Can we dial back the youtubery? November 20, 2007 7:11 AM   Subscribe

So this and this were posted this morning, and, being that I loathe YouTube only posts in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

There isn't a single word that's not a YouTube link in the above referenced posts. I did some digging in the MeTa archive and came across a post by ed pretty much asking the same thing, and didn't see a real resolution there. Would it be difficult to implement a filter that at least one link in the post has to be a site other than YouTube? I actually did some statistics on the number of links on the front page...193 links in the posts (after filtering out the sidebar, header, and footer I had the text for 66657 through to 66711) and 43 of those go to YouTube. To me, it's shocking that 22% of the links on MetaFilter go to one website in the first place.

On a broader note, I can read MeFi from work, but can't watch YouTube...I'm sure I'm not the only one whose work has filtering. This would actually increase the usability of MeFi for those behind firewalls. I run Anonymizer so it's not a big deal for ME, per se, but I may be a special case.
posted by taumeson to Etiquette/Policy at 7:11 AM (170 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

What, so if people add a link to wikipedia it's all of a sudden a quality post? No. They're shit posts all around. Here's another.

You'll just have to get used to it, I think. There's no way around the shit.
posted by dobbs at 7:18 AM on November 20, 2007


Oh, and I don't mean to say that everything on Youtube is shit. I like Aretha Franklin and the Radiophonic Workshop stuff is interesting. I just meant that as far as MeFi is concerned, a bunch of links to a musician you dig or a 9 year old drummer are pretty shit posts.
posted by dobbs at 7:21 AM on November 20, 2007


Maybe we can allow single-link-YouTube posts if the OP consents to some type of informal stoning.
posted by dead_ at 7:22 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Heavy man, I dig the informal stoning.

On a serious note, MetaTalk is exactly the informal stoning of which you speak.
posted by Mister_A at 7:23 AM on November 20, 2007


I've got a pocketful of rocks--who's head am I aiming at?
posted by dead_ at 7:24 AM on November 20, 2007


"...who's head am I aiming at?"

I'd start with those who don't know the difference between "whose" and "who's".
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:27 AM on November 20, 2007 [7 favorites]


Tough crowd today. I'll be over against the wall at the edge of the playground. Fire away.
posted by dead_ at 7:29 AM on November 20, 2007


If single link Youtube posts were banned, I would have never seen THIS and had my life changed for the better.

On a broader note, I can read MeFi from work, but can't watch YouTube

On an even broader note, I bet you can't read Metafilter from work, but you do anyway.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:30 AM on November 20, 2007 [5 favorites]


It:

1. Depends on the video in that particular Youtube link.

That is all.
posted by kosem at 7:30 AM on November 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


I think you've just got to suck it up. I have no particular interest in the partisan shitstorm FPPs that get whipped up over the US presidential elections so I generally just ignore them. I would suggest you do the same with Youtube posts.


That said, it is a shame when great posts curl up and die just because the poster happened to press Post at the wrong time and landed next to a rubbish (but for whatever reason popular) YT post. I don't know how many more nostalgic ad-fests that I can cope with but a blanket ban just seems silly. I have posted stuff from YT that I hope people like and have found great YT stuff on here too. I wouldn't want to lose all that because of some easily avoidable rubbish posts.
posted by ClanvidHorse at 7:31 AM on November 20, 2007


ClanVidHorse: The politics of failure have failed. It's time to make them work again!

END COMMUNICATION
posted by Mister_A at 7:34 AM on November 20, 2007


I did some digging in the MeTa archive and came across a post by ed pretty much asking the same thing, and didn't see a real resolution there.

That post isn't asking the same thing.
posted by mullacc at 7:35 AM on November 20, 2007


a bunch of links to a musician you dig
There have been too many of these posts lately. "What I'm listening to" is a better post for your own blog or livejournal. Or, if you want to tell the world about how awesome the Blobby Objects are, then make a Blobby Objects fan page, with all your favorite videos and Important Biographical Information that you want to compile, and post it to projects. That's the main problem with these, for me: they're more about the poster and what the poster's excited to chat about at the moment than they are about good content on the web. The YouTube part of it is a red herring.
posted by Wolfdog at 7:38 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


We're not going to implement a youtube filter mechanism, no. This sort of thing needs to be handled by humans, metatalk discussions being the canonical approach (so here we are!).

What it comes down to is exactly what kosem just said:

1. Depends on the video in that particular Youtube link.

Youtube or otherwise, if a post has a problem, it has a problem; react accordingly with flags or metatalk or email. Youtube is the great spoiler in the game because it's pretty much the only (or, really, by far the most visible) site out there that exists as a pure content delivery platform. People aren't linking to youtube, they're linking to video on the site where it's available in a way that it wasn't a few years ago.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:38 AM on November 20, 2007 [6 favorites]


YouTube is one of the greatest of the InterTubes, is it not? I only wish my ducts extended to the YouTube. I shall have to invest in new ducts.
posted by Mister_A at 7:43 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


someday you're going to run across a youtube link that features the taumeson-pitch-perfect combination of owmyballs, prog rock, and glenn beck, and you're going to want to post that single link, and the idea of padding it with additional links will nauseate you, detracting as they will from the majesty that is thirty seconds of Glenn Beck taking one in the jewels while singing "Roundabout." And on that day you're going to regret this callout.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 7:44 AM on November 20, 2007 [11 favorites]


So this and this were posted this morning, and, being that I loathe YouTube only posts in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

Some of us like Aretha Franklin, some of us do not. YouTube, believe it or not, can be a goldmine of content. MetaFilter provides a valuable service by discovering this content, and thus adding value to YouTube, and to the Internet as well.
posted by KokuRyu at 7:45 AM on November 20, 2007


Single Link Youtubes Posts (SLYPs) generally fall into the mildy entertaining/interesting category. As such, I wish there was a sidebar for them, or some other way of segregating them. If I'm bored, I like them, otherwise, I think they dilute the quality of the front page.
posted by theora55 at 7:46 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I make an exception for the Aretha homage.
posted by theora55 at 7:47 AM on November 20, 2007


GET OFF MY LAWN
posted by chundo at 7:49 AM on November 20, 2007


Christ, not this again. I don't like subatomic particles; why do I have to see "taumeson" on the MeFi page? Somebody make everything go away that I don't like!

I really don't understand why some people find it hard to grasp that YouTube is just another content delivery device, and the worth of a YouTube post depends on the content just like the worth of a post to a newspaper or blog site depends on the content. Saying "no more YouTube posts" is just as dumb as saying "no more newspaper posts."
posted by languagehat at 7:50 AM on November 20, 2007 [8 favorites]


No more newspaper posts!

I mean it!
posted by dobbs at 7:53 AM on November 20, 2007


being that I loathe YouTube only posts in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

This is a pretty good template for a MetaTalk post:
being that I loathe [THING I DON'T LIKE], it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against [THING I DON'T LIKE]?
posted by brain_drain at 7:56 AM on November 20, 2007 [6 favorites]


You know who else didn't like certain things, and tried to do away with them?

