How close is "close"?

September 24, 2007 10:29 AM

This thread was deleted for being a link to the poster's friend's site. The FAQ includes material produced by "close friends" in the self-link category. Does this mean we can't post anything made by people we know?

Also, doesn't this sort of invalidate the idea behind Projects, which is that if it's good, somebody will FPP it? Many of us here are friends, after all. Given the fact that this was not an abjectly bad post and that people seemed to be enjoying it, this deletion strikes me as way overreaching on a vague policy point.

posted by aaronetc to etiquette/policy at 10:29 AM (79 comments total)

Yeah, I'm wondering the same thing. Where in the FAQs does it say one cannot post something by somebody one knows?

What are the limits? I can see that restriction as a self link if the person one knows is one's spouse or boss but don't understand the fellow student limit.

It wasn't a self post, the person who created it was in his class.
posted by nickyskye at 10:35 AM on September 24, 2007

From what I can tell, links to friends are appropriate neither for the blue nor for Projects (though I escaped with one), thus creating a whole category of the internet that cannot be linked-to from metafilter. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
posted by exogenous at 10:40 AM on September 24, 2007

I'd say if you know about the material you're about to post because you know the person then it's probably a questionable post. If they told you about it, or posted about it on a blog that's really only read by friends, and that's how you found out, then you have to wonder whether something is noteworthy or you just think it is because your friend did it.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:41 AM on September 24, 2007

Does this mean we can't post anything made by people we know?

It means you're probably not the best judge of how post-worthy a close friend's site is. The whole point of the Projects pointer is that it lets someone else decide if they think the project is worth making a FPP about.

We were sort of split about this one, but once you have someone calling out "hey isn't this a friend/self link?" in the thread and a mess of flags, it becomes a problem whether it gets removed [overreaching] or not [ignoring stated policies]. Either way, the thread gets derailed and it keeps us from having to say "well it was a self/friend link but it was a good post" and having to make qualitative justgments about a post.

Honestly I'd like to see this in Projects -- and it's linked in MeTa now too -- but it was a fairly "hey this is my friend's/colleague's site" post to us and others. This isn't like you have a pal that works at YouTube or CollegeHumor.com, this is your friend with his own blog and you posted it.
posted by jessamyn at 10:42 AM on September 24, 2007

I agree that this delete is overkill.

I posted this, which was written by an acquaintance of mine from college. And I am informed that the guy who posted this is either dating or married to a friend/acquaintance author of the article.

Some of us belong to real-world social networks, and find out about interesting Internet world stuff that way. I don't believe that posts found through the real world are any less valid than posts we make when people in our online social networks clue us in to interesting stuff on the web.

It seems like "the best of the web" is getting harder and harder to find these days, and it's too bad that this post, which might just belong in that category, was dinged because of a tenuous connection.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 10:44 AM on September 24, 2007

It means you're probably not the best judge of how post-worthy a close friend's site is.

Maybe I should restate my question then -- what is "close"? There's nothing in the post or the poster's comments to indicate that he is a "close" friend of the blogger. Can I not post something I found out about through offline social ties? Can I only post if I found out about it through an intermediary?

once you have someone calling out "hey isn't this a friend/self link?" in the thread

It seemed to me that the incorrect self-link assessment was a much bigger discussion point than the friend one. Once it was clearly not a self-self-link, nobody seemed to care.
posted by aaronetc at 10:46 AM on September 24, 2007

The post was fine, but people made a mess in there trying to prove it wasn't fine, and the post gets deleted? Can we do something about the witch trials?

Congratulations! You are not a witch, someone will be along to delete you shortly.
posted by dirtdirt at 10:47 AM on September 24, 2007

Is having people crap in a thread because suspected "friend linking" make it a bad thread?
posted by bigmusic at 10:47 AM on September 24, 2007

I'm with dirtdirt. The site is cool; all the amateur detective stuff is not.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 10:52 AM on September 24, 2007 [7 favorites]

[I ♥ jessamyn]
posted by prostyle at 10:53 AM on September 24, 2007

I was surprised by the deletion and the reason, as well. I thought it was a cool and inspiring link. And if it had anything to do with it, I was only joking about the satellite spying.

