Just post the links, please. July 11, 2007 11:15 AM Subscribe
A personal request: If you think the formatting or content of your post needs defending (newsfilter and single-link youtube posts seem to be the prime offenders here), make your justifications in the first reply to the thread instead of pointing it out in the FPP itself.
(not calling out anyone in particular, because there are lots of posts that do it, and it's been bugging me for a while)
posted by empath at 11:17 AM on July 11, 2007
posted by empath at 11:17 AM on July 11, 2007
I find people pre-emptively pointing out that their post is 'single-link-youtube' to be incredibly distracting.
Distracting from what?
Not everybody that reads MeFi knows all the inside-baseball arguments or even reads any of the threads. There are plenty of people that just read the feed and click through the cool links and don't care about all the back-and-forth metatalk-y debate that goes on about what kinds of threads are kosher or not.
uh huh. So do you have any other personal preferences that you would like an entire community of more than 50,000 that you don't participate in to accomodate you on?
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 PM on July 11, 2007
Distracting from what?
Not everybody that reads MeFi knows all the inside-baseball arguments or even reads any of the threads. There are plenty of people that just read the feed and click through the cool links and don't care about all the back-and-forth metatalk-y debate that goes on about what kinds of threads are kosher or not.
uh huh. So do you have any other personal preferences that you would like an entire community of more than 50,000 that you don't participate in to accomodate you on?
posted by shmegegge at 12:17 PM on July 11, 2007
The easiest solution would be to capriciously delete said post. ;)
posted by caddis at 12:20 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by caddis at 12:20 PM on July 11, 2007
You know, I'm starting to miss deletion-whining threads...
posted by Mister_A at 12:21 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 12:21 PM on July 11, 2007
This record is getting a little worn down, but I should play it anyhow.
*puts on a record with no label* There's nothing wrong with single-link posts, or youtube posts, or op-ed posts. There's only a problem with crappy posts, or thinking that you're making your post better by breaking the fourth wall. Quit it. pshkkt shkkt shkkt shkk
posted by Plutor at 12:23 PM on July 11, 2007
*puts on a record with no label* There's nothing wrong with single-link posts, or youtube posts, or op-ed posts. There's only a problem with crappy posts, or thinking that you're making your post better by breaking the fourth wall. Quit it. pshkkt shkkt shkkt shkk
posted by Plutor at 12:23 PM on July 11, 2007
true, but that post is lame. Single link youboobery only rarely makes a good post.
posted by caddis at 12:27 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by caddis at 12:27 PM on July 11, 2007
Distracting from what?
The topic of the post. Meta-discussion doesn't even belong in comments, much less the FPP itself.
posted by scottreynen at 12:27 PM on July 11, 2007
The topic of the post. Meta-discussion doesn't even belong in comments, much less the FPP itself.
posted by scottreynen at 12:27 PM on July 11, 2007
it's not really that cut and dry, though, i think. we have all kinds of metadiscussion that happens in the comments, and in the posts. but just like how we sometimes see posts that say "Flash Friday Fun" or "just thought you guys would enjoy this." or whatever, we sometimes see people defending the post in the text of the post itself. and we sometimes see people going into threads and criticizing the post, or saying "[this is good]" and other types of meta-discussion. is it a great idea to say "singlelinkyoutubefilter:" at the front of every singlelinkyoutubefilter post? obviously not. is it a great idea to walk into a thread going "THIS IS THE WORST THING I'VE EVER SEEN AND THE OP SHOULD BE ASHAMED OF HIMSELF"? obviously not. but i don't really see this as such a terrible distraction that it ruins the post or the front page in general. it seems to me that this is more of a personal annoyance than an aesthetic formatting issue. just my 2 cents, though.
posted by shmegegge at 12:41 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by shmegegge at 12:41 PM on July 11, 2007
I agree with empath. I also think people should proofread their FPPs before posting, but I've learned to accept disappointment.
posted by NationalKato at 12:56 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by NationalKato at 12:56 PM on July 11, 2007
A youtube post can be good if it can stand on its own. Single music video posts are probably more suited for a music or mp3 blog, and Lehrer has been done before. However, something like this DEC video from 1994 about the business potential of the then emerging web might make a fine fpp.
posted by caddis at 1:03 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by caddis at 1:03 PM on July 11, 2007
Did you not bother to read what I wrote? I said it was a personal request, not an edict from on high. I would just like people to think a little bit about it before they post.
