor "greengrocers' (or grocers') apostrophe". Unless one of y'all want to go change it. posted by hermitosis at 9:46 AM on June 8, 2007
“Don't you mean the grocer's apostrophe? I didn't know there was more than one of them abusing it simultaneously.”
I think it's arguably “correct” either way. The plural possessive seems right if the idea is that it's a sort of collective error common to all grocers1.
1. Which of course it isn't—but the whole concept is whimsical hyperbole anyway. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:49 AM on June 8, 2007
I had it grocer's apostrophe then decided to google it; they have it 948 to 126,000 in favor of the collective. posted by Tuwa at 9:53 AM on June 8, 2007
Metafilter: Shoot the messenger. next person who complains about viral ads. posted by 23skidoo at 9:53 AM on June 8, 2007
Right, so if it's "grocers' apostrophe," the plural, right, is "grocers's apostrophe," since you always add the "apostrophe 's'" when you pluralize words ending in "s"? God I hate when people screw that up. posted by kosem at 10:18 AM on June 8, 2007
burma shave
If you read all my posts together in chronological order they become an ad for a popular floor wax. posted by carsonb at 10:22 AM on June 8, 2007
carsonb: that's odd. I read them all together, and the seemed to advertise a dessert topping of some sort. posted by boo_radley at 10:28 AM on June 8, 2007 [1 favorite]
“Right, so if it's ‘grocers' apostrophe,’ the plural, right, is ‘grocers's apostrophe,’ since you always add the ‘apostrophe 's’" when you pluralize words ending in ‘s’? God I hate when people screw that up.”
What now? I can't figure out what you're saying.
Plural possessives whose non-possessive plural ends with the letter s just take a final apostrophe to indicate the possessive. Possessive singular nouns which end in the letter smay follow the plural rule or may take an apostrophe followed by another letter s. The choice for singulars is a varying stylistic choice—follow your preferred style guide's advice in general and especially where it specifies a preferred form for particular words.
My personal preference is to generally avoid the plural form for singulars, except in the case of a few very widely recognized exceptions (“ Socrates' ”), and to use speech as a guide when in doubt. I think most people pronounce both esses for most possessive forms of singular nouns which end in the letter s. posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:35 AM on June 8, 2007
I make joke's, EB. posted by kosem at 10:39 AM on June 8, 2007
Big_B, what's the best soap to use - castile or saddle? posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:44 AM on June 8, 2007
We've already seen the Best of the Web and now we're bored with it. Now it's time for the Rest of the Web. posted by RussHy at 10:52 AM on June 8, 2007
I'm not a huge fan of ads (And agree with Kirth Gerson) but to me saying "No Ads Evar!" is as silly as saying "No Newfilter Evar!". If it's good, engaging or interesting content, fine. If not, it'll be ignored or deleted.
Good content is good content, and the folks who have a kneejerk No LogoTM-approved fit over a thirty second video advert regardless of how funny or well-made it is, simply because it's *gasp* a commercial, look intellectually lazy. For example, the Oprah Winfrey/Cormac McCarthy interview is just as much an ad as any of the FPPs linked in this MeTa, why isn't it included? posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:02 AM on June 8, 2007
Ads CAN BE the best of the web. Just because they're associated with money doesn't make them evil. That being said, usually ads suck. posted by blue_beetle at 11:03 AM on June 8, 2007
Hell, the vast majority of political threads are nothing more than advertisements for a politician/ideology.
I know you're being sarcastic. But I'm not. No more politics threads. Please. posted by GuyZero at 11:06 AM on June 8, 2007
OK, as long as we're complaining about types of posts I'm going to throw in against This-style mysterymeatposts. I could give a roaring fuck whether you post ads or not, just tell me what's on the other end of that link, please. posted by carsonb at 11:21 AM on June 8, 2007 [3 favorites]
Big_B : Well since he gave up, can we talk about the potty mouth issue? I mean seriously, some of you need to have your keyboards washed out with soap!
Fucking A. posted by quin at 11:23 AM on June 8, 2007
Youtube and mystery meat, the only solution is to skip over them. posted by Mitheral at 11:33 AM on June 8, 2007
If this trend continues, by July the Blue will be nothing but links to viral ads.
