Comments on: A [more inside] feature for the blue?

A [more inside] feature for the blue?

[expletive deleted] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:12:39 -0800

Is it feasible to have a proper [more inside] feature for the blue? It would be nice if there was a trivial way for the gods to save space without having to delete otherwise worthy threads such as this.

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:16:53 -0800

We've talked about this before. One of the reasons we don't have this is to keep people from writing mini-essays instead of regular old posts. Most people who write these huge posts know enough about MeFi to know they can put extra info in the first comment. For whatever reason they don't do that. Having a more inside feature that people don't use won't solve those problems. Also, I would argue there were other things wrong with that post other than merely length, though it's a debatable point.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:21:03 -0800

Also, I would just like to reiterate that I think it is somewhat absurd to delete ortho's thread for wasting space, as bloated as it was, but to leave up a staggeringly pointless post about Paris Hilton, complete with titty shots.

By: mendel

mendel — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:22:26 -0800

I don't think it was deleted (only) for wasting space. The admins have moved more to inside before, and they chose not to do so on that one.

By: mendel

mendel — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:23:20 -0800

(Also, "This post shouldn't be deleted because this OTHER crap is still there" seems like a pretty weak position and not so flattering to the post you're trying to support.)

By: puke & cry

puke & cry — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:24:16 -0800

Ok, your real issue is the absurdity of the deletion so you should have just framed your post here as that instead of pretending it's about a proper more-inside feature.

By: brain_drain

brain_drain — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:25:59 -0800

but to leave up a staggeringly pointless post about Paris Hilton

Why does a post have to have a point? Seriously, why?

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:27:20 -0800

Sorry, I didn't know this had been discussed before. Thanks Jessamyn.

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:31:08 -0800

Ok, your real issue is the absurdity of the deletion so you should have just framed your post here as that instead of pretending it's about a proper more-inside feature.

I was responding to Cortex's post in thread, where he talks extensively about why the post was deleted, specifically regarding the lack of a proper MI feature in the blue, then asks for this discussion to be moved to MeTa. I obliged, and linked to his comment above.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:39:55 -0800

FWIW I was enjoying the CIA thread, was sad to see it deleted, and wish it could have been/could be (?) re-posted with alterations.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:46:43 -0800

It still could be reposted with alterations. Somebody just has to do it...

By: [expletive deleted]

[expletive deleted] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:50:12 -0800

Well, there seem to be other things wrong with the post, according to Jessamyn, so I'm not going to be the one to do that.

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 17:56:50 -0800

Minus the "God Bless America" bit it looks like an acceptable post to me.

By: stinkycheese

stinkycheese — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:02:12 -0800

Jessamyn also neglected to detail these problems, and said they were a, "debatable point". In any case, content is pretty separate from presentation.

By: CKmtl

CKmtl — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:02:20 -0800

... but to leave up a staggeringly pointless post about Paris Hilton, complete with titty shots.

Stare into the HypnoCrotch for a while and then consider what is or isn't a staggeringly pointless, yet curiously entertaining, post.

By: Joey Michaels

Joey Michaels — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:11:09 -0800

I propose that taking some time to meditate on the fact that USAian culture is overly focused on celebrity culture is actually an excellent use of the Interweb and Metafilter. I offer 200+ comments on the Hilton jail entry and another 400+ on the Anna Nicole obit as evidence that a certain percentage of folks here agree.

Yes, it also becomes "who can make the nastiest one liner" day, but note that the conversation also does address the fact that our news media has opted to focus on this rather than, say, the shake up at the Joint Chiefs of Staff. We are talking about the event, but, more than this, we are talking about the cultural context that has allowed this to become some a major event.

Oh, some aren't talking about it directly, but that is essentially what is being discussed for the most part.

In so much as we take a "meta" look at events here, I think ignoring the unfortunate impact that events like this have on our lives (whether we want it or not - somebody infuriated by the coverage this is receiving is just as impacted as somebody who really cares) is a good use of the site. Thus, a worthy FPP.

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:13:55 -0800

Though not a thread I'd want to comment in, necessarily, just because it would be difficult to rein in the inner troll while still commenting on the situational irony of people imagining themselves combating terrorism by terrorising children, most likely reducing myself to speaking about the subject in terms of hypothetical situations (while aware on some level that I'd still be trolling yet simultaneously offering myself the pathetic excuse of "but seriously, WTF?" because, seriously, WTF?)

I wish Jesus would come back so I could watch him and Bush in a cage match.

By: Floydd

Floydd — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:41:17 -0800

Wait, there are titty shots?

By: Tuwa

Tuwa — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 18:52:04 -0800

Didn't you get the memo? Jesus will show you his tits if you go to the Republican fundraisers. And then God will instruct Bush to give your company a tax break.

By: [more inside]

[more inside] — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:03:15 -0800

Quit horsing around. Some of us take the [more inside] issue very seriously, and Jesus is one of them, I'm sure.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 19:51:25 -0800

I would just like to reiterate that I think it is somewhat absurd to delete ortho's thread for wasting space, as bloated as it was, but to leave up a staggeringly pointless post about Paris Hilton, complete with titty shots.