So then, can I, or someone else re-post it? I wouldn't want to post it and be misunderstood as making a "protest post" or being a smartass.
posted by The Deej at 10:54 AM on September 24, 2007

admins taking the stance that deleting a thread is better than cleaning it up is bad policy. if there was actual PROOF that self-linking or even "close-friend" linking, then yeah, delete. but a bunch of people who "think" it "may" be a self link doesn't mean it is.
posted by PugAchev at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2007

It's always a grey area with this issue; there's not really a single pat answer to "can I link to a friend's site" or to "can I link to something I have a connection to", because circumstances affect things somewhat on a case-by-case basis. The best short answer is this: err on the side of caution.

Self-links are a gimme as transgressions go, but when the user is not the creator but has a direct involvement with or strong connection to the site in question, some of the things that get considered include:

- is the site content really good? would this ever have been posted by other than the author or their friend?
- is the user/author connection being dealt with honestly by the poster?
- is this an established user or a brand new account?

These things tend to start with a failed sniff-test, like in this one; we fenced it around behind the scenes a bit, and ultimately it got the plug pulled for being on the weirder-/not-cool-seeming side of things. I agree with Jessamyn that the site is neat, and when it comes right down to it I was more on the shrug-and-let-live side of this one. On the other hand, something that looks like a self-link (and turns out to be a "this is my friend's blog" link, it sounds like) from a brand-new user? Trouble town. It's kind of hard to get a read on that.

Wwo things make me feel pretty okay about the deletion decision: the fact that there are good avenues to avoid raising this whole spectre (e.g. vetting the post with a trusted mefite, or going the Projects account); and that the self-link issue is the biggest and plainest abuse of the site we deal with, so things that wander into that territory are pretty much treading no man's land as far as survivability goes.

This seems like a bad set of circumstances for a post to a site that's kind of neat. It's hard to keep the bad-posting-practices element separate from the good-content thing, but the deletion is a reaction to the former, not the latter, and the latter doesn't really make the former go away, I don't think. But then, I also don't think that deletions are a big deal: if the content is good but the post is bad, the content can presumably live another day.
posted by cortex at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Is having people crap in a thread because suspected "friend linking" make it a bad thread?

No, it's the flagging that makes it bad. The crapping is just for fun.

Also, that site sucked out loud, I don't care if the poster wrote it or if his friend, cousin, or attorney wrote it. It sucked on the merits. Good deletion.
posted by luser at 10:56 AM on September 24, 2007

NEW RULE!

The act of self-linking (and the term "self-link") shall hereby now be expanded to include the following:

1. Links to works by, about, and/or promoting the Poster.
2. Links to works by, about, and/or promoting someone other than the Poster.

That's some weak sauce. If you're going to resort to the old argument "You're not the best judge of your friends' works" at least admit that this time the Poster was a great judge of the quality of his pal's website, that in fact it was a quality link that was enjoyed by nearly everyone happened upon it.
posted by carsonb at 10:57 AM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

Come on people. Don't be gullible. This is not a known MeFi user with an established record of posts (pick a time/number of posts) who happened to post a "friend's" site. This is a guy who joined MeFi a week ago, whose very first post happens to be a site that a "friend" made? A no-comments-ever-posted-to-blog? This doesn't take a Sherlock Holmes. This is a self-link, plain and simple. The fact that you liked the site, or didn't catch it yourself, (or whatever) does not make that fact go away. The poster claims to not know who the author is (see the digg link where he tried to publicize it there). But somehow, in this thread he knows who it is when asked directly.

