an ex-post facto "hear me out"? June 20, 2011 4:03 PM Subscribe
What does "on preview" really mean?
Most of the time, a comment including the expression looks like this:
(begin)
"[A complete thought.]
On preview, [something that indicates that the mefite posting the comment (after typing the it and before hitting 'post') has read the rest of the thread, and determined that their comment is in some way outdated or invalidated by that portion of the thread, but they want to type the comment anyway.]"(end)
I'm not suggesting that they should be changing the comment; I'm asking simply, is this the situation that is occuring when someone types 'On preview', and if not, what does it mean?
Because once they type the comment out, either they've already read the whole thread and "on preview" means "I realize I'm seemingly reiterating/contradicting something," OR they type the comment out when they're part-way through the thread, hold off on posting it, read the rest of the thread, leave the comment alone, and "on preview" means "here's a footnote on that, though."
On preview, I hope to Christ this makes a shred of sense.
Most of the time, a comment including the expression looks like this:
(begin)
"[A complete thought.]
On preview, [something that indicates that the mefite posting the comment (after typing the it and before hitting 'post') has read the rest of the thread, and determined that their comment is in some way outdated or invalidated by that portion of the thread, but they want to type the comment anyway.]"(end)
I'm not suggesting that they should be changing the comment; I'm asking simply, is this the situation that is occuring when someone types 'On preview', and if not, what does it mean?
Because once they type the comment out, either they've already read the whole thread and "on preview" means "I realize I'm seemingly reiterating/contradicting something," OR they type the comment out when they're part-way through the thread, hold off on posting it, read the rest of the thread, leave the comment alone, and "on preview" means "here's a footnote on that, though."
On preview, I hope to Christ this makes a shred of sense.
It goes like this: You read the thread, your write the comment, you push the "Preview" button, and discover some new comments. Those comments have bearing in some way on your comment, and so you add a note at the end of what you'd written so far, with a note saying "On Preview". And then you post.
posted by bjrn at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
posted by bjrn at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
Amusingly, this is an artifact from before the site had the "X new comments" thingdoo. You'd write a whole comment, preview it, notice that when you were previewing it that someone else had posted in the meantime and then edit your comment to include information from the comment that you hadn't seen when you started writing.
On preview: bjrn ftw
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011 [11 favorites]
On preview: bjrn ftw
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011 [11 favorites]
I'm asking simply, is this the situation that is occuring when someone types 'On preview', and if not, what does it mean?
Yes. Especially in fast moving threads (or AskMe questions) someone has already posted the answer before I've assembled all my relevant links.
On preview: what the two folks above me said.
posted by babbyʼ); Drop table users; -- at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011
Yes. Especially in fast moving threads (or AskMe questions) someone has already posted the answer before I've assembled all my relevant links.
On preview: what the two folks above me said.
posted by babbyʼ); Drop table users; -- at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011
Preview is an option that refreshes the comments in the thread. It shows you comments that appear AFTER you start typing a comment, but BEFORE you post your comment. It's great for fast moving threads and/or long comments.
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:07 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by 2bucksplus at 4:07 PM on June 20, 2011
Yes, I think it's generally someone typing up a comment, previewing/loading-new-comments and discovering further commentary since they started typing, and incorporating a response into their existing comment while acknowledging that they updated the content in midstream or that they understand that the original assumptions or content of the bulk of the comment reflect a different state-of-conversation than existed by the time they hit post.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:08 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:08 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
My favourite (except when it's me, which is a lot of the time) are the follow-up comments that go something like "On non-preview: FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU"
posted by Sys Rq at 4:18 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Sys Rq at 4:18 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, the best ones are when there's two comments in a row from the same user, and the second one starts with "On preview.."
posted by carsonb at 4:24 PM on June 20, 2011 [6 favorites]
posted by carsonb at 4:24 PM on June 20, 2011 [6 favorites]
Well, you reach the end of the thread, then you write your heartfelt, brilliant comment, hit the preview comment to make sure that your links are properly formatted, only to find some fucker said the exact same thing just before you did but, goddammit, you don't just want to delete the comment you've just spent your precious time writing, so you add a short note add the end to acknowledge that you weren't first to make that point.
