Are people ever going to mellow out on the double post callouts? January 18, 2002 6:43 PM   Subscribe

jesus christ. Are people ever going to mellow out on the double post callouts? A couple times in the past week, I've met someone that knows about the site, and their first comment to me is "everyone there loves to bitch about a double post, I never post there because of it"
posted by mathowie to Etiquette/Policy at 6:43 PM (61 comments total)

Guide to double-post callouts for fuckwits:

1. In the most polite way possible, mention it was discussed previously, to help divert people that want to read/comment on the original.

2. If you come to a previously discussed thread and someone already mentioned it was previously discussed, move on without commenting.

2. send me an email about it and I'll cut it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:45 PM on January 18, 2002


Well said. Can we have this in large, fuckwit-readable letters on the policy page?
posted by dlewis at 7:07 PM on January 18, 2002


I know you can't code-away morons, but I have a suggestion... Maybe under the comment in a particular thread have a "Think this is a double post? Click here to report it" -- this could simply toggle some flag on the front page (or email you) so you know which ones to potentially delete.

I'm not sure if this works, as there is a good side to pointing out previous posts in threads (seeing older discussions), but maybe some kind of "report" link like this would discourage the more overbearing police type posts.

Just a thought.


posted by malphigian at 7:17 PM on January 18, 2002


aaahhh, what a relaxing post, thank you Matt.
posted by bittennails at 7:22 PM on January 18, 2002


Ah, well, that's why I wrote the haiku: on the assumption it was going bye bye. But double post or not, it was an amusing way of posting the information. I double posted Carol Anne's anthrax link--couldn't read tiny side bar type on my tiny monitor. Hey, you'll be bi-focal material someday, too, kids...--and, I suppose, I've tweaked people a couple of times on double posts but, all in all, it's not a crime in my book. And I've made a number of insulting comments in my time here. Can't recall calling anyone a fuckwit, though... That is so lame.
posted by y2karl at 7:27 PM on January 18, 2002


Granted, we should be exercising more restraint when we encounter a double post. But patience may be wearing a bit thin around here. Is it just me, or do the number of double posts seem to be increasing lately?
posted by mcwetboy at 7:43 PM on January 18, 2002


lay down the law matt. though, in a few months, there will need to be a guide to calling out bad methods of calling out a double post call out.


posted by th3ph17 at 7:45 PM on January 18, 2002


"...do the number of double posts seem to be increasing lately?"

Hmm. Since I've only been around for four months, I may not be qualified to judge it, but it seems that way to me too. Possibly as a result of more "news" posts? (of which I am as guilty as anyone)
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:54 PM on January 18, 2002


double posts are increasing. I hardly ever click through to read a thread these days, and even *I* can recognize the same threads that get posted over and over again.

I wonder if people ever even actually read the site, or if they just wait and wait until they find something they think would be cool on metafilter and post it up as quick as they can. really, in a lot of these cases it's not even a matter of not searching, just scanning the front page would do it.

that said, people need to chill out. one DP call is enough. cluttering up the thread with nonsense is unnecessary.
posted by rebeccablood at 7:55 PM on January 18, 2002


Is it just me, or do the number of double posts seem to be increasing lately?

I think that as a by-product of the new limit of one post per 24 hrs, the old active posters have been forced to post less (the good ones mind you, the rule was created for the bad ones who posted like crazy after 9/11). So, since people that used to post a lot of great stuff got limited to once a day, more people post (increase in variety of posters). The number of posts per day seems as high as ever, there are just more people involved. Since a lot of the newer members came to the site after it got a little news heavy, they tend to look to news sites to find something post-able. It's easy to sit at a news site and wait for something new to come up, and then post it here. My guess is you're seeing so many double posts because these less-experienced posters are seeing news stories for the first time, then posting them without doing a check over the past week's posts.

