hama7 posting style

October 6, 2007 9:38 PM

Okay, let's just talk about hama7.

Maybe it's just me, but I can't get beyond the visceral distaste of his deliberately-minimilaist style, and it's becoming annoying.

Maybe it's the undercurrent of his prior history, and I can't stop thinking that he's deliberately trying to be the anti-y2karl in his deliberately minimalist style of posting (and not commenting).

What I do know is that when I see one of his posts it seems jarring in the overall gestalt of the front page, and I actually go out of my way to NOT click on his link to see if there's anything interesting there. If there is, then I have missed it, but with perhaps a more conventional presentation I (and others?) would have seen and enjoyed it. Politics aside, the basic premise of this "community weblog" is (I thought) to present a topic in a way that makes a reader want to read and learn about it. I don't think the single-link, no-description, no-comment hama7 "style" accomplishes that for the reading public at large, or for the membership here.

As always, I would be interested to see what others think.

posted by yhbc to Etiquette/Policy at 9:38 PM (187 comments total)

I actually DID edit this a few times, but I see I still went beyond my weekly quota of "deliberately". Oh, well.
posted by yhbc at 9:43 PM on October 6, 2007

I don't care either way about his posting style. Just doesn't matter to me. I wish his links actually were any damn good, at least in comparison to the reputation he's accrued for quality linkage.

I remain convinced that in his mind at least he's gaming Metafilter somehow (I hadn't twigged on the bizarro-y2karl angle, but maybe that's it), and it's just a touch obsessively weird to me. On the other hand, maybe the eerie silence other than one-word links is because he has a sockpuppet account which he uses for commmenting only. Who knows.

And you know, if being a little creepy sometimes were enough to justify giving somebody the old heave-ho from Metafilter, there wouldn't be anybody left to post.

Until he comes back to active commenting and starts stalking me again, I say: live and let live.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:49 PM on October 6, 2007 [4 favorites]

I don't care about his posting style. I mean, it seems clear enough to me that he's trying to make something of a name for himself with his posting style, and I don't care, because to me it matters not.

But like stavros I do care about the quality of the stuff he posts. Most of the time, I don't like what he posts... I think most of it is too esoteric, obscure or shabby and not worth posting to the front page, and I have made an issue of this myself here in Metatalk once before.

But if I learned anything from that, I learned that this is Metafilter, and I know well enough to know that what I may not like, others may well love. And I also know well enough to say that this will be true of my own posting history, if not every MeFite's posting history.

So I say cut him some slack. I honestly believe he's not trying to be malicious in what he posts or how he posts it. I don't think he's trying to be the anti-y2karl, and I wouldn't care even if he is. What I do believe, though, is that he's just a guy who has discovered a posting style that works for him, and is sharing what he personally believes to be the best of the web, even if some of the time not all of us will agree with him.
posted by Effigy2000 at 9:58 PM on October 6, 2007

Variety is the spice of life. I'm fond of minimal, mysterious posts myself.
posted by empath at 10:00 PM on October 6, 2007

Would you all like a plate of beans?
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:05 PM on October 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

I like jam
posted by edgeways at 10:07 PM on October 6, 2007

They annoy me; but what doesn't?
posted by mrnutty at 10:11 PM on October 6, 2007 [2 favorites]

What I do believe, though, is that he's just a guy who has discovered a posting style that works for him, and is sharing what he personally believes to be the best of the web, even if some of the time not all of us will agree with him.

I agree with Effigy2000's assessment. I'm not bothered by hama7's posting style. I rarely click on his links, because I like some context or explanation before I commit, but other people seem to enjoy the hama7 experience, so I'm for stavros' "live and let live" approach.
posted by amyms at 10:16 PM on October 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

The whiny bitch brigade here has gotten more than a little insufferable.

The responses in that thread make me wonder what website you're all reading where the poster with the most click-throughs wins three boxes of Omaha steaks or something, and if the poster refuses to play to the punters he's an evil shite not worthy of Matt's bandwidth.
posted by hototogisu at 10:20 PM on October 6, 2007 [6 favorites]

It's fine.
posted by event at 10:21 PM on October 6, 2007

The whiny bitch brigade

Yeah, I regret my "pretentious prick" comment in that thread, but I was goaded into it (that's my story, and I'm sticking to it!

However, that doesn't change my essential point, which is that the style (single-link, no explanation, no comments) is anathema to the basic MetaFilter experience.
posted by yhbc at 10:27 PM on October 6, 2007 [1 favorite]

I hate mystery posts.
posted by LarryC at 10:30 PM on October 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

The basic MetaFilter experience? Empath is dead on--hell, I wish McGraw was still around; that shit was hilarious.

The responses in that thread confound me. What, our time-wasting is now just a little too suboptimal? Just think, instead of posting an utterly worthless complaint in the thread, they could have spent that 1/3 of a second on clicking the link and finding out.

Then again, that wouldn't be MetaFilter, would it?
posted by hototogisu at 10:35 PM on October 6, 2007

Whoa! Cool your jets there, big fella!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:36 PM on October 6, 2007

I don't mind the style or lack of commenting. But I probably only click through a fourth of his links. He has also had a fair share of deletions, a couple in a row not too long ago, if I recall correctly. But he just keeps on posting.

The no-comment approach is a refreshing balance to those of us who insist on answering every comment in our our FPPs.
posted by The Deej at 10:36 PM on October 6, 2007

What, no languagehat? I'll channel him from the last time.

The worthy hama7 has been making fine single-link posts without explanation since before you pups ever heard of MetaFilter, and until now has gotten nothing but respect for it: "Great stuff," "Thanks for the post," and "Bookmarked!" are typical comments. Suddenly it's "Wah wah I have to have my hand held and everything spelled out for me before I'll do the poster the tremendous favor of clicking on the link." Hint: if you know anything about anything, the poster's name is guarantee enough. If you don't, if you go all limp and fuzzy-brained at the thought of a bare link with nothing but a name and a few tags to go on, then go do something else.
posted by dreamsign at 10:40 PM on October 6, 2007 [3 favorites]

Woe is me for the posting formats that conspire to ruin my day! Save me, Dudley!
posted by moonbird at 11:31 PM on October 6, 2007

If you don't, if you go all limp and fuzzy-brained at the thought of a bare link with nothing but a name and a few tags to go on, then go do something else.

I hadn't even heard of this guy until a couple of hours ago. What if everyone who posted to Metafilter took the hama7 approach? Is he being cut slack just because he's a MeFi personality? That last post made literally no sense even after following the link.

And even if I did find one of the three things his arhiva7 post links to interesting, why not just make the post about the interesting one? And if I did find one interesting, I wouldn't even be able to make a more-explained FPP about it, because that would be a dupe.

While I have certain opinions about this, as I think should be obvious, I'm not trying to press those opinions. I'd like to see this talked through. If anything, if there's something to this I don't see, this might very well be a useful trick for my own posting toolbox.
posted by JHarris at 11:44 PM on October 6, 2007

Hint: if you know anything about anything, the poster's name is guarantee enough.

Apologies to zombie LH, but that's just not right or correct.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:54 PM on October 6, 2007

-I actually go out of my way to NOT click on his link-

Logic, be free.

