20 out of 27 posts yesterday were news pieces.

January 23, 2002 7:17 AM

Of yesterday's 27 posts, no fewer than 20 of them were links to news sites or concerned recent events or happenings.
posted by mattpfeff to MetaFilter-Related at 7:17 AM (32 comments total)

But there were no Dan Ratherisms. Alas.
posted by iceberg273 at 7:44 AM on January 23, 2002

christ. mefi is beginning to look like a blog or something.
posted by quonsar at 8:04 AM on January 23, 2002

I blame myself.
posted by Tacodog at 8:21 AM on January 23, 2002

or the most e-mailed content list at yahoo.
posted by iscavenger at 8:21 AM on January 23, 2002

I blame the lack of ponies
posted by Mick at 8:31 AM on January 23, 2002

The point is?
posted by ashbury at 9:38 AM on January 23, 2002

Just an observation; I was surprised.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:48 AM on January 23, 2002

But to continue Ashbury's question:
And?
posted by Su at 11:26 AM on January 23, 2002

I'm rising to a mild troll here, but I'm guessing mattpfeff's "point" is that these links fail the "most people haven't seen it before" test of a good link. They're not amazing, unique sites. They're newspapers; they're CNN.

This is my opinion. Certainly Matt could easily enough include some language in the link guidelines about "news" links, and he hasn't, so.

posted by luser at 11:36 AM on January 23, 2002

Cripes, today is even worse. It's like "FARK Day At MetaFilter"
posted by briank at 11:56 AM on January 23, 2002

Hmm. I can see how that might have seemed trollish. I really amn't trying to make a point, as it were, but, honestly, just to observe that that had happened.

That is, I don't have any vision of what MeFi is "supposed" to be, but often enough it's worth thinking (and talking, sometimes) about what something is.

So if there's a point, it's that, right now, MeFi is more about news and eventful happenings than anything else.

(If my opinion on those is of interest, I like news posts, but in moderation. When they dominate, they seem to attract ever more news posts, and those rare news posts that offer a genuinely insightful or hard-to-find link/perspective become harder and harder to distinguish, and rarer as well (not to mention that they are now often considered double posts). And when more than two-thirds of the site is news posts, they will alter how people think of the site as a whole, and that might not be something anyone really wants.)
posted by mattpfeff at 12:44 PM on January 23, 2002

Fortunately, metafilter is whatever people feel like posting that day. Therein lies its magic.

Wait'll the guys see my great Office Butt Scan link...
Uh oh, double post!
Dang...
posted by y2karl at 2:15 PM on January 23, 2002

MetaFilter: We blame the lack of ponies.
posted by elsar at 2:41 PM on January 23, 2002

... when everyone bitches

I see. Either I'm trolling or I'm bitching? If you're going to read that into every post, why even read MeTa? Just so you can bitch about other people trolling and bitching?

The least you could do is actually think for half a second about whether someone's actually bitching about anything, or just pointing something out. Not everyone has a chip on their shoulder, even if you do.
posted by mattpfeff at 3:11 PM on January 23, 2002

I am going to fall in with mattpfeff on this one. I notice the over abundance of news links this morning as I was checking last nights posts. I thought "I should have just come here first, instead of checking my news links."
posted by bjgeiger at 5:36 PM on January 23, 2002

it's only a few months before people start posting the local weather report
posted by Mick at 5:46 PM on January 23, 2002

Seems like cool links are getting harder to come by, and when we finally get one we crash the poor bastard's server.
posted by gimli at 5:59 PM on January 23, 2002

"it's only a few months before people start posting the local weather report"

Great! Soon the only thing Metafilter will lack will be on of those thingummies that help you pick stones out of horse's hooves.

What am I saying, I still don't have a pony!

I don't see how things got de-railed here. I think it must be the influence of Fark. I don't want you hanging around with that kid anymore. And that goes for the lot of you.
posted by lucien at 7:13 PM on January 23, 2002

I would like clarification from mathowie on the MetaCNN problem.
posted by raaka at 1:50 AM on January 24, 2002

hey mattpfeff, I wasn't referring to your post as the (mild) troll, I was referring to ashbury and su's "and your point is?" posts. Seemed obvious to me that your point was "there's a lot of news links here right now, that sucks." However, you seem to be going back and forth on whether you have an opinion on the matter. So I retract the "troll" comment. The more you've said about it here, the less clear "your point."

It's always more interesting to get someone's opinion stated plainly rather than "[observation]. Discuss." (no matter how valid the observation) Take a stand!


posted by luser at 5:57 AM on January 24, 2002

And I too would like to hear from Matt on this issue.
posted by luser at 5:57 AM on January 24, 2002

Here's something he said on the subject back in 10/00, and in 12/01. The key is that we try to keep the bar high, regardless of the type of link we post, imo.
posted by gimli at 7:14 AM on January 24, 2002

Yes, it is bitching even if you play it off as "just noticing." -- skallas

But if I'm actually just observing, then what? I mean, sure, if you start from the assumption that I'm bitching, then my saying I'm just noticing would be just a cover. But, shit, isn't it even possible that I'm not bitching?

Now you can lay off the fucking self-righteous indignation, matt. -- skallas

Dude. I was asked what my opinion was, and I gave it. I'm not indignant about anything; I just disagree with you about why you think I'm bitching -- you think it's because of something I said, and I think it's because of assumptions you're making about me.