posted by empath at 1:10 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by empath at 1:10 PM on July 11, 2007
Can I get an edict down low?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on July 11, 2007
Too slow!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 1:16 PM on July 11, 2007 [1 favorite]
Meta-discussion doesn't even belong in comments, much less the FPP itself.
posted by scottreynen at 2:27 PM on July 11
So no "this is good" or "thanks" belong in the comments? Those are meta-discussions.
posted by dios at 1:24 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by scottreynen at 2:27 PM on July 11
So no "this is good" or "thanks" belong in the comments? Those are meta-discussions.
posted by dios at 1:24 PM on July 11, 2007
I am always slightly amused to see how "Newsfilter" has evolved from a negative statement posted by somebody in-thread to a pre-emptive declaration by a poster (as in Newsfilter: Blah Blah Blah)
But then I am rather easily amused.
posted by davey_darling at 1:38 PM on July 11, 2007
But then I am rather easily amused.
posted by davey_darling at 1:38 PM on July 11, 2007
The only reason people qualify their posts like that is the rampant bitching that goes on here about FPPs. It seems that no matter what goes up in the Blue, some Mefite will find a way to hate it. Then follows a pile on where the OP is savaged and insulted for daring to share something that did not meet someone's Very High Standards.
It's created a climate that can make folks reluctant to share the links they enjoy, and apologize preemptively for them once they've whipped up the nerve for a post. If you want to see fewer nervously-worded posts, then maybe this site throttling back on the general hostility and snobbishness is in order.
I've got no problem with Youtube posts. A few months back, a Youtube post was my first exposure to the wonderful music of DJ Format & Abdominal. A few months before that, it was the Bastard Faeries. "Vicious Battle Raps" & "We Are Going to Hell" are a couple of my favorite songs ever, and I never would have heard a note of them without Youtube posts in the Blue.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:40 PM on July 11, 2007
It's created a climate that can make folks reluctant to share the links they enjoy, and apologize preemptively for them once they've whipped up the nerve for a post. If you want to see fewer nervously-worded posts, then maybe this site throttling back on the general hostility and snobbishness is in order.
I've got no problem with Youtube posts. A few months back, a Youtube post was my first exposure to the wonderful music of DJ Format & Abdominal. A few months before that, it was the Bastard Faeries. "Vicious Battle Raps" & "We Are Going to Hell" are a couple of my favorite songs ever, and I never would have heard a note of them without Youtube posts in the Blue.
posted by EatTheWeek at 1:40 PM on July 11, 2007
So no "this is good" or "thanks" belong in the comments?
Those are discussion of the topic. By "meta-discussion," I mean discussion of discussion, e.g. this thread.
posted by scottreynen at 2:35 PM on July 11, 2007
Those are discussion of the topic. By "meta-discussion," I mean discussion of discussion, e.g. this thread.
posted by scottreynen at 2:35 PM on July 11, 2007
I apologize for the comment I was going to post, but didn't. Oh, and if the formatting is off, I blame the haterz who suck it.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:39 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by blue_beetle at 2:39 PM on July 11, 2007
Those are discussion of the topic. By "meta-discussion," I mean discussion of discussion, e.g. this thread.
posted by scottreynen at 5:35 PM on July 11 [+] [!]
"thanks" is not discussion of the topic, and whether or not "this is good" is discussion of the topic depends rather strongly on the topic itself. A good fpp about a nasty subject might merit a [this is good] even though the subject itself is not good but nasty.
posted by shmegegge at 3:03 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by scottreynen at 5:35 PM on July 11 [+] [!]
"thanks" is not discussion of the topic, and whether or not "this is good" is discussion of the topic depends rather strongly on the topic itself. A good fpp about a nasty subject might merit a [this is good] even though the subject itself is not good but nasty.
posted by shmegegge at 3:03 PM on July 11, 2007
Did you not bother to read what I wrote? I said it was a personal request, not an edict from on high.
Look, I understand the frustration, and the desire to post to meta about it. I'm not trying to chew you out, I just don't understand how much you really expect to accomplish by asking 50,000 people to do you a favor because [Trend X] annoys you.
posted by shmegegge at 3:08 PM on July 11, 2007
Look, I understand the frustration, and the desire to post to meta about it. I'm not trying to chew you out, I just don't understand how much you really expect to accomplish by asking 50,000 people to do you a favor because [Trend X] annoys you.
posted by shmegegge at 3:08 PM on July 11, 2007
If I can touch just one person's life, I'll feel my work here is done.
posted by empath at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by empath at 3:16 PM on July 11, 2007
Those are discussion of the topic. By "meta-discussion," I mean discussion of discussion, e.g. this thread.
posted by scottreynen at 4:35 PM on July 11
I think you are creating a false distinction here. [this is good] is no different than "this sucks." They are both comments on the post qua post. As is "Newsfilter!" They are all comments on the quality of the post whereby quality is roughly defined by vague guidelines.