If everyone did it, it would be annoying. But they/we don't. It is just another ingredient in the Mefi-mix. Celebrate the minimalism.
posted by peacay at 12:17 AM on October 7, 2007

Ah, my sarcasm is set to mild. I don't agree with my quoted tidbit in any respect. I just miss the over the top vitriol of the last time we did this. Apologies.
posted by dreamsign at 12:18 AM on October 7, 2007

It's just one style versus another. Personally, I avoid the persistent Iraq debate by not clicking on the links and scrolling past them - that would probably work for you too.
posted by triv at 12:33 AM on October 7, 2007

Actually, you know what. I guess that old comment of LH's still rankles after all this time. It was a dick move to bring it up here, especially with him not in the thread. Sincere apologies this time.
posted by dreamsign at 12:42 AM on October 7, 2007

The first few times I saw one of those single-nonsense-word-which-is-a-link posts, I tried flagging them, but it became clear that the mods don't mind and I was wasting my time. So I stopped.

My reaction these days is "Dammit, not another one." Then I move on. I never click them -- because I've never had any curiousity about them. I rarely read the threads beneath them, either. It's just noise.

I find it to be pretentious and uncourteous -- but the mods seem to like pretension and discourtesy. So be it. They're in charge; I am not.
posted by Steven C. Den Beste at 12:48 AM on October 7, 2007 [4 favorites]

It bugs me too. Often the links are yawners. I've taken to not bothering at all. Although everytime I see those posts, I still hear a mental orchestra of nails against a blackboard.
posted by Xere at 1:47 AM on October 7, 2007

"He doesn't do things the way I want him to do things, therefore he is wrong".
posted by Bugbread at 2:13 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

*waves to hama7, sends good wishes*
posted by Wolof at 3:10 AM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

If only the rest of the world was like metafilter, there'd be no wars, no world hunger, disease or poverty, people would live in peace with each other, holding hands across the world in brotherly/sisterly love.
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:35 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

However, that doesn't change my essential point, which is that the style (single-link, no explanation, no comments) is anathema to the basic MetaFilter experience.

Horses for courses. For me, a huge part of the 'basic MetaFilter experience' is variety, not just in terms of the sites linked to, but in terms of the posting style - without mysterious hama7 gubbins and dense y2karl info-screeds we'd be close to having a house style, which would be downright boring.
posted by jack_mo at 3:42 AM on October 7, 2007

Oh, and hello sgt! You going to the magical land of white telephone boxes?
posted by jack_mo at 3:45 AM on October 7, 2007

I hate the color puce. Couldn't we make it illegal? I'm sick of seeing puce every time I go past a puce thing.
posted by flabdablet at 3:57 AM on October 7, 2007 [4 favorites]

minimal posts by hama7
cause much noise and irony
more on news at 11
posted by Dillonlikescookies at 4:50 AM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

I just think it's fascinating that the guy was originally so verbose and posted like 3000 comments on here after joining but then had some kind of anneurism in 2004 where now if he posts more than a few words his brain will explode or something. It's kinda like that movie Speed with that whole bus going under 50 miles an hour thing. But not. You know? Whoooooaaaaa.
posted by miss lynnster at 5:03 AM on October 7, 2007 [5 favorites]

I say we ban him. For contributing. The bastard.

How dare he do it in a way we don't like? What the fucking hell is wrong with that guy anyway? Doesn't he realize how important our opinion is??

Killing is too good for him.
posted by Dave Faris at 5:23 AM on October 7, 2007

Contributing onise
posted by asok at 5:36 AM on October 7, 2007

I just think it's fascinating that the guy was originally so verbose and posted like 3000 comments on here after joining but then had some kind of anneurism in 2004 where now if he posts more than a few words his brain will explode or something.

At first I thought I was thinking it had to be someone else, but no. Same guy.

I remember scores of people bitching that he should just shut the fuck UP ALREADY. Now he's got a new minimalist approach and people are still bitchin' at him.

Whiny bitch brigade indeed. This is one of the reasons we can't have nice things.
posted by dogwalker at 6:00 AM on October 7, 2007

I remember scores of people bitching that he should just shut the fuck UP ALREADY. Now he's got a new minimalist approach and people are still bitchin' at him.

I remember those days well. His political comments, while they arguably added some much needed variety to this place, were about as uniformly welcome as fleas. I think he just got tired of contributing to other peoples' flameouts (and on a couple of occasions it was me that was doing the flaming out).

Personally I think his posts, while cryptic, are excellent 90% of the time. That's more than I can say for practically everyone else here.
posted by psmealey at 6:09 AM on October 7, 2007

Politics aside, the basic premise of this "community weblog" is (I thought) to present a topic in a way that makes a reader want to read and learn about it.

Where did you get that idea from? The person who starts the thread is in no way responsible for getting people interested in their links. "But I might have liked it if only you'd tried harder to please me!" I'm sure the poster is torn up about the fact that certain people don't read his posts. Heavens to Betsy! I've said this before, but I'll repeat it here:

"How am I supposed to know what that link is about if they won't offer a description?"
"You're not. Just click it."
"But what if it sucks?"
"But what if it's something you might enjoy?"
"But what if it's not? I don't want to waste my time on something that I might not find interesting."
"Then don't click it. You don't have to click everything."
"But what if it's something that I might enjoy?"
"Wait, didn't I just say that?"
posted by 23skidoo at 6:20 AM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

Wow. This is the part of hama7's contributions you get pissed about? How about thanking Jeebus he hasn't started commenting again?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 6:21 AM on October 7, 2007 [4 favorites]

I like a little bit of mystery every now and again and hama7 gives it to me big time. [caveat: I'm somewhat guilty of this style of posting but sometimes it works].
posted by tellurian at 6:46 AM on October 7, 2007

Such a shame everyone around here doesn't behave how you would like. Too bad we can't just get rid of everybody who doesn't conform to your view of what Metafilter should be. Imagine how much less stressful your life would be.
posted by netbros at 6:54 AM on October 7, 2007

Hama7's posts are generally mysterious, playful and amusing. What kind of blockhead would actually start a MeTa over that?

You're on my shit list, yhbc. I won't forget about this. You remember that.

:retreats into burrow, wagging finger:
posted by fleetmouse at 6:54 AM on October 7, 2007

but the mods seem to like pretension and discourtesy

Jesus, Steven, can you stop with the passive-aggressive stuff about the moderation here for a minute, even? Bottom line: hama7's style is within the guidelines. If you have a better set of guidelines, let's hear them. If not, stop with the poking already.

That said, the quality of hama7's posts is much more uneven than it used to be.

*shrug*
posted by mediareport at 7:00 AM on October 7, 2007

I think his posts are fine and when they're totally terrible sometimes they get removed. All the "WTF this sucks" crapping in the threads is a little annoying to me personally.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2007

His political comments, while they arguably added some much needed variety to this place

Uh, more often than not, in my experience, his "political comments" were deliberately trolling juvenile bullshit aimed carefully at lefty members' juvenile hot buttons.

hama7 2.0 is much preferable.
posted by mediareport at 7:03 AM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

All the "WTF this sucks" crapping in the threads is a little annoying to me personally.

Here's one request you start deleting it and giving one-week timeouts to the folks who do it.
posted by mediareport at 7:04 AM on October 7, 2007

This thread is wasted without images.
posted by caddis at 7:05 AM on October 7, 2007

MetaFilter: pretension and discourtesy
posted by timeistight at 7:26 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

The whiny bitch brigade here has gotten more than a little insufferable.

The responses in that thread make me wonder what website you're all reading where the poster with the most click-throughs wins three boxes of Omaha steaks or something, and if the poster refuses to play to the punters he's an evil shite not worthy of Matt's bandwidth.