On preview: I just wandered away to make a sandwich and return to find that everyone has made that point, so, on preview can also be used to note that you're eating a delicious sandwich, mmmm... sandwich.
posted by Kattullus at 5:09 PM on June 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
On preview: I just wandered away to make a sandwich and return to find that everyone has made that point, so, on preview can also be used to note that you're eating a delicious sandwich, mmmm... sandwich.
posted by Kattullus at 5:09 PM on June 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
On review, I wish I had a sandwich.
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:20 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by GenjiandProust at 5:20 PM on June 20, 2011
Speaking of sandwiches, I almost had a cemita from a taco truck the other day, but due to being a fucking gringo, I didn't know what to ask them to hold. It did look tasty. I did some research and will be eating one soon.
posted by jonmc at 5:25 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by jonmc at 5:25 PM on June 20, 2011
I now use "on preview" to also refer to those times when I type a comment, then load new comments before posting.
Maybe I should say "On reading X new comments..."
posted by muddgirl at 5:28 PM on June 20, 2011
Maybe I should say "On reading X new comments..."
posted by muddgirl at 5:28 PM on June 20, 2011
On preview: what GenjiandProust said.
posted by babbyʼ); Drop table users; -- at 5:32 PM on June 20, 2011
You might as well be asking what the true nature of fnord is.
On preview: remind me to actually post a comment and not wait one hour.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:39 PM on June 20, 2011
On preview: remind me to actually post a comment and not wait one hour.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 5:39 PM on June 20, 2011
I think all of you are entirely mistaken. It isn't an explanation of the region that the original poster is asking, but a history. Allow me to explain, in the beginning the region was effectively a large cod fishery. For more than a century before the establishment of French or English colonies in North America the fishermen of Western Europe came year after year to to fill their boats with cod for the markets of the Old World .
Of the earliest exploration and discovery of the region little is known. It is generally accepted that Norsemen from Greenland visited the region as early as 1001 A.D., and there is a tale that men of the nearby islands, in the latter part of the 15th century, were blown westward off their course until they came to a strange land where the sea was full of fish. There is better evidence that the Island was discovered in 1497. In the previous year an Italian navigator, John Cabot, then living in England and engaged in the fish trade with Iceland, obtained from Henry VII a charter giving him and his sons authority to sail there.
Cabot set sail from Bristol on May 2, 1497, in a little ship of 50 tons, the Matthew, with a crew of 17. After sailing 53 days they came, on June 24, St. John's Day, to the shores of a new land in the west. There are no records to establish the first spot in North America seen by Cabot, but in the region there is a long-established tradition that his landfall was Cape Bonavista.
Cabot returned to England with tales of a sea so full of fish that they could be taken "not only with the net but also with a basket in which a stone is put". His stories stirred a ripple of excitement in England which quickly spread to the Continent, for fish in those days commanded higher prices than meat, thus the cost of fish and chips during that period. The records show that a few English fishing vessels accompanied Cabot on his second voyage in 1498 and that the English fished in the region waters continuously from that date. They were soon joined by the Portuguese, whose famous navigator Corte Real [consult the biography at the DCB] explored the Island's coast in 1501, by the French from Normandy and Britanny [sic], and, about the middle of the 16th century, by the Spanish Basques .
Now, it was in the summer of 1583 St. John's was visited by an expedition of four ships commanded by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who carried a commission from Queen Elizabeth to sail the seas and take lands under her banner. The expedition called at St. John's because it was known that provisions could be obtained there. Shortly after his arrival Gilbert set up his tent on a hill overlooking St. John's harbour, and caused the masters and chief officers of the ships of all nations there to attend while he solemnly read aloud his commission and formally took possession of the Island in the name of the Queen the region thus became England 's first possession in North America.
Although it is believed that some fishing crews wintered on the Island as early as twenty years before Gilbert took possession, no formal attempt at colonization was made until early in the 17th century. Sir Francis Bacon and his associates formed the the region Colonization Company and in 1610 sent John Guy to found a colony in the region . Guy carried with him a Charter from James I containing explicit instructions regarding the purchase of fish and cod oil, the cutting of timber for export, the raising of sheep and other matters. From there I think, everyone else has explained more than well enough.