It's not all bad though, a good side effect of the one post per 24 hour rule is that hopefully people pick and choose their posts, and I think in general the quality of posts for each person is higher.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:01 PM on January 18, 2002


I go by the FARK rule: if it's on FARK, it's probably already been linked here. There's always that semi-excitement to try and be the first one to link a hot news flash. The FARK rule eliminates that.

But echo agreement on being kinder with the DP notification. Echo, echo, echo.
posted by solistrato at 8:15 PM on January 18, 2002


sjc, I've noticed precisely the opposite : in the last few weeks, I reckon there've been about 3-6 posts a day here that have been posted at Fark first. I thought about bringing it up before, but didn't bother.

Is that a bad thing? I don't know. I almost never read comments at Fark, bar the photoshop threads, so it's not a problem for me. But (switching elitism circuits) I would think that us cleverer-than-clever MeFites could do better than this, to pick a random example (and no offense intended jonmc in pointing to 'your' thread, and I'm not intimating that it was 'via Fark' or anything, just an example)...

posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:41 PM on January 18, 2002


I'd like a policy that if it's on medianews, fark, plastic or blogdex it's considered a double post.

but I'm an asshole.
posted by raaka at 8:59 PM on January 18, 2002


i know there is the larger issue of double-posts and handling double-posts that is totally legit. but isn't the real crap here godidog itself?

i thought the others posters handled the situation pretty well. godidog on the other hand makes me wish i'd never posted a comment supporting cuss-words and those who use em on metafilter. and s/he seems to be getting nastier about jumping on folks, reading it's only other contribution today wasn't a barrell of monkeys either.

gives us september signups an even worse rep.
posted by danOstuporStar at 9:03 PM on January 18, 2002


None taken, stavros. That thread contains my own admission of unthreadworthiness and request for deletion. Not to mention an explanation and yet another apology from me. God, between the Devo thing, the thread hijacking, the bad cop thread, and an argument about vigilantism that I had with skallas today, I seem to spend more time apologizing than posting anything interesting. A freind always said that one day I'd open my mouth and fall right in. Perhaps I'll shut my yap and just read for a while.
On the plus side, I've yet to shout out "double post."
posted by jonmc at 9:06 PM on January 18, 2002


I see raaka's point, and I'm an asshole too, most assuredly.

All-new! all-fresh! never-before-seen-links! 24 hrs a day! is perhaps too much to ask, guidelines notwithstanding.

All I'd hope for is a little more discrimination /i> in choosing what's front-page-worthy is all. That couldn't be a bad thing.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:24 PM on January 18, 2002


medianews, fark, plastic or blogdex

Does anybody read all those AND metafilter as well?

posted by mischief at 9:45 PM on January 18, 2002


I would like to add Obscure Store to those Raaka mentioned.
If that makes me an automatic member of the orifice contingent, so be it!
posted by sillygit at 10:31 PM on January 18, 2002


What is with the non-descriptive link title on this thread? I clicked it and it's not about Jesus Christ at all!

Er. Sorry. Carry on...
posted by kindall at 11:42 PM on January 18, 2002


It is, Kindall, you just aren't looking hard enough.
posted by Doug at 12:34 AM on January 19, 2002


Oh, yeah, I guess there's a little bit of Jesus in all of us. Especially DoublePostGuy.
posted by kindall at 1:52 AM on January 19, 2002


I never read fark, hardly ever (once every couple of months) read plastic and get all up in Romensko's grill a couple a times a week. I check blogdex whenever I want to silently tut-tut MetaFilter's lack of unique links.

But I guess this gets at the root of the current MetaFilter quandry: is it really a "metafilter" or a discussion board?