Quoted for truth.

And I would like to see more of his "political comments" as well. Some of the political threads read like they are straight out of DailyKos.
posted by BigSky at 7:30 AM on October 7, 2007

However, that doesn't change my essential point, which is that the style (single-link, no explanation, no comments) is anathema to the basic MetaFilter experience.

I completely disagree. If anything the "Here's what I think, what do you think?" FPPs that have become rampant on the front page of late are anathema to the basic MeFi Experience. I really don't like how this has become a place that's more about the linker than the link.

I used to come to Metafilter because I'm a curious person and want to see what other people find odd or interesting and then play with it myself to see what I think. Instead, Metafilter has become a place where people post why they find something odd or interesting. And, for the most part, the things they're linking are neither odd or interesting.

I may not like everything he links to but it's a hell of a lot less depressing finding out than coming here and looking at a front page full of mini-essays on things I could care less about that do nothing but reaffirm that a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing.
posted by dobbs at 7:32 AM on October 7, 2007 [9 favorites]

Lay off hama7. He adds more than he subtracts.
Except when he's duking it out with stavrosthewonderchicklet but that's not the issue here.
In my father's house are many mansions and all that.
posted by y2karl at 7:48 AM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

What I do believe, though, is that he's just a guy who has discovered a posting style that works for him, and is sharing what he personally believes to be the best of the web, even if some of the time not all of us will agree with him.

Absolutely true, and said better than I would have, because I'm so sick of all the whiny bitchery I start frothing at the mouth (as in the comment dreamsign quoted above, which I stand by every word of).

However, that doesn't change my essential point, which is that the style (single-link, no explanation, no comments) is anathema to the basic MetaFilter experience.

What utter bullshit. The basic MetaFilter experience is looking at a blue page full of links, usually with (often excessively long) padding/description, and deciding what to click on. Sometimes I click on the link, sometimes on the thread, usually I just scroll on up. I usually click on hama7's links because I have found them worth my while. If you don't, that's fine. Scroll on up. Do something else with your time. Don't waste everybody's time with yet another MetaTalk post complaining that somebody does things differently than you would prefer. And this is really beyond the pale:

I am not even going to read any of the above comments to say that I HATE HATE HATE the hama7 style of posting here. I DO NOT WANT TO HAVE TO WORK HERE, I JUST WANT TO KNOW IF I SHOULD CLICK ON THE LINKY, MUTHAFUCKA.
That is all. Now, I will NOT click on his link, as per usual.

If it even enters your head to post a comment like that, you should go outside immediately and get some fresh air. If you neglect this advice and press Post, you will just embarrass yourself in public.
posted by languagehat at 7:54 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

Dave Faris, on the other hand, is insufferable. That guy needs to get an atomic wedgie and have beans pushed up his nose. Git him!
posted by y2karl at 7:55 AM on October 7, 2007

If you don't like it just move on. Grow a hide, grow some gonads or at least grow the ability to deal with the differences that we have.
posted by Iron Rat at 8:15 AM on October 7, 2007

eh. They're short, at least. Makes them easier to skip.
posted by Karmakaze at 8:32 AM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

There's nothing wrong with the occasional minimalist post; if it's a minimalist post that's a stinker, it might get deleted, just as applies to longer, more verbose variants. That's really just about it. Variety is a good thing. Of all the habitual posting styles I can think of, hama7 brief link to something generally quite good is about the least annoying, least trouble-making, least example-setting (because who can be bothered to show that kind of verbal restraint?) of the bunch. If you don't like style and don't want to click the link to find out what it is, then...

Scroll on up.

You use "up" where I would use "down", languagehat. Huh. I guess you're scrolling [the text on the page] up where I'm scrolling down [to a lower position in the rendered page]. Do you suppose there's any rhyme or reason to the differing usage, or is it just unsystematic preference?
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:33 AM on October 7, 2007

Okay, let's just talk about hama7.

Why don't we just grow up, instead?
posted by dirigibleman at 8:47 AM on October 7, 2007

I find a lack of wordiness on Metafilter to be excessively refreshing. Personally, I usually skip posts where the 'more inside' contains more than about four lines of text.
posted by frobozz at 8:52 AM on October 7, 2007

You use "up" where I would use "down", languagehat. Huh. I guess you're scrolling [the text on the page] up where I'm scrolling down [to a lower position in the rendered page].

Yup, because what I do when I hit the blue is to scroll down to where the new comments start thinning out and move up from there, so that the last things I encounter are the brand-new posts. I recognize that this is probably a minority style, so for those of you who start at the top and work down into the past, my advice becomes: scroll on down.
posted by languagehat at 9:06 AM on October 7, 2007

Let's talk about ME instead.
posted by absalom at 9:10 AM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

Oh ho! So it's not a language usage difference, we're just literally going in opposite directions. That's kind of a letdown, linguistically.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:10 AM on October 7, 2007

*gives Your Humble Bloody Commissioner an Atomic Wedgie and two very Purple Nurples*
posted by loquacious at 9:12 AM on October 7, 2007

what I do when I hit the blue is to scroll down to where the new comments start thinning out and move up from there, so that the last things I encounter are the brand-new posts.

Ditto. I read them in the order in which they were posted.
posted by iconomy at 9:20 AM on October 7, 2007

My thoughts:

I'm the last one to hold to the "ignore it if you don't like it" trip. It's the type of bullshit that comes from living in a democratic republic, the self-esteem driven crap that seems to pretend that variety is good for its own sake and trumps quality.

But the thing everybody's missing in the debate here, I think, is that links are hardly ever well-described here. Hardly ever. There's a little context here and there, but on the whole, the good things are usually much better than we expects, and the bad things are much worse. The proof is in the fact that we go on for forty, fifty, sometimes a hundred comments about every post, as if the post itself didn't really wholly encapsulate or describe the link. Because it generally didn't.

Most of us know how annoying the other side of the fence is. There are those posts which promise to be one thing but aren't. I don't even mean the posts where that happens deliberately, which are annoying enough, but which are deleteable; I'd say nine out of ten posts that hit the front page aren't really described adequately, and I'm almost always surprised by what I see when I click through.

And if I'm completely confused even then, I can always look at the tags.
posted by koeselitz at 9:22 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

koeselitz, did you just type that with a Tony Soprano accent, because that's the way I'm reading it.
posted by tellurian at 9:42 AM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Yup, because what I do when I hit the blue is to scroll down to where the new comments start thinning out and move up from there, so that the last things I encounter are the brand-new posts.

Whoa. How on earth can you follow a conversation by reading it in reverse? Fry and Laurie's Hedge Sketch and this xkcd comic spring to mind.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 9:44 AM on October 7, 2007

How on earth can you follow a conversation by reading it in reverse?

He's not. He's talking about how he views the main page where the posts are, not how he reads individual threads.
posted by iconomy at 9:50 AM on October 7, 2007

Jesus, iconomy, how did you know Aloysius was going to say that?
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:51 AM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

I find it to be pretentious and uncourteous -- but the mods seem to like pretension and discourtesy.

Quoted for truth as I would have seen it in the 6th grade.
posted by katillathehun at 9:52 AM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

How on earth can you follow a conversation by reading it in reverse?
What? - beginning to end, is what they're talking about. I do the same.
posted by tellurian at 9:54 AM on October 7, 2007

You're better than this, commish.
posted by Kwine at 9:56 AM on October 7, 2007

Um… what iconomy said - claritywise.
posted by tellurian at 10:03 AM on October 7, 2007

I read the front page in up-to-down order, BUT I read MeFi via an RSS reader, which is set to order "oldest to newest". So I scroll down, which is the equivalent of scrolling up for others.

tellurian : "What? - beginning to end, is what they're talking about. I do the same."

