Comments on: What's Wrong With MetaFilter

What's Wrong With MetaFilter

mathowie — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:35:22 -0800

This is the best write-up of what's wrong with metafilter to date. Especially the graphs and illustrations. Fine work, mr. edrants.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:51:06 -0800

Great stuff.

"Dwindle recommends that Metafilter not quibble with the niceties of what the community once was, but rather attempt to embrace precisely where it's heading."

Indeed.

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 21:55:52 -0800

that it is not unlike high school in its methodology

See, Matt, I was right after all.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:10:02 -0800

Matt, when you die, can I have your user number?

By: riffola

riffola — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:12:06 -0800

Dwindle & Associates are soo underrated.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:14:05 -0800

anapestic, I'm not so greedy. May I have your user number when you're unceremoniously thrown out the door for sacrilege? If not, matt, then what he said.

Nice gravestone, BTW.

By: snarkout

snarkout — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:25:38 -0800

What's Johnny Cash's username? And does he secretly still log on to read the site after flipping us all the bird?

By: jonmc

jonmc — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:29:28 -0800

but rather attempt to embrace precisely where it's heading.

I do, wherever it goes.
Actually, watching the dynamics of how 13000(actually more like 1500 or so hard-core) interact is an interesting exercise in amateur sociology and is another reason I keep coming back.

By: anapestic

anapestic — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:33:22 -0800

Not that I want Matt to die or anything, you know. Just if he's going to die, someone might as well benefit, and it might as well be me. Also, I'm willing to act as a medium and channel his contributions from beyond the grave, although I know that posting on behalf of non-members is frowned on.

But certainly, I'd rather have Matt around than have his extremely coveted user number. Well, almost certainly. I mean, probably. I mean, the probability is greater than zero.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 22:46:53 -0800

anapestic, yer gonna burn in HELL! Besides, everybody knows that mediums are charlatans. Bloody tablerappers.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:04:28 -0800

Mr. Cash is actually a Type A user here. Because Mr. Cash has actually been here for some time, defying the normal MeFi user, Dwindle & Associates paid him $5,000 for his input in the study. I didn't quite understand the math myself, given that Dwindle had billed me $23.47 for the methodology. But Dwindle told me privately that "cashnot$$$" would go through the cycle more hasty than the average user, guns ablazing with a volley of words leaving even the old guard scratching their pates. His iconic photograph was thus necessary in communicating the results.

By: owillis

owillis — Tue, 26 Feb 2002 23:07:59 -0800

I think the answer is quite clear. Matt must never be allowed to die. Ever. Haughey, I think it's time to jack your wetware into the hivemind.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 00:06:04 -0800

"Jacking your wetware" sounds so....naughty. Not sure how you go about it, but I'm willing to bet it's fun!

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:08:24 -0800

I'm not too sure what all that edrants stuff meant, but I didn't see my name specifically, so everything's cool.

By: ZachsMind

ZachsMind — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 01:44:56 -0800

I just gotta ask: is this how the Mormons started?

By: owillis

owillis — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 02:09:18 -0800

Brigham Young doesn't look like Matt... but you have to wonder

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:00:32 -0800

That was great fun and very true. Thanks, edrants! Things will never be the same as students start tracking the Greens, the Blues and the Reds in their constantly shifting modes and moods. Now all we need is for skallas to set up a "What MetaFilter Type Are You?" questionnaire. ;)

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:03:05 -0800

This deserves a specially thought up Dwindle's Law.

By: Su

Su — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 04:14:22 -0800

Amusing. And frighteningly accurate. Of particular note is the statement Stavros already quoted. Nice post.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:02:11 -0800

It's always nice to see a shout out to "the Fonz."

By: RobertLoch

RobertLoch — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 05:13:23 -0800

There could be a new breed of user about to appear- one that doesn't expect much and therefore doesn't get disillusioned quite so easily. I can't envisage a situation where I would loose interest, partially because I don't attempt to get that much out of this place. I lurk a lot on the front page, possibly hitting 1 in 10 links, reading 1- 15 thread, commenting very rarely, and that works great for me. My point being that I've never thought of this place as somewhere where every link posted is likely to interest me, or that there would be that many discussions of note.

