What does "editorializing" mean? March 30, 2009 1:34 PM   Subscribe

I don't understand what "editorializing" means (really).

I understood it as: people should present their post as objectively as possible, without inserting opinions because otherwise posts can turn into messy and fighty threads... but now I am unsure because it seems that people present their opinion all the time in the comments and sometimes the original poster jumps back in.

I know there are no "rules" and every situation has to be evaluated on its own and we should all use our common sense and manners. Having said that, will someone please clarify what this term means in a general sense?
posted by cranberrymonger to Etiquette/Policy at 1:34 PM (91 comments total)

Editorializing in comments is fine. In the actual post, not so much.
posted by Bernt Pancreas at 1:36 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


editorializing in a post is bad form because we're here to share links to interesting stuff on the web. So if your post is three sentences about interesting stuff, then a sentence at the end saying "Oh and I think this is all bullshit and the people that make this stuff are wasting their time" it's editorializing tacked on that will derail a thread.

Editorializing makes a post aimed at the entire community slightly about the poster themselves, which is also a community no-no and can lead to threads where three hundred people are telling the original poster that their opinion is misguided.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:38 PM on March 30, 2009 [7 favorites]


I think your initial understanding is pretty much on target, yeah: folks should try to present their posts objectively, as something that's interesting or cool or worth looking at independent of the poster's personal opinion on it.

How successful any given poster is at that varies, from poster to poster and from post to post. We don't have a firm No Editorializing Ever rule, but avoiding it to whatever degree possible is a really good way to help a post stick around. This goes extra for posts on subjects that are contentious in and of themselves, since that combined with some editorial posturing can be a really powerful recipe for a messy, fighty thread.

That's not to say that folks can't post about things on which they have an opinion, at all, and getting more into the discussion of personal views on a subject in a thread is totally okay. It's sometimes a problem if a user makes a post, keeps their opinion out of the post itself, but then jumps in aggressively on the editorial front in their comments in the thread, but that's not as common of a problem and is mostly an example of something that's okay in principle being taken to an unreasonable extreme in practice.

Generally, an ideal post to metafilter exists separate from the person posting it. Editorialization messes with that, sometimes pretty badly, and that's a big part of why we don't like to see much of it in posts, regardless of what might come in the comments later on.
posted by cortex (staff) at 1:47 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


We're not hard-asses about it and I think the bigger deal is avoiding excessive editorializing. So present the links, explain why you think they might be important. Including a lot of over the top language that makes it seem like

- you may have posted this because you have an axe to grind or point to make and nto because you think it's a good link for MeFi
- you will not be able to let the discussion evolve naturally and will try to make stuff fit your own interpretation of the topic
- you should have posted it to your own blog, not to a broad community such as this one

With hot button topics,including really polarizing language almost ensures that your thread will turn into a fight, not a discussion. This generally sucks so we try to avoid it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:51 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


I'm just commenting here so people will think I'm a moderator.
posted by Eideteker at 1:56 PM on March 30, 2009 [26 favorites]


The Manticore has spoken.
posted by cimbrog at 1:57 PM on March 30, 2009


Editorializing makes the post about you and your opinions. MetaFilter is not your own personal blog.

Take my word for it - I'm an immoderator.
posted by GuyZero at 2:00 PM on March 30, 2009


Okay, between cranberries and crab apples, I for one am getting sick of these fruity questions.
posted by joe lisboa at 2:00 PM on March 30, 2009


cimbrog: "The Manticore has spoken."

No, no, not a manticore. A chimera. I won't proffer any guess as to which one is the goat.
posted by team lowkey at 2:17 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


Thank-you for the quick and helpful responses. I understand that a good post is one that informs/amuses and does not rant aggressively.

Does anyone have a post in mind that is a good example of how the OP can join into the later discussion in a positive way, without editorializing? I don't mean to keep harping on, I just want to see what this looks like in practice.

I'm glad to learn that some opinions are allowed because quite often people need to explain their backgrounds in order for their comments to make sense.
posted by cranberrymonger at 2:22 PM on March 30, 2009


Ultimately, you can't be purely objective: A topic has to tweak you or intrigue you sufficiently to want to post about it. But it's bad form to leave your enthusiasm untempered, else you race to post a death notice before somebody else does, or you write shouty, polarizing posts that are guaranteed to make people whip up their own highly-strung, strongly-worded, opinionated rebuttals.