Yeah. If you think about it, each individual post goes from oldest material (oldest comments) at the top, to newest material (newest comments) at the bottom, while the front page itself goes from newest material (newest posts) at the top, to oldest material (oldest posts) at the bottom. Languagehat is just reading them both in chronological order, not reading the front page in reverse-chronological order.
posted by Bugbread at 10:11 AM on October 7, 2007

I don't really care either way, because I never follow the links in this kind of post. Maybe my loss, but whatever.
posted by smackfu at 10:16 AM on October 7, 2007

i find it hugely amusing that a crowd capable of swooning over a 4 minute silence as if it were fine art can morph into a drooling spasm of jerk-knee hatebreed over a minimalist link.

IT'S HAMA TIME!
posted by quonsar at 11:01 AM on October 7, 2007 [7 favorites]

Shouldn't a 14k-er know better by now than to post a callout which basically boils down to: "so-and-so's posting style really annoys me!!!"

What outcome could you possibly hope for? Do you really expect a wall of "Yeah! Me too! Burn him!" replies?

Sheezus... I mean, I guess my own experiences have just utterly and completely disabused me of the need to post this shit. But I guess everyone's on their own little journey...
posted by scarabic at 11:06 AM on October 7, 2007

How about some context? I mean really, 'gabba gabba hey' - that doesn't even get past the spell checker.
posted by tellurian at 11:19 AM on October 7, 2007

I read these Metatalk threads boustrophedon style. It suits the tiresome back-and-forth and ploughing through many piles of bullshit.
It's good to have advance warning if there's going to be sound, a browser re-size or something egregiously offensive, otherwise post it how you think best presents the link, which should stand on its own merits.
posted by Abiezer at 11:21 AM on October 7, 2007

True. Difference being that there are quite a few people who may immediately recognize that Gabba Gabba hey actually refers to something specific (whether a Todd Browning or Ramones reference)... without any of the obligatory hama7 confused head-scratching.
posted by miss lynnster at 11:28 AM on October 7, 2007

As long as we're at it, let's just accept hama7. he's one of us. one of us. gabba gabba hey! what is he, a man? or baby?

(song starts at 3:00. still sounds more like "google gobble" to me, though.)
posted by miss lynnster at 11:37 AM on October 7, 2007

Shouldn't a 14k-er know better by now than to post a callout which basically boils down to: "so-and-so's posting style really annoys me!!!"

Worse is that *first* he shits all over the thread with that hilarious "i'm not clicking, i'm not reading, i'm just shitting!" comment, *then* he makes the MeTa post. What a jerky thing to do.
posted by mediareport at 12:14 PM on October 7, 2007

Metafilter: I'm so sick of all the whiny bitchery I start frothing at the mouth
posted by Krrrlson at 1:23 PM on October 7, 2007

Ah, thanks iconomy and tellurian.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 1:42 PM on October 7, 2007

Has it ever occurred to you that hama7 posts the way s/he does so that some people will be incensed enough to start MetaTalk threads which will inflate his/her ego? Have you noticed I'm so lazy as to not even try to guess his/her gender before I start rambling about him/her? That's how much this matters to me.

But please continue the petty bickering. I find it most intriguing.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:45 PM on October 7, 2007

Unless you're a moderator, you have no control over the way another user chooses to fill in the fields on a "New Post" screen. Once you accept that fact, you will achieve a small quantity of Metafilter enlightenment. Ignore that fact, and you are doomed to eternal Metatalk frustration. They can craft it any way they choose, using any content, style and language they choose. Trying to change that immutable fact by raising the point in Metatalk has little effect, unless you manage to logically and rationally persuade the poster(s) that what they're doing is wrong. You haven't done that here.

Single link front page posts are perfectly all right.

If you really, really don't like them, the only tangible thing you can do is craft your own post in a style that you prefer, and move the offending post one slot closer to slipping off the front page... futile, at best, but at least it'll have some positive benefit than the sand pounding and gnashing of teeth that is represented here.
posted by Dave Faris at 1:51 PM on October 7, 2007

Although again, sand pounding and gnashing of teeth never stops being funny. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 2:07 PM on October 7, 2007

At the risk of being labeled a whiny bitch, I agree with yhbc. If I'm not given any reason to click the link, I won't click it.

Why this is bad: With the double-post rules, it's effectively keeping the linked site from ever getting the attention hama7 (or whoever) seems to think it deserves.

Yes, posters can post whatever however, but it doesn't mean they should.
posted by Reggie Digest at 2:09 PM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

Screw "mystery meat" posts.

Were I a mod, I would delete them.

But I'm not.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:25 PM on October 7, 2007

Relax, take a deep breath. It's just Metafilter. It's okay to a variety of posting styles.

In with the good air, out with the bad air.

Although, I personally can't stand the posts where every single letter links to a different thing, with no explination whatsoever. This, meh.
posted by MythMaker at 2:48 PM on October 7, 2007

The person who starts the thread is in no way responsible for getting people interested in their links.

That's a pretty dumb argument. If you don't care about getting people interested in your links, then why post them at all? Why deliberately try to waste people's time? A bit of explanation will ensure that you tend to attract people who would be interested, and repel people who wouldn't.

Personally, I think it's basic etiquette: don't waste people's time unnecessarily. Do the work yourself. Your ten minutes of thought and preparation will save 60,000 accounts that same ten minutes.

This isn't absolute. I've seen 'puzzle posts' with multiple related links sans explanation that were very good indeed. But I just can't see where a single-word single-link is anything but laziness on the part of the poster.
posted by Malor at 2:53 PM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

And Reggie's argument is also very good.... if the original post is done poorly, so that people can't find it, it can never be posted to Metafilter again. That sucks.
posted by Malor at 2:56 PM on October 7, 2007

They can craft it any way they choose, using any content, style and language they choose. Trying to change that immutable fact by raising the point in Metatalk has little effect, unless you manage to logically and rationally persuade the poster(s) that what they're doing is wrong. You haven't done that here.

Well we assume. I personally would find it hilarious if in a few days hama7 posts a long rambling wikipedia type post with no further explanation. Probably not going to happen but still.
posted by shelleycat at 3:02 PM on October 7, 2007

my goodness, a meetup in hull ! you know, if the whole world was like hull.......
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:03 PM on October 7, 2007

oh dear, there was meant to be a scottish meetup as well which i completely forgot about........
posted by sgt.serenity at 3:06 PM on October 7, 2007

If I'm not given any reason to click the link, I won't click it.

Is anyone else as disturbed by this mentality as I am? It's all about ME ME ME. What can other people do to please ME? How can other people change to fit ME? How can information be presented to make it more appealing to ME?

I don't click a lot of front page posts. That's my loss. But if we're literally debating the three seconds it takes to click a random post, figure out if you're interested, and then move on if you're not, I really, really think that demise of MetaFilter is not too far away. ;-)

It's interesting how this MeTa posts reeks of ME ME ME. It's mildly disgusting in its utter selfishness, and makes us look like effing snobs.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 3:08 PM on October 7, 2007

arhiva7 is a starting point where you may Choose Your Destination: weblog, graphic design, free electronic music.