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:40 PM on June 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
Of the earliest exploration and discovery of the region little is known. It is generally accepted that Norsemen from Greenland visited the region as early as 1001 A.D., and there is a tale that men of the nearby islands, in the latter part of the 15th century, were blown westward off their course until they came to a strange land where the sea was full of fish. There is better evidence that the Island was discovered in 1497. In the previous year an Italian navigator, John Cabot, then living in England and engaged in the fish trade with Iceland, obtained from Henry VII a charter giving him and his sons authority to sail there.
Cabot set sail from Bristol on May 2, 1497, in a little ship of 50 tons, the Matthew, with a crew of 17. After sailing 53 days they came, on June 24, St. John's Day, to the shores of a new land in the west. There are no records to establish the first spot in North America seen by Cabot, but in the region there is a long-established tradition that his landfall was Cape Bonavista.
Cabot returned to England with tales of a sea so full of fish that they could be taken "not only with the net but also with a basket in which a stone is put". His stories stirred a ripple of excitement in England which quickly spread to the Continent, for fish in those days commanded higher prices than meat, thus the cost of fish and chips during that period. The records show that a few English fishing vessels accompanied Cabot on his second voyage in 1498 and that the English fished in the region waters continuously from that date. They were soon joined by the Portuguese, whose famous navigator Corte Real [consult the biography at the DCB] explored the Island's coast in 1501, by the French from Normandy and Britanny [sic], and, about the middle of the 16th century, by the Spanish Basques .
Now, it was in the summer of 1583 St. John's was visited by an expedition of four ships commanded by Sir Humphrey Gilbert, who carried a commission from Queen Elizabeth to sail the seas and take lands under her banner. The expedition called at St. John's because it was known that provisions could be obtained there. Shortly after his arrival Gilbert set up his tent on a hill overlooking St. John's harbour, and caused the masters and chief officers of the ships of all nations there to attend while he solemnly read aloud his commission and formally took possession of the Island in the name of the Queen the region thus became England 's first possession in North America.
Although it is believed that some fishing crews wintered on the Island as early as twenty years before Gilbert took possession, no formal attempt at colonization was made until early in the 17th century. Sir Francis Bacon and his associates formed the the region Colonization Company and in 1610 sent John Guy to found a colony in the region . Guy carried with him a Charter from James I containing explicit instructions regarding the purchase of fish and cod oil, the cutting of timber for export, the raising of sheep and other matters. From there I think, everyone else has explained more than well enough.
posted by TwelveTwo at 5:40 PM on June 20, 2011 [4 favorites]
On preview: I'm not sure that.. huh.. oh wait, I've not got the hang of it either.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:41 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by Frasermoo at 5:41 PM on June 20, 2011
Much like the edit window, it is vulnerable to people spoofing that they thought of something first.
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:43 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by StickyCarpet at 5:43 PM on June 20, 2011
Thingdoo.
posted by middleclasstool at 6:04 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by middleclasstool at 6:04 PM on June 20, 2011
the "X new comments" thingdoo
When I am writing a comment and that is counting up I feel a pressure to type faster, like I'm in an exam and only have so much time!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:26 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
When I am writing a comment and that is counting up I feel a pressure to type faster, like I'm in an exam and only have so much time!
posted by cjorgensen at 6:26 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Wait, THAT'S what "on preview" means?!
...what.... what have I been doing these past 8 years...?
posted by Tikirific at 6:28 PM on June 20, 2011
...what.... what have I been doing these past 8 years...?
posted by Tikirific at 6:28 PM on June 20, 2011
it is when you preview and see new comments that matter for what you're saying
on preview
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
posted by klangklangston at 7:08 PM on June 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
on preview
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU
posted by klangklangston at 7:08 PM on June 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
It actually means "in hindsight" because in the preview pane you're looking back at things that have already been posted, as well as a preview of what you intend to post.