THAT'S RIGHT!!
posted by Mister_A at 7:59 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


So I've been a mefite for about 3 years, and I'm always looking around for good things to post. I've seen thousands of YouTube videos and only once did it occur to me, "Hey, this might make a decent one-link YouTube post." The post got more favorites than anything else I've ever posted, suggesting that people liked it.

Everyone has a different threshold for how good something needs to be before posting it; but I think if people only posted the best thing they ran across in 3 years, we might find that we were seeing one-link YouTube posts that were good.
posted by ikkyu2 at 8:00 AM on November 20, 2007


No more newspaper posts!

I mean it!


Anybody want a peanut?
posted by konolia at 8:02 AM on November 20, 2007 [7 favorites]


So this and this were posted this morning, and, being that I loathe YouTube only posts in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

Wait, so your thought process was

1) I don't like this thing, and therefore
2) It should be banned and
3) Wait, since 1 and 2 are so self-obvious, I should ask if it's already been banned, and if so, why hasn't it been enforced?

See, step three should have been "Is it possible that other people like this thing? Maybe the majority of them? Is there a reason I should be trying to impose my aesthetic preferences on everyone else?"
posted by delmoi at 8:02 AM on November 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


The reason I don't like YouTube posts: They take much more time to figure out if they're worthwhile than text links, and most of them ARE bullshit.

The solution I propose: More deletions of SHITTY YouTube links.

If that doesn't work, I believe we may have to Smell yo dick.


(Tied up with the SHITTY—The ones I hate the most are the single-link one note lulz posts, but the 30 videos of some musician usually makes me feel like not much has been filtered.)
posted by klangklangston at 8:04 AM on November 20, 2007


""Is it possible that other people like this thing? Maybe the majority of them? Is there a reason I should be trying to impose my aesthetic preferences on everyone else?""

No. No. They're all Philistines and jerks.
posted by klangklangston at 8:04 AM on November 20, 2007


So the Youtube homage to Duran Duran I was composing is a no go, then? Are you sure? Because I was going to include Hungry Like The Wolf.

Just think about it.
posted by iconomy at 8:05 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Do you know what I think?

I think that all this negative energy aimed at YouTube posts should be focused on improving the quality of videos at YouTube!!!

You say quixotic, I say anything is possible if you just believe.
posted by veggieboy at 8:06 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

Because some YouTube posts are cool. (Although, the two you picked are kind of lame.)
posted by chunking express at 8:07 AM on November 20, 2007


So this and this were posted this morning,

Also, it's youtubesday
posted by delmoi at 8:08 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


I agree that YouTube posts are more or less just like any other post on MeFi. Single link posts of any kind frequently suck, but they can also be awesome. Similarly, posting LULZ STONED KITTY CHASING COTTON BALL from YT is going to suck no matter what, but somehow two chickens break up a rabbit fight just never gets old.

YouTube has lots of massive suckitude, but it also has lots of redeeming content (like lots of Darkest Hour live videos). MetaFilter is capable of massive suckitude, but has more redeeming content than most websites out there. It's just a reflection of the internet as a whole. You can't ignore YouTube and you can't blast it from MeFi, it's just too integral to how people use the internet now.

I think the key here is community policing. If people get all harsh up on shitty single-link YT posts, people will probably be a lot more reluctant to post them. Many of these threads, though, are just your typical semi-bland MeFi buggery, neither especially insightful nor funny (much like the posts themselves). Perhaps the tenuous imprecation against thread shitting should be completely removed for YT posts, in essence making them free-fire zones. If people start noticing a rain of stones in poor-quality SLYPs, maybe we'll see less of them and more of the moderate-to-good-quality stuff.
posted by baphomet at 8:12 AM on November 20, 2007


Yesssss! YouTubesday!
posted by Mister_A at 8:12 AM on November 20, 2007


I was going to include Hungry Like The Wolf.
There's nearly a good reason to do that.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:12 AM on November 20, 2007


What languagehat said. Take your arbitrary restrictions to Oulipofilter.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2007


Let me get this straight. You don't like YouTube posts, which are consistently the most popular form of posts around here, not because you dislike videos but because your workplace is arcane. Therefore, you'd like us to be dictate what links go in posts posts, which is not something we like to do around here, so that you don't have to see anything on the front page that you can't go to while you're at work?

Well, that's just fucking mindless.

By the way, you can't read. That post by ed wasn't complaining about youtube posts, it was complaining about youtube links without any context. And the resolution was just about the same as whenever we talk about context-free posts, which is just about every other Tuesday around here: yeah, lots of people don't like it, but straight-up regulating things like context is silly and nigh-impossible. In any case, that thread has absolutely nothing to do with your point.

This wouldn't have been such an obnoxious post if you'd done something like, oh, I don't know, explained why you think youtube posts are bad, or maybe asked us what we thought rather than making a presumptuous feature request. Do you realize what your tone sounds like? "Being that I loathe Cartesian geometry, I got to thinking... why isn't there a law against Cartesian geometry?" You essentially just called out two posts, assumed that they'd be deleted, and asked for the 'feature' of never having to see anything like them again, without even addressing why you think they're wrong.

On the other side of the debate, let's be realistic. Being as how youtube is pretty much the across-the-board standard in video dumps on the internet, and being as how google acquired youtube a few months ago and is redirecting from there anyhow, you're actually not really complaining about youtube posts. You're complaining that people link to video. Which is like complaining that people link to text or images. There are regularly Flickr sets on the front page, too, because Flickr is a pretty common image-sharing hub; but no one complains about that, as it's the content that's being shared, not the site itself.

taumeson: ...but I may be a special case.

Apparently.
posted by koeselitz at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2007 [4 favorites]


Hey none of you guys are answering the OP's question, so I will:

No.
posted by Mister_A at 8:13 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


koeselitz, where did you get that new pitchfork? It's awesome.
posted by Mister_A at 8:15 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


So the Youtube homage to Duran Duran I was composing is a no go, then? Are you sure? Because I was going to include Hungry Like The Wolf.

DO IT
posted by brain_drain at 8:18 AM on November 20, 2007


"...YouTube posts, which are consistently the most popular form of posts around here..."

Most popular != best, just so's you know.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:19 AM on November 20, 2007


43 out of 193 are YouTube posts? That tells me that MeFites like to post and watch YouTube videos, ergo they are an important part of the site.

I don't care about where the sites are, or what format the content is in, I care about the QUALITY of the content, and frankly youTube has that occassionally.

So, I vote for NO, banning YouTube is a BAD idea.