There. And that adds absolutely no extra context than what is listed in the title and tags. Satisfactory, whiners?
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:13 PM on October 7, 2007

That's a pretty dumb argument. If you don't care about getting people interested in your links, then why post them at all? Why deliberately try to waste people's time? A bit of explanation will ensure that you tend to attract people who would be interested, and repel people who wouldn't.

Why post them at all? Because the poster finds it interesting, and thinks that other people will find it interesting, too. It's only wasting people's time if people are obligated to click on links. No one is obligated to do this.
posted by 23skidoo at 3:16 PM on October 7, 2007

There is no me in MeFi.
posted by found missing at 3:18 PM on October 7, 2007

There is no me in MeFi.

There's no Gabba Gabba Hey in Tod Browning's Freaks either. The freaks in Freaks say Gooble Gobble. Presumably the Ramones didn't have a VCR when they wrote the song.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 3:30 PM on October 7, 2007

"There is no me in MeFi."

That reminds me. My old MetaFilter t-shirt is getting ragged. I should perhaps buy another one. I want one that looks like this:
_____________
THERE IS NO ME IN
* METAFILTER *
~~~~~~~~~~

That would so rock. I would get even more awkward stares than I get already with my butt-ugly face!
posted by ZachsMind at 4:00 PM on October 7, 2007

Omit needless.
posted by meehawl at 4:08 PM on October 7, 2007

If I'm not given any reason to click the link, I won't click it.

Great, then knock yourself out not clicking on it. Just don't trouble us all with piling on in what's at its core a terrible call out.
posted by psmealey at 4:39 PM on October 7, 2007

I make no apologiies; I still don't like the "style". I find the minimalist presentation unnecessarily pretentious, and the complete lack of follow-up commenting a total thumb to the nose to the rest of this community.

However, l-hat and others who point to my outburst in his thread are correct; I agree that was uncalled for, which is why I then made this post and tried to couch it in as neutral terms as possible (i.e., without "whining"). Apparently, I didn't succeed at that either.

Some people have agreed with me, most have not. Thank you all for the discussion, I appreciate it.
posted by yhbc at 4:48 PM on October 7, 2007

Just don't trouble us all with piling on in what's at its core a terrible call out.

I'm not picking on psmealey here for using what has become the common phrasing, but a summary of the proceedings seems in order:

1) yhbc did lose his cool and get a bit shouty in the thread in question. That was bad.

2) yhbc then did the right thing, however, and posted a thread here in Metatalk (not a freaking 'callout', a perfectly valid question directed at the community), and explicitly asked 'what others think', in language entirely reasonable. That was good.

3) Rather than just stating what they think about the user in question, some decided to hurl epithets like 'whiny bitch' at yhbc instead, because rather than discussing like adults the question at hand, they for some reason thought it more useful to shit their pants and run around in circles with their hair on fire. That was bad.

4) Others actually answered the policy and etiquette question, mostly with the opinion (which, it must be said, has always been held by the majority here) that for the most part, even if oddball post-styling can be annoying to some people some of the time, it's just fine, most of the time, and that if something happens occasionally that you find objectionable but that most people do not, it's best to just shrug and move on. That was good.

5) The purpose of this Metatalk thread has pretty much been achieved (good), but shitting all over someone for stating an opinion (even an unpopular one) then asking what other users of the site think makes the baby jesus cry (probably bad).

Thank you for your kind attention.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:56 PM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think you make your own destination.
posted by psmith at 4:56 PM on October 7, 2007

makes the baby jesus cry (probably bad).

No, that's a good thing. He needs to get used to it. He'll have a lot of unpleasantness to deal with when he grows up.
posted by languagehat at 5:05 PM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

Rather than direct their complaints at specific people, some decided to not use my name. Some also decided to drop snide remarks about being stalked by the poster in question. This is especially grand, because we all know the hama7 of today's metafilter isn't really going to come in here and say anything about that, now is he?

The problem is that it took me five minutes to figure out what this site is about, and yet some people have been here for years and still haven't a clue. Here, Stavros, re-read my first comment, and ignore the first line since it's obviously too distracting. *That* is what the problem is here, and nothing else, with no one else.
posted by hototogisu at 5:13 PM on October 7, 2007

Some also decided to drop snide remarks about being stalked by the poster in question.

Dude that wasn't snide, that was relieved. Beyond that, all I can suggest is that you really should clean out your pants and pour a little water over your head, hototogisu. Your (slightly bewildering) anger is misdirected.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:19 PM on October 7, 2007

Lachrymae Christi is also apparently a most acceptable Italian wine.
posted by Abiezer at 5:22 PM on October 7, 2007

I just feel left out when hama7 posts an indecipherable, almost content-free webpage in a foreign language and manages to get dozens of favorites and praise in the comments. What are these people seeing? Are they finding hidden worlds in the cryptic links? What am I missing out on?
posted by tehloki at 5:34 PM on October 7, 2007

Exactly. Who is it that is favoriting everything??
posted by found missing at 5:36 PM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

My pants are full of vinegar; I can't help it, I have a condition.

The anger isn't directed at you, or at yhbc (both of you are groovy cats), it's at the straw-man aggregate of everyone else who acts like this, and increasingly often. People just seem to blink less and less at this bizarre sense of entitlement, and it only gets worse around here. This makes me sad.

Very sad.
posted by hototogisu at 5:43 PM on October 7, 2007

Well, you're a groovy cat, too, vinegar-pants!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:51 PM on October 7, 2007

Man, and here I was just about to post complaining that hama7's posts are way too verbose, and he really should use the More Inside functionality of this site.
posted by Loto at 5:58 PM on October 7, 2007

I find the minimalist presentation unnecessarily pretentious, and the complete lack of follow-up commenting a total thumb to the nose to the rest of this community.

You don't like how he posts, that's fine. Calling him pretentious and saying he is thumbing his nose at the so-called community, on the other hand, is as pretentious and nose thumbing as anything you say he is doing. You know what is pretentious ? Pretending to know what are his motives. That's just you making yourself right by making him wrong. You are not a telepath and you do not know why he posts the way he does. His posts don't call names, don't slime anyone's motives. Accusing him of contempt for the so-called community is a personal attack and more contemptuous than how he posts what he posts.
posted by y2karl at 6:02 PM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

I think it would be awesome and very Dr. J, Mr. H, if y2karl and hama7 turn out to be the same person.
posted by found missing at 6:05 PM on October 7, 2007

"There is no me in MeFi."

Are you kidding ? There is no we in MetaFilter is closer to the truth. There are close to 60,000 me's signed up so far. Each and every one a special snowflake. The we part is usually one person trying to call the shots by pretending to speka for the other 59,979 plus.
posted by y2karl at 6:12 PM on October 7, 2007

ack! Speak, to be sure.
posted by y2karl at 6:13 PM on October 7, 2007

You know what is pretentious ? Pretending to know what are his motives.

Okay, very good point, which I hadn't thought of before. Thanks.
posted by yhbc at 6:17 PM on October 7, 2007

The we part is usually one person trying to call the shots by pretending to speka for the other 59,979 plus.

I want to speka about the moon-a and the June-a and the spring-a...
posted by Kloryne at 6:22 PM on October 7, 2007 [3 favorites]

empath: "Variety is the spice of life. I'm fond of minimal, mysterious posts myself."
Me too. They're my favourite kind, in fact.

scarabic: "Shouldn't a 14k-er know better ..."
