This link is already here! February 5, 2011 8:02 AM Subscribe
In-thread link check pony?
When we get a longboat thread going, especially one devoted to a newsy event with stuff often happening in real-time, we frequently see links to the same update over and over again. Recent example: in the Penny Arcade thread we must have had at least four links to the updated apology issued by the PA guys.
I know the due diligence is on the poster to make sure someone hasn't already mentioned it, but in a fast-moving, 1000+ comment thread, (see: Egypt), it can be a challenge. So what I'm wondering is if there's any way to take the current link-checker script that's already in use for new posts and apply it to the comments field as well? It would only come into play if someone's comment had a URL in it; otherwise, it would be invisible to the user. Thoughts?
When we get a longboat thread going, especially one devoted to a newsy event with stuff often happening in real-time, we frequently see links to the same update over and over again. Recent example: in the Penny Arcade thread we must have had at least four links to the updated apology issued by the PA guys.
I know the due diligence is on the poster to make sure someone hasn't already mentioned it, but in a fast-moving, 1000+ comment thread, (see: Egypt), it can be a challenge. So what I'm wondering is if there's any way to take the current link-checker script that's already in use for new posts and apply it to the comments field as well? It would only come into play if someone's comment had a URL in it; otherwise, it would be invisible to the user. Thoughts?
No good technical solution to what amounts to a social (societal?) problem.
The link check thingy uses the same computerbabble as the search box on every page (twice!).
Doubles are OK in comments.
My perspective needs the link for context.
Don't click post if you're not up to the challenge.
posted by carsonb at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2011
The link check thingy uses the same computerbabble as the search box on every page (twice!).
Doubles are OK in comments.
My perspective needs the link for context.
Don't click post if you're not up to the challenge.
posted by carsonb at 8:09 AM on February 5, 2011
I find unwitting redundancy as annoying as anyone, so I hear where you're coming from, but (a) it's also not a big deal and (b) identifying unwitting vs. witting redundancies is a Hard Problem, and (c) really really not a big deal.
People will apply social pressure to egregious cases, which hopefully will teach folks commenting carelessly to do so with more care in the future; beyond that, no real harm done and building a new system just to try and head off some of that sounds like overkill to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:13 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]
People will apply social pressure to egregious cases, which hopefully will teach folks commenting carelessly to do so with more care in the future; beyond that, no real harm done and building a new system just to try and head off some of that sounds like overkill to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:13 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]
The link checker is good for crude stuff like "has someone else already made a post with this URL?" and much less for "Has someone already posted this news link?" The nature of those sorts of links means you might find the same story with teeny URL variations so a link-checker even if it were used and functional would have a very high failure rate. I know it's tough to keep up with this sort of thing on monster threads, but they're the serious exception and not the rule on MeFi.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:40 AM on February 5, 2011
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:40 AM on February 5, 2011
Yeah, it seems like, while double posts are sort of against the guidelines, links repeated in comments really aren't. And nor should they be.
posted by koeselitz at 10:05 AM on February 5, 2011
posted by koeselitz at 10:05 AM on February 5, 2011
Tangential, but the prolem of WELL I AIN'T GONNA READA 700 COMMENT THREAD BUT HERE'S MY POORLY REASONED SIMULACRUM OF THOUGHTFULNESS EXPRESSING INFANTILE CONTRARINESS THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED REPEATEDLY AND ADDRESSED THOUGHTFULLY BY MY BETTERS is a bigger issue that we need to address first.
I wonder if the mods ever delete things that start off with "I haven't read the thread but" with a friendly memail containing handy suggestions for the beginner.
posted by boo_radley at 11:34 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]
I wonder if the mods ever delete things that start off with "I haven't read the thread but" with a friendly memail containing handy suggestions for the beginner.
posted by boo_radley at 11:34 AM on February 5, 2011 [2 favorites]
also spelling 'problem' is a probem.
posted by boo_radley at 11:43 AM on February 5, 2011
posted by boo_radley at 11:43 AM on February 5, 2011
I wonder if the mods ever delete things that start off with "I haven't read the thread but" with a friendly memail containing handy suggestions for the beginner.
Not as a general practice, no. If there's something conspicuously disruptive about a given case, who knows, but generally speaking it's a violation of etiquette, not of the actual guidelines. In askme there might be more clear-cut cases of it being problematic than elsewhere.
There are times when I think I would like a magic box that prevents people from commenting before reading the whole thread carefully, but I'm not sure how such a thing would work or whether in practice it would be any better an idea than a DIDN'T WASH HANDS alarm.
In the status quo, the answer is pretty much social pressure: folks will often rebuke egregious "i didn't read anything but" cases, folks will hopefully incrementally learn from observation, and so the general community expectation around here that people will mostly read first, comment second perpetuates itself.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:49 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
Not as a general practice, no. If there's something conspicuously disruptive about a given case, who knows, but generally speaking it's a violation of etiquette, not of the actual guidelines. In askme there might be more clear-cut cases of it being problematic than elsewhere.
There are times when I think I would like a magic box that prevents people from commenting before reading the whole thread carefully, but I'm not sure how such a thing would work or whether in practice it would be any better an idea than a DIDN'T WASH HANDS alarm.
