SXSW post, wherefore art thou?

March 11, 2002 8:00 AM

So where did my post about SXSW go? There were 15-16 replies last night. Did I hit a nerve with the weblog gods? Did the posts touch on something some people didn't want to read? An explanation here would be nice instead of just deleting the post. "Community weblog," indeed.
posted by manero to MetaFilter-related at 8:00 AM (23 comments total)

Perhaps because your only link was to the SXSW main site. That doesn't really fit into the whole idea of "most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others". (Keyword here being "and")

I think it might have been received better here in MetaTalk, but I don't know for sure.

Yes, it's upsetting to see your post disappear without a trace, but you shouldn't take it personally. Just the way it goes.
posted by ColdChef at 8:09 AM on March 11, 2002

"Community weblog," indeed.

You should definitely get pre-emptively snitty and include a mention of the nonexistent "weblog gods." These not-at-all-tired stratagems will bolster your case immensely.
posted by Skot at 8:13 AM on March 11, 2002

Well what am I supposed to expect when the post goes away for no reason? All I wanted was an explanation, maaaaan. Even a private automated email explaning why the thread was deleted would have been *courteous* instead of just zapping the fucker.
posted by manero at 8:17 AM on March 11, 2002

It might be a good idea to give Matt a chance to answer before you go off on him, is all. Assuming you really wanted an answer.
posted by rodii at 8:23 AM on March 11, 2002

never mind, i'll assume it was the retarded link and leave it at that.
posted by manero at 8:29 AM on March 11, 2002

This is what the post looked like:

Didn't make it to SXSW this year? Tired of hearing all the big name bloggers talk about how cool it is to be blogging next to everyone? What's everyone doing to fight off the "I'm not cool enough" doldrums of missing out on SXSW? More inside.
posted by manero at 8:43 PM PST

Since we're trying to give some "constructive criticism" here, I personally don't care for posts that ask a question. That's just me. I think that if the interest is there, people will post without being asked. Also...the "I'm not cool enough" part seems to be snarky.

Now, this may be your personal style (and if it is, that's fine) it's just that--in my opinion--if you make your post too "This is what I think/What do you think" the comments will not be as good as in posts where you say "Here's this" and let people give their own opinions.

Don't get discouraged. We're a (mostly) forgiving bunch here.
posted by ColdChef at 8:33 AM on March 11, 2002

Is there a reason why you're so awfully bitter, manero? I'd have deleted the link as well, and I think it's pretty obvious why it's gone. Only the fact that no names are singled out in your SXSW post holds it back from being a personal attack rather than a call for discussion.
posted by tomorama at 8:44 AM on March 11, 2002

Having an email address in your profile is often a good way to assure you'll get notified quickly if someone has something to say to you.
posted by jessamyn at 10:03 AM on March 11, 2002

Doesn't everybody have to submit an email address to Matt when they sign up anyway, whether they allow it to be shown in their profile or not?
posted by bingo at 10:20 AM on March 11, 2002

It was pretty damned obvious why it was removed, given how leading the question was, how susceptible the question was to mudslinging and because of the ugliness that it was veering into, about as ugly as some of the posts in the PETA thread.

Criticizing SXSW and the perceived "exclusivity" of the event seems fine by me, provided that you're willing to offer valid criticism, intriguing solutions and not resort to petty attacks.

Besides, an attack on Kottke is an attack on the family. He's our Uncle Erzo and, no matter what anyone says, let's face the facts. Nobody can get enough of Kottke as avuncular hunk. I'm sure the thread was removed because the last thing anyone needs is to incite the internecine wrath of the MeFi Mafia.
posted by ed at 10:39 AM on March 11, 2002

Manero. Dude. A couple years ago I went to SXSW and whether it actually happened or I'm just a paranoid antisocial butthead (probably a little of both) I felt slighted and dissed by a number of "prominent bloggers." And I let it get to me and I vented a bit, but then I got over it. And I found some other people who were fun to hang with and I enjoyed myself anyway.

Whining about it just gives them acknowledgement that they got under your skin. If you have a problem with "hearing all the big name bloggers talk about how cool it is to be blogging next to everyone", here's a clue: don't go to SXSW. No one's gonna listen to you anyway cuz they don't go there to listen to people like you whine.