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:33 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by UbuRoivas at 7:33 PM on June 20, 2011
What it means is obvious. Why we do it is not obvious.
posted by J. Wilson at 7:40 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by J. Wilson at 7:40 PM on June 20, 2011
On presque vu, there's something familiar about this but I can't quite put my finger on it.
posted by Abiezer at 7:49 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by Abiezer at 7:49 PM on June 20, 2011
What I do is read the thread, copy all the good points into my own comment, and then end my comment with, "on preview, what ABC and XYZ said".
Works every time.
posted by chunking express at 7:59 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Works every time.
posted by chunking express at 7:59 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
Okay, cool. So I was taking the "X new comments" thingdoo for granted, and pre-thingdoo era, I'd never previewed and noticed new comments! and I woulda gotten away with it to--...
Dammit: I should have titled this "Not to Be Confused With 'On Pay-Per-View.' "
and "pre-thingdoo era" should totally be a thing.
posted by herbplarfegan at 8:44 PM on June 20, 2011
Dammit: I should have titled this "Not to Be Confused With 'On Pay-Per-View.' "
and "pre-thingdoo era" should totally be a thing.
posted by herbplarfegan at 8:44 PM on June 20, 2011
grar- "too" with two O's.
posted by herbplarfegan at 8:46 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by herbplarfegan at 8:46 PM on June 20, 2011
No, the best ones are when there's two comments in a row from the same user, and the second one starts with "On preview.."
On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:49 PM on June 20, 2011
On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this.
posted by Navelgazer at 9:49 PM on June 20, 2011
On preview: shut up!
posted by Navelgazer at 9:49 PM on June 20, 2011
posted by Navelgazer at 9:49 PM on June 20, 2011
"No, the best ones are when there's two comments in a row from the same user, and the second one starts with "On preview..'
'On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this."
Then you should be saying "on postview"
posted by longsleeves at 10:11 PM on June 20, 2011
'On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this."
Then you should be saying "on postview"
posted by longsleeves at 10:11 PM on June 20, 2011
What I don't understand is why people don't just redo their comment or throw it out if the new comments invalidate it somehow.. It's like an addendum that is totally unnecessary, since you haven't posted it yet. Are people so attached to the things they write that they need to give it a disclaimer and post it anyway?
posted by cj_ at 10:28 PM on June 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 10:28 PM on June 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
Speaking of sandwiches, I almost had a cemita from a taco truck the other day, but due to being a fucking gringo, I didn't know what to ask them to hold. It did look tasty. I did some research and will be eating one soon.
Get whatever they put on it, it's not as if they're going to slip some eyeballs into your carnitas as a standard topping. (In my experience, it's usually charred scallions, avocado, and maybe some cotija.)
posted by desuetude at 10:34 PM on June 20, 2011
Get whatever they put on it, it's not as if they're going to slip some eyeballs into your carnitas as a standard topping. (In my experience, it's usually charred scallions, avocado, and maybe some cotija.)
posted by desuetude at 10:34 PM on June 20, 2011
What I don't understand is why people don't just redo their comment or throw it out if the new comments invalidate it somehow.. It's like an addendum that is totally unnecessary, since you haven't posted it yet. Are people so attached to the things they write that they need to give it a disclaimer and post it anyway?
Yep.
posted by desuetude at 10:35 PM on June 20, 2011
Yep.
posted by desuetude at 10:35 PM on June 20, 2011
cj_ writes "What I don't understand is why people don't just redo their comment or throw it out if the new comments invalidate it somehow.. It's like an addendum that is totally unnecessary, since you haven't posted it yet. Are people so attached to the things they write that they need to give it a disclaimer and post it anyway?"