I'm not saying it's a viral marketing scheme or any other nefarious thing. But it is plain and simple a self-link and as such against MeFi policy. You don't like the policy? Take it up with Mathowie.
posted by spock at 10:59 AM on September 24, 2007

NEW RULE!

...in fact it was a quality link that was enjoyed by nearly everyone happened upon it.

Incorrect²
posted by prostyle at 11:00 AM on September 24, 2007

This one is also extra weirdy because the site Just. Doesn't. Work. in IE.

Hurf durf firefox downloader, sure, but the site is a series of headers and very small dots that reward the unusually curious with actual site content if you click on them. So choice of browser may have a big effect on whether folks think there's ANYTHING to see here.
posted by cortex at 11:01 AM on September 24, 2007

I brought it back. It's a harmless little site with no ads on it and people seem to like it. Maybe the poster is the guy that made it (doubt it), maybe he's a friend, or maybe he just read about the guy at school or something. I don't know but I don't think it's worth bringing out the pitchforks over.
posted by mathowie at 11:01 AM on September 24, 2007 [9 favorites]

Why is it that you can't post friends projects in projects? What's the rationale behind it?
posted by delmoi at 11:01 AM on September 24, 2007

Trump card!
posted by carsonb at 11:02 AM on September 24, 2007

ah, I realise I wrote incorrectly that man vs sun was a fellow student, he said specifically "I am not the blog's author. Nor am I a student at OU. Riley is an art student there and this is one of his projects." Just want to correct my misstatement.

man vs sun never, to my knowledge, says the proof of purchase creator is a friend.

It was not a self link and the closeness of the friendship, if there were one, was never discussed. "People we know" doesn't mean close friends. It may literally be simply a person one has met or is acquainted with.

And I enjoyed his post.
posted by nickyskye at 11:03 AM on September 24, 2007

YAYYY bringing it back! Woo hoo!
posted by nickyskye at 11:04 AM on September 24, 2007

Raising the whole issue of "What, now we can't post to sites by people we happen to know?" is a huge strawman.
posted by spock at 11:05 AM on September 24, 2007

Brought it back?!?!? But what about my extensive satellite surveillance?!?
posted by The Deej at 11:06 AM on September 24, 2007

New Rule: Self-links are OK!
posted by spock at 11:06 AM on September 24, 2007

"But it is plain and simple a self-link and as such against MeFi policy. "

It is NOT plain and simple as a self link. I acknowledge the possibility of it being a self link, but I rate it as remote. Clearly we differ.

But shouldn't the tiebreaker be "does the post suck"? Up until people started thinking it was a self link there was a quiet nice thread that wasn't hurting anybody. Would that have been so wrong to let happen?

How about the secret police take their shit to MetaTalk in the first place?
posted by dirtdirt at 11:07 AM on September 24, 2007

Raising the whole issue of "What, now we can't post to sites by people we happen to know?" is a huge strawman.

Naw, it's a pretty good description of the entire gray area. I'll admit that I've posted links to stuff that I found out about at an author reading/signing or from a story a family member told me about. I knew they were interesting and mefi worthy and people trust my judgement, but I wouldn't completely equate a site made by someone you have had some contact with always being a self-link worthy of deletion.

There are obvious ones where someone posts their friends stupid site and that's not what I mean. Shitty posts are shitty posts, but sometimes you have some familiarity with a topic, like you're a photographer at a newspaper and you hear a great story from a reporter in the break room that you end up making a post about, or maybe you read about some site in the local newspaper and you post it here. There's no clear line for where "close" ends and "self-link" begins and it's a big fat gray area.

Again, this seemed like a harmless little art project and I'm erring on the side of good posts are worth keeping around, despite where the gray area begins and ends.
posted by mathowie at 11:11 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Last post!
posted by absalom at 11:15 AM on September 24, 2007

I brought it back.

My heart is broken! ZombieReceiptArtProject will always burn in my chest like a black coal whenever I think of you, mathowie!