As for whether I'm actually speaking for myself when I "pretend to speak for the masses," I suppose it's possible that my phrasing of "will alter how people will view the site" was too strong, and I should have said "might alter". But my saying that that "might not be something anyone wants" is pretty weak. Sure, "anyone" could very well be me, there. I might not want that. You got me.

My opinion isn't a very strong one, which is why I didn't put it in the post in the beginning. It was a mistake in that people are suspicious; I should have been up front. Fine. But, skallas, you're reading stuff into what I'm saying that just isn't there.

However, you seem to be going back and forth on whether you have an opinion on the matter. So I retract the "troll" comment. The more you've said about it here, the less clear "your point." -- luser

Hmm. To clarify: I have a mild opinion, but that just wasn't "the point" of my post. The point of the post was that something had happened that I thought other people might also find remarkable, and therefore was worth pointing out, and so I did.

It's weird. Practically nothing ever comes of discussions of this nature in MeTa. For all the countless, lengthy exchanges lamenting this and that, no changes have been made, or seem likely to be. So all this demand for a stand on an issue makes no sense to me. Why debate what should be done, if nothing ever will?

So, I figured, just stick with the observations. That's really all each of us needs to decide how we want to contribute to the site, anyway -- an awareness of what's going on. I like this place, though I think it (like anything) could be better. So, in theory at least, I think it's worth noting these kinds of things. How we each decide participate after that is up to us, and I don't have any desire to tell anyone else what this site should or shouldn't mean to them.
posted by mattpfeff at 12:33 AM on January 25, 2002

Wow, this discussion has certainly gone meta in a big way.
posted by luser at 4:59 AM on January 25, 2002

I just wanted to know where you were going with the observation so that I knew how to respond. It just seemed so open-ended.
posted by ashbury at 11:08 AM on January 26, 2002

Mattpfeff's post seems very clear to me. 20 out of 27 is remarkable. That's almost 75%. I think it's cool that MeTa threads be based on observations, leaving all of us to comment as we see fit. What's the point of asking someone who's made an observation what his point is?

He could have just posted "There are too many news posts on MetaFilter". Everybody knows mattpfeff doesn't mince words or stand back - or away - from polemics. He bitches when he damn well wants to bitch. And he won't be baited or reverse-trolled either by the looks of it. Good for him and good for MetaFilter, IMO.

Instead he made a measured observation. I could reasonably answer "Good - I hope news posts go up to 90% because they make for more spirited threads" or some other opinion. Then he could answer, if he so wished.

Are some people so used to being marshalled in one direction or another(usually to predictably adopt the opposite stance)that they can't comment on an open-ended question?

I actually think, unspectacularly, it all depends on the quality and/or originality of each post - everything does.My personal preference goes against news posts - unless they're original, have some bearing on weblogging or are overwhelmingly general and irresistible - but there you are.

I think there should be more objective posts like this, counting, keeping track, looking at the way things are going here. The fact that they're apparently so unwelcome surprises and, to be honest, depresses me.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:20 PM on January 26, 2002

There is nothing unwelcome about the objectivity of the post. Frankly, I was more concerned that it might be a troll of some sort. Without any hints either for or against this, I asked for more information regarding his intention with the data. Granted, I could have been nicer about it, or phrased it in a politer manner, but I didn't. For that, I apologize. By saying "The point is?" I was hoping to engender further conversation, just as you would in any normal face to face conversation.

Not everybody knows that mattpfeff doesn't mince words or stand back - or away - from polemics. I don't, for one.

What's the point of asking someone who's made an observation what his point is?
No offense, Miguel, but I think that this is a silly thing to say. Somebody could observe that Hitler killed lots of people (this is an extreme example, of course). Okay, yes he did. And? End of conversation?

Finally, Are some people so used to being marshalled in one direction or another(usually to predictably adopt the opposite stance)that they can't comment on an open-ended question?
You know what they say about assumptions.
posted by ashbury at 2:18 PM on January 26, 2002

ashbury makes a good point; I eventually realized I should have been more forthcoming. (I first attempted to rectify this here, and also acknowledged my error in my anti-skallas rant above.)

It does bug me that, as far as expressing opinions about anything you see as non-ideal, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't. I've tried it both ways, but can't seem to find a way that fosters any positive discussion. Which is weird, because people definitely care about this place, to the point of being overprotective.

Maybe talking about it just isn't helpful?
posted by mattpfeff at 3:09 PM on January 26, 2002

Ashbury: it was silly. Sorry. Like you, I should have spelled it out: if you make an observation, it's sort of implicit you're asking "is this significant?". Or "Do you think this is what Metafilter's about?"

Once again, I think it's a cultural thing. I've had people ask me "what's your point?" and found out is was a genuine question, along the lines of "come on, spit it out." Your comment, though, was "The point is?", which sounds like "Please continue" or "You've left something out - where is this supposed to lead?"

It just sounded rude from here, like "Yeah - and?" or "So what?". Anyway, I didn't mean you. ;)

P.S. And we mustn't forget mattpfeff is a mathematician. He thinks numbers speak for themselves, the fool!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:28 PM on January 26, 2002

Ah well. All is forgiven; live and learn; c'est la vie. And of course, numbers do speak for themselves. :)
posted by ashbury at 2:14 AM on January 27, 2002

(why can't I let this die?)
Mattpfeff, for what it's worth, talking about things is always good, you just have to find the positive in the negative.
No offense taken, I hope.
posted by ashbury at 2:21 AM on January 27, 2002

no fewer than 20 of them were links to news sites

What do you expect from a site billed as "the Plastic.com it's ok to like"?
posted by mischief at 5:45 AM on January 27, 2002