I also SUPPORT capitalization of RANDOM words.
posted by blue_beetle at 8:19 AM on November 20, 2007


Metafilter is about interesting links. Many YouTube links are interesting.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:19 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


two chickens break up a rabbit fight

Holy cow, that's great. Did not see it the first time around.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:20 AM on November 20, 2007


It ain't new, Mister_A. I just like to keep it... shiny...
posted by koeselitz at 8:22 AM on November 20, 2007


Didn't we already go through this phase of YouTube-hatery? I'm fairly certain we did, given my comment in Mathowie's YouTube post, which reads "can we refer all further complaints about one link youtube posts to this one?"
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 8:22 AM on November 20, 2007


Media type doesn't matter all that much to quality, media content does, I'd rather watch 50 SLYTPs that where of decent quality then wade through 1 text rich POS post. (and the opposite holds true as well). If you dislike video (and audio and pictures) without text you may have a difficult time on the internet the next few years.
posted by edgeways at 8:22 AM on November 20, 2007


43 out of 193

Nitpick, and a nit I actually did math for last time I picked it: counting the number of raw youtube links on the front page is probably a lot less meaningful, if you want to argue proportions, than counting the number of posts consisting solely or primarily of one or more youtube links.

A post with twelve YT links to Aretha Franklin is just one post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:22 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I'll take a YouTube post any day over this steaming pile of shit.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:23 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


So the Youtube homage to Duran Duran I was composing is a no go, then?

Well, yes, unless it includes the majesty that is thirty seconds of Simon Le Bon taking one in the jewels while singing "Girls On Film."
posted by soundofsuburbia at 8:23 AM on November 20, 2007


mr_crash_davis: Most popular != best, just so's you know.

Well, certainly, but it might cross somebody's mind to ask what people think about them, given that they'd obviously been noticed and appreciated.
posted by koeselitz at 8:25 AM on November 20, 2007


Single link posts of any kind frequently suck

Multiple-link posts of any kind frequently suck, because people too often pad out what would be fine single link posts with all sorts of substandard 'supporting' links, and al it does is diffuse the impact of the single link that inspired the post in the first place.

Youtube links suck, newsfilter posts suck, pepsi blue posts suck, posts with too much text suck, posts without enough explanatory text suck, posts with unusual formatting sucks, your favorite band sucks, as does your favorite webcomic, your favorite blogger, your favorite movie, your political ideology.

Except, y'know, when they don't.
posted by ook at 8:27 AM on November 20, 2007 [3 favorites]


I'm having fond reminiscence of the time I asked if we could curtail Google posts back when they were releasing Another Web App™ every quarter fortnight.
posted by sciurus at 8:35 AM on November 20, 2007


Saying YouTube sucks is like saying TV sucks. Saying comics suck is like saying novels suck. Saying one-link FPPs suck is like saying multiple-link FPPs suck.

Flag content, not media.

*Shrugs, sucks*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Tell it to the TECHNO VIKING.
posted by Sailormom at 8:37 AM on November 20, 2007




Trust The Process.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:40 AM on November 20, 2007


Not as a rule but as a courtesy, I would appreciate if there was a way to highlight that a link goes directly to a video or a pdf. I often open new tabs in a row without looking at them (other than the topic) and only then, when my browser slows down, I know that have opened a few heavy documents (a page with dozens of photos does it too). This is unnecessarily annoying. I can avoid (or be prepared for) video links that have the small white square, but not all of them do.
posted by bru at 8:41 AM on November 20, 2007


With this kind of post, it would be nice if people explained why they chose the particular links they did. I mean, everybody knows who Aretha Franklin is, and everybody knows that YouTube is going to have a bunch of videos of Aretha Franklin, so just repackaging a random collection of YouTube search results seems kind of pointless. Unless the content is obscure enough that nobody is likely to have seen it before, it would help to have some description explaining why this particular set of videos is interesting.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 8:41 AM on November 20, 2007


“A post with twelve YT links to Aretha Franklin is just one post.”

It should have been a post with one link to a YT playlist.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 8:44 AM on November 20, 2007


You might want try my annotation user javascript for greasemonkey and opera. It cleans up some of the mystery meat navigation, and reveals the youtube, nyt and wikipedia posts as not worth the roll-over.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 8:44 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


I agree with bru, can we please get a moratorium on these effing JPEG FPPs?

*Comment not serious, gist of referenced comment twisted for illustrative purposes*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:44 AM on November 20, 2007


With this kind of post, it would be nice if people explained why they chose the particular links they did....

When I saw a post with 12 links to Aretha Franklin videos, I thought she died. Yeah, a lil' splainin' would be awesome.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 8:47 AM on November 20, 2007


being that I loathe not having a date on Fridays, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against not having a date on Fridays?

being that I loathe that squishy stuff inside a raw tomato, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against raw tomatoes?

being that I loathe having my chest pooped on, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against Cleveland?

being that I loathe MeFi not doing things well, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against Mefi not doing things well?

This is fun!
posted by waraw at 8:52 AM on November 20, 2007


Frankly, I think MetaFilter is being ruined by links. IN GENERAL.

Can we have a policy against this? I'd link to the most egregious offenders, but, well.
posted by Astro Zombie at 8:52 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


It should have been a post with one link to a YT playlist.
...which, assuming the poster made the playlist, would be a self-link, wouldn't it?
posted by Wolfdog at 8:56 AM on November 20, 2007


Fact: MeFi is for showing off the "best of the web."

Fact: YouTube comprises a very signficant portion of web content and traffic.

Fact: You are a blowhard douchetruck.

Fact: White Russians are delicious.
posted by absalom at 8:58 AM on November 20, 2007


Frankly, I think MetaFilter is being ruined by links.

No way. Links rule.
posted by iconomy at 9:04 AM on November 20, 2007


2nding Partial Law. But "being that" isn't quite as annoying as "being as how," a construction that I never noticed until I started teaching public speaking to college sophomores and every single one of my students used it in every single speech.

"Being as how I'm a football player..."
"Being as how I'm completely stoned right now..."
"Being as how I'm incredibly promiscuous..."

That was the year I almost died from sheer annoyance. I started giving bonus points to students who just said "because."
posted by Pater Aletheias at 9:08 AM on November 20, 2007


When I saw a post with 12 links to Aretha Franklin videos, I thought she died. Yeah, a lil' splainin' would be awesome.

flapjax says, of the Aretha(s) post: I watched all the clips I posted. I insured that they were all live performances, and that they were all good live performances, cause even the great Aretha Franklin is represented by some not-so-great performances there on YouTube. That's the filtering that I did. Dig?

I like good posts, and don't like bad posts.

That is all.
posted by rtha at 9:11 AM on November 20, 2007


Partial Law: AAAAAAAAAAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

The Australian Government suggests: "Avoid overusing all-caps and exclamation marks as your messages could be mistaken for spam."

And, being as how prescriptivism is usually just a collection of silly prejudices, I appreciate the fact that they put that in the form of a factual suggestion. I guess I wouldn't expect that from something with a stupid name like "Grammar Slammer!"
posted by koeselitz at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2007


Some of us like Aretha Franklin, some of us do not.