Hey, I flagged both, but I'm only one man, man.

By: caddis

caddis — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:06:56 -0800

You know how use more inside. Don't bogart the front page with Iraqfilter torture posts

So you deleted it? Whoa. Why not just edit it? Jeez. You edit them all the time. Just admit you didn't like the subject matter. It wasn't about "more inside."

By: smackfu

smackfu — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 20:46:29 -0800

If something sucks in two orthogonal directions, why shouldn't it be deleted?

By: cortex

cortex — Fri, 08 Jun 2007 22:32:44 -0800

So you deleted it? Whoa. Why not just edit it? Jeez. You edit them all the time. Just admit you didn't like the subject matter. It wasn't about "more inside."

Why not just edit it? Read the "trivial" link in the post text here for an explanation of what goes into relocating content for a post hoc MI job on the blue. Barring that (in this case basically undoable) maneuver, you're suggesting chopping significant content out of ortho's post. Expedient, but not something that is done, as a general matter of policy.

There stuff Jess doesn't like, and that Matt doesn't like and I don't like, with partial but certainly not complete overlap. I think all three of us try to avoid deleting just on that basis, because we realize that the face of the site is not a grab bag of Strictly Those Things We Like. If it that was enough, it'd probably be a much emptier front page some days.

Things that are problematic are more likely to get administrative attention than things that aren't. A post that takes up 20em of the front page, chock full of whitespace, qualifies as problematic. If ortho had posted it as one quote and a link above the fold and the rest inside, it'd have a hell of a lot better chance to be alive right now, even if Jess didn't much like it. Likewise if I'd caught it when it was brand new and been able to MI it myself. At a certain point, triage kicks in, as much as the results may bother some folks; there are a lot of damned if you do, damned if you don't things that come up around here.

By: fullerine

fullerine — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 04:31:47 -0800

Finally! Proof there is a cabal.

And they don't like torturing kids, or posts about torturing kids anyways.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:41:02 -0800

Just a reminder to folks: aside from doing a [more inside], there's also the option of using mouseovers in your FPP. You can put about as much text in them as you want, and still not take up too much FP real estate.

By: Alvy Ampersand

Alvy Ampersand — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 05:52:09 -0800

I've tried to use Title tags before, but kept running into line break and character limit issues.
HTML Wizards, please hope me!

By: jessamyn

jessamyn — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 07:13:39 -0800

Why not just edit it? Jeez. You edit them all the time.

Actually without the approval of the OP we almost never edit posts except to fix little broken stuff. With MeFi there is always the option to post again in 24 hours (as opposed to an AskMe question that may be time sensitive and you'd have to wait a week) and if people want to have a discussion about torturing children, they can either repost the links or ortho can post again today.

Honestly though, while I think the topic brought up in that post is definitely horrible and disturbing, those sorts of posts -- especially with the sort of treatment given in that post, the sneering "God Bless America" angle and the descriptive child abuse pullquotes -- verge on axe-grindy GYOB. This is the debatable point of course, many people like those posts. However, the newly released report which was the main point of the post could have been introduced in a way that wasn't so confrontational and angry, which is a bad starting off point for a MeFi post generally as it tends to preclude reasonable discussion and leads to the sort of oddness that was happening in that thread.

By: caddis

caddis — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 08:23:03 -0800

However, the newly released report which was the main point of the post could have been introduced in a way that wasn't so confrontational and angry, which is a bad starting off point for a MeFi post generally as it tends to preclude reasonable discussion and leads to the sort of oddness that was happening in that thread.

I agree.

By: bru

bru — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 10:40:11 -0800

At a certain point, triage kicks in.

Yes.
Sometimes adminning is about nuances but other times you just wield the axe.
That's life as usual on the adminning ranch.

What is really special about Mefi is Metatalk, where every event can be rewinded and replayed in slowmo.

By: imperium

imperium — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 12:37:48 -0800

I was pretty miffed about ortho's post being deleted too. I accept it may have been too long, but christ, what a story. Also, I happened to be unusually impressed with one of my own comments. Vanity, thy name is..

And an official [more inside] box is neither here nor there compared to the deletion policy, if you ask me.

By: pineapple

pineapple — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 18:39:07 -0800

...sometimes adminning is about...

...the adminning ranch....

Would it have been that hard to eke out the extra five keystrokes here?

By: bru

bru — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 20:49:50 -0800

English is not my native language.
I learn by making mistakes.
Thanks for pointing this one out.

By: cortex

cortex — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 21:36:02 -0800

There's no error in "adminning", bru; it's a perfectly reasonable shorthand, pineapple's grousing notwithstanding.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 09 Jun 2007 22:11:19 -0800

There's no error in "adminning"

Unless of course, you're adminning defeat.

/ba doom

By: pineapple

pineapple — Sun, 10 Jun 2007 03:38:47 -0800

English is not my native language.

Fair enough. While still rather esoteric as an ESL slang, without the backstory it came off as precious and inclusive. Sorry to be "grousy."