Pony: A MeFi This! link similar to Blogger's Blog This! feature

January 28, 2002 3:56 PM

Feature request: a MeFi This! link similar to Blogger's Blog This! feature. The upside: easy to post. The downside: more FFPs on Metafilter. Good idea, or really bad?
posted by jasonsmall to Feature Requests at 3:56 PM (31 comments total)

What is the Blog This! feature? When I was setting up my site, I looked at Blogger, saw it lived on someone else's server, and ran away. Don't know much about it at all.
posted by Su at 3:58 PM on January 28, 2002

Really, really bad. Which is why I already have one.
posted by Neale at 4:02 PM on January 28, 2002

I thought about doing some sort of automated posting feature a couple years back (it was going to be a part of deepleap if any old crusty folk remember that), but there were already "enough" front page posts back then (the limit for what is "enough" has scaled up greatly), and I can't see much of an upside to anything that automates posting to metafilter.

I want to encourage less posting, but of the highest quality possible. How do I build a button for that?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:08 PM on January 28, 2002

I see your point. Perhaps front page posters should be required to include also their rationale for posting. This could be stored in a separate link, available for viewing if anyone was interested. Its main purpose would be to make the poster think about the why of their post. More thought=higher quality.

But I guess I'm talking crazy now.
posted by jasonsmall at 4:18 PM on January 28, 2002

Or go to the pain of appointing some trusted moderators to review a submission queue... Have a small min authoization amount of 3 or 4 moderators...

Then again, that might start moderator wars.
posted by Jevon at 4:48 PM on January 28, 2002

it was going to be a part of deepleap if any old crusty folk remember that

*feebly raises hand*
posted by bradlands at 4:51 PM on January 28, 2002

I want to encourage less posting, but of the highest quality possible. How do I build a button for that?


Hmmm.....omigod! How to deal with traumatized pets from 9/11.. perfect! and it's a CNN story, so I know it's accurate! God, I know I should search for this before posting it, but I just have to be the first-
))ZAAAAAAT!((

"Aaaagugh!"
"Honey? Is that you screaming? Why did the lights just dim?"
"Metafilter! It... it shocked me!"
posted by dong_resin at 5:21 PM on January 28, 2002

d_r, you're killing me, we gotta get you a website...
posted by machaus at 5:25 PM on January 28, 2002

I want to encourage less posting, but of the highest quality possible. How do I build a button for that?

what about a "splash page" in-between the post page and the actual submit box. With a blurb like:

"Before you post, ask yourself this: is this a post to CNN/Ananova/Salon. Has it been posted before (potential doublepost)? Does it meet the core guidelines? (etc)..."
posted by Neale at 5:33 PM on January 28, 2002

I realize this is a whole other can of worms and may be deeply insulting or irrational to some, but::::

What about if Metafilter functioned more like Fark, where links were submitted and every few hours Matt added 5-6 to the pile after they've passed muster thru his own personal filter, based on quality, timeliness, wording, etc. This would also prevent double posts, and no one would get their feelings hurt when double posting or posting perceived "unworthy" links. Everyone would just have to trust that Matt would post the "best" links, which I think everyone would. Right?

*prepares for onslaught*
posted by Karl at 5:34 PM on January 28, 2002

Perhaps front page posters should be required to include also their rationale for posting. This could be stored in a separate link, available for viewing if anyone was interested. Its main purpose would be to make the poster think about the why of their post.

I think this is a great idea, actually. It could include supplementary links, all the (more inside) stuff...I think I'd just like to read people's rationalizations for posting some things.
posted by modofo at 5:47 PM on January 28, 2002

Karl, Matt needs a job that actually pays.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:48 PM on January 28, 2002

Doesn't the new TextAd thing provide income? Even if he had a 9-5 job, I figured it would just be a matter of looking over a list of a links every hour or so and checking a few off, and printing them to the front page.

(Keep in mind, this isn't something I've totally thought through or anything, it's just a suggestion that could spin off into something more do-able).



posted by Karl at 5:54 PM on January 28, 2002

Whenever delayed posting comes up, I think of the earthquake thread.
posted by gimli at 6:10 PM on January 28, 2002

Seeing a post by the venerable dong_r and the phrase "splash page" in quick succession made me feel a little, well, nauseous.

With regard to double posts, I once again beg the Giant Floating Head of Mathowie (in full awareness that the time and effort involved to breed that particular pony might not be worth his while at the moment, of course) for a better search module - I think that would be one huge step forward to eliminating them, for the most part. Notice how many people, after notified of the dreaded DP, cry "But I searched.... ". Heck, I did it the last two times I tried an FPP, and have now given up, pretty much.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:47 PM on January 28, 2002

BTW, it's my feeling that the affectionate abbreviation dong_r should be pronounced 'donger'. It's sophomoric, sure, but even thinking the phrase 'The Venerable Donger' makes me giggle.

Just in case you were wondering.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 PM on January 28, 2002

The pony request should have been here, probably.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:59 PM on January 28, 2002

No more yankee my wankee, the donger need food!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:59 PM on January 28, 2002

No more yanky my wanky. The Donger Need Food!
posted by willnot at 7:14 PM on January 28, 2002

What about if Metafilter functioned more like Fark, where links were submitted and every few hours Matt added 5-6 to the pile after they've passed muster thru his own personal filter, based on quality, timeliness, wording, etc.

Not that I don't trust Matt's judgment, but this is not Mattafilter.. I wanna see what everybody thinks about the web, not just some overworked, underpaid (mumble mumble) from San Francisco.

A possible suggestion:

Vary the frequency with which users are able to post based on length of membership. I know that this would add to whatever resentment already exists between the rusty oldtimers and relative newbies like myself, but it does have some advantages.

Let's say you make 3 levels.