People who don't like Aretha should have their accounts disabled, their children apprehended and their iPods confiscated and distributed to deserving inner-city youth.
posted by timeistight at 9:12 AM on November 20, 2007 [5 favorites]


No no, links rule.
posted by languagehat at 9:15 AM on November 20, 2007


Unless the topic is damned appealing to me, I purposely avoid YouTube posts. I really have no desire to watch a dozen videos of Thom Yorke on stage staring at his belly button, or see two cats play pingpong with a wad of kleenex. YouTube posts and linkdumps generally suck and take up quality space on the front page.

With that said, Metafilter has something for everyone, and a lot of people like videos of rock concerts and kittens. The proliferation of such links simply means I will have to spend less time on the blue and find my content elsewhere (which I'm sure will make some users happy).
posted by slogger at 9:18 AM on November 20, 2007


taumeson posted "Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?"

Why isn't there a policy against posts linking to sites which start with vowels?
Why isn't there a policy against posts about animals?
Why isn't there a policy against posts involving intransitive verbs?

ThePinkSuperhero writes "On an even broader note, I bet you can't read Metafilter from work, but you do anyway."

Er...how does that work? Wouldn't that make him God? "I'm making a stone so heavy that I can't pick it up!" "I'm doing something that I can't do!"

(I think you meant "I bet you aren't supposed to read Metafilter from work", or "I bet you shouldn't read Metafilter from work", or even "I bet you mayn't read Metafilter from work")
posted by Bugbread at 9:19 AM on November 20, 2007


"Smell Yo Dick" is the greatest song ever. That is all.
posted by ColdChef at 9:19 AM on November 20, 2007


What it comes down to is exactly what kosem just said:

1. Depends on the video in that particular Youtube link.

Youtube or otherwise, if a post has a problem, it has a problem; react accordingly with flags or metatalk or email. Youtube is the great spoiler in the game because it's pretty much the only (or, really, by far the most visible) site out there that exists as a pure content delivery platform. People aren't linking to youtube, they're linking to video on the site where it's available in a way that it wasn't a few years ago.


Well then call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a good Metafilter post.
posted by taumeson at 9:21 AM on November 20, 2007


taumeson writes "Well then call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a good Metafilter post."

Call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a bad Metafilter post and that we therefore need a policy to explicitly forbid them.

Or just call me "bugbread". It's shorter and easier to remember.
posted by Bugbread at 9:23 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Some of us like Aretha Franklin, some of us do not. YouTube, believe it or not, can be a goldmine of content. MetaFilter provides a valuable service by discovering this content, and thus adding value to YouTube, and to the Internet as well.

I see value in a MeFi post along the lines of:

Love Aretha Franklin? Like 9-year old drummers? Check out YouTube, and let your nostalgia run free.

Etc. But not EVERY. OTHER. POST.
posted by taumeson at 9:23 AM on November 20, 2007


Is Wolfdog correct about a link to a YouTube playlist I make being a self-link? It seems like such a thing is more a convenience than a self-link, unless I made the videos in the playlist or something.
posted by cgc373 at 9:26 AM on November 20, 2007


No, no NO! Rinks Lool
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:33 AM on November 20, 2007


taumeson: Well then call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a good Metafilter post.

I think everybody here agrees with that. In fact, I think it'd be a good idea if matt came up with some way for us to inform him that certain posts were a little weak. Maybe some sort of flagging system.
posted by koeselitz at 9:33 AM on November 20, 2007


goodnewsfortheinsane: Take your arbitrary restrictions to Oulipofilter

Really? Oulipofilter?! Awesome!
*googles*
*results are two links, both to MetaTalk*
*cries*
posted by Kattullus at 9:34 AM on November 20, 2007


Not as a rule but as a courtesy, I would appreciate if there was a way to highlight that a link goes directly to a video or a pdf.

bru, there's a user-preference option to markup youtube videos with an icon (which functions as an on-site player, too). Check out your Preferences page, and look for "Display YouTube Video inline?" about seven lines down.

There was some discussion a while back about whether or not to do likewise with PDFs (and perhaps some other variants?); Matt toyed around with a couple ideas, but I don't know where he left that, and whether he was planning to implement it as a similar opt-in feature in the future.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:34 AM on November 20, 2007


And then, when we were done flagging, we could just move on. It'd be great.
posted by koeselitz at 9:34 AM on November 20, 2007


Call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a bad Metafilter post and that we therefore need a policy to explicitly forbid them.

This is a straw man, though. I'm not calling for anything approaching that.

I took Ed's question:

"I'm not against YouTube links, but is context too much to ask for? Why not a policy to abolish stand-alone YouTube links without an associative frame?"

and worked out a method of forcing an associative frame. I.E. one goddamn link in your post needs to be to a site other than YouTube.

Get that accomplished, and you can have all the YouTube posts you can handle. Enjoy. I don't want to see them go. I do want to know if it's worth coming back later.
posted by taumeson at 9:35 AM on November 20, 2007


Well then call me skeptical that every single YouTube post is a good Metafilter post.

You're welcome to your skepticism. Nobody around here agrees entirely with anybody else what is and is not a good post, but flagging the stuff that's crap is a big part of making your voice heard there. Please don't just blindly flag a post because it contains a youtube link, though—flag it because it's a bad youtube post, or we're not getting a useful signal.

Note also that not every youtube post lives through the night. I don't think every single one is good either, and neither does Matt or Jessamyn.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:36 AM on November 20, 2007


By the way, you can't read...You essentially just called out two posts, assumed that they'd be deleted, and asked for the 'feature' of never having to see anything like them again....

I find this ironic. Does anybody else find this ironic?
posted by taumeson at 9:44 AM on November 20, 2007


I.E. one goddamn link in your post needs to be to a site other than YouTube. Get that accomplished, and you can have all the YouTube posts you can handle.

But that's not going to accomplish what you want (better YouTube posts) and it's going to make things worse (more fluff links). Here's a post that qualifies under your rule:

Look at this funny video that relates to Chewbacca.
posted by brain_drain at 9:44 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


But, taumeson: that doesn't force any kind of associative frame at all. Maybe you're familiar with mcgraw, the (former) poster boy of context-free posts, whose every post lacked associative frames. Not a one of them were youtube-only. Context-free posts pre-existed youtube by years, and, even if you require other links, it's still unlikely that context would come of it. Heck, people link to periods and commas all the time; your suggestion would just mean that one of the a's in the Aretha post would've gone to wikipedia. (That's one thing we don't need.)
posted by koeselitz at 9:47 AM on November 20, 2007


taumeson writes "This is a straw man, though. I'm not calling for anything approaching that."

Ah, so your questions are literal?

Very well, then, here are your answers:

taumeson posted "Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?"

Answer: Because they aren't considered to be things which should be forbidden.

taumeson posted "Would it be difficult to implement a filter that at least one link in the post has to be a site other than YouTube?"