That's a fundamental problem with the position that people shouldn't comment on the quality of the post in the thread and should take it to Meta. Most people wouldn't say the same for "this is good." Neither is discussion of the topic.
Take a link I made a while back about Dickens' London. "Discussion of the topic" surely would be defined as discussion various aspects of London found in Dickens' work. But of the 6 comments, none of them really discuss the topic. They are all "meta discussion" of the quality of the post. They were positive comments, which I appreciate. But if they were all "this is a crappy post," they wouldn't be any different vis-a-vis topicality. Trying to distinguish as you are doing is making distinctions without a difference.
posted by dios at 3:28 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by scottreynen at 4:35 PM on July 11
I think you are creating a false distinction here. [this is good] is no different than "this sucks." They are both comments on the post qua post. As is "Newsfilter!" They are all comments on the quality of the post whereby quality is roughly defined by vague guidelines.
That's a fundamental problem with the position that people shouldn't comment on the quality of the post in the thread and should take it to Meta. Most people wouldn't say the same for "this is good." Neither is discussion of the topic.
Take a link I made a while back about Dickens' London. "Discussion of the topic" surely would be defined as discussion various aspects of London found in Dickens' work. But of the 6 comments, none of them really discuss the topic. They are all "meta discussion" of the quality of the post. They were positive comments, which I appreciate. But if they were all "this is a crappy post," they wouldn't be any different vis-a-vis topicality. Trying to distinguish as you are doing is making distinctions without a difference.
posted by dios at 3:28 PM on July 11, 2007
If I can touch just one person's life, I'll feel my work here is done.
If I can inappropriately touch just one person's life, I'll feel my work here is fun.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:30 PM on July 11, 2007
If I can inappropriately touch just one person's life, I'll feel my work here is fun.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 3:30 PM on July 11, 2007
Empath's not the only one - I see a lot of (derailing) comments to this effect on otherwise fine posts.
Enough with the arguing about whether SLYT posts or whatever are good or not - that's not what empath is discussing. He's just making the (I think) valid point that if you think your post is good, you don't need to be preemptively defensive.
This kind of discussion is one of the main things I think MeTa is for, and I've seen discussion here lead to a noticeable change in behavior elsewhere, yes. So enough with calling out the callout, you're heading into a META FEEDBACK LOOP OF DOOOOOOOOooommm....
So I'm all for it - if you really think your post is weak, don't post it. If you don't think it's weak, don't start defending it as part of the post. It distracts readers from the content and framing, it invites silly in-thread derails, and it's usually a mess of false humility and childish glee at "breaking the rules".
posted by freebird at 3:37 PM on July 11, 2007
Enough with the arguing about whether SLYT posts or whatever are good or not - that's not what empath is discussing. He's just making the (I think) valid point that if you think your post is good, you don't need to be preemptively defensive.
This kind of discussion is one of the main things I think MeTa is for, and I've seen discussion here lead to a noticeable change in behavior elsewhere, yes. So enough with calling out the callout, you're heading into a META FEEDBACK LOOP OF DOOOOOOOOooommm....
So I'm all for it - if you really think your post is weak, don't post it. If you don't think it's weak, don't start defending it as part of the post. It distracts readers from the content and framing, it invites silly in-thread derails, and it's usually a mess of false humility and childish glee at "breaking the rules".
posted by freebird at 3:37 PM on July 11, 2007
So I'm all for it - if you really think your post is weak, don't post it.
Exactly. And that is what is comes down too.
Every time I see someone defend their post, my reaction is always "you should have listened to that voice in your head which said there was a problem with this post." That instinct is right, and the reason people have that voice is because they know well that such posts are frowned upon.
I'm glad people are so concerned that their links are good enough. We need people individually self-regulating what they are posting as well as feedback from the users.
After all, this is Meta. That instinct that is concerned with quality and how it will be received improves the filtration process. There should be a burden on the user to think about the quality before posting. That's how filtering works to keep quality up.
posted by dios at 3:45 PM on July 11, 2007
Exactly. And that is what is comes down too.