/LEAVING FOREVAR!

Also, do me a favor - everyone who was so enthralled with this post, please revisit it. Please spend at least a paragraph defining what, exactly, is so impressive to you about this project - not in the face of rising criticism, but deep down from the place in your soul that was touched by this work. You asked for it, it'd be a shame to let the opportunity pass you by, let it flow like the Caramel Machiatto's that the author chokes down every other day at $3 a pop
posted by prostyle at 11:16 AM on September 24, 2007

Matt's a big softy. He let me link my brother in law's site only a month after I joined this place. Ha! Take that, you foes of self and near-self linkers! Our name is legion! We will crush you!!!

Of course, I asked him first.
posted by yhbc at 11:21 AM on September 24, 2007

See, that's the thing. I liked this project, but I didn't LOVE it. I am glad I saw it and reckon others would be glad to see it but I probably wouldn't even have commented on it had things not gotten ugly in there.

I guess there's no such thing as bad publicity.
posted by dirtdirt at 11:22 AM on September 24, 2007

Well, I'll revisit it if you promise to step back from yourself just one sweet minute and evaluate why you have such a venomous hatred of it that you feel the need to be such a snark about it. I mean, I guess we'd be better served with more newsfilter or free video game ads instead?
posted by absalom at 11:24 AM on September 24, 2007

Instead of self-linking, I prefer to self-comment. Every word I post is personally typed by me. Not only do I approve of the comments, I like them, and I originated the idea of posting them, and then actually posted them. Many of them contain quotations of things that I have personally experienced, either visually, auditorily, or otherwise. I also show very little regret as to having posted them, and would not object if people sent me money to reward me for them.

I am an unrepentant self-commenter.
posted by blue_beetle at 11:30 AM on September 24, 2007

Though they may disagree in private, Mom, Dad and youthful ward that also babysits must always present a unified front while around the children. Bad parenting Mathowie.
posted by ND¢ at 11:32 AM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Gee, I guess I don't have a problem with the site owner changing the rules whenever the spirit moves him. That's his prerogative. But it is really an eye-opener to know that this is an example of what he things is a "good post".
posted by spock at 11:34 AM on September 24, 2007

I'll revisit it if you promise to step back from yourself just one sweet minute...

If you want to be completely unproductive, insulting and crass you should know I have my e-mail listed for this very reason. Enjoy!
posted by prostyle at 11:35 AM on September 24, 2007

spock, it's not a great post, but it's better than "meh". If you look back in the mefi archives, you'll find thousands of just "good" posts, a few amazing ones, and a few stinkers.

You'll also see at least a dozen old metatalk posts where I said that self-links were ok sometimes when the post was good enough to be a mefi post, so I'm not really changing any rules.
posted by mathowie at 11:37 AM on September 24, 2007

Please spend at least a paragraph defining what, exactly, is so impressive to you about this project - not in the face of rising criticism, but deep down from the place in your soul that was touched by this work.

I thought it was a pretty fun concept with some clever ideas thrown in. Not the best of the web, but a lot better than average. Mostly Harmless, if you will. The post was also greatly improved once I realised that it makes sarcastic assholes have impotent hissy fits in metatalk. That always warms me up inside.
posted by slimepuppy at 11:38 AM on September 24, 2007

Did he just call me Burt Ward?
posted by cortex at 11:38 AM on September 24, 2007

I'm not impressed by the project, but it's no better or worse than other stuff that hasn't gotten deleted. IMO, at least half of the artsy/photography FPPs suck out loud. That's why I generally don't bother reading them.

All the boy-detective stuff strikes me as netdork showboating. Seems like if we're so wrapped up in the issue of provenance, we risk the doctrinaire deletion of potentially good stuff.

The mods and the community generally do a good job sniffing out self-links, but I think we went overboard here.