Answer: No, it would not.

Well, then, since that seems to cover your questions, I guess this MeTa thread is pretty much over. Thanks for your patience!
posted by Bugbread at 9:50 AM on November 20, 2007


To assume that they were roundly seen as no good, to assume that anything like them would be rejected from henceforth, is to assume that they'd be deleted once they were noticed.
posted by koeselitz at 9:50 AM on November 20, 2007


Can we implement a feature that would force anyone who posts a MeTa complaint like this to view Metafilter only through a special "WhinerFilter" portal. Every Metafilter FPP shows up on WhinerFilter, but it is automatically deleted after 30 minutes unless 10 WhiterFilter users vote that it matches whatever criteria they have conjured up for themselves. Any negative vote results in automatic deletion. This should eliminate all the whining and "Why isn't there a no [BLAH] policy?!" declarations. Also, it'd be funny to me.
posted by mullacc at 9:53 AM on November 20, 2007 [1 favorite]


Look at this funny video that relates to Chewbacca.

Even if that were on the front page, just as it is, I would have still laughed.

Nightstands that sound like Chewbacca are the type of thing that YouTube does well, and those types of YouTube links make good posts. Collected clips of one artist or another, not so much; as was said above, those types of posts are better suited for your own blog or fanpage.

To sum up; I'm right, and anyone who disagrees is wrong. Aren't opinions wonderful?
posted by yhbc at 10:06 AM on November 20, 2007


no link is acceptable here.
posted by quonsar at 10:10 AM on November 20, 2007


But, taumeson: that doesn't force any kind of associative frame at all...Heck, people link to periods and commas all the time; your suggestion would just mean that one of the a's in the Aretha post would've gone to wikipedia.

But this is MeFi. We allow people to post anything they want, and if it's egregiously bad we delete it. In other words, we assume people are going to do their best to do a good post, and making a single comma a link elsewhere would not qualify under a "please give context to youtube links" policy.

I can't think of ANY ways to force some kind of explanation for a post, and the vast majority of posts don't require one. What this policy would do is require somebody to do more than a search for "Aretha Franklin live" on YouTube and rack up a bunch of links. The post is one repeated word. A link to something on wikipedia about Aretha Franklin would indeed provide context.

This should eliminate all the whining and "Why isn't there a no [BLAH] policy?!" declarations.

But I know you don't believe that all of Matt's policies are bad. Some came from whining.
posted by taumeson at 10:12 AM on November 20, 2007


What about single-link NYT posts, like this one? How is that any different? It seems like every week, we have a single-link post to the NYT Sunday Magazine or some other feature.

At least with the YT posts, there are things that I would not find otherwise--I don't spend my time seaching YT ever. By contrast, I think a large number of MeFites either read the NYT or would be able to find something of interest just by going to the NYT site. To be clear, content-wise, a single-link NYT post will likely have something exponentially more interesting/well thought out/intelligent than anything on YT. For me, the litmus test should be, do we need someone to bring to our attention a gem from a pile of gems, or a semi-precious stone from a pile of shit?

For instance, if not for YT posts, I would never have found Ronald's sick beats!
posted by Admiral Haddock at 10:12 AM on November 20, 2007


Look at this funny video that relates to Chewbacca.

Even if that were on the front page, just as it is, I would have still laughed.


And that example post is still better than:

Chewbacca.
posted by taumeson at 10:13 AM on November 20, 2007


What about single-link NYT posts, like this one?

Aren't newsfilter posts still frowned upon?

For me, the litmus test should be, do we need someone to bring to our attention a gem from a pile of gems, or a semi-precious stone from a pile of shit?

Again, nobody is saying YouTube posts should be verboten.
posted by taumeson at 10:15 AM on November 20, 2007


Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?

Because GO TO HELL.
posted by jonson at 10:16 AM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


taumeson writes "this is MeFi. We allow people to post anything they want, and if it's egregiously bad we delete it."

Well, there, answered your own issue, didn't you?
posted by Bugbread at 10:23 AM on November 20, 2007


taumeson, the problem is your suggestion that requiring a non-YouTube link to supplement every YouTube link will somehow make things better. It won't. But I don't disagree with the more general point that posts including YouTube links are better if the links have some description or context.

Also, I should have chosen a less awesome video to make my point above.
posted by brain_drain at 10:25 AM on November 20, 2007


Can we have a policy against non-video FPPs please? All that wordy stuff is soooooo boooooring.
posted by algreer at 10:26 AM on November 20, 2007


But this is MeFi. We allow people to post anything they want

...including post dumb callouts like this. But they do provide entertainment, so I guess it's all good.
posted by languagehat at 10:28 AM on November 20, 2007


This MeTa post was the first proposing YT playlists, I think. None of the mods weighed in on the topic then, but those who commented there were generally positive on the idea.
posted by breaks the guidelines? at 10:32 AM on November 20, 2007


KNOW LINK POLICY BITCHES
posted by Mister_A at 10:35 AM on November 20, 2007


[cough!]

i don't like youtube posts and generally try to avoid them. on the ocassions that i don't avoid them, i have, at times, found something that makes me smile. sometimes laugh. or sometimes strikes a memory from my long-ago youth. with the exception of that last one, very rarely have i found one that makes me think.

it strikes me rather like shooting fish in a barrel. almost like someone thinks, So I've been a mefite for about 3 years, and I'm always looking around for good things to post. i know! i'll go to youtube and search on 'bob dylan*' and get a bunch of pre-basement tapes footage and link to that! everybody loves bob dylan. or they hate him. or it doesn't matter because YouTube posts ... are consistently the most popular form of posts around here, thereby giving my fpp hundreds of comments!'

if it's about best of the web, then a link to youtube at its inception would have done it. if it's about the best of today's uploads, then persistent, daily links to youtube will do it.

*your favorite rock/r&b/hip hop/blues/etc. star will suffice.

there. i said it.
posted by msconduct at 10:40 AM on November 20, 2007


software-monopoly, er MS-conduct, do not want.
posted by nomisxid at 10:44 AM on November 20, 2007


For a glorious shining moment I thought breaks the guidelines? was a sock-puppet whose only purpose was to comment on issues where the guidelines are fuzzy. But alas, alas and poop. Though incidentally, his unicode enabled name breaks the user profile look-up in preview.
posted by Kattullus at 10:49 AM on November 20, 2007


Or this new NYT post for that matter.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 11:31 AM on November 20, 2007


There is so much gold in the example links found here that I feel like a wee leprechaun on Christmas Day. God bless you all, even taumeson, because you have generated so much goodness out of annoyance.

Especially TPS... that drag performance made my thighs shiver.
posted by Unicorn on the cob at 11:36 AM on November 20, 2007


It seems like every week, we have a single-link post to the NYT Sunday Magazine or some other feature. [snip] By contrast, I think a large number of MeFites either read the NYT or would be able to find something of interest just by going to the NYT site.

