LOLTAGS are not useful

September 24, 2007 7:38 AM

Could we add the ability to flag posts as "these tags are dumb, please would somebody with a brain come and fix them?"

I think the backtagging efforts are a marvelous thing that are greatly enhancing the value of Metafilter, so it is disappointing when somebody makes a good post with useless tags. This is one of my favourite examples, but there are many many instances where posters get so carried away with the hilarity of their stunt tags that they forget to include the useful ones.

posted by nowonmai to Feature Requests at 7:38 AM (33 comments total)

As long as a post has some decent tags, having it have other extraenous LOLtags doesn't matter really, as much as it pains me to sometimes look at them. If someone's spamtagging and adding like 100+ tags then we'll go in and maybe mess with the tags but otherwise except for adding an extra tag or two for better findability [obituary for example] we just leave them alone.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:45 AM on September 24, 2007

Yeah, that all makes sense, jessamyn, but what's the best way for the plebes to alert you admins to a situation like you describe?
posted by carsonb at 7:46 AM on September 24, 2007

email or IM.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:47 AM on September 24, 2007

Email?
posted by mediareport at 7:48 AM on September 24, 2007

(that was to carsonb)
posted by mediareport at 7:49 AM on September 24, 2007

Dropping an email is generally the best bet for one-off "this is weird" situations, which probably describes craaaaazy tagging behavior incidents pretty well.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:53 AM on September 24, 2007

(thanks, just wanted to get nowonmai's original question answered [about notifying admins] by an admin)

email or IM.
posted by carsonb at 7:54 AM on September 24, 2007

I'm gonna add cortex to that faq entry tout de suite.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:01 AM on September 24, 2007

Isn't it up to the poster to decide how easily their post can be found with tags? Maybe somebody doesn't necessarily want the most comprehensive and all-consuming tag list associated with their silly question. Sometimes one or two will do for their "should I eat this" post or whatever.
posted by iamkimiam at 8:22 AM on September 24, 2007

Aw heck.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:24 AM on September 24, 2007

Having looked through a large number of past posts while tagging, I assure you that there are very few that stand the test of time anyway, so I think your point is moot.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:31 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I humbly submit this as the best tagging moment of the year. And I officially love Greg Nog.
posted by Jofus at 8:55 AM on September 24, 2007

Isn't it up to the poster to decide how easily their post can be found with tags?

Actually no. If you're going to put something up in the MeFi universe, we will sometimes add tags so other people can find it. This has come up here before and while we don't want to be dicks about it [and we won't add joke tags to your posts] we may add tags to aid findability. Posters can remove tags added by others if they want.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:06 AM on September 24, 2007

The thread that Jofus points out is what inspired my outburst. The post is about Susan Savage-Rumbaugh's presentation about Bonobos. I feel that the inclusion of some tags relevant to either the speaker or the subject would be a good addition to the irrelevant tags such as 'monkeys' and 'laughter'. I will contact an admin.
Because (as always) I feel misunderstood:
I agree that irrelevant or jokey tags do little harm; my point is that it would be good if LOLtags could be supplemented by useful ones. The example I gave in my callout, for instance, is about the archive of Charles Darwin's writings, and could have used a "Darwin" tag, especially since the post doesn't even include the name "Charles Darwin". I'm not complaining about the tags that are there, but rather those that aren't. I would be happier with a flag mechanism because I feel it's less intrusive than email or IM, but now I know the correct procedure I can start complaining!
posted by nowonmai at 9:32 AM on September 24, 2007

Sorry nowonmai, I had totally misunderstood what you were getting at. I did add a Darwin tag to that post.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:02 AM on September 24, 2007

She's talking about apes, but the tag says "Monkeys".

I somehow missed Greg Nog's comment but noticed the tag thing which irked me quite a bit. Call me a nitpicker but I really think an "ape" tag should be added. It makes just as much sense to have a "monkeys" tag if the post were about humans. Humans and bonobos are apes. Not monkeys.

/rant.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 10:25 AM on September 24, 2007

Maybe somebody doesn't necessarily want the most comprehensive and all-consuming tag list associated with their silly question.

AskMe isn't just about helping you solve your problem. The point is that whatever your question is, somebody might find the answer useful for their question too. The potential future usefulness of questions and answers is fundamental, and findability is fundamental to future usefulness.
posted by Chuckles at 10:39 AM on September 24, 2007

Huh? This is about Bonobos?

I laughed, I cried, and I welcomed our new Pan-Homo Culture

I read that post text about five times.. Each time thinking, "no, that doesn't interest me at all, I'll move on." Turns out it might be very interesting.

I'm guilty of this crappy post text thing too, of course, but..
posted by Chuckles at 10:44 AM on September 24, 2007

You can take my AlanMoore'sBeard and RalphTheAllPurposeAnimal tags when you pry them from my cold, dead hands.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:11 AM on September 24, 2007

i like the idea of adding "needs tag help" to the flagging system.

tag(s): twocents, imho, metoo, whocareswhatyouthinkterrapin, featurerequest, pony, cryforhelp, nothingtoseehere
posted by terrapin at 12:04 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

There would be less occurrences of this if the OP would read the comments relating to the tags and respond appropriately. In the thread that jofus linked to, why hasn't the OP added the tag? Are the comments in the thread invisible to the OP? Does the OP care that little for the post that s/he can't be bothered to check back on it?
posted by philomathoholic at 12:09 PM on September 24, 2007

I just use HTML error, and figure the admins will figure it out.

(Plus they said they read that one first.)
posted by smackfu at 12:21 PM on September 24, 2007

Jofus: Heh Greg Nog's profile page deserves a FPP. One funny mefite.
posted by cowbellemoo at 1:04 PM on September 24, 2007

Maybe we could add the ability to tag posts as "these flags are dumb, please would somebody with a brain come and fix them?"
posted by breezeway at 1:37 PM on September 24, 2007

Pan-homo, deep-dish-homo, it's all apes to me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:45 PM on September 24, 2007

Damn, Greg Nog is funny. Thanks for pointing that out, cowbellemoo!
posted by melissa may at 11:32 PM on September 24, 2007

Why is it anti-semite? I've always used antisemite. Is there such a word as pro-semite? Is it necessary to make a distinction between the two by using the hyphen?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:44 AM on September 25, 2007

Either is correct; the hyphen is more old-fashioned, the hyphenless variety hip and 21st-century (the brand-new Shorter Oxford has eliminated a slew of hyphens, upsetting a lot of people). It's purely a writing convention and has nothing to do with whether there's a pro- word. The evolution from two words (mid-19th-century base ball) to hyphenated (late 19th-century base-ball) to one word (the modern baseball) is common and natural.
posted by languagehat at 8:55 AM on September 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Also, philosemite (or philo-Semite) is the usual "pro" version.
posted by languagehat at 8:58 AM on September 25, 2007

/removes Associated Press Stylebook and Webster's Dictionary from desk, replaces with a post-it note with languagehat's email written on it.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 9:02 AM on September 25, 2007 [1 favorite]

Did someone mention hyphens? Thousands of hyphens perish as English marches on
posted by patricio at 9:14 AM on September 25, 2007

*pours out a 40^† for the 16K fallen hyphens*

^†Old English 800, natch
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:31 AM on September 25, 2007

Greg Nog, that's hilarious. Thank goodness you were saved from a future with someone who did not know her modernists. Poor old Ezra did you a mitzvah.

(Oh languagehat, just when I thought my philia could not get any more...philastic...there you go again with the random erudition. Smooch!)
posted by melissa may at 12:51 PM on September 25, 2007