I'm glad the post was reinstated, even though I don't really care for it.
posted by BitterOldPunk at 11:40 AM on September 24, 2007

Ahh yes, my second favorite internet commentary theme - the armchair prescriptive psychologist; you don't "appreciate" random art school scribblings on the backs of receipts?

You are dead inside, you cold sarcastic uncreative motherfucker, you are in the middle of an impotent hissy fit!!11!1!

Although I have a newfound appreciation for someone questioning my perspective in not only two threads but with two separate user accounts. Wonders never cease on them thar' intarwebs...
posted by prostyle at 11:43 AM on September 24, 2007

Wow. As usual, Matt has been way more gracious and patient than he needs to be in defending his decision. Which of course he doesn't have to do in the first place.

See, Matt, that's why you are number 18! In my book, you are at least, like... 15 or maybe even 14.
posted by The Deej at 11:51 AM on September 24, 2007

For what it's worth, I think it's a swell post and Matt made the right call. Metafilter has a history of not being rigidly black and white and that's to its credit.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 11:52 AM on September 24, 2007

Did he just call me Burt Ward?

This = this.
posted by ND¢ at 11:53 AM on September 24, 2007

It's kind of weird that someone with as much money and power (and, you know, pyschotic fixation on fighting criminal evil) as Batman would be so dang pleased by managing to pull off a "and then you jump through the paper hoop" skit like that. I maintain that that'n, and many similar covers, were actually frightening views into his dreaming mind. Don't sleep during the day, kids: it'll fuck you up.
posted by cortex at 12:00 PM on September 24, 2007

I've made this offer before, and I'm making it again.

If you're not sure whether you can make a post, ask me to make it, and I will. I have no friends or even acquaintances, and I have never produced anything of value. It is thus impossible for me to self link.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 12:45 PM on September 24, 2007 [2 favorites]

Bring it to MetaTalk next time instead of derailing the thread with all the self-link comments.
posted by iconomy at 12:47 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

How about "fake!" posts, too?
posted by jmd82 at 12:56 PM on September 24, 2007

hypwncrisy
posted by ND¢ at 1:01 PM on September 24, 2007

There was no evidence that it was a self-link or friend-link. It was a really poor deletion and I'm glad it was reversed.
posted by spaltavian at 1:31 PM on September 24, 2007

Oooo...hypwncrisy! My comment was more along the lines of "it's made up, like an art project" (to which I have no objection, to tell the truth), not J'ACCUSE!!!. I also think it's affected and twee, and this is coming from someone who likes Belle and Sebastian, so if I think it's twee, baby is it ever twee.
posted by iconomy at 1:41 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

I touched on this on the post, but let me expand a little.

1) Almost all the receipts pictured are either from Shawnee, Oklahoma (his parents are often mentioned in those entries), or from locations within easy walking distance of the University of Oklahoma main campus in Norman. Riley Harmon is a University of Oklahoma junior-year undergraduate who was born in Shawnee.

2) Googling the name given on man vs sun's user page returns a real resident of Moore, Oklahoma (a suburb to the north of Norman), who graduated from OU a couple of years ago, is or was involved in local music, and works at a Norman-based business.

3) As an undergrad, Riley Harmon has made a modest name for himself in the local film scene. A friend of mine with connections to the University Film Society knew him immediately. He's won some minor prizes for shorts and had a full-length documentary made.

The person who wrote the website is Riley Harmon; man vs sun is not Riley Harmon; man vs sun may or may not know Riley Harmon personally, but it's entirely possible that he's following the career of a mildly-well known local artist on MySpace.
[/OKC detective squad]
posted by ormondsacker at 1:58 PM on September 24, 2007

Yay zombie post! And spock, please take your self-link hunches to MeTa next time in stead of posting them on the blue.
posted by sveskemus at 2:00 PM on September 24, 2007 [1 favorite]

And if you needed any further proof the site author is a callow, new-to-worldly-ways University of Oklahoma undergrad - he ordered pizza from Pizza Shuttle. Hey, am I right? Up top!