The old adage - you can't miss something that you never had, or never knew.

By: adrianhon

adrianhon — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 07:27:04 -0800

Doesn't that breed of user already exist in numbers? I know plenty of people who lurk at the same or lower levels than you do (including myself) and they seem to be fine with MeFi. While we would all like the front page of MeFi to be filled with links and comments that are all stimulating and interesting to us (and of course this ideal would be different for everyone) I find it useful to think that most of the stuff there will not interest me. I do get a little annoyed about large numbers of links that seem to be completely useless and of no interest to anybody though.

What irritates me most however is when an otherwise interesting post or thread is taken over by silly, off-topic comments; I am not suggesting that this has happened in this thread - I think it's sadly a MeFi-wide phenomenon.

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:06:59 -0800

I know someone who claims to have read every comment on Metatalk and Metafilter for the past two years.
Posting to the front page is an honor. It's saying to this brilliant community, "here I am, and I think that I might have something interesting to say". Acceptance or rejection should be feared. Users should feel privileged to post here, and should think about and construct their posts for a few hours before actually posting.

Unfortunately, it's hard to give the site that level of respect when so many others don't.

By: MiguelCardoso

MiguelCardoso — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:29:26 -0800

/me starts waving hands Al Jolson-style, hero-worshipping mlang.

By: goneill

goneill — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 08:40:28 -0800

miguello, as though you haven't read every comment...

Anyway - the thing that i'm trying to say, is that people should be a little bit more circumspect in their front page posts. And, not you Miguel, as you are brilliant and post only interesting things to the front page. But others, should do a lot of background reading before they post, get the feel of the place, and not bombard Metafilter with their own innanity.

What are those phrases about calling the kettle black, throwing rocks from houses, I am a loser hypocrite.

But, I'm also trying to say that otherwise circumspect posters are less circumspect than they should be because of the general level.

By: Mack Twain

Mack Twain — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:11:48 -0800

love Metafilter or leave it....nuff said? Nuff said!

By: boogah

boogah — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 10:31:35 -0800

Things will never be the same as students start tracking the Greens, the Blues and the Reds in their constantly shifting modes and moods.

miguel: moodfilter? someone could do an accompanying program for mefi/meta a la moodlogic. one could drag the link to either a post or comment to the proggy, hit a mood button on how it makes the user feel and then that information could suggest other posts/comments that may jibe with your ratings.

like i'll ever get that pony...

By: brittney

brittney — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 13:12:04 -0800

Metafilter, in the mind of the individual user, must remain as pure as Colombian cocaine.

Thinking what I'm thinking?

By: obiwanwasabi

obiwanwasabi — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 14:51:45 -0800

Thinking what I'm thinking?

The dog wet my bed, and I so totally want to do him like right now?

By: lotsofno

lotsofno — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 15:59:25 -0800

obiwanwasabi, that was just horrible...

Yes, horrible.
*slides £50 back into wallet*
Listen.. uh.. I think I misunderstood what was going down at this thread-
(backs away towards exit)
-so I'm just gonna go...

By: lotsofno

lotsofno — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:00:07 -0800

shoutout to d_r by the way.

By: dong_resin

dong_resin — Wed, 27 Feb 2002 16:12:55 -0800

Heh.
Neato.

By: mlang

mlang — Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:27:24 -0800

the problem with reading every comment is that one always finds oneself running one or more days behind and therefore never gets to contribute to any discussions; by the time one reads an entire thread and feels moved to post therein, one tends to find that either (a) one's point has already been expressed (often less eloquently or thoroughly than one might have expressed the point oneself — although the blame for that can fall no place but on one's own shoulders in that, assuming the responsibility of complete participation, one must also adhere to reasonable standards of timeliness) or (b) all discussion will have ceased and participants will have moved on, creating a situation where posting would be useless, even if one has something new to add, because one's post would never be read except perhaps by some metafilter archaeologist which (no disrespect to said archaeologist intended) does not constitute the whole of one's ideal audience.

By: mlang

mlang — Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:27:51 -0800

damn. it's happened again.

By: mlang

mlang — Tue, 05 Mar 2002 08:28:17 -0800

(hello, archaeologist!)