yhbc, I really like you, but you let the side down this time. We're all allowed one of these, but don't make a habit of it. At least you've been a gentleman about it though, which is uncommon enough for several people to note.
posted by dg at 6:35 PM on October 7, 2007

Oh, he's back, and with so many tags I don't think anyone could possibly complain they don't know what's going on. But then, I understood yesterday's post fine as well. Unfortunately, I don't like electronic music.
posted by frobozz at 6:36 PM on October 7, 2007

"The we part is usually one person trying to call the shots by pretending to speka for the other 59,979 plus."

You do realise that about 90% of usernumbers are non-existent, right? I'd say there are closer to 5,000 mefites than 60,000.
posted by tehloki at 6:41 PM on October 7, 2007

please continue the petty bickering. I find it most intriguing.

I actually got that. Kill me.
posted by scarabic at 7:14 PM on October 7, 2007

Okay, very good point, which I hadn't thought of before.

And, cue apology.

Hello?

Anyone there?
posted by mediareport at 7:21 PM on October 7, 2007

You do realise that about 90% of usernumbers are non-existent, right? I'd say there are closer to 5,000 mefites than 60,000.

I've heard that statistic thrown around a few times now, and always wondered at it's veracity. Cortex? Anyone? How many actual "active" users are there on MeFi? One could have differing definitions for active I suppose, but maybe a threshold combination of posting and commenting frequency or something.

Additionally, hama7 is fine imo, especially thanks to his recent post prompting this comment:

Touch call. Have we discovered a use for compositional sound noise yet? Because to me, it still sounds bogged down with preconceived notions.

Personally, I admire for what bees and dolphins use sound.

But humans are stuck doing aural build-ups filled with amassed portent.

Unless some sort of delivery happens, its all just an ongoing drive on.
posted by humannaire at 8:56 PM on October 7 [+] [!]

I love this place.
posted by lazaruslong at 7:24 PM on October 7, 2007

SPEKA THE ENGLISH!
posted by dirigibleman at 7:26 PM on October 7, 2007

I didn't mind the post but I think it is perfectly valid for yhbc to bring his concerns here to metatalk. Lately, since flagging came about, all Metatalk complaints are seen as whiny bitching - and I so disagree. I think Metatalk is still a valid place to hash things out and blow off steam - certainly better than in-thread. It's part of the tradition of self-policing and not something that I think is replaced by flagging.

OK, now that we've cleared that up, can we move on to more important things?
posted by madamjujujive at 7:29 PM on October 7, 2007

more important things?

NSFM!

Also, I agree with madamjjj and I think it bears repeating, it's quite okay to take this stuff to MetaTalk.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:33 PM on October 7, 2007

mediareport, I am not going to apologize for asking if this is or was considered abnormal MetaFilter behavior. I think it is; hama7 has not made any comments at all on the site since 2004, but he has posted hundreds of single-link posts since then. I thought it was weird (and, to me at least, annoying), therefore, I asked about it.

Likewise, I fail to see how I "let the side down". Or, for that matter, how I have been a "whiny bitch" about this at all.

As I have said, I now recognize that there are alternate explanations for the things I have complained of, and that I am certainly guilty of projecting my own prejudices onto those complaints, but I still think it was worth talking about.
posted by yhbc at 7:34 PM on October 7, 2007

Why this is bad: With the double-post rules, it's effectively keeping the linked site from ever getting the attention hama7 (or whoever) seems to think it deserves.

It's not like websites disappear if people don't click on them. This is not a real problem in any sense of the word "real". You could say the same thing happens if someone posts a post on the weekend, or at the same time twelve other posts were posted. It happens all the time in fact, when someone hides the coolest link in the middle of thirteen other links in a five paragraph post- in which case I almost invariably cease to pay attention to all fourteen links. So I guess you could say that my ignoring fourteen links at one time is fourteen times as bad as ignoring a single link, minimalist post. And by "bad" I really mean "inconsequential".
posted by oneirodynia at 7:38 PM on October 7, 2007

You know something is amiss when tehloki is questioning favorites.
posted by miss lynnster at 7:38 PM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

OMG! Mouse Goatse!

*notes that yhbc continues to act like a gentleman and that many many others here could do with following his example*

Yes, me included.
posted by dg at 7:48 PM on October 7, 2007

Laugh-a while you can, monkey boy.
posted by The corpse in the library at 8:23 PM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

MeFi is >99.9% about the quality of the link (singular or plural) and <0> You want context? Here's your context.
posted by signal at 8:42 PM on October 7, 2007

MeFi is >99.9% about the quality of the link (singular or plural) and less than 0.1% about context and explanations.
posted by signal at 8:44 PM on October 7, 2007

I'm going to throw my hat into the ring here. hama7's linkage style is detracting from my perception that, should there be a click, I'll be seeing the Best Of The Web.

At least the last couple of links I've noticed have been, literally, random collections of letters. Even when I click through, I'm not sure why I'm supposed to be interested.

The problem seems to be this: MetaFilter plays host to a wide variety of users, each of whom is interested in their own particular subset. I have no problem with posts I personally am not interested in. I do have a problem with posts that I might be interested in being obscured by someone who does not bother to take the moment to explain to whom a link may be interesting.

That hama7's links actually trigger the dual-linking policy was a fact that hadn't even occurred to me. If I got caught up on that, and it was from a hama7 link, I'd actually be pretty annoyed.
posted by effugas at 9:52 PM on October 7, 2007

I am not going to apologize for asking if this is or was considered abnormal MetaFilter behavior.

That's not what the apology is for.
posted by mediareport at 9:53 PM on October 7, 2007

That's not what the apology is for.

Try to be a bit clearer, mediareport. For my part, try as I might, I can't think of anything yhbc has to apologize for, here.

If (I'm guessing) what you're thinking of is that he should apologize for having an opinion about hama7's linking style -- he said 'I find the minimalist presentation unnecessarily pretentious, and the complete lack of follow-up commenting a total thumb to the nose to the rest of this community' after all -- I would suggest that saying 'I find' something to be X and Y is very different from saying that that thing 'is' X and Y.

In other words, he stated an opinion, and made it clear that it was his opinion only. He is perfectly welcome to have that opinion, whether you or I disagree or not, and is perfectly welcome to express it calmly and reasonably, as he has done, y2karl's opinion of what he was really trying to say notwithstanding. (It almost seems to me that y2karl was doing exactly the same thing he was accusing yhbc of doing, ironically and amusingly.)

I don't think it's very healthy to be trying to shut people down and make them apologize for calmly saying what they think, even if we don't agree.

I say all this while actually disagreeing with yhbc, of course.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:13 PM on October 7, 2007

>You do realise that about 90% of usernumbers are non-existent, right? I'd say there are closer to 5,000 mefites than 60,000.

I've heard that statistic thrown around a few times now, and always wondered at it's veracity. Cortex? Anyone? How many actual "active" users are there on MeFi?

It's not right. While not every usernumber increment is an active account (because folks can register but not pay, and the inchoate registration sticks around indefinitely and reserves the usernumber thereby), the majority of those 60,000 are in fact genuine registrations; last I checked, it was right around 33,000 or so.

Of those, at least six or seven thousand hit the front page while logged in on any given week; same for Askme, and not necessarily the same several thousand. Number crawls up into five digits when you look at monthly.

So, no; that's a badly lowballed figure, even accounting for the the obvious truths that (a) not all usernumbers are active accounts and (b) not all active accounts are "active" in the most direct sense.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:46 PM on October 7, 2007 [2 favorites]