I was thinking about linking Marty Cohen, the Funniest Man Alive, but wasn't sure if the audience here was interested in it.
posted by raaka at 2:06 AM on January 19, 2002


An occasional post that also appears at Fark is fine with me, but--please!--no more MetaFark!
posted by Carol Anne at 4:32 AM on January 19, 2002


Just a minute ago I was about to post this.
I searched Meta and I searched Google and nothing came up,so I wrote a load of cobblers to go with it and hit preview,which told me it had been posted in June.Well it was a pain in the arse to not post having written aforementioned cobblers believing it hadnt been posted.2 things strike me, if search throws up nothing,the double poster can hardly be blamed,but you get told anyway,so there seems no reason for it to happen.
Personally I dont give a monkeys,its bound to be new to someone.
posted by Fat Buddha at 5:58 AM on January 19, 2002


Can I just say that fuckwit is my favorite word, ever?

Fat Buddha -- you searched for what? It seems to me that you searched for only the URL. A responsible poster, IMO, searches for keywords (piano + flash, maybe?), to find if the specific or very similar site had been discussed.
posted by jennak at 6:47 AM on January 19, 2002


I can't see how you can expect stuff like this to go away, Matt. We're always going to have new people, assholes, and trolls. The best solution is probably a technological one. Maybe its a matter of time until Metafilter adopts a Slashdot style of moderation. (is there a better name for this anyone? points based or something?)

It seems like such a waste to go into detail over a post or two in metatalk everytime some online user out of millions drops by here and greets us with a friendly "Fuck You" or someone loses their temper. The whole self-policing thing is nice in small numbers but since september Metafilter isn't the same critter it used to be.

Mod me up dudes!

posted by skallas at 7:45 AM on January 19, 2002


One more thing, I know a moderation system means A LOT of work on your part and I surely wouldn't give you an ounce of grief if you thought it wasn't worth it. But I'm kind of curious if you've ever seriously considered moving Mefi to a points-based comment system.

It would be a tragic shame if you eventually pulled the plug because some idiot thread or a month-long alt.tasteless or fark invasion finally got your goat.

Hey before you guys flame me, I'm am/used to/half-heartedly a fan and reader of both alt.tasteless and fark, but if I was looking for a handful of trolls and stupid kids to pull off an invasion that's where I would go.
posted by skallas at 7:53 AM on January 19, 2002


I think a less radical technological alteration would solve the "Double post!" shouting problem. For instance, malphigan's suggestion above, combined with a flag that showed up on subsequent views of the thread, saying something like, This has been flagged as a double post, and appropriate action is being taken.

(Of course, that seems to be but a small part of what is being discussed here.)
posted by mattpfeff at 8:42 AM on January 19, 2002


Folks, has it occurred to you that such a flag system could be abused? What happens if every post is routinely flagged that way by someone, even if it isn't actually a double post?
posted by Steven Den Beste at 8:49 AM on January 19, 2002


moderation. (is there a better name for this anyone?)

Yes, in some academic circles, such sites are known as "self-organizing websites". Maybe a trivial fact for most of you, but I think it goes along with the "self-policing" theme rather well.
posted by mischief at 9:03 AM on January 19, 2002


I think what bothers me about many of the double posters is that it is obvious they aren't even reading mefi on a regular basis.....that would take care of 80% of the problem right there....

but we are a high-strung little group aren't we? An occasional double post isn't Armageddon..........
posted by bunnyfire at 9:19 AM on January 19, 2002


Folks, has it occurred to you that such a flag system could be abused? What happens if every post is routinely flagged that way by someone, even if it isn't actually a double post?
Say, if you cry wolf, you lose your ability to flag posts. And post for a couple days (optional).
posted by darukaru at 9:24 AM on January 19, 2002


Folks, has it occurred to you that such a flag system could be abused? What happens if every post is routinely flagged that way by someone, even if it isn't actually a double post?