I'm so alone.
posted by ormondsacker at 2:25 PM on September 24, 2007

It's kind of weird that someone with as much money and power (and, you know, pyschotic fixation on fighting criminal evil) as Batman would be so dang pleased by managing to pull off a "and then you jump through the paper hoop" skit like that.

He has lots of money and time to kill, and he's bored by the conventional non-criminal-fighting hobbies. It makes about as much sense as fighting crime dressed like a bat.
posted by Tehanu at 2:33 PM on September 24, 2007

All this talk about gray areas makes me wonder if MeTa's background color would be better off on the front page.
posted by phatkitten at 2:37 PM on September 24, 2007

Yeah, but you'd think he'd be making, like, Wayne Tower jump through a hoop or something. As it is, that's on par with him staying up late to try and beat his Minesweeper score or something.
posted by cortex at 2:39 PM on September 24, 2007

ormondsacker, there is one thing wrong with your conclusions. Riley Harmon is not the author of proofpurchase.com. As he himself states "a kid in [his] class" is.
posted by spock at 2:56 PM on September 24, 2007

Yeah, but he made his perky sidekick jump through the hoop, wearing that outfit. I think the slow erosion of Robin's self-esteem is the real sport here. It's dark, sneaky, and warped, just like Bruce Wayne.
posted by Tehanu at 2:57 PM on September 24, 2007

Huh. I'll buy that. Do you suppose old Thomas made Bruce jump through hoops, too? Metaphorical or otherwise? Maybe there's more dark violence in that cover than I would ever have credited.
posted by cortex at 3:02 PM on September 24, 2007

It means you're probably not the best judge of how post-worthy a close friend's site is.

Hm. I don't recall when self-linking was expanded to encompass friends' projects too. Sure, there is some of the "poor judge" effect for friends as well. But FAR less. We're DEFINITELY TERRIBLE judges of our own work, as history has shown many many times. All of us. We're all terrible. But friends' stuff? Has there been a plague of anemic "look at my friend's [lame] project" posts? I missed that.

A real friend is someone who can tell you when your link isn't cool enough for MeFi.
posted by scarabic at 3:02 PM on September 24, 2007

And if you needed any further proof the site author is a callow, new-to-worldly-ways University of Oklahoma undergrad - he ordered pizza from Pizza Shuttle. Hey, am I right? Up top!

I'm so alone.

No, my friend, you're not. I've got a leftover Herby in the fridge right now.

Are there really 22 of us around here? Maybe we should do a meetup OU/TX weekend.
posted by Dr. Zira at 3:36 PM on September 24, 2007

Has there been a plague of anemic "look at my friend's [lame] project" posts? I missed that.

You may have. There hasn't been a plague but there have been some. Someone posts something sort of weak [usually a site that is just sort of okay but has little traffic and few comments, or some hilarious YouTube video that's only been viewed 25 times, etc], people call it out, OP responds "hey it's my friend's site and I liked it" etc. We do get emailed every now and again "hey I'd like to link to my friend's site" or "my friend and I worked on this site and I think it's really super, can I link it?" and we usually discourage that along with all the more blatant self-linkery.

So, it seemed like a good idea to spell out in the FAQ what makes a link maybe not a good idea for MeFi and, as mathowie says, we can make the occasional exception.
posted by jessamyn at 3:37 PM on September 24, 2007

carsonb writes "If you're going to resort to the old argument 'You're not the best judge of your friends" works' at least admit that this time the Poster was a great judge of the quality of his pal's website, that in fact it was a quality link that was enjoyed by nearly everyone happened upon it."

I though it was non offensive at best. I'd bet a lot of the people who didn't like it never bothered to express that opinion.

PS: felt like a self link to me. But then I'm suspicious of anyone who makes a sub par post as soon as they are able to.
posted by Mitheral at 3:53 PM on September 24, 2007

This post is fortuitous because I've been meaning to e-mail someone to ask if posting a friends website to Projects is kosher or not.