That hama7's links actually trigger the dual-linking policy was a fact that hadn't even occurred to me. If I got caught up on that, and it was from a hama7 link, I'd actually be pretty annoyed.

Hell, I'm annoyed when it happens to me, and it doesn't matter who got there first. I'm always late to the fucking softball match when it comes to good links.

However, hama7's links tend to be pretty esoteric, so if you manage to double up one of those, congrats: you're kind of a badass as link-hunting goes. That aside, though, your opinion of the personal style of someone who beat you to the punch shouldn't come into it; and should you proceed so far as to accidentally post something that's a double, it's not a black mark on your record nor is it, again, something that should have one bit to do with whoever posted it before you did.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:51 PM on October 7, 2007

It almost seems to me that y2karl was doing exactly the same thing he was accusing yhbc of doing, ironically and amusingly.

I am Spartacus!
posted by y2karl at 10:58 PM on October 7, 2007

He is Spartacus!
posted by miss lynnster at 11:11 PM on October 7, 2007

We've all got a little Spartacus in us.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:19 PM on October 7, 2007

We've all got a little Spartacus in us.

Insert Tony Curtis joke here.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 11:37 PM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

I think that hama7 is one of my very few ideological kinfolk here at MeFi, but his one-link FPPs with no background, explanation, or context have always irked me.

Sorry, hama7. Nothing personal.
posted by davidmsc at 11:52 PM on October 7, 2007 [1 favorite]

“I completely disagree. If anything the ‘Here's what I think, what do you think?’ FPPs that have become rampant on the front page of late are anathema to the basic MeFi Experience. I really don't like how this has become a place that's more about the linker than the link.”

Damn straight. And for those who are yelling about a sense of entitlement readers have about posts...well, that is what MetaFilter is all about. Posts aren't for the poster, they're for the rest of MetaFilter. People have every right to expect something from a post.

In theory—that is to say, if MetaFilter were really about a bunch of people finding quality links that they're pretty sure most other mefites would be interested in seeing—then hama7's minimalist style wouldn't be a problem. We could all be sure that his post is, in fact, something worth seeing.

Of course, since a ridiculous number of people think that the whole MetaFilter experience is making posts (and not reading posts), then far too often we're not doing so good in the quality control department. On any given day, I can't be sure that any given link isn't someone's misplaced blog post like, Here's Why I Hate Republicans or My Girlfriend Broke-up With Me and That's Why I'm Posting a Nine Inch Nails Video. I can't be sure that any given post isn't pure crap, of interest only to the poster (which he or she labors to explain in eight sentences with an additional "more inside") and so a post with absolutely no identifying information is just another scroll past for me. It's probably a link to a front-page story in the New York Times, anyway.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:57 PM on October 7, 2007

Didn't Karl Rove resign recently ?
posted by y2karl at 12:44 AM on October 8, 2007

And for those who are yelling about a sense of entitlement readers have about posts...well, that is what MetaFilter is all about.

But Metafilter is free for anybody to read so what else does my five dollars buy me other than the right to make crappy, single link YouTube posts of lame 1980's bands?

If that isn't working, then what about adoping a more conventional economic model in which people pay to read the content, and the people who provide the content get paid for doing so?

We could call it Salon.
posted by PeterMcDermott at 1:04 AM on October 8, 2007

I like the link:
Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /index.htm on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.
Apache/1.3.37 Server at www.arhiva7.ro Port 80

mysterious...
posted by meech at 3:47 AM on October 8, 2007

I read this whole thread, and ya'll are still talking about hama7 and yhbc instead of me, when I clearly gave instructions otherwise!

It's like no one pays attention to me around here!
posted by absalom at 6:06 AM on October 8, 2007

Try to be a bit clearer, mediareport. For my part, try as I might, I can't think of anything yhbc has to apologize for, here.

Just shitting in the thread and calling hama a pretentious prick. He jokingly regretted it, admitted it was uncalled for, but then made sure to note "I make no apologies." That's horseshit. No need to apologize for this MeTa thread, sure, but he damn sure owes something more than joking - an apology - for taking such a huge steaming dump in the blue.

But whatever. He thinks otherwise. Got it.
posted by mediareport at 8:06 AM on October 8, 2007

Huh? What? I'm sorry absalom... were you saying something?
posted by miss lynnster at 3:58 PM on October 8, 2007

OK, I've been gone for a few days so obviously this wasn't always true, but currently that one-link FPP doesn't even go anywhere.
posted by croutonsupafreak at 4:05 PM on October 8, 2007

If I'm not given any reason to click the link, I won't click it.

Is anyone else as disturbed by this mentality as I am? It's all about ME ME ME.

Ugh. I could have just as well said, "If the people are not... the people will not..." and it would mean precisely the same thing. It's not a question of entitlement; rather it is one of courtesy.

It doesn't bother me one iota if I find myself skipping over a mystery post; I move on to the next decent one, and that's that. It would, however, bother me quite a great deal indeed if my site were posted as a mystery post, and no one could be arsed to click the link because the poster couldn't be arsed to give some explanation as to what was behind it. My site would be buried in that shit post for all eternity, never to be seen again. Is this the "spirit of MetaFilter" everyone is on about?
posted by Reggie Digest at 4:48 PM on October 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

Hama7's posts tend to piss me off, because of their minimalism. But that's my problem isn't it? and if I'm really curious I could just pop into the thread and ask what it's about, or, god forbid, click the damn link. It's a simple choice.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:18 PM on October 8, 2007

Okay mediareport, I am SORRY for succumbing to thread-shitting. It is a bad thing, and I should have just started this thread without popping off on the blue.

And if hama7 asks me to, I will apologize to him, too.
posted by yhbc at 5:29 PM on October 8, 2007

Personally, I just wish people would stop eating my cereal, dammit! There's a reason I write my name on the box!!

*Walks away in a huff. Slams door. Blasts Minor Threat.*
posted by Skygazer at 5:37 PM on October 8, 2007

And if hama7 asks me to, I will apologize to him, too.

You're just hoping you can make him comment someplace...
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:40 PM on October 8, 2007

It was worth a shot, you have to admit.
posted by cortex (staff) at 5:46 PM on October 8, 2007

not to pick on hama7 again, just using his posting frequency as an example.

Not to pick on yhbc, but his posting frequency of priggishly lame MeTas - even by the Grey's low, low standards - and KnockMeDownWithAFeatherUrineTestFilter, as an example, lead me to conclude that hell, maybe he does need to be picked on. Go piss up a rope, you whiny hypocritical champion of the generic.

In terms of "Is this good for MetaFilter?" (Said best in the shrill shaky voice accompanied by the wringing of soft, fat-fingered hands), you've got bigger things to worry about than hama7, and if the reinforcement you've been getting is what's causing you to post this utter shit, then it sure as hell ain't positive.
Congrats, you're part of the problem.

I do sorta wish hama7's post didn't lead to a 403 page, though. Here's the Google chache.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:26 PM on October 8, 2007

That was really shockingly unpleasant and totally uncalled-for, Alvy.

Congrats, you're part of the problem.

I'm going have to say that if there's a problem here, it's not yhbc, it's you. Or at least the kind of spleen you just vented. yhbc used Metatalk as it was meant to be used, you just did the opposite.

I'm sometimes not so good with usernames; in my mind you were a quite-reasonable, non-pantsshitting kind of MeFite. Guess I was thinking of someone else.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:55 PM on October 8, 2007