In general, if the topic's really that gosh-darned good, posting with enough information and links for the topic to justify itself are plenty. Even when the topic is inherently polarizing, point-counterpoint linkfests aren't half as useful as limiting yourself to a couple resources that are informative, authoritative, and not particularly shouty.
posted by ardgedee at 2:28 PM on March 30, 2009


If you're going to make a FPP on something about which you have strong feelings about, IMO, the best way to do it is to post links to primary sources or news articles with as little of your own thoughts as possible in the FPP and let the conversation develop somewhat before you interject your own opinion in the comments.
posted by empath at 2:29 PM on March 30, 2009


Just as a note, because hey, I'm not using my j-school education anyway:

Editorializing is giving your opinion, or your "house" opinion, on an issue through the use of tone, framing or explicit commentary.

There are three things to remember regarding editorialization: That selection is a type of editorial bias; that it's easiest to notice when you disagree with the direction of the editorializing; and that it's only really a problem when it distracts from the goal of the piece.

Regarding that third point and Metafilter: You're already editorializing by how you select and present the links, but when editorial considerations outweigh the content (the "This is IMPORTANT" problem) or when you add overt statements of your opinion, you're going to be publishing work that's more likely to result in derails, needless contention, and alienation of the audience. Oh, and deletion.

So, it's not that editorializing is de facto bad, just that editorializing is not the mission of Metafilter, and members are tasked with realizing that when crafting their posts.
posted by klangklangston at 2:30 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


Having said that, will someone please clarify what this term means in a general sense?

When writing posts, I like to go for a "show, don't tell" approach. Let the links tell the story. You can have an opinion about a subject without it distracting or, worse, detracting from the quality of the links.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:33 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


People more articulate than I have already spoken to this, but generally the main problem with editorializing in the post is that it frames the conversation in a specific way from the outset and that can be the kiss of death when the first couple of responses are directed at the way the post was built instead of the content itself.

I can't think of any specific examples, but the best way I usually see this handled, is to make the post without voicing any specific opinions on the subject, and then walk away from it for a couple of hours. Let it evolve naturally without trying to guide it in your comments, as that can be almost as disruptive as editorializing in the post itself. And then after the discussion has begun, stop back to let everyone know where you stand.

I'm not good at this sort of thing, which is why my posts are few and far between and rarely deal in contentious subjects, because I suspect that most of my stuff would look like:

"This guy is a fucker! Look at him. He's an ugly dick-head who did some bad shit, and we should all spend the next ten thousand comments talking about how much we hate his worthless ass."

And that just doesn't look right on the front page.
posted by quin at 2:39 PM on March 30, 2009


I have an editorializer.

In my pants.

Oh god, the burning, get it out get it out!
posted by loquacious at 2:40 PM on March 30, 2009


Jumping jesus: people feeding the troll Crabby Appleton, and now a post asking for "editorializing" to be defined.
posted by Curry at 2:42 PM on March 30, 2009


I have an editorializer.

In my pants.


So...these pants. They vibrate ?
posted by iamabot at 2:42 PM on March 30, 2009


HURF DURF editorializationalizers
posted by Mister_A at 2:46 PM on March 30, 2009


Good:

puppy webcam.

Okay, with very slight editorializing:

Here is a cute webcam of puppies in a box.

Bad:

How could PETA kill thousands of puppies last year instead of finding them homes? Look at how cute they are!
posted by graventy at 2:55 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


How could PETA kill thousands of puppies last year instead of finding them homes?

Puppy coats pay for all those crazy ad campaigns.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:56 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


Curry: this is an honest question and I do hope that it doesn't fan the flames of that Crabby Appleton post. The reason I was confused is that the term was tossed around in that thread in a way that didn't make sense to me when I looked at the examples given.

Thank-you to all those who contributed up-thread. I'm always impressed by users' willingness to help each other out.
posted by cranberrymonger at 2:57 PM on March 30, 2009


This, I think, is a good example of a post about a contentious topic that does not, from the outset, tell readers what to think. One could argue that the links chosen and the way it's framed is editorializing, and of course it sort of is. What it isn't is "Spain is finally going to put these frakking warmongers on trial!" That would, and should, get it yanked, even if the links were otherwise identical.

ceiling cat is watching you editorialize.
posted by rtha at 3:03 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


  • It is hard to argue about facts
  • It is easy to argue about opinions
  • Metafilter is anti-argument
  • Therefore, presenting facts, not opinions reduces arguments on Metafilter.