Presumably there's a record of who did the flagging, and they get they ass spanked for it. Or, to get more meta, some kind of double-post-notification points are allocated so that nobody gets to do it more than, say, once a month.
posted by rodii at 9:26 AM on January 19, 2002


obvious they aren't even reading mefi on a regular basis

They may not even check in often enough to know that theirs was a double post. Many users may never even read the comments posted to their posts.

posted by mischief at 9:35 AM on January 19, 2002


obvious they aren't even reading mefi on a regular basis

What's wrong with that? MeFi isn't a regulars-type social club. Lots of people read strictly for the links and couldn't care less about the discussion. Lots of people don't have the time to check out every link everyday.

The problem we're talking about in this thread isn't the double posts themselves, they're inevitable even with the best search technologies, but the reaction to the double posts.
posted by skallas at 10:38 AM on January 19, 2002


"Many users may never even read the comments posted to their posts."

That's just sick and wrong.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:39 AM on January 19, 2002


That's just sick and wrong.

In your book, maybe, but since MeFi is not meant to be a discussion board, such behavior would be well within the parameters Matt has set forth.

posted by mischief at 11:00 AM on January 19, 2002


Maybe I'm misunderstanding things a bit, but why have comments on posts if it's not to foster discussion of said posts? And, if you're not interested in what people have to say about your post, why post?

About MeFi:

"This website exists to break down the barriers between people, to extend a weblog beyond just one person, and to foster discussion among its members."
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:16 AM on January 19, 2002


grumpy old men.....we are all a bunch of grumpy old men.....and one grumpy rabbit........
posted by bunnyfire at 3:07 PM on January 19, 2002


A true story, presented for your consideration:

On a popular file-posting website, which shall remain nameless, a user posts a photo related to the US/Somalia debacle of 1993. In the comments section, a debate breaks out concerning US foreign policy. Heated words, including "troll", are uttered. Someone pipes in:

"What's with all the hate, people? This isn't metafilter..."
posted by jpoulos at 4:46 PM on January 19, 2002


feelingundertheweather
posted by feelinglistless at 4:56 PM on January 19, 2002


"What's with all the hate, people? This isn't metafilter..."

That does it. Pull the plug, Matt.

posted by crunchland at 6:03 PM on January 19, 2002


wimps.....you are wimps....the least little thing, you go crying to Matt.
I cut my teeth on Usenet. Got the scars to prove it. This place is a playpen for babies compared to that.....deal with it and enjoy .........
posted by bunnyfire at 7:36 PM on January 19, 2002


Is it just me, or do the number of double posts seem to be increasing lately?

"What's with all the hate, people? This isn't metafilter..."

I've been reading the site since September and I can safely say that double posts and an increase in bitchiness came after new registrations were opened up. I'm not about to bite the hand that feeds me, since I am one of the new signees, but MetaFilter has grown by leaps and bounds and everyone is just going to have to learn how to deal with it.

It's sad that new people being exposed to MeFi only see the bitchy part of it, and that older members are also tiring of the atmosphere. If only there was a way to make people read & explore the whole site--MeFi, MeTa, the "about page", archives--before giving them free reign to post. Perhaps that could help all 13,000+ of us come to some common ground.
posted by somethingotherthan at 9:18 PM on January 19, 2002


mathowie, I have always found it really difficult to use the search as it presently exists to find previous FPP's, either to reference in a 'previously discussed here' way (a recent frustrating example here), and as a result both of my last two attempts at FPPs were double posts, which you kindly deleted before people jumped all over me.

My point : ( I apologize in advance ) I'm requesting a pony and making more work for you if you accept. Any chance of a better, more elaborate and granular search function? I think that one thing would radically reduce the number of doubles and the accompanying shortness of temper and snarkiness when they happen.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:22 PM on January 19, 2002


wimps.....you are wimps....the least little thing, you go crying to Matt.


You do know matt started this thread.
posted by skallas at 3:27 AM on January 20, 2002


I cut my teeth on Usenet. Got the scars to prove it.