Usually when I do this the comment I'm noting with the on preview is similar to mine but differs significantly in some way. Tone, details, just a better IMO analogy, maybe a different set of supporting links. There isn't anything wrong with my comment but I want to avoid the author of the similar comment from getting all snarky and eye rolly "I've already said that". If my comment is weaker or identical I'll just not post it. Like the comment I just didn't post that pointed out a CANADARM is still in service on the ISS which Kevin Street already made.
posted by Mitheral at 10:39 PM on June 20, 2011
Usually when I do this the comment I'm noting with the on preview is similar to mine but differs significantly in some way. Tone, details, just a better IMO analogy, maybe a different set of supporting links. There isn't anything wrong with my comment but I want to avoid the author of the similar comment from getting all snarky and eye rolly "I've already said that". If my comment is weaker or identical I'll just not post it. Like the comment I just didn't post that pointed out a CANADARM is still in service on the ISS which Kevin Street already made.
posted by Mitheral at 10:39 PM on June 20, 2011
So I was taking the "X new comments" thingdoo for granted, and pre-thingdoo era, I'd never previewed...
How weird that the "X new comments" thing has already become so enshrined in site culture! I still freak out a little when I see it--especially if I'm reading on my Blackberry (yes, mother, I know it's bad for my eyes)--because it feels like I'm living in the future.
posted by Phire at 10:45 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
How weird that the "X new comments" thing has already become so enshrined in site culture! I still freak out a little when I see it--especially if I'm reading on my Blackberry (yes, mother, I know it's bad for my eyes)--because it feels like I'm living in the future.
posted by Phire at 10:45 PM on June 20, 2011 [1 favorite]
No, the best ones are when there's two comments in a row from the same user, and the second one starts with "On preview.."
I totally do this on purpose, because it is hilarious.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:31 AM on June 21, 2011
I totally do this on purpose, because it is hilarious.
posted by shakespeherian at 6:31 AM on June 21, 2011
"On preview" is actually just Cabal code for "we still have plenty of buns but need more hot dogs". If you're not attending one of the many Cabal picnics (and of course, planning to bring more hot dogs), you can simply ignore it and move on.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:54 AM on June 21, 2011
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 8:54 AM on June 21, 2011
On preview
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:09 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 9:09 AM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
"No, the best ones are when there's two comments in a row from the same user, and the second one starts with "On preview..'
'On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this."
You can count me in that group too; it has always struck me as not entirely accurate, but I figure people who understand the correct meaning know what I am talking about.
Also, I think I have a package of hot dogs in my fridge at home but no buns. If there was a cabal they could memail me with an address to send them to.
posted by TedW at 10:09 AM on June 21, 2011
'On the rare occasion that I use "on preview" it is always exactly this."
You can count me in that group too; it has always struck me as not entirely accurate, but I figure people who understand the correct meaning know what I am talking about.
Also, I think I have a package of hot dogs in my fridge at home but no buns. If there was a cabal they could memail me with an address to send them to.
posted by TedW at 10:09 AM on June 21, 2011
Don't people still preview their comments even with the thingdoo? It's not like it shows you if your links are formatted properly. Preview loads the new comments without the funky back button weirdness of the thingdoo as well.
posted by oneirodynia at 10:10 AM on June 21, 2011
posted by oneirodynia at 10:10 AM on June 21, 2011
Much like the edit window, it is vulnerable to people spoofing that they thought of something first.
Tell me this isn't a thing.
posted by pineapple at 2:21 PM on June 21, 2011
Tell me this isn't a thing.
posted by pineapple at 2:21 PM on June 21, 2011
Also, are the words "on preview" now sounding odd and fake to anyone else?
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
My inner French person is now pronouncing it "en pres vieux" complete with an alveolar trill.
posted by pineapple at 2:23 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
ON PREVIEW
My inner French person is now pronouncing it "en pres vieux" complete with an alveolar trill.
posted by pineapple at 2:23 PM on June 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
TwelveTwo: blah blah blah wall of random text
Um, WTF?
posted by 1000monkeys at 7:36 PM on June 22, 2011
Um, WTF?
posted by 1000monkeys at 7:36 PM on June 22, 2011
on preview
on dasher
on donner und blitzen
posted by eddydamascene at 11:35 PM on June 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
on dasher
on donner und blitzen
posted by eddydamascene at 11:35 PM on June 22, 2011 [1 favorite]
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
-it-and before hitting 'post') /dammitposted by herbplarfegan at 4:06 PM on June 20, 2011