So simple question; is posting a friends project which you have no involvement or investment (other than it was made by your friend) to Projects OK or not?
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:05 PM on September 24, 2007

Dr. Z:

Are there really 22 of us around here?

22 in the greater OKC metro, according this thingy. On a quick click-through, looks like at least a dozen currently active posters.
posted by ormondsacker at 4:07 PM on September 24, 2007

is posting a friends project which you have no involvement or investment (other than it was made by your friend) to Projects OK or not?

Not.
posted by jessamyn at 4:21 PM on September 24, 2007

Now I am totally lost. I was good until that last "Not" from jessamyn.

I thought that was exactly the right place for that kind of stuff, Projects. People post their own stuff on Projects!

My head hurts.
posted by misha at 4:31 PM on September 24, 2007

People post their own stuff on Projects. Stuff that they, members of metafilter, made or helped make. People don't post other people's stuff on Projects.

The rock/hardplace conjunction here occurs as such: you're friends with someone; both of you are superb, non-spammer, non-astroturfing human beings; you have a mefi account; your friend does not; and your friend has made something pretty cool on the web that you think people should see.

Do those five conditions hold? Cool; at this point you probably should not just eff it and post to the front page; you should not just eff it and post it to Projects under the pretense that it's your work.

Instead, you should either consider encouraging your friend to get an account or consider contacting a friendly mefite and getting a spit take from them. If everything else about the situation feels rock-solid and a-okay to you, but you still have a shred of doubt about the ethical side of things, you can totally email an admin.

Basically, there shouldn't be any great-big-hurry factor to posting something that a friend/colleague of yours has made, so taking the extra day or so to figure out a not-potentially-troublesome route to a post seems like just an all-around good idea. (And if you're ever in a position where you Just Gotta Post Your Friend's Site Right Away, there's probably a problem.)
posted by cortex at 4:44 PM on September 24, 2007

spock:

Eh, cosmetic. m v s's name shows up on OU's website as an alumnus who is not currently enrolled; receipt-scribbling blogger guy is currently enrolled. I think you've got a friend-link at worst here. It was a good sniff, though.
posted by ormondsacker at 4:53 PM on September 24, 2007

Cool. That clears that up for me. Thanks jessamyn & cortex.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:55 PM on September 24, 2007

Really, if you have to ask the question, even of yourself, it's probably a bad idea.
posted by dg at 7:31 PM on September 24, 2007

So, it seemed like a good idea to spell out in the FAQ what makes a link maybe not a good idea for MeFi and, as mathowie says, we can make the occasional exception.

What exception? We still don't know this is a friend link; unless we're not allowed to post sites made by people who go to the same college as us.
posted by spaltavian at 7:55 PM on September 24, 2007

Between this debacle and the blinky-brooch/let's re-fight the Unholy War of Northern Agression thread, it is my opinion that MetaFilter has collectively lost its fucking mind.

I'm gonna go chain smoke and mutter to myself.

*twitches*
posted by BitterOldPunk at 8:41 PM on September 24, 2007

I have a confession. I too have posted a site belonging to a friend. It was a good site, but after posting it, I felt pretty dirty. It's not against the letter of the rules, but it is against the spirit of those same rules.

So, much as people hate grey areas and not having every little infraction written down, I'm happy with the flexibility of "it's a grey area & you shouldn't really do it."
posted by seanyboy at 11:40 PM on September 24, 2007

p.s. I should check links before I post them. That site now points to a link farm.
posted by seanyboy at 11:41 PM on September 24, 2007

ZOMG YOU FPPED UR FRIEND'S LINK FARM??!?!
posted by cortex at 3:36 AM on September 25, 2007

Ahh yes, my second favorite internet commentary theme

so prostyle, what's your first favorite?
posted by salvia at 1:32 AM on September 26, 2007