Tooth scars? "The great octopus of Fascism has sung its swan song."
posted by j.edwards at 3:51 AM on January 20, 2002


Yes, but he isn't the only poster to it, Skallas......context, dear fellow, context.........

posted by bunnyfire at 4:24 PM on January 20, 2002


bunnyrant: someone doubleposts, people whine. someone accidently posts twice, whine again.....whine, whine whine.....suck it up people.........I assume most of us are over the age of 3 here. Can we start acting like it? I am sure Matt would be grateful. If you have aggressions that need to be taken out, I suppose I am still the blog whipping rabbit-but other than that, let us show our company manners-this is the world, you know!
posted by bunnyfire at 4:29 PM on January 20, 2002


I am still the blog whipping rabbit-

bunnyfire, we already have a whipping-boy(me!) we don't need a whipping rabbit. Stay off my turf, honey....:)
posted by jonmc at 4:50 PM on January 20, 2002


ph1r5+ p05+!
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:34 PM on January 20, 2002


Shouldn't that be '145+ p05+'?

bunnyfire, you seem to be deliberately missing (part of) the point of actually noting things like double posts. The idea is not to whine, the idea is to reinforce for new members in particular what the reached-by-consensus rules are. The target audience is not you, or me, or even whipping-boy over there - it's those who do not know or refuse to abide by the standards of the community.

As Matt said at the beginning of the thread - for double FPPs, polite notification if necessary, move on if it's already been done. That's not 'whining'. As for accidental repetition of a comment - I can't recall the last time anyone took anyone else to task for that...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:56 PM on January 20, 2002


As a relatively new member (but a lurker for about a year), I must concur with Matt re: double-post hysteria. One reason I don't post often is because a) I'm not as glued to the internet as most FPPoster's, so I don't find any MUST-POST gems; and b) I'm terrified of being called out or hauled in here. It's a lot of pressure for some. I don't even post many comments because of a certain timidity of the great flame wars of 2001. But I still read all the time, and do wish that some of the bitchiness was kept to a dull roar. Some of us are just barely getting our toes in the water before we get the bejeezus scared out of us again....


posted by readymade at 8:59 PM on January 20, 2002


That's just the kind of weak-kneed blubbering that gets my goat, readymade!

I CALL YOU OUT!

heh
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:14 PM on January 20, 2002


See, now look what you've done--back to sniveling by myself in the dark with my computer, sniggering at all those witty posts and wishing that I could share all my brilliant and scintillating wisdom, but alas.....

My silence is now laid at your feet Kafkaesque!

Har.
posted by readymade at 9:50 PM on January 20, 2002


Well all I can say is next time I see someone tell matt to pull the plug on metafilter, I am going to have a bipolar moment.
posted by bunnyfire at 4:26 AM on January 21, 2002


Yes, but he isn't the only poster to it, Skallas......context, dear fellow, context.........

Heh, I'm not the one not following the discussion here bunn. What the wonderchicken said.
posted by skallas at 6:50 AM on January 21, 2002


Did you not read crunchland's comment?


posted by bunnyfire at 7:14 AM on January 21, 2002


Yeah, I have a sense of humor. Correct me if he's serious.
posted by skallas at 7:47 AM on January 21, 2002


May I suggest that the description field for new posts is checked for additional links? Then, if there are some, they are also checked using the automated dupe check feature. That would help filter out some of them I think.

By the way, Matt-- looks like your 3rd suggestion is a double-post.
posted by bschoate at 8:14 AM on January 21, 2002


Fat Buddha said "its bound to be new to someone"

...which I agree on. Newbies might not know the obscure Flash piece that they just discovered has been posted 32 years ago already. For them, and LOTS of other readers aswell, it's new material: although I won't advocate a Mahir link on the FP you wouldn't believe how many friends of mine are thinking Mahir is fun new material ! Are they fuckwits ?

I guess there should be some limit after which a post cannot be considered a double-post. Say, if the link is several months or one year old.
posted by michel v at 9:35 AM on January 21, 2002


« Older When did Salon start requiring a WELL account to...   |   Some of the new words included in the Oxford... Newer »

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