I guess everybody has bad days, but sheesh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:56 PM on October 8, 2007

Wow, congratulations to you; you found the one other time I mentioned hama7, five years ago, in an entirely different context.

What the HELL are you talking about being part of the problem? MetaTalk is exactly where things like this go, which is why I was WRONG to do it in the MeFi thread and RIGHT to do it here.

Go piss up a rope, Alvy.
posted by yhbc at 9:07 PM on October 8, 2007

Oh hell, this could be our own little MeTa moment; I honestly did not realize you used the exact same curse I did. Or maybe I read it, but didn't realize it, because I used it also.

Anyway, fuck you and your forebearers, for a thousand generations.
posted by yhbc at 9:11 PM on October 8, 2007

wow yhbc, can you get more lame?
posted by caddis at 10:01 PM on October 8, 2007

he stated an opinion, and made it clear that it was his opinion only.

I'd agree and go one further. In any adult context, I think it's ridiculous to expect grownups to say "I think" at the beginning of every sentence as some kind of perpetual signal to others that one is not challenging them by merely speaking. If there are weak-spined people in the room so fragile as to be blown over by some other person expressing their opinion without qualifiers, all I can say to you is: you deserve to die and should do so now by your own hand. Go on. Now. Into the bathtub with the hairdryer, you. Go. Yes. You. Yes. Now. Bye. Fucker.

...

Anyway, yeah, let's just get past the point that everyone's simply expressing their opinion here. That's fairly obvious and shouldn't need elaboration (although I don't fault stavros or anyone else for continuing to point it out for the sake of the oblivious).
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on October 8, 2007

Alvy, my man - whatever you ate tonight is not agreeing with you because it is causing you some uncharacteristic cholic. Cough it up now!

In his many years here, yhbc has averaged only one metatalk thread about every 133 days - that hardly seems excessive. Particularly given that in the olden days before these newfangled flag thingamabobs, it was customary to hash out any number of persnickety post particulars here on the gray.

This new trend to minimalist use of the gray, it doesn't set right with me. No sir, it just isn't right. We used to have wonderful interminable debates and now all we have are these little impersonal and anonymous flicks of the flag, flick, flick, flick - allowing us to undermine someone with impunity, death of a thousand cuts. No one even knows where a body stands any more, wimpy little flag flickers that we are nowadays. Give me the slap of the glove and the calling out at dawn so people can duke things out mano a mano, for heavens sake, and then we can all have makeup sex and post kitty pictures.

That's what metatalk is for, I tell you.
posted by madamjujujive at 11:44 PM on October 8, 2007 [1 favorite]

*slings commiserative arm around mjjj's shoulder, steers her off to the pub*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:53 AM on October 9, 2007

*looks back and lifts invitational chin over shoulder at everybody else*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:56 AM on October 9, 2007

Man. yhbc may be many things, but by no stretch of the imagination could he be considered to be part of any problem around here. You, on the other hand, Alvy, I'm not so sure about any more. I must have been misremembering the same reasonable person as stavros, I guess.

*bolts out the door after mjj and stavros, calling to the family "back in a week or so"*
posted by dg at 3:10 AM on October 9, 2007

Yeesh. Unsurprisingly, stavros, mjjj, and dg are absolutely right. Completely uncalled for, gratuitously nasty, and I feel a little icky for having said it. That's the sort of crap I've railed against in MeTa before - though I am surprised I'm thought of as a reasonable person...

Apologies to yhbc - even if I think you're wrong about hama7, there was no excuse for my response.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 4:34 AM on October 9, 2007

Good man. Now get your arse down to the pub - we got serious drinkin' to do!
posted by dg at 4:36 AM on October 9, 2007

Yay! Beers for everybody!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:48 AM on October 9, 2007

“Didn't Karl Rove resign recently?”

Yeah, it was a shit post and I've said it was a shit post and I've apologized for it elsewhere. Of course, it should be said that it's a typical NewsFilter shit post and it didn't get any complaints that I know of at the time. Because NewsFilter shit posts are par for the course these days.

I'm mortified by that post, actually. While I was thinking “boy, oh, boy, are mefites going to be excited to see the news that Rove is resigning”, my chief emotion/thought was that I saw this news early enough in the morning that I got to be the one to make the post. Let me repeat that: I was excited that I got to be the one to make the post. That's about me, not about MetaFilter or its readers.

Posting is a privilege, it's a privilege to serve the community. It's not one's little playground of self-expression or an alternative to having one's own blog. It's certainly not an opportunity to be Pretend Star Reporter. 90% of what appears on the front page could disappear and no one would miss it, except those whose posting metrics primarily involve themselves and not other people.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:49 AM on October 9, 2007 [1 favorite]

You shouldn't take the bait.
posted by smackfu at 5:40 AM on October 9, 2007

That's OK—while he was going on about Karl Rove and the psychology of posting, I swiped his beer.
posted by languagehat at 6:14 AM on October 9, 2007

minimalist use of the gray

*head asplodes*

Are we on the same planet, madamjujujive? The gray has been "minimalist" over the past six months?

*head asplodes again*
posted by mediareport at 6:15 AM on October 9, 2007

*dodges bits of mediareport's head. buys a round for mjj, wonderchicken, Alvy (now that he's feeling better) and, lessee, is that beer-swiping languagehat still here? Yeah! One for him, too, barkeep!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:09 AM on October 9, 2007

…my chief emotion/thought was that I saw this news early enough in the morning that I got to be the one to make the post. It's certainly not an opportunity to be Pretend Star Reporter. 90% [tellurian edit] 100% of what appears on the front page could disappear and no one would miss it, except those whose posting metrics primarily involve themselves and not other people.
This is so true. I have this one post I regret posting in haste. The rest I'll stand by.
Meanwhile, The beers are on me! You just have to make it to the next Sydney meet up and be a Pompeyan astrophysicist [and not have just bought a house, yay! congrats! web-goddess (okay, one beer or a babycham)], otherwise, you're in like Flynn.
posted by tellurian at 7:21 AM on October 9, 2007

There's a special spot on the admin console that alerts me when the word "beer" shows up five or more times in a thread.

*settles in*

Drop Top, much obliged.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:43 AM on October 9, 2007

Should I be blowing in something?
posted by tellurian at 7:49 AM on October 9, 2007

That's between you and the Senator. I just need a bottle opener.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:59 AM on October 9, 2007

Thanks for the clarification, Cortex!
posted by lazaruslong at 8:03 AM on October 9, 2007

Monkey Beans.
posted by tr33hggr at 8:27 AM on October 9, 2007

mediareport, what I mean is that it seems as though lately whenever someone makes a complaint about a post, they are pilloried as whiners and told to flag it and move on. Yet I think discussing the merits or lack thereof of posts is a perfectly cromulent use of the gray.

EB, you made my day with that Karl Rove posting, this was the first place I'd heard of it. And it was even more delightful to learn it from you - knowing that such a post is totally uncharacteristic for you made the news seem even bigger!

Anyway, never mind all that blather, we're all going out for beers now.
posted by madamjujujive at 9:05 AM on October 9, 2007

“EB, you made my day with that Karl Rove posting, this was the first place I'd heard of it. And it was even more delightful to learn it from you - knowing that such a post is totally uncharacteristic for you made the news seem even bigger!”

Well, I certainly was excited about it myself. I mean, really excited. In retrospect, it doesn't seem that big of a deal. The Bush administration has somehow made evil supervillains to be as commonplace in reality as they are in comics. One gone, two hundred left.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:00 AM on October 9, 2007