Double-post Guidelines

March 15, 2002 2:39 PM

So what exactly constitutes a double post? For example, this link on the front page regarding the ATHEIST plates was called a double post. On the other hand, this post regarding the Yates trial was not. I rarely monitor old threads, even if they are only a few days old. What is enough of an update to constitute a link worthy of an additional front page post?
posted by monju_bosatsu to etiquette/policy at 2:39 PM (3 comments total)

I for one have grown tired of news item/current events posts that feel they require updates every couple of days. I don't feel the need to get updated on daily trial goings on, what Rumsfeld had for breakfast, or that the sun just set in Sri Lanka. If it was unique enough and important enough to post the original story, then I am probably going to be following it on the news now. If there is a drastic change that sparks some controversy or could inspire new debate, I'm interested. Otherwise things start looking like a newsfeed.
posted by mikhail at 3:08 PM on March 15, 2002

Agreed, some of these "update" posts would fit nicely under the original thread. My guess is that people think their update will be ignored if it's hidden inside a day-old thread--

On yesterday's thread about coffee, two people posted the next morning, and felt compelled to apologize for "arriving late."

On the "two comments per post" thread, Rory's "Been thinking about this problem of threads dying ... there have been some fascinating ones around here lately that fizzle out as soon as it hits midnight on the west coast, which makes any later responses by Aussies and Europeans fairly pointless ... and I'm wondering: how about replacing the sidebar ... Might encourage some quality threads to last longer than twelve hours."

Sorting by posted threads makes it pretty easy to pick out responses to your own comments for the past few days.

Is it really that difficult to scroll back a day or two and see what's happening on threads where you haven't posted?

(I suppose we could suggest more work for Matt, and request a "track this thread!" or a "older thread updates" feature-- but are these features really necessary? Keeping threads going for more than a day at a time with the existing system isn't all that difficult, if we're truly interested in a topic. Perhaps those of us with an attention span longer than 12 hours ought to consider going back every so often and adding some value/updates/links to the material posted over the past week.)
posted by sheauga at 5:12 PM on March 15, 2002

i liked that second post, i care a little about the atheist plate story, but not enough for me to remember and go back, especially since i wasn't expecting and resolution so quickly. i wouldn't have known about it otherwise.
posted by rhyax at 3:42 PM on March 16, 2002