Comments on: Double Post Notification

Double Post Notification

ZachsMind — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 21:40:02 -0800

We got March 29th 2002. And then there's April 9th, 2001. We're talking almost a year. Isn't there a statute of limitations on doubleposting? I should make a front page post to JenniCam just to see if anyone gives a crap.

By: StOne

StOne — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 22:13:36 -0800

Don't do a Pornolizer post, for God's sake!
(That was well over a year old--and I only searched back 1 year. duh on me.)

By: BlueTrain

BlueTrain — Fri, 29 Mar 2002 23:21:06 -0800

Gee, am I wrong, or has MetaTalk lost its effectiveness because of too many threads. Let me count Zach's threads in the last couple of weeks:

(one)(two)(three)(four)(five)(six)(seven)

Hmm...

Okay...but I don't like seeing an etiquette/policy discussion every fucking day. Today there are THREE...ON A FRIDAY!

By: anapestic

anapestic — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 05:28:57 -0800

Isn't this the second double post thread in a row? And posted by the same person. Maybe you should do a MeTa search on double post threads. I guarantee you won't have to go back a year (or even a week) to find one.

By: macadamiaranch

macadamiaranch — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 06:24:35 -0800

eh, mathowie said he's gonna put on a once a week MeTa posting restriction when he gets a chance. that'll help.

By: Doug

Doug — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:30:57 -0800

Back on topic...

Zach, Matt hasn't deleted the thread. I assume that means he's ok with it. So, I guess there is a statute of limitations. Maybe he isn't making it explicit to avoid people from rushing to repost "golden oldies"?

This seems like a good reason NOT to rush into double posts and write about the pancakes.

BlueTrain: You make a point. But I still think it's not the number of posts that's the problem, but the quality of them.

By: ook

ook — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 08:40:05 -0800

Responding to the actual topic, rather than ranting about the number of posts:

I've never made a front page post, but it's not for lack of trying. At least six or seven times I've found something that seemed worthy, gone to MeFi search, and found out it's already been done. So I toss it out.

And you know what? I think that's fine. If something was posted a year ago, two years ago, whatever, the thread is still sitting there, you can even still even comment on it. The only reason to re-post it would be for that little thrill of seeing your name on the front page... which isn't reason enough.

If we established some 'statute of limitations' then we'd just spend all our time recycling year-old discussions. Which sounds pretty boring to me.

By: jcterminal

jcterminal — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 15:03:23 -0800

you know... while there SHOULD be a statute of limitations, i think a year might be a little too long.

think about those who've joined in the past year.

jenni? ain't she dead yet? or on a talk show circuit?

time to set up a "MeFiClassic" section. with the most posted/most commented links... or something...

By: Perigee

Perigee — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 15:27:32 -0800

My slant on things, for what it's worth...

I think a key factor in this has to be a statute of limitations. The reason I say that is this:

Lets take site 'A'. If it was posted today, 14,000 members see it. A year ago, perhaps 7,000 members saw it. Two years ago, perhaps 3,000. Admittedly all speculation, but I'm sure some old-timers and matt may be able to stick some real numbers in place.

So, I see it this way: a year-in newbie isn't likely to get a wild hair and think to search out 'decorated coffins' just to see if someone has a link out in the archives, because they suddenly have a desire out of the blue to see one. So, a large portion (possibly 50% or more) of the current active readership) may not have seen sites mentioned more than a year ago.

So, in my opinion, we need to think about what percentage of our current audience would be poorly served versus those who may benefit by a link unseen in years. If Metafilter survives another five years, will I and six other subscribers become the default 'Star Chamber' of posts? "Remove it - May 12, 1999; been there, done that..." This is exactly where elitism starts. Charges of an inner circle, justified.

I say we ask JJG, Camworld, Peterme, Matt and the other 'Miner 99'ers' if they would feel slighted by 2-3-4 year-old sites being rediscovered by the next generation. So far in this thread, doug is the grampa, and he's not half as excited as those who have been here for a year or less and are playing 'Judge Dredd'.

What about it, '99ers?

By: Tarrama

Tarrama — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:18:27 -0800

Does every single double post have to be commented on? Is this some sort of rule or could the double post be ignored unless the person does it consistently? I doubt there would be many people who would post a link without searching first. I know I wouldn't, if only to avoid the inevitable slap on the wrist that follows. As I have an aversion to pain, any constructive advice on searching correctly, would be appreciated.

By: ook

ook — Sat, 30 Mar 2002 23:48:26 -0800

You can call me J.D. for short.

Yes, sure, if something was posted a year ago, then a large percentage of current MeFi readers won't have seen it. And if somebody inadvertently "doubleposts" something that old, because they weren't around when it came through the first time, and because it didn't match up easily in a search, then no harm no foul.

Someone should still link to the old thread if they find it, if only to make the previous discussion available -- but that doesn't mean the current thread has to curl up and die. (I don't see calling a double post as being synonymous with saying "you, current poster, are lazy and don't know how to use search. You suck." More like, "Hey, we talked about this some time ago, and if you want to read what was already said, it's over here.")

But the idea of making it open season to do it on purpose -- I suspect the front page would be crowded by a number of users who'd just spelunk through the back pages and repost, instead of going out to the web to look for new stuff. "MeFi: The Golden Oldies Of The Web", while perhaps marginally better than "MeFi: CNN, But With Arguments", still doesn't exactly light my firecracker. I also suspect that it'd tend to be the same 20 or 30 links that would be continually recycled by each batch of new arrivals.

Just my opinion of course, but I like the chronological structure of MeFi: I'd much rather see links to things that are actually new and current than to old web pages that haven't been updated in years... which is, after all, what any link that extends past a 'statute of limitations' would pretty much have to be.

By: beth

beth — Sun, 31 Mar 2002 14:27:35 -0800

old web pages that haven't been updated in years... which is, after all, what any link that extends past a 'statute of limitations' would pretty much have to be.

Um, there *are* some pages on the web that might be old topics, but that *have* been updated, and offer fresh, new content that's worthy of seeing / commenting on.

I'm not saying that they *all* are, or even most. But that the number is nonzero, is all.

By: rushmc

rushmc — Sun, 31 Mar 2002 15:13:19 -0800

So, in my opinion, we need to think about what percentage of our current audience would be poorly served versus those who may benefit by a link unseen in years.

Excellent point. Despite what some would like to argue, Metafilter does NOT function as an active archive but as a living, spontaneous forum. This may not be the ideal form, but it is the one which we currently have.

By: ook

ook — Sun, 31 Mar 2002 16:44:26 -0800

Yup. Okay. Uncle.