This this this this. This is the only callout I've ever considered making 'round these parts. I see an interesting FPP, and then the link goes clicky on the damn front page of the Sunday NYT A&E or the cover story from the Magazine.

We've all aware of the NY Times. Bonus advice for filtering the web: We've also all aware of Slate.
posted by desuetude at 12:07 PM on November 20, 2007


Hey let's all send a meta-mail to someone who's not in this thread as a gag. Because I am tired of talking about Chewbacca (never thought I'd say that).
posted by Mister_A at 12:12 PM on November 20, 2007


I'm pretty sure creating playlists for a post here is a matter of courtesy and not self-linking. Or if not, I aught to be banned for this post.
posted by puke & cry at 12:40 PM on November 20, 2007


ought
posted by puke & cry at 12:42 PM on November 20, 2007


desuetude: We've all aware of the NY Times

Awareness does not equal perusing. I read a lot. I internet a lot. I very rarely go to the New York Times website. Certainly not into deep into the sections. Same goes for Slate, by the by.
posted by Kattullus at 1:01 PM on November 20, 2007


Not as a rule but as a courtesy, I would appreciate if there was a way to highlight that a link goes directly to a video or a pdf.

It already exists. It's called the status bar.
posted by blue_beetle at 1:10 PM on November 20, 2007


I read a lot. I internet a lot.

"Internet" is now a verb? Awesome!

Go internet yourself, jerk.
posted by slogger at 1:12 PM on November 20, 2007


Kattullus, the point I made above and that Desuetude shares, is that you don't need to delve deeply into any section for 90% of the single-link NYT posts. Such posts almost universally go to the cover article of the NYT Sunday Magazine or the cover of the Arts section.

Whether or not individual members of the MeFi community peruse the NYT site daily/weekly, it may go without saying that come each weekend, the cover article of the NYT Sunday Magazine may well be "the best of the web." Posting the link with a short synopsis doesn't really make a great FPP.

I should note, too, that I think you have a history of doing some really great posts, which I really respect.
posted by Admiral Haddock at 1:19 PM on November 20, 2007


Kattullus, even I wouldn't bitch as much about an article deep within a section. But front page of a section is not "deep."

If you're finding the NY Times articles interesting, perhaps you'd enjoy reading more about heath and medicine, world news and culture, arts, food, science, or browsing a mish-mosh of dubiously-related puff pieces.
posted by desuetude at 1:25 PM on November 20, 2007


After hitting post and especially after seeing the Admiral's more thoughtful comment above, I kinda feel like my comment comes off a wee bit snarkier than I meant. Please read with a teasing snark tone of voice, not a fuck-you sneering snark tone of voice.
posted by desuetude at 1:28 PM on November 20, 2007


All of this whining about context-free, one-link posts, and no one's mentioned hama7 yet? Now, that's a mefite who internets!
posted by rtha at 1:32 PM on November 20, 2007


Holy shit, that Chewbacca link. Now I have to go upload a video of me raising and lowering my parents' wooden toilet seat.
posted by chococat at 1:40 PM on November 20, 2007


At this point in the conversation I doubt it is new, but my only pet peeve is YouTube links that do not describe why I should bother to click on them. For example, ThePinkSuperhero says "I would have never seen THIS and had my life changed for the better." If I hover over the link in "THIS" all I know is that it is a YouTube link. I have no idea what the video shows though. If people (and I am not aiming this critique at TPS) would take a second to type "Video of Tandi Iman Dupree doing I need a hero" I wouldn't mind.

Either way, no one is holding a gun to my or Taumeson's head. Don't like 'em? Don't read 'em. But if the posters want to SHARE something they should help with the "filter" part of MetaFILTER.
posted by terrapin at 1:57 PM on November 20, 2007 [2 favorites]


Is there any way we can ban posts altogether?
posted by davejay at 2:03 PM on November 20, 2007


A link to something on wikipedia about Aretha Franklin would indeed provide context.

That's the stupidest fucking thing I've ever heard, and I live and work in an overcrowded group home.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:06 PM on November 20, 2007 [10 favorites]


Re-reading my comment, desuetude, I realize that I may have come across as snarky, which wasn't what I intended. I merely meant to add a dissenting opinion. I don't read the New York Times much because when I read it I inevitably come across some article or another which has me spittling with anger that anybody would publish this dreck. I know that one can't expect through and through quality from a daily publication, but I can get my news and opinion from elsewhere (same goes for Slate). That said, a lot of smart, knowledgable people whose judgment I trust read through the entire thing every day so I'm perfectly willing to accept that the problem may be mine. These people, be they bloggers I read or personal friends, sometimes point me towards quality articles on nytimes.com which I read with enjoyment.

Admiral Haddock, you make an excellent point to which I have no good rejoinder. The main feature of the New York Times Magazine needs little further boosting. And thank you for the kind words.

And slogger, I'll go internet myself right after I'm done internetting your mom.
posted by Kattullus at 2:27 PM on November 20, 2007


cortex: "We're not going to implement a youtube filter mechanism, no. This sort of thing needs to be handled by humans, metatalk discussions being the canonical approach (so here we are!).

What it comes down to is exactly what kosem just said:

1. Depends on the video in that particular Youtube link.

Youtube or otherwise, if a post has a problem, it has a problem; react accordingly with flags or metatalk or email. Youtube is the great spoiler in the game because it's pretty much the only (or, really, by far the most visible) site out there that exists as a pure content delivery platform. People aren't linking to youtube, they're linking to video on the site where it's available in a way that it wasn't a few years ago.
"




Umm. Basically, quoted for truth. Argument was over like a million comments ago. Everything since is pretty much dumb, imo. Except for the chicken video.
posted by lazaruslong at 3:29 PM on November 20, 2007


You know, after a few Orvals, I too content for the World's Biggest Douchebag.

Whoops, wrong thread.
posted by rudster at 3:34 PM on November 20, 2007


We're all aware of the [internet].
posted by garlic at 3:37 PM on November 20, 2007


With the number of RAAR I AM INTERNETTING ANGRY insults in this thread, you'd think people were feeling personally threatened by a little anti-youtubery. That's just silly.

But I think I have to recuse myself from this kind of discussion, so that's all I'll say.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:45 PM on November 20, 2007


I wish someone would make a video of him/herself scrolling through this thread, post it to YouTube, and then ask another member to post it to the front page.

Complete the circle. That would be awesome.
posted by strangeleftydoublethink at 4:16 PM on November 20, 2007


Yesssss! YouTubesday!

Please, god in heaven, no. Just stop with the posting gimmicks already.
posted by mediareport at 6:04 PM on November 20, 2007


stavrosthewonderchicken: With the number of RAAR I AM INTERNETTING ANGRY insults in this thread, you'd think people were feeling personally threatened by a little anti-youtubery. That's just silly.