Every time I see someone defend their post, my reaction is always "you should have listened to that voice in your head which said there was a problem with this post." That instinct is right, and the reason people have that voice is because they know well that such posts are frowned upon.
I'm glad people are so concerned that their links are good enough. We need people individually self-regulating what they are posting as well as feedback from the users.
After all, this is Meta. That instinct that is concerned with quality and how it will be received improves the filtration process. There should be a burden on the user to think about the quality before posting. That's how filtering works to keep quality up.
posted by dios at 3:45 PM on July 11, 2007
I want you to point to, on the doll, where IRFH touched you inappropriately.
posted by quin at 4:24 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by quin at 4:24 PM on July 11, 2007
*points to doll's soul*
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:26 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 4:26 PM on July 11, 2007
filter. It's important that we don't throw out the meta.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:37 PM on July 11, 2007
posted by blue_beetle at 9:37 PM on July 11, 2007
I pondered this problem yesterday after I turned up an incredibly rare recently posted vid of Tom Lehrer on youtube. Now I know that people here are going to want to see that. Maybe not all 50,000 of them, but some. Its something I've never seen in twenty years of listening to Lehrer. But how to frame it? Do I trawl the internet looking for those last dregs of interesting things about Lehrer that haven't been posted on metafilter already? Do I just post it cold and flat and take the SLYTP haters in my stride? Or do I do some sort of middle-ground, perhaps a limp-wristed attempt at knowing humour and then toddle over to MeTa to find out that even that is going to annoy someone?
Ah! I know, I post it somewhere else... but where?
posted by criticalbill at 2:19 AM on July 12, 2007
Ah! I know, I post it somewhere else... but where?
posted by criticalbill at 2:19 AM on July 12, 2007
I'm glad people are so concerned that their links are good enough. We need people individually self-regulating what they are posting as well as feedback from the users.
Bingo. If you're thinking "this post is a little weak, but maybe if I grovel in advance, they won't beat me up too bad," don't post it.
If, on the other hand, you've got an incredibly rare recently posted vid of Tom Lehrer on youtube, don't worry about "framing" it, just post it. If you know you've got something good, let it out of its cage to soar like an eagle!
posted by languagehat at 5:25 AM on July 12, 2007
Bingo. If you're thinking "this post is a little weak, but maybe if I grovel in advance, they won't beat me up too bad," don't post it.
If, on the other hand, you've got an incredibly rare recently posted vid of Tom Lehrer on youtube, don't worry about "framing" it, just post it. If you know you've got something good, let it out of its cage to soar like an eagle!
posted by languagehat at 5:25 AM on July 12, 2007
criticalbill: I specifically didn't call your post out in particular because I didn't want to discourage you from posting because the content was great.
I just think it would have been better if you had posted your links without the meta stuff in the post, critics be damned. By now, most people have gotten over the whole single-link-youtube thing anyway.
posted by empath at 6:33 AM on July 12, 2007
I just think it would have been better if you had posted your links without the meta stuff in the post, critics be damned. By now, most people have gotten over the whole single-link-youtube thing anyway.
posted by empath at 6:33 AM on July 12, 2007
Posts suck or they don't suck.
Preemptive, whiny apologies make them suck a bit more. Never less.
Don't do it.
posted by signal at 2:23 PM on July 12, 2007
Preemptive, whiny apologies make them suck a bit more. Never less.
Don't do it.
posted by signal at 2:23 PM on July 12, 2007
Posts suck or they don't suck.
Preemptive, whiny apologies make them suck a bit more. Never less.
Don't do it.
The first two times I read this, I thought it said
Poets suck or they don't suck.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:56 PM on July 12, 2007
Preemptive, whiny apologies make them suck a bit more. Never less.
Don't do it.
The first two times I read this, I thought it said
Poets suck or they don't suck.
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 2:56 PM on July 12, 2007
If, on the other hand, you've got an incredibly rare recently posted vid of Tom Lehrer on youtube, don't worry about "framing" it, just post it.
If it's one of Mark Russell, on the other hand, don't worry about posting it, just 'kill' yourself.
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on July 12, 2007
If it's one of Mark Russell, on the other hand, don't worry about posting it, just 'kill' yourself.
posted by y2karl at 4:09 PM on July 12, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by empath at 11:16 AM on July 11, 2007