    QED1


    1. Quantum Electrodynamics are/is cool.

  • posted by blue_beetle at 3:05 PM on March 30, 2009


    graventy, you suck. I really thought I was going to get to see cute puppies in a box.
    posted by desjardins at 3:08 PM on March 30, 2009


    by the way -

    Does anybody know of a good site to have arguments on, on purpose, thats got an intelligence level similar to Metafilter? I love having arguments - and structure a lot of my thinking in terms of arguments (and get paid to do this) and it's a good way for me to learn.
    posted by By The Grace of God at 3:10 PM on March 30, 2009


    > What it isn't is "Spain is finally going to put these frakking warmongers on trial!" That would, and should, get it yanked, even if the links were otherwise identical.

    That's worth emphasizing. Posts will be deleted as OutrageFilter, but sometimes people will reuse the links to write a less emotionally-charged post on exactly the same topic that'll stay up.
    posted by ardgedee at 3:13 PM on March 30, 2009


    graventy, you suck. I really thought I was going to get to see cute puppies in a box.

    haha. Just be happy I stuck with example.com. You can trick anyone into clicking a link to cute puppies.
    posted by graventy at 3:31 PM on March 30, 2009


    Other posts that strike a nice tone are the ones that go out of their way to include links from multiple, differing perspectives and angles on the topic. It's not just the ranty posts that "editorialize" but the "I am a raving fancreature, and X is soooooooooo awesome in its awesomeness." Those pretty much always devolve into YourFaveSucks.

    I think it's fine for OPs to add more information to the thread, but if you start feeling compelled to defend material in your FPP against what you perceive to be hostile or unfair comments, then first, you should go away for an hour or two, and if you come back still feeling defensive, then typically it's best either to stifle and flag or take it to MeTa.
    posted by FelliniBlank at 3:41 PM on March 30, 2009


    You can trick anyone into clicking a link to cute puppies.

    Let's see if it works the other way. Violent assaults on rise among imprisoned white Germans.
    posted by quin at 3:50 PM on March 30, 2009


    Puppy coats pay for all those crazy ad campaigns.

    I live for furs. I worship furs! After all, is there a woman in all this wretched world who doesn't?

    /me has suddenly genius notion of going to FurCons as Cruella DeVil
    posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 3:52 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


    And just to compare and contrast cranberrymonger and Crabby Appleton, cranberrymonger has been here since last September; CA signed up in 2005, and still can't sort things out.
    posted by theroadahead at 3:55 PM on March 30, 2009


    No wonder two of our three cats hid from you, Ambrosia Voyeur! They weren't shy - they were smart! (And hey, keep your mitts off our dumb, soft cat, okay? He needs his coat!)
    posted by rtha at 3:57 PM on March 30, 2009


    Desjardin: ask and ye shall receive.
    posted by CunningLinguist at 3:57 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    1) They're not always puppies, but here's another real link to a cute animal webcam. Looks like it's bunnies today!

    2) Hey, guys, look around. This has been a really well thought-out, informative, and nice MeTa thread. And I think cranberrymonger has done a really good job with the original post and follow-ups. Today, everyone deserves a hug!
    posted by Ms. Saint at 4:01 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    Cranberry: I never meant to insinuate that I thought your question was disingenuous. I just felt the need to note my "WTF moment" after reading the previous MeTa thread with everyone treating Crappy Apple seriously (blatantly a troll/provocateur jokester IMO), leading to a thread where we need to clarify the site's (I thought straightforward) guidelines. I'm sure this post will prove helpful and informative to many hard-working MeFites.
    posted by Curry at 4:07 PM on March 30, 2009


    Puppy cams > flameouts.