< snark>This is an amusing comment< /snark> posted by KokuRyu at 11:34 AM on June 8, 2007
If you think the greengrocers' apostrophe is a problem, you obviously haven't heard about If I Had An Anus's colon. posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 11:36 AM on June 8, 2007
OK, as long as we're complaining about types of posts I'm going to throw in against This-style mystery meat posts.
Whenever I hear "best of the web," the first picture that comes into my mind is that of sideshow carny saying something like: "Best of the web, best of the web, folks, right here on Metafilter! Step right up! Come one, come all, it's best of the web! We got something for everybody, fun for the whole family! There's no better web out there! Come to Metafilter, step right up, best of the web!" posted by treepour at 12:39 PM on June 8, 2007
"If you read all my posts together in chronological order they become an ad for a popular floor wax.
...
carsonb: that's odd. I read them all together, and the seemed to advertise a dessert topping of some sort."
You're both right! It's a floor wax and a dessert topping! posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:48 PM on June 8, 2007
I really don't think we're going far enough banning advertisements. We should ban anything and everything with with an agenda - news posts, politics posts, and so on. This insidious desire to change our minds or get us to think about something new and potentially bad, is, well, unacceptable.
I also think that, going forward, all links should be limited to black and white pictures of Japanese, or to lolcats (or lolcat related etheria). posted by chlorus at 3:55 PM on June 8, 2007
Is it ok to post an ad for my Cat Declawing and circumcision clinic where gun toting fat people serve you with a smile? posted by Megafly at 5:23 PM on June 8, 2007
I am beginning to loathe the crapflood of links that are directly from mainstream news aggregators. Boing Boing is read by ten trillion people: nothing they post should ever end up over here.
IMO the new post form should not only search MeFi for the link, but also the top three aggregators. posted by five fresh fish at 7:30 PM on June 8, 2007
I am beginning to loathe the crapflood of links that are directly from mainstream news aggregators... nothing they post should ever end up over here.
There's an argument to be made about the discussion here at MetaFilter being a distinguishing factor. Occasionally. I think there's also something to be said about the pace at which the registered user count (and attending eyeball count, which is different) is rising and how the audience demographic is changing. I wonder if mathowie and jessamyn and cortex discuss how to handle quality control, and if they do what they think? MetaFilter is traditionally a self-policing community though, so the discussion of a 'solution' to issues like a quality front page, behavior, etc. belongs here with us—where 'us' is a rapidly expanding group of Boing Boing readers.
Unfortunately, I could go on and on about all of this in a zillion MetaTalk threads and it wouldn't make much of a difference. Self-selected audiences, farts in the wind, guidelines, personal preferences, yadda yadda yadda... As tempting as it is to try to launch into some eloquent admonition about individual responsibility towards idyllic quality vs. guidelines and 'features', I think I'd rather go find something odd and interesting on the web, post it here, and see what y'all have to say about it. posted by carsonb at 8:01 PM on June 8, 2007
i've go't to wo'rk in mo're apo'stro'phe's ... i ha'd no id'ea th'ey
w'e're s'o p'o'p'u'l'a'r posted by pyramid termite at 10:03 PM on June 8, 2007
If you read all my posts together in chronological order they become an ad for a popular floor wax.
It's a dessert topping, you cow. posted by hifiparasol at 7:07 AM on June 9, 2007
There's an argument to be made about the discussion here at MetaFilter being a distinguishing factor.
IIRC, no, there isn't. I seem to remember being roundly corrected for making a similar statement a few years back. Interesting links, not discussion, are the point. posted by five fresh fish at 8:02 AM on June 9, 2007
Just because mathowie thought the discussion about the links is not the point didn't make it true, it made him look like a fucking moron.
It's the discussion about the links and the ensuing community that make metafilter special, not the links, and not chatfilter. I hope mathowie has come to a better understanding of his community since he last commented about that. posted by blasdelf at 8:51 AM on June 9, 2007
"Just because mathowie thought the discussion about the links is not the point didn't make it true, it made him look like a fucking moron."
With pith such as that, how could it not be about the discussion? posted by klangklangston at 11:09 AM on June 9, 2007
« Older This question is listed as hav... | Marking the best answer in Ask... Newer »
Can we throw something on the posting guidelines page or something, asking people to think twice before they post that awesome link to the video with the cars going up and down the vert ramp, or whatever next inanity happens to capture someone's easily-amused eye?
posted by BeerFilter at 7:40 AM on June 8, 2007