Yeah. Christ, I need to go punch a pillow or something, methinks. taumeson didn't really deserve that.
posted by koeselitz at 6:05 PM on November 20, 2007


When I lonely, YouTube gave me a crowd.
When I was sad, YouTube gave me a smile.
When I was cold-hearted, YouTube gave me baby's [sic].
When I was bored, YouTube gave me excitement.

Take away my YouTube? Sure. When you pry it from my cold, dead hands.
posted by The Deej at 7:32 PM on November 20, 2007


"Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?"

Because your tastes don't dictate what's good or bad for the site as a whole?

If taste mattered, we'd long, long, long since have banned news and politics posts, because those are FAR more irritating than somebody linking to a bad re-encode of Chocolate Rain with audio sync problems.
posted by majick at 8:04 PM on November 20, 2007


God, what a fucked up day. I read MetaTalk AFTER posting to the front page for once, and this happens. I can't win; I'm going to bed.
posted by carsonb at 8:14 PM on November 20, 2007


Being that is not an appropriate substitute for since.
posted by solipsophistocracy at 8:28 PM on November 20, 2007


Being as how people use this sort of construction on a regular basis and are understood perfectly, and being that plenty of people wouldn't even drop a question mark, let alone an asterisk, next to the usage, I'd say maybe piling on about it is a bit misguided.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:32 PM on November 20, 2007


I think you're all overthinking this plate of beings.

Kill me please.
posted by brain_drain at 8:44 PM on November 20, 2007


I think you're all overthinking this plate of beings.

Kill me please.
posted by brain_drain


But if you do kill him... please record it and post it to YouTube!
posted by The Deej at 9:06 PM on November 20, 2007


I don't like it when people do [this], so could you make it so they aren't allowed to do [this]? After all, I paid 5 dollars for this blog and it's MINE now.
posted by tehloki at 2:03 AM on November 21, 2007


Take away my YouTube? Sure. When you pry it from my cold, dead hands.

I guess this thread got too long. That wasn't what I was saying, and I tried to point that out in many of my comments. tl;dr?

I don't like it when people do [this], so could you make it so they aren't allowed to do [this]? After all, I paid 5 dollars for this blog and it's MINE now.

Is there anything in this comment that:

A: wasn't mentioned thrice already.
B: is constructive?

No.

For the record, I didn't pay 5 dollars. I got in free. 6 years ago. Doesn't make me better, but it does change the nature of my investment in MeFi and make me a bit sad at what the comments in this thread point out about us.
posted by taumeson at 6:04 AM on November 21, 2007


make me a bit sad at what the comments in this thread point out about us.

Give me a break. All they "point out about us" is that we don't care for useless nannying suggestions/demands. If you've been her six years, you should have known this wasn't going to go well; in fact you should have known better than to post it. As a bright-eyed newbie, I made this idiotic MeTa post and quite properly got told to uncork my sphincter. Five years later, I'd never dream of making a post like this. What makes you sad, that everybody doesn't see things the way you do?
posted by languagehat at 6:25 AM on November 21, 2007


So these 144 comments were posted this morning in a MetaTalk thread without any banhammer, pitchforks, or flameout. I read right to the end and, being that I loathe MetaTalk threads without any banhammer, pitchforks, or flameout in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against MetaTalk threads without any banhammer, pitchforks, or flameout ?
posted by roofus at 6:26 AM on November 21, 2007


What annoys me is not so much the single-link YT-posts, as the "let's type something into YT's search box and make a post out of the results". And throw in some Wikipedia links to "add context".
posted by signal at 6:27 AM on November 21, 2007


i know! i'll go to youtube and search on 'bob dylan*' and get a bunch of pre-basement tapes footage and link to that! everybody loves bob dylan. or they hate him. or it doesn't matter because YouTube posts ... are consistently the most popular form of posts around here, thereby giving my fpp hundreds of comments!'

-

What annoys me is not so much the single-link YT-posts, as the "let's type something into YT's search box and make a post out of the results".

At least a couple of people see the same as I do.
posted by Wolfdog at 6:44 AM on November 21, 2007


signal: What annoys me is not so much the single-link YT-posts, as the "let's type something into YT's search box and make a post out of the results". And throw in some Wikipedia links to "add context".

Wolfdog: At least a couple of people see the same as I do.


We all feel the same about the fact that there are a lot of bad youtube posts, and some of them could get culled. I'm pretty sure there's not much disagreement about that.

But there are, at the same time, a lot of people around here who are big fans of y2karl-style posts. I don't think they're bad, either. Sure, a simple search-n-post from youtube seems somehow too easy. But you notice the experience, the study, the care and thoughtfulness that goes into those posts before they're even conceived, and I think it become apparent that they're worth it. I've learned a good lot about music, for example, from a lot of the people here like y2karl and jonmc who've, in essence, been big fans of something interesting, searched for it on google or youtube, and posted the results. It was easy, it took five seconds, but it makes a good post. Thing is, I have a feeling half the things posted here are found about the same way anyway: a search for something or other turns up something great. And if somebody searched for "pants," turns up a great link about "pants, and then posts it, all the better, I think.

In short: it doesn't really matter how somebody found a link they post. It matters how good it is.
posted by koeselitz at 7:34 AM on November 21, 2007


...a lot of people around here who are big fans of y2karl-style posts.

Including me. I really like the thought and effort that go into them.

All they "point out about us" is that we don't care for useless nannying suggestions/demands. If you've been her six years, you should have known this wasn't going to go well; in fact you should have known better than to post it. As a bright-eyed newbie, I made this idiotic MeTa post and quite properly got told to uncork my sphincter. Five years later, I'd never dream of making a post like this. What makes you sad, that everybody doesn't see things the way you do?

They point out more than that. They point out that we're not very observant and we don't read through prior comments before piling on the snark. They point out that we aren't as interested in conversing and adding intelligent meaning to a discussion as we are in throwing our own opinions into the maelstrom of "discourse" more fervently than the OP.

I did know that this was going to get a lot of bullshit replies (though I'm appalled at the number). I cared enough to add my voice to the list of people who feel that the YT posts are getting a little out of hand. Instead of just whining about it, I actually came up with a solution that might make things better and offered THAT up for discussion. It didn't work because people decided to get pissed off about what they assumed I was talking about.

Your religion post wasn't idiotic in the slightest. You felt a certain way and took it to MeTa, where others could share their opinion in the mature way that MeFi previously offered. You obviously feel different about things now, but you made a perfectly valid observation
posted by taumeson at 7:52 AM on November 21, 2007


Well, OK, fair enough, and I withdraw... let's say 80% of my snark. Yeah, I didn't really mean my post was idiotic, I meant that the passage of time has taught me that going to MetaTalk to say "this kind of post bothers me" is a waste of time. I'm not talking about the boyzone thing—that's a basic moral issue that needs to be dealt with—I'm talking about not liking YouTube, or newspaper links, or lack of capitalization, or whatever damn thing. I'm not saying people who don't like one thing or another are bad and wrong—we all have our pet peeves—I'm saying you, having been here that long, should have not only anticipated the "bullshit replies" but crafted your post in such a way as to minimize them. Instead, you went with "being that I loathe YouTube only posts in the first place, it got me thinking...Why isn't there a policy against YouTube-only Posts?" Come on, can't you see that's asking for snark? If I had wanted to make this post, I might have gone with:

I know people love YouTube and there's a lot of great stuff out there worthy of being posted to MeFi, but there's also a lot of crap, and it seems to me people aren't doing enough filtering. Personally, I'd like to see a little additional material along with the YouTube link. Any thoughts?