    I hope that's not editorializing too much.
    posted by Devils Rancher at 4:15 PM on March 30, 2009


    heh, rtha, I have 28 pounds of longhaired cat in two pieces, I have enough fur to make a closetful! But sweaters, not coats. I'm not Cruella IRL! Only at FurCons... mwah ha ha ha haaa.
    posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 4:22 PM on March 30, 2009


    Does anybody know of a good site to have arguments on, on purpose, thats got an intelligence level similar to Metafilter? I love having arguments - and structure a lot of my thinking in terms of arguments (and get paid to do this) and it's a good way for me to learn.

    The question has been asked in many different forms around here.
    posted by P.o.B. at 4:23 PM on March 30, 2009


    Here's an example of it done right, in my opinion: Brandon Blatcher posted about the Battlestar Galactica finale, with some nice links to good discussion of it. He didn't weigh in himself (it turned out he hated it) until later in the thread,
    posted by dfan at 4:27 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    /me has suddenly genius notion of going to FurCons as Cruella DeVil

    This is so brilliant that I would actually don a dalmation fursuit for this. The fursuit should have two functions - one, to lure innocent victims to be "skinned" and made into coats and two, it should be chock full of theatrical special effects like blood packs and offal and whatnot for the eventual skinning of my own person that would take place.

    We'll know if we did it right by the sounds of them spewing chowder inside their fursuits.

    Well, that and the screaming and running would be a pretty big clue, too.

    Who has a decent camcorder? We can do this.
    posted by loquacious at 4:35 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    You see? Now this is how a MeTa post is done - civil, precise, to the point. There's a real question that requires a real answer. Plus puppies. This thread should be framed.
    posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:48 PM on March 30, 2009 [2 favorites]


    I understood it as: people should present their post as objectively as possible, without inserting opinions because otherwise posts can turn into messy and fighty threads... but now I am unsure because it seems that people present their opinion all the time in the comments and sometimes the original poster jumps back in.

    Just delete "but now I am unsure because," and you completely understand it.
    posted by Jaltcoh at 4:49 PM on March 30, 2009


    /me has suddenly genius notion of going to FurCons as Cruella DeVil

    I would contribute money to see this plan realized. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Something Awful or 4chan has a grant established for this purpose that you could apply for.
    posted by graventy at 5:20 PM on March 30, 2009


    This thread should be framed.

    Yes, and hung on the wall. Unlike a lot of MeTa posts which are like the equivalent of when a kid takes a spelling test, but spells his name wrong, so his teacher just gives him a "Nice try!" sticker instead of a gold star.
    posted by grapefruitmoon at 5:29 PM on March 30, 2009


    I would contribute money to see this plan realized. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if Something Awful or 4chan has a grant established for this purpose that you could apply for.

    Haha, yeah I'm down for this, in all seriousness. I'll start checking by the plush pound and make a Cruella coat. I dunno if I'll be ready by Comic Con, but that could happen.
    posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 5:33 PM on March 30, 2009


    "When writing posts, I like to go for a "show, don't tell" approach."

    The same approach I employ in emails re: my penis.
    posted by klangklangston at 6:25 PM on March 30, 2009


    Ahhh, you guys are too nice. It was the puppies and bunnies that really made this thread sing :)
    posted by cranberrymonger at 6:59 PM on March 30, 2009


    OP should make a neutral post. He or she can then respond to comments anyway they like.
    posted by Ironmouth at 7:08 PM on March 30, 2009


    I dunno if I'll be ready by Comic Con, but that could happen.

    Comic Con? That's way too fur neutral. You need to find a heavily pro-fur convention to attend.

    As an incredibly small financier in this venture, I refuse to search for an appropriate location. There are some searches I just don't make.
    posted by graventy at 7:41 PM on March 30, 2009


    Just making an obvious vegetative pun, is all. Berry on. Also: good night, in an editorial kinda way.
    posted by joe lisboa at 9:30 PM on March 30, 2009


    I don't know what editorilizing means, either. That's why I stay away from the blue, people are more anal about posts over there than on the green.

    *exits thread*
    posted by sixcolors at 9:54 PM on March 30, 2009


    editorializing...
    posted by sixcolors at 9:57 PM on March 30, 2009


    "I don't know what editorilizing means, either."

    Well, then, read the fucking thread and learn, jackass.
    posted by klangklangston at 10:06 PM on March 30, 2009 [3 favorites]


    (The "jackass" was editorializing.)
    posted by klangklangston at 10:06 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    when I want your editorializing, I will beat it out of you.
    posted by JohnnyGunn at 10:14 PM on March 30, 2009


    *exits thread*

    Next time, please exit before entering threads. More preemptive exiting will instruct you in the Way of Meta.
    posted by Blazecock Pileon at 10:27 PM on March 30, 2009


    I stay away from the blue, people are more anal about posts over there than on the green.

    I disagree, for all values of "anal," even.
    posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 11:11 PM on March 30, 2009 [1 favorite]


    odd
    posted by dirty lies at 11:41 PM on March 30, 2009


    sixcolors: "I don't know what editorilizing [sic] means, either. That's why I stay away from the blue, people are more anal about posts over there than on the green. "

    Yeah, I call utter bullshit on this one.
    posted by Phire at 2:02 AM on March 31, 2009


    rah manticore
    posted by Eideteker at 2:29 AM on March 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


    Also, I am pro-clitorializing.
    posted by Eideteker at 2:37 AM on March 31, 2009


    sixcolors: In Through the Out Door.
    posted by gman at 3:54 AM on March 31, 2009


    Shit. What Is and What Should Never Be is actually on Zeppelin II.
    posted by gman at 3:58 AM on March 31, 2009


    You don't even need to buy a goddamn dictionary these days.
    posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:03 AM on March 31, 2009


    , people are more anal about posts over there than on the green.

    QUOI?

    Did I wake up in opposite day? Should I be wearing my pants on my head? THIS DOES NOT COMPUTE.
    posted by grapefruitmoon at 4:43 AM on March 31, 2009


    Hey, now we know you really are a troll! Thanks, 6c!
    posted by waraw at 4:56 AM on March 31, 2009


    What I mean...if I understand correctly, way more posts are deleted on the blue than the green. I assume more posts and replies are flagged over there too.

    I often read comments such as "this post/link doesn't belong here" more on the blue than the green.
    posted by sixcolors at 5:35 AM on March 31, 2009


    It's because when a post doesn't belong on the green, it's nuked from orbit. And when the post does belong on the green, the comment complaining about it gets deleted, instead.

    I don't think more posts get deleted from one subsite than the other. There may be more cluster-deletions on the blue (if one newsworthy event happens, there could be seventy-eight doubles or something).
    posted by Phire at 6:20 AM on March 31, 2009


    The green has stricter constraints on how a post can be put together compared to the blue. The thing is, the vast majority of folks posting questions managed to understand and abide by those constraints, and so we remove very few questions, maybe 1% of all questions that get posted.

    There are, of course, exceptions. For example, less than 1% of the total active AskMe userbase has had 3 or more questions deleted, ever, and that slim cadre is responsible for at least 6% of all the threads that have been deleted. Between asking a lot of questions and asking them unusually badly, these folks represent a significant and more-than-proportional chunk of what goes wrong on the green.

    The blue is much less utility driven and much broader in scope, so the range of things people will try to post is much broader as well, and because the goal of a post is ostensibly to just share something interesting, there's less of a sort of obligation to let posts stand for the posters sake than there is with the green where someone is e.g. trying to solve a problem. We also see a lot more double posts on the blue than on the green, and things like self-links, which pads the deletion numbers.

    We see something like 6% of all posts to the blue deleted, but that includes all of those situations; the number that are deleted for being just bad in an abstract rather than technical sense is lower than that.

    I often read comments such as "this post/link doesn't belong here" more on the blue than the green.

    Making inline metacommentary in the blue is generally more okay than it is in the green, because there's no analogous requirement on mefi to be "answering the question" like there is on the green. This is not representative of flagging, which happens on both sites in I'd say roughly proportional numbers. And about five times the proportion of Askme comments get deleted vs. Mefi comments—1.7% for the green vs. 0.3% for the blue.
    posted by cortex (staff) at 6:43 AM on March 31, 2009


    Please please please please please please please please please please please don't let this shining example of MeTa done right turn into another post about sixcolors. Please. Please.

    Please.
    posted by SpiffyRob at 7:11 AM on March 31, 2009 [4 favorites]


    You know what the first rule is of not making a Big Deal of Something is?

    You don't talk about Something and make it a Big Deal.

    Easy peasy, right?
    posted by P.o.B. at 7:26 AM on March 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


    It's like tattooing a pink anus on a pink anus.
    posted by Burhanistan at 7:27 AM on March 31, 2009


    No, no, not a manticore. A chimera. I won't proffer any guess as to which one is the goat.

    No, I meant this Manticore. The question isn't which is the goat, the question is which is Kieth Emerson.
    posted by cimbrog at 7:30 AM on March 31, 2009


    that slim cadre is responsible for at least 6% of all the threads that have been deleted

    There's no good way to discuss this without it degenerating into a total crapfest, but just from an anthropological standpoint I would be fascinated to know what that 1% of the userbase has in common.
    posted by ook at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


    It's like having an actual conversation on Omegle.
    posted by P.o.B. at 7:47 AM on March 31, 2009


    All you other slim cadres are just imitators.

    Taters.
    posted by emelenjr at 10:01 AM on March 31, 2009


    Does anybody know of a good site to have arguments on, on purpose, thats got an intelligence level similar to Metafilter?

    Don't give me that, you snotty-faced heap of parrot droppings! Your type makes me puke, you vacuous, malodorous...

    Oh, you want an argument? This is MetaTalk. Argument is just down the hall.
    posted by Rock Steady at 12:16 PM on March 31, 2009


    That's why I stay away from the blue, people are more anal about posts over there than on the green.

    That's the polite word for what they are.
    posted by Zambrano at 3:38 PM on March 31, 2009


    I am thinking of all kinds of polite words right now.
    posted by cortex (staff) at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2009


    Zambrano and sixcolors sittin' in a tree...
    posted by Burhanistan at 3:54 PM on March 31, 2009


    If it wouldn't be too much of a bother, cortex, would you mind telling us which words you're thinking of? Thank you so much!
    posted by rtha at 3:55 PM on March 31, 2009


    For example, less than 1% of the total active AskMe userbase has had 3 or more questions deleted, ever, and that slim cadre is responsible for at least 6% of all the threads that have been deleted.

    There's no good way to discuss this without it degenerating into a total crapfest, but just from an anthropological standpoint I would be fascinated to know what that 1% of the userbase has in common.

    They're named "sixcolors."
    posted by dersins at 4:13 PM on March 31, 2009


    And every single other one of them are men.
    posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:03 PM on March 31, 2009 [1 favorite]


    Fair enough, but you could equally have said "And every single other one of them are named something else." I wasn't trying to make some sort of gender thing out of this.
    posted by dersins at 5:22 PM on March 31, 2009


    That's the polite word for what they are.
    posted by Zambrano


    Care to share, or just spewing bullshit as per usual?
    posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:14 PM on March 31, 2009


    Shouldn't it be called op-eding? Who's our ombudsperson? Should be Kattullus, methinks.
    posted by lukemeister at 11:00 PM on March 31, 2009


    Shit, people. stop with the luls at sixcolors. Leave community control to the mods. Do you think her life is easy?
    posted by By The Grace of God at 2:15 AM on April 1, 2009 [1 favorite]


    pony request: separate site with deleted comments, sans context and user names (to avoid troll attention whoring).

    pony request II: hard numbers on how many times the banhammer has swung. Average per week? Reason (i.e. seo spam vs. pissing matt off for the last time)? Trends over time? Pretty graphs? Please?

    pony request III: "Office pool" on how long it will take until sixcolors gets so bored she could shit and flames out in a blaze of shame? Pretty please?

    This was a good thread and I apologize for feeding the troll that derailed it. So now a serious question: If the deletion numbers are that low and the mods put up with ridiculous crap from a variety of fools, repeatedly and calmly explaining things to them, how the hell has this site not devolved into 4chan, sa or kuro5hin? $5 isn't really THAT much money...
    posted by double block and bleed at 6:13 AM on April 1, 2009


    "Shouldn't it be called op-eding?"

    Nope. Op-ed is short for Opposite Editorial, meaning the page that faces the staff editorial. Folks think that it means "opinion editorial" or some such noise, but it doesn't.
    posted by klangklangston at 7:53 AM on April 1, 2009


    Thanks, klangklangston. I've spent so many years with the wrong idea about this. There must be much, much more.
    posted by lukemeister at 11:34 PM on April 1, 2009


    « Older Another flame-bait FPP.   |   Metafilter Music Podcast? Newer »

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