Don't waste another breath on your precious little FPP that got toasted. If you just linked to the SXSW main site and didn't do any more research than that, you got off easy. I woulda plowed into you something fierce if I'd noticed that. And I have earned that right cuz if I had a hundred bucks for every time I've seen one of my FPPs get unceremoniously outed.. well I'd have several hundred bucks.

Take your lemons. Make your lemonade. Had Matt kept your post up, you'd just have looked like yet another in a long list of whiners. Get in line. Been there done that.

Consider the truth: he did you a favor.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:45 AM on March 11, 2002

Bingo: Required e-mail addresses are a new-ish thing. Manero's user number seems to be on the borderline of when that came up last.

And: What Zach said.
posted by Su at 11:41 AM on March 11, 2002

manero, pretty much what ed said here and in the thread.

The only point for the thread seemed to be for some venting by people not attending with a hint of jealousy running through it all. The link was general, uninteresting, and only served as to meet the base requirement for posting. Mudslinging other people isn't the type of community I want to help build.
posted by mathowie at 12:59 PM on March 11, 2002

Since we're trying to give some "constructive criticism" here, I personally don't care for posts that ask a question.

Way Back When, we were actually encouraged to end our FPPs with a question, so as to engender discussion, instead of leaving the impression you were just dumping a link and saying, "Here. Look at it."
posted by aaron at 1:18 PM on March 11, 2002

Really? Okay...I can kind of see the point in that.

Do you think a question still needs to be asked? I mean, don't you think that people get the basic concept now?

I still don't like the idea of a question at the end. I think it "steers" the conversation too much, but I guess it has it's place. Thanks for the background info, aaron.
posted by ColdChef at 2:13 PM on March 11, 2002

Aaron's right, though there is a distinction between the kind of questions that are asked (actually I've noticed many of mathowie's posts have ended in questions).

Type 1: "The RIAA closed Morpheus today. Have they succeeded in shutting down file-sharing forever, or will a new system crop up?"

Type 2: "I like beer. Here's my favorite beer site. What's your favorite beer?"

Personally, I prefer Type 1. It's a little more philosophical and leaves more to the imagination. Type 2 seems to elicit rote, uninteresting answers.

Now what's your favorite type of questioning? :)
posted by Karl at 3:15 PM on March 11, 2002

matt: is jealousy at a-listers off limits? is it just too hard a discussion to contain?
posted by victors at 4:09 PM on March 11, 2002

Karl: Personally, Type 1 comes onto me like a parrot escaped from the zoo (because previously the parrot lived in an editor's office, you see). Take the first bit, "Have they succeeded in shutting down file-sharing forever," obviously yes, "or will a new system crop up?" obviously no. Type 1 causes me pain. Pain in my belly. You understand.
posted by holloway at 4:14 PM on March 11, 2002

Nobody can get enough of Kottke as avuncular hunk.
gag. retch. barf.
YOU clean it up...
what planet did you say this was...?
posted by quonsar at 5:27 PM on March 11, 2002

Dunno if y'all have seen this or not, and I can't vouch for its authenticity (found it at the Pile), but it made me laugh.
posted by catatonic at 8:30 PM on March 11, 2002

Somehow the nice anti-aliasing on that text, and the fact that it's bold in the message body makes me think it was made in Photoshop. But the most convincing thing is the obvious cursor in the 'screenshot' you are mysteriously hosting on your website

But I guess I can't vouch for the authenticity of my analysis.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:57 PM on March 11, 2002

Hey, you know what? Everything they say about SXSW is true. I wouldn't have believed it two days ago, but now that SXSW is nearly over, I'm really glad I came. It's given me a whole new perspective on a lot of things, including the whole "cult of personalities" and how the "A-list" thing is complete bullshit... and I'm really getting a lot out of this whole experience. I only hope I can manage to keep this mind-set it once I get back home, and get stuck in the mental feedback loop of being a work-at-home freelancer.
posted by crunchland at 9:32 PM on March 11, 2002

I'm really kicking my own ass for not trying to arrange a MetaFilter Meetandgreet here in Austin. I hope everyone has a good time at SXSW and leaves with a good feeling about Austin.

It's the biggest small town in the world.
posted by ColdChef at 9:48 PM on March 11, 2002