In other words, don't overstate your case and treat the community with respect.
posted by languagehat at 8:09 AM on November 21, 2007


Being as how

I have never heard this construction before. 'Seeing as how' sure, nothing wrong with that at all, but 'Being as how'?. That's a new one. And totally horrid and awful. Away with you, strange, ugly expression that no one loves!

YT posts, on the other hand, are usually for people who don't like radio without pictures. We need more Potter Puppet Pals and less Aretha ScreechyWoman!
posted by Sparx at 8:21 AM on November 21, 2007


taumeson writes "Instead of just whining about it, I actually came up with a solution that might make things better and offered THAT up for discussion. It didn't work because people decided to get pissed off about what they assumed I was talking about. "

It didn't work because your initial post was just "I don't like youtube-only posts. Why aren't they against the rules? Couldn't there be some technical implementation which would require at least one non-YouTube link?" You then got a bunch of shit, because:

1) "I hate X, why isn't it banned?" is a stupid argument.
2) There is no explanation anywhere about how your solution would make things "better", just how they would stop a situation that you personally hate.

Perhaps you meant something more than just "I really hate YT only posts. They should be against the rules. We should have a technical measure that requires a non-YT link in each post." Maybe you had some brilliant insights about what is wrong with YT only posts, and about how your proposal would make things awesome. Brilliant insights that you just decided not to post. But, you know, if you don't actually say them, then you're basically requiring people to assume what you're talking about.
posted by Bugbread at 8:32 AM on November 21, 2007


...and I withdraw... let's say 80% of my snark...Come on, can't you see that's asking for snark? If I had wanted to make this post, I might have gone with:

I know people love YouTube and there's a lot of great stuff out there worthy of being posted to MeFi, but there's also a lot of crap, and it seems to me people aren't doing enough filtering. Personally, I'd like to see a little additional material along with the YouTube link. Any thoughts?

In other words, don't overstate your case and treat the community with respect.


I wouldn't want you to withdraw any more of it. I'm OK with the snark when it deals with the actual question. And frankly, your example post is much more even-keeled and might have lead to a higher level of conversation. Somewhat. :)

And I didn't realize people would take it so personally. People like their youtubery.
posted by taumeson at 8:33 AM on November 21, 2007


Perhaps you meant something more than ....

I didn't think I had to spell out the fact that the thing I hated was causing post quality to go down. I did mention:

To me, it's shocking that 22% of the links on MetaFilter go to one website in the first place...[forcing people to offer context for YT posts] would actually increase the usability of MeFi for those behind firewalls.

There's my explanation of how they'd make things better. They'd increase link diversity and allow for greater usability.
posted by taumeson at 8:40 AM on November 21, 2007


And I didn't realize people would take it so personally

People take every goddam thing personally, I'm afraid. And I'm no exception.
posted by languagehat at 8:42 AM on November 21, 2007


I once took a man seriously in Reno, just to watch him die.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:08 AM on November 21, 2007 [2 favorites]


taumeson: And I didn't realize people would take it so personally. People like their youtubery.

To take only the best example out of dozens, y2karl has a whole slew of youtube-only posts under his belt, every one of which is really great. Yes, it's on youtube, but the collections he puts together have care and thoughtfulness behind them that you can't find anywhere else on the web. Because his posts and the posts of a few other people who do this kind of thing regularly are valued highly here, a lot of us react pretty strongly in those posts' defense. They're really a big part of what we do here, I think.
posted by koeselitz at 9:58 AM on November 21, 2007


so instead of taumeson's suggestion we do what? whine every month or so on metatalk that people post weak youtube links? Or is the solution going to be the 'flag it and move on' mantra?
posted by garlic at 1:50 PM on November 21, 2007


Or is the solution going to be the 'flag it and move on' mantra?

Why not? Do you think there's something especially heinous about YouTube links, so that there must be a special drastic solution just for them? Bad posts are bad posts; flag it, and if an admin agrees with you, it will be zapped. What is the problem there?
posted by languagehat at 2:05 PM on November 21, 2007


Yes, flag it and move on. A weak youtube post gets enough flags, it will get deleted. Taumeson's suggestion isn't good, and the monthly "why oh why do people make lame youtube posts" goes nowhere. Ideally we should be flagging the meta posts too, because they're pointless.
posted by Lentrohamsanin at 2:06 PM on November 21, 2007


Metafilter:There's no way around the shit.
posted by Neiltupper at 4:44 PM on November 21, 2007


taumeson writes "I didn't think I had to spell out the fact that the thing I hated was causing post quality to go down."

You didn't have to spell out that it did so, but you did have to spell out why you thought it did so.

taumeson writes "There's my explanation of how they'd make things better. They'd increase link diversity and allow for greater usability."

So, for example, if Flapjax had thrown a Wikipedia link to Aretha Franklin into his YouTube post, that would be an improvement because of increased link diversity, and because people behind firewalls could see the context page but not the actual post-meat pages?
posted by Bugbread at 4:58 PM on November 21, 2007


I'd just like to thank the OP for this thread, because I missed the video of the two chickens breaking up a bunny fight the first time around.

Look at this funny video that relates to Chewbacca.

WIN!
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 8:21 PM on November 21, 2007


Until this thread I'd always mentally parsed taumeson as t aumeson (ie someone's real name) rather than tau meson. I am a big stupidhead sometimes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:07 PM on November 21, 2007


I just read it as taumeson... like a last name... as in son of taume. Sounds kinda almost Norwegian, no? Norwegian name going through the Ellis Island spelling shredder... something like that.
posted by Kattullus at 10:27 PM on November 21, 2007


I'm right there with you, stavrost.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:33 PM on November 21, 2007


I read it like Kattallus did: "Johnson. Thompson. Richardson. Taumeson."
posted by Bugbread at 10:53 PM on November 21, 2007


I trust everyone realizes my username should parse as lan + gua + geh + at: lan gua (Chinese for 'blue melon') + geh (German for 'go!') + at (Turkish for 'horse'). I can't remember now why I chose it, but there's clearly a lot of hidden meaning there.
posted by languagehat at 6:51 AM on November 22, 2007


Hunh, all this time I've been reading it as "Gary".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:55 AM on November 22, 2007 [1 favorite]


« Older The dear green place anyone?   |   BlackBerry no comprende la pagina Recent Activity Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments