I'm Slightly Bothered As Hell And I'll Probably Have To Get Over It!

October 28, 2009 7:12 AM

Am I the only person that feels like this and this are overly bloggy in tone? Not that I object to the content, it's just the personal/editorial framing.

I flagged the first one and moved on and was surprised it didn't disappear/get edited/get reposted. Now a second one has appeared so I'm wondering if my sensors need recalibrating.

posted by DU to Etiquette/Policy at 7:12 AM (46 comments total)

Each post has an opinion, but I don't see the type of editorializing that makes me think a poster needs to get his/her own blog.

I don't think that every post needs to be entirely neutral in order to make a good FPP on the blue, only that the posts don't go on and on, ranting and raving about a subject.
posted by xingcat at 7:15 AM on October 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

The first one is a direct quote from the linked website, DU.
posted by vacapinta at 7:16 AM on October 28, 2009

I agree with xingcat. I found it extremely weird to see people chatting in their posts, but I don't think it's to an extent that it overcomes the actual post. Though, if everyone started doing this, I'd probably start grinding my teeth.
posted by Atreides at 7:17 AM on October 28, 2009

I don't think that every post needs to be entirely neutral in order to make a good FPP on the blue, only that the posts don't go on and on, ranting and raving about a subject.

I think the best way to do it is to make the post neutral, so that the content can stand on its own, and then post any personal opinions as the first comment of the thread. The post/comment divide is already a natural split between the content and opinions about the content, so that seems like a logical way to separate the presentation of the post from the poster's opinions.
posted by burnmp3s at 7:24 AM on October 28, 2009

and then post any personal opinions as the first comment

No, when people do this, I consider the first comment part of the post. And it seems more, not less, editorializish.
posted by Dumsnill at 7:29 AM on October 28, 2009

I had the same feeling about the cell size/scale post, but there's really nothing to be done about it. (Unless we can get the poster in here for a preliminary flogging/tarring, so they'll know better next time. That would be fun.)
posted by languagehat at 7:30 AM on October 28, 2009

Use of the first person is probably not the best way to set up an FPP, but I don't think that makes it bloggy. It's not like either are editorializing a hot-button topic, or relaying extensive personal anecdotes around either link.
posted by slogger at 7:30 AM on October 28, 2009

I don't know if they're OVERLY bloggy. They're bloggy, but this is a blog. We've become spoiled by people like madamejujujive and y2karl into expecting journalism with every blog post, when once upon a time it was enough to say "[foo.com] is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their [foo] wedged into their [foo], or why."
posted by shmegegge at 7:38 AM on October 28, 2009 [5 favorites]

The main problem with editorializing is in posts where that editorializing has an agenda. If vacapinta's correct and the first one is quoting the linked site, then neither of these fit that criterion.
posted by ocherdraco at 7:39 AM on October 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent fokes.
posted by yhbc at 7:41 AM on October 28, 2009

We should ban the use of the words "I" and "me" on the front page. That'll sort these bloggery fuckers out. Telling *us* what *they* think? Fuck em.
posted by jontyjago at 7:43 AM on October 28, 2009 [4 favorites]

Not to mention, grumblebee has been framing FPPs this way for years now.
posted by yhbc at 7:44 AM on October 28, 2009

Which is to say all editorializing is annoying, post or first comment.
posted by Dumsnill at 7:46 AM on October 28, 2009

grumblebee has been framing FPPs this way for years now

Are you excusing it or turning this into a callout?
posted by DU at 7:47 AM on October 28, 2009

I found it extremely weird to see people chatting in their posts

What's the etiquette on this? Is there a general consensus (or a stated rule?) that the poster should not participate in the conversation generated by the post?
posted by jefficator at 7:48 AM on October 28, 2009

No, no; just that it's a consistent style. Every poster and member usually has one, and the fact that there are a variety of them is one of the things that keeps the site as a whole refreshing and entertaining.
posted by yhbc at 7:49 AM on October 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

For another instance, I can now spot a not_on_display post long before I read down to the by-line. His posts are also semi-"bloggy", but they're engaging and well-done.
posted by yhbc at 7:50 AM on October 28, 2009

I'm not sure it's a stated rule, but there seems to be a feeling that the poster shouldn't babysit the post, or attempt to moderate or dominate the conversation.
posted by box at 7:51 AM on October 28, 2009 [2 favorites]

Use of the first person is probably not the best way to set up an FPP,

Yeah, unless there are quotation marks around it suggesting that it's a pull quote from one of their links, I find first person framing in posts to feel, I don't know... icky. It's totally unfair of me, because I've seen some really quality posts using that device, but I guess as suggested above; I've been spoiled over the years.

Still, it's just a personal preference, and I don't think I'd flag on something being just first-person, though it does make me automatically start sniffing the air for the scent of agenda driven editorializing.
posted by quin at 7:52 AM on October 28, 2009

What's "editorial" about the second post? The fact that it employs the first person?
posted by Jaltcoh at 7:53 AM on October 28, 2009

Cat-Scan.com is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why.
posted by dirtdirt at 7:55 AM on October 28, 2009 [1 favorite]

I'm so sad that cat-scan.com isn't a real site. :-(
posted by jefficator at 8:03 AM on October 28, 2009

You ARE the weakest link...

(I'm Barry, I'm from Bristol, I'm a plummer.)
posted by Dumsnill at 8:07 AM on October 28, 2009

grumblebee is one of my favorite members and often a voice of reason on the site, and I liked his excitement about the tool he found (notice I am NOT calling it an app).

The other post did seem bloggy-sounding. Now that I see vacapinta points out it is straight from the source, I'm good with it, too, because it's a really interesting slice of Americana. I do wish the pertinent quote was encased in quotation marks or something, though, because I think attribution is important.
posted by misha at 8:15 AM on October 28, 2009

Does anyone else watch the Weakest Link and try to guess contestants' occupations right before they introduce themselves? I'm up to about a 23% accuracy rate, with about double that for account managers and students.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:19 AM on October 28, 2009

I'm not sure it's a stated rule, but there seems to be a feeling that the poster shouldn't babysit the post, or attempt to moderate or dominate the conversation.

Pretty much, yeah. It's fine to participate, it's not so fine to (a) moderate your own thread or (b) be hyperresponsive in general. It's usually only a problem when people are either being defensive about negative reactions the post is getting or being boostery/activist about the post content in the comments, otherwise it doesn't come up too much.

Anyway, both of the posts cited here are more conversational than I generally prefer, but (even setting aside the just-not-clear-that-it's-a-quotation issue with the first one) neither to a degree that I think is really problematic and neither are on fight-starting subjects where the personal tone doubles as the throwing of the first punch. More a matter of style preference than issues one of actionable violation of general posting expectations, basically.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:20 AM on October 28, 2009

Cat-Scan.com is one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time. I have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why.

I blame mathowie for being a bad example.
posted by cimbrog at 8:51 AM on October 28, 2009 [2 favorites]

Yeah, I would've liked if the first one made it clearer that it was quoting the linked article, but other than that it's fine. I don't have a problem with the second at all. I don't mind a sentence or two which basically says, "I thought this was really cool because..." I think the problem with editorializing comes when a) it's axe-grindy, b) it tells the reader how he should feel about it, c) it's excessively long, or d) the link is a thinly-veiled excuse for posting the personal thoughts of the OP. None of these apply to the size and scale post.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:51 AM on October 28, 2009

Cat-Scan.com is allegedly one of the strangest sites I've Internet observers have seen in some time. I Leading experts have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why. HAMBURGER
posted by Rhaomi at 8:59 AM on October 28, 2009 [3 favorites]

i can haz cat-scan.com?
posted by jefficator at 9:21 AM on October 28, 2009

Some people say Cat-Scan.com is one of the strangest sites they've seen in some time. Others have no idea how these people got their cats wedged into their scanners, or why.
posted by dirigibleman at 9:24 AM on October 28, 2009

Cat-scan, which has been mentioned more than once now, is an unfair example for two reasons.

1) As the first post, it predates most guidelines.
2) "one of the strangest $X I've seen" and "I have no idea" are stock phrases that, while personally phrased, aren't somehow less personal than "I believe they deserve respect" or "the first time I've ever had the sense".

Anyway, my sensor calibration seems to not be off: Personal tone is to be avoided but mere inclusion is not necessarily a flaggable offense in itself.
posted by DU at 9:49 AM on October 28, 2009

Are. ARE somehow less personal.
posted by DU at 9:50 AM on October 28, 2009

Just the fact that there was only one link in the posts made them stand out to me. A lack of context and other examples leads to "Gee that's cool" types of comments versus comparisons and actual discussion sometimes.
posted by Big_B at 10:05 AM on October 28, 2009

I prefer posts with one link instead of posts fluffed out with low-quality links to wikipedia, some random crappy blog, and some token haterade.
posted by kathrineg at 1:54 PM on October 28, 2009

Someone used the first person ? This is editorializing ?

Am I the only person... ? Not that I object... I flagged... Now I wonder...

Then, shouldn't you have put this on your own blog rather than waste our time here with it ?

I had the same feeling about the cell size/scale post, but there's really nothing to be done about it.

Yet you stuck up for me when I was attacked for much the same thing. Which I deeply appreciated--which is why I am disturbed to see you in anywhere's near to agreement with such a hair-up-a-gnat's-ass post like this.

Same here as there--tastes differ. There is nothing wrong with the way grumblebee framed his post . Nothing.
posted by y2karl at 2:38 PM on October 28, 2009

Pardon me for the tone of my outburst there but really--to me this is so petty and pointless. Tastes differ. Make mountains out of mountains--not molehills. Don't make a big tent into a small one.

You may insert your own belabored metaphorical travesty here.
posted by y2karl at 2:44 PM on October 28, 2009

> I am disturbed to see you in anywhere's near to agreement with such a hair-up-a-gnat's-ass post like this.

Eh, I just thought grumblebee's post was a little, well, bloggy. No big deal, and no wider theory expressed or implied. Besides, I like the idea of flogging posters once in a while, to encourage the others.
posted by languagehat at 4:48 PM on October 28, 2009

Just flog it and move on.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 5:22 PM on October 28, 2009

Telling *us* what *they* think? Fuck em.

Sarcasm aside, there is something that feels non-communal to me when folks insert the "I" so obviously into their front page posts. Yeah, we all get that we post because we think we found something cool to share, but that's a given. Inserting "I think this" and "I wish that" into the post feels like unnecessary overkill - and, to me, slightly off-base.
posted by mediareport at 8:07 PM on October 28, 2009

What mediareport said.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:31 PM on October 28, 2009

Ah, sorry DU. Forgot my CATBURGER on that.
posted by cimbrog at 8:50 PM on October 28, 2009

85 users marked this as a favorite [!]

There seems to be some disagreement on what makes a good FPP.
posted by cj_ at 2:00 AM on October 29, 2009

Every last one of you (us) should get your (our) own fucking (fucking) blog(s).

Happy now?

Good.
posted by fourcheesemac at 4:34 AM on October 29, 2009 [1 favorite]

I started coming to Metafilter for diversions, specifically out of my interest in the web as new artistic medium. I love one-link posts to diversions that include some explanation of what I'm getting into, a la grumblebee's post. I would be very sad to if we went down some sort of "no first person FPP" road, because that kind of across-the-board rule would make for some pretty convoluted posting, I think, or worse, discourage fun little one-link posts to diversions (which seem to be getting fewer anyway, but perhaps that's not a metafilter thing so much as a Web 2.0 thing).
posted by carmen at 8:25 AM on October 29, 2009

Sarcasm aside, there is something that feels non-communal to me when folks insert the "I" so obviously into their front page posts...

An, the I's don't have it, then. .Yes and no. Maybe sometimes.

Certainly, the same can be true for comments. When the I's are about fifteen per cent of a seven hundred word, multi paragraphed butt, pimpled slab of vainglorious self-regard, it can grate. Especially, when someone is playing I'm the smartest Johnny in the room with Too Much Information, to boot.

Inserting "I think this" and "I wish that" into the post feels like unnecessary overkill - and, to me, slightly off-base.

As for that, to paraphrase Potter Stewart--"Off-base ? I know it when I see it.

But not here.

I could find not fault with grumblebee's use of the first person. fact, I thought his post was rather elegantly done--he got a lot across in few words. In five short sentences, he qualified his personal experience and provided additional insights about the viewer. If he had that done so via 'more inside,' there would be no complaint. If he was being subjective, his was such a brief and impersonal subjectivity. hardly deserving even a raised eyebrow. Such was my experience of his post.
posted by y2karl at 12:47 PM on October 29, 2009