In the status quo, the answer is pretty much social pressure: folks will often rebuke egregious "i didn't read anything but" cases, folks will hopefully incrementally learn from observation, and so the general community expectation around here that people will mostly read first, comment second perpetuates itself.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:49 AM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
Piggyback pony request: Can we get a checker for cases of POORLY REASONED SIMULACRUM OF THOUGHTFULNESS EXPRESSING INFANTILE CONTRARINESS THAT HAS BEEN MENTIONED REPEATEDLY AND ADDRESSED THOUGHTFULLY BY MY BETTERS? Because that would be awesome.
posted by axiom at 12:31 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by axiom at 12:31 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
When someone starts off their comment with, "I didn't read the comments", I immediately stop reading. Fair is fair.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 12:41 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 12:41 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
I haven't read this thread yet, but I can't see how your suggestion would be any better an idea than a "didn't wash hands" alarm.
posted by The Confessor at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
posted by The Confessor at 1:06 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
I haven't read the comments here thus far, but I disagree. Nothing wrong with seeing the same thing linked more than once in a long thread. I may have missed it the first time, particularly if I wasn't reading all the comments.
posted by philip-random at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2011
posted by philip-random at 1:07 PM on February 5, 2011
tl;dr but who is cortex?
posted by Namlit at 1:19 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Namlit at 1:19 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
In AskMe this is more of a "hey please read the thread" situation and if people are frequently coming in with the tl;dr we'll ask them to maybe either take a little more time to read and/or not comment if they're in a rush. That said re-linking stuff that's already been linked is less of a thing in AskMe anyhow. In rare instances I'll open a MeFi thread, view the HTML source code and then just CTRL-F to see if my link is there, such as with this example [links to middle of recent monster thread]. I figure I do the work so pb won't have to.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:26 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:26 PM on February 5, 2011 [1 favorite]
He's a link check pony
That link is all that horse can check.
posted by tangerine at 2:30 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
That link is all that horse can check.
posted by tangerine at 2:30 PM on February 5, 2011 [3 favorites]
Not needed, peer pressure for repeat offenders is sufficient. Failure to read a thread should be punishable by a kipper left behind your radiator.
posted by arcticseal at 6:36 PM on February 5, 2011
posted by arcticseal at 6:36 PM on February 5, 2011
My personal modus operandi is prawns in the heater vents.
posted by Duke999R at 7:37 AM on February 6, 2011
posted by Duke999R at 7:37 AM on February 6, 2011
I still think one of the problems in ask is that people read the thread too much. The point should be to give your own answer, not respond to the answers of everybody else; and repeated answers there often help nail down the point and give different perspectives in subtle ways. So, yeah: everyone complaining about people not reading the thread should get down off their high horses and get over it.
posted by koeselitz at 8:27 AM on February 6, 2011
posted by koeselitz at 8:27 AM on February 6, 2011
I haven't read this thread yet, but I can't see how your suggestion would be any better an idea than a "didn't wash hands" alarm.
You know those signs that say: "EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS" or the like? I take it that they're supposed to fill me with confidence that there are serious consequences for anyone who doesn't wash their hands so the food is extra safe or something. But really it makes me think, "I am eating at a restaurant where someone has made a decision that we all, management, employees, and customers, can't just take it for granted that we'll all wash up when we're finished. Ew."
posted by Kwine at 9:58 AM on February 6, 2011
You know those signs that say: "EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS" or the like? I take it that they're supposed to fill me with confidence that there are serious consequences for anyone who doesn't wash their hands so the food is extra safe or something. But really it makes me think, "I am eating at a restaurant where someone has made a decision that we all, management, employees, and customers, can't just take it for granted that we'll all wash up when we're finished. Ew."
posted by Kwine at 9:58 AM on February 6, 2011
everyone complaining about people not reading the thread should get down off their high horses and get over it.
I'm assuming this is some sort of ironic perfomance art that is so subtle I have somehow missed it. While we can't make you read the threads, discourse is improved when people are actually paying attention to what people have said and responding to that, not imaginary arguements that they make up about fake people in their own minds.
I will not get over it. Telling people to get over it is almost always [always that I can think of but I am sure there are exceptions] diminishing their concerns as if your own concerns were the proper concerns. It rarely is the start to a useful discussion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:09 AM on February 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
I'm assuming this is some sort of ironic perfomance art that is so subtle I have somehow missed it. While we can't make you read the threads, discourse is improved when people are actually paying attention to what people have said and responding to that, not imaginary arguements that they make up about fake people in their own minds.
I will not get over it. Telling people to get over it is almost always [always that I can think of but I am sure there are exceptions] diminishing their concerns as if your own concerns were the proper concerns. It rarely is the start to a useful discussion.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:09 AM on February 6, 2011 [4 favorites]
That's true. Yeesh. No more commenting before I'm awake.
Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 1:34 PM on February 6, 2011
Sorry.
posted by koeselitz at 1:34 PM on February 6, 2011
He's the final link check pony.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2011
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:45 PM on February 6, 2011
Thanks for the explanation. I figured it wouldn't hurt to ask, but I get where y'all coming from.
posted by shiu mai baby at 2:20 PM on February 6, 2011
posted by shiu mai baby at 2:20 PM on February 6, 2011
You know those signs that say: "EMPLOYEES MUST WASH HANDS" or the like?
The worst part is they never do. I step up the counter, and wait, and wait. Eventually I wash my hands myself, because an employee does not arrive to wash them for me.
posted by explosion at 9:47 AM on February 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
The worst part is they never do. I step up the counter, and wait, and wait. Eventually I wash my hands myself, because an employee does not arrive to wash them for me.
posted by explosion at 9:47 AM on February 7, 2011 [4 favorites]
It looks to me as if this has now been implemented. Or am I hallucinating?
posted by Gorgik at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2011
posted by Gorgik at 12:01 PM on February 8, 2011
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by danb at 8:07 AM on February 5, 2011