Level 1 would be for people who just sign on. They would be able to view and make comments, but not post anything.

Level 2 would be for people who have been on, say, a week. They would be able to post 1 news story per week.

Level 3 would be for people who have been on for more than, say, 2 months.. They would be like you and I, able to post an FPP every day.

And this could be tinkered around with, obviously, to taste.

The way I see it, this system would encourage people to only post once they've been around long enough to have a vague idea of what is and is not acceptable in an FPP. If they weren't interested in the community, they would probably not stay long enough to be able to make a post anyway, and when they do get that ability, they still wouldn't be able to jump in and post every little thing that turns them on, because they could only do it once per week.
posted by Hildago at 8:57 PM on January 28, 2002

I was thinking about proposing a once-a-week limit on FPPs, but there was some sort of problem with it. Oh yes. Two problems.

1. Someone would need to do a hell of a lot of research as to the correlation between member number, posting frequency, and even type of post (it's the news posts that seem to get everyone's goats, mine included) before we'd know if it would even have any effect.

2. 20 news posts per day tend to keep the raging, frothing maniacs busy. 5 news posts per day? They might get into the good threads.

All in all, Hildago's suggestion is a better one, I think.
posted by D at 10:40 PM on January 28, 2002

I think things are fine as they are.

Hildago:
Can you imagine signing up on September 10, 2001, and not being able to post a FPP about September 11 and the aftermath until a week later? Go check the archives for that week...I'd bet a lot of people joined MeFi because of those discussions.
posted by jacobw at 7:18 AM on January 29, 2002

I want to encourage less posting, but of the highest quality possible. How do I build a button for that?

All MeFi members will have to be hooked up to the Electric Generator in order to read MeFi. Everyone's profile page would have a button that would send a shock to that user. Whenever people post something stupid, we shock them.

Hehehehe.
posted by jennak at 7:40 AM on January 29, 2002

Can you imagine signing up on September 10, 2001, and not being able to post a FPP about September 11 and the aftermath until a week later? Go check the archives for that week...I'd bet a lot of people joined MeFi because of those discussions.

Well, I see what you mean Jacobw. If I had wanted to post then and not been able to, I would have been pretty pissed off. But I would argue that 100% of the September 11th posts weren't (and still aren't) 100% necessary. Maybe that makes me sort of a hypocrit after saying that no one person or group of people should get to say what's on metafilter, but... Well, I'm a hypocrit anyway, so what's the diff?

Also, if some major event were to happen tomorrow, a huge percentage of the readership right now wouldn't be able to post, just due to the fact that membership is locked. Most (all?) of the people who have accounts right now have been members for more than a week. So while you're definitely right about possible drawbacks, I don't think you'd get a lot of problems that you aren't getting now anyway.

Not to defend my idle suggestion too strongly..
posted by Hildago at 7:57 AM on January 29, 2002

(it was going to be a part of deepleap if any old crusty folk remember that)

Ah jeez, I was at the deepleap launch party in Austin, and it was the night that made me decide the web was in over its head. Needless to say, a few months later dot coms started going down the tubes.
posted by swift at 10:52 AM on January 29, 2002

I think Hildago's proposal is both generous and useful. It has the advantage of involving only a slight change with the potential for improving MetaFilter remarkably.

I always wonder, for instance, if the present rules, which allow someone to FPP after posting a few comments, have the frequent effect of allowing new members to post too soon and then be frightened off by the consequences.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:59 AM on January 29, 2002

Hmm. I think the lowest-impact method for improving posts would be improving Official Feedback^TM. That is, highlighting good posts somehow. The sidebar is a little small; but there was discussion of a best-of list previously -- I think something like that might go a good ways, especially if it were updated often, maybe weekly.

I'd suggest that mathowie pick all the threads for the page (and he could do this whenever he likes, since the page should be short enough that good threads would remain near the top longer), and maybe accept suggestions from a handful of people. (I know, it would be a cabal of sorts, but they wouldn't have any real power, and if they tried to act like they did I suspect mathowie would be one of the first to want to relieve them of their (dubious) priviledges.)

This could also help reduce double posts, since original posts of interesting topics would remain visible and in circulation.

Anyway, just a thought.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:40 AM on January 29, 2002

I'd suggest that mathowie pick all the threads for the page (and he could do this whenever he likes, since the page should be short enough that good threads would remain near the top longer), and maybe accept suggestions from a handful of people.

I would love to do this, I've tried it before, but it takes up too much time. I don't have enough time to read every thread myself (and keep up on them to make sure they went in good directions), so until I can keep track of everything, I don't feel comfortable picking out the best of the best. But I agree it would help immensely, and make metafilter readable again for the people that have long since quit.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:45 PM on January 29, 2002

Why doesn't someone, heck, many someones, just blog MetaFilter? Or start a real-time thread-rating poll on some other site, where a selected handful of self-appointed threadwatchers vote on MeFi threads, filepilestyle? With the RSS feed it should be doable, shouldn't it?
posted by rodii at 1:44 PM on January 29, 2002

Or start a real-time thread-rating poll on some other site, where a selected handful of self-appointed threadwatchers vote on MeFi threads, filepilestyle?

[this is good]

If nobody has tackled this by the time I'm done with the two other projects I'm working on, I will look into writing some quick-and-dirty PHP to do this. I think that's a brilliant idea.
posted by snarkout at 2:54 PM on January 29, 2002

fyuze allows something similar already, if you add the MeFi feed. Not that I think this is a bad idea. It is a good idea. And I never use fyuze.

I did start a MeFiGold bloggerblog that I was going to put into an inline floating frame in my userpage here as a public service/fun thing to do, but the ad looked like crap, so I canned it. Not worth paying to take the ad out for a half-baked idea nobody'd see anyway.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:45 PM on January 29, 2002