Scrollin'

January 28, 2012 3:42 AM

Moratoriumfilter: Can we please not do this? Making a comment that consists of several pages of names is annoying, and doesn't make the point that much better than linking to the source would.
posted by Kirth Gerson to Etiquette/Policy at 3:42 AM (86 comments total)

I don't know about ever, ever, but in this case it bothers me more because it doesn't even serve any useful function (saving a click) since it's only first initials and last names and no affiliation, so you can't learn anything except that [bunch of people] disagree.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:51 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]

I thought that was a good comment that did a useful job of communicating a point.
posted by andoatnp at 4:17 AM on January 28 [28 favorites]

I don't know. I'd probably let this one stand, since it's directly in response to a list of 16 names in similar format in the more-inside. And I was going to say you can skip the comment by tapping 'J' but I'm using Chrome now and that doesn't seem to be working ('K' still jumps back one comment).
posted by nobody at 4:23 AM on January 28 [8 favorites]

The entire story in the article was "look, a seeming lot of people who agree with what the people with a vested interest in denying AGW, or in preventing any action being taken to stop it, pay them to!" Rebuttal by wall of names of honest scientist seems like a bit of a blunt instrument, but sometimes a club is the right weapon for the occasion.
posted by Pope Guilty at 4:37 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]

I'm glad you posted this MeTa because I wouldn't have found out about the keyboard navigation for comments otherwise.

Though it feels like something that came up years ago that I vaguely remember.
posted by frecklefaerie at 4:53 AM on January 28 [12 favorites]

I agree that the comment in question was an appropriate response to the original post in form and format. .....if you don't like to scroll, Metafilter is going to annoy the hell out of you most of the time...
posted by HuronBob at 5:15 AM on January 28

Yeah, it seems fine to me. Because it's visually distinctive, it's easy to page-down past it.
posted by Kattullus at 5:31 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

but sometimes a club is the right weapon for the occasion.

I suddenly understand that other people feel differently about discourse than I do.
posted by the man of twists and turns at 5:32 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]

I like the point that the comment makes precisely because it's a long and tedious list that doesn't ask to be read, but to be noted for it's very length and over-informedness. It specifically flouts the Gricean maxim of Quantity. This meta-message could not be conveyed with a link to the source list. In that sense, the list posted in thread includes the commenter's evaluation, whereas the link to the source list does not. It contains more communicative content from the commenter than a simple link would (a link would only pass along information, i.e. the contents of the list).

I like what people do here with the design of their comments. People always find interesting ways to say things indirectly.
posted by iamkimiam at 5:33 AM on January 28 [36 favorites]

Oh come on, it was by UNIVAC, you're lucky it wsn't a stack of punch cards.
posted by Splunge at 5:37 AM on January 28 [9 favorites]

I suddenly understand that other people feel differently about discourse than I do.

Not all discourse is in service of some conflict or another, but discourse which is must be acknowledged as such.
posted by Pope Guilty at 5:53 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Does this sort of thing happen often?
posted by dumbland at 5:56 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

Scrollin' in your 9.0 with your ragtop down so your hair can blow and there's science on standby waitin' just to say hi but did you stop? No, you just scroll by...
posted by carsonb at 6:00 AM on January 28 [15 favorites]

We should ignore this comment and discuss the coolness of keyboard navigation instead!
posted by jeffburdges at 6:01 AM on January 28 [4 favorites]

This meta-message could not be conveyed with a link to the source list.

200 characters of original thought and 3,000 characters of mindless C&P. Yeah, I would say that crosses the line by a couple thousand characters. What's next? Are we going to start posting the complete text from every link we find then pop in the actual link at the very end and call it design and that makes it all better?

The way I see it, the meta message with stuff like this that "I am too lazy to do a spend 2 minutes replacing carriage returns with a simple comma and space in a list".

In the end, any message the poster wanted to get across to me is negated by the annoyance of basically copying 160 lines into a post that I have to scroll through each time I want to reference something upthread before the list. It muddies the entire thread and makes other less visible because one has slog though scrolling to get past the overly long post.
posted by lampshade at 6:17 AM on January 28

I'm sorry you have to hit a couple of buttons duder.
posted by Pope Guilty at 6:23 AM on January 28

The way I see it, the meta message with stuff like this that "I am too lazy to do a spend 2

seconds pressing page down a couple times.
posted by inigo2 at 6:29 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

I'm glad you posted this MeTa because I wouldn't have found out about the keyboard navigation for comments otherwise.

No kidding. Why didn't someone tell me before?

I'm generally not fond of stunt posts, which this was. It's not like it's all that hard to scroll on by, but it subtracts more than it adds to my reading pleasure, definitely.
posted by Forktine at 6:30 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]

vi forever!
posted by jeffburdges at 6:32 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]

I'm sorry you have to hit a couple of buttons duder.

I doubt you are sorry and it is not just the issue of a couple of buttons. It will also spawn others to add to this sort of nonsense. Then you get entire threads full of just C&P reposting of existing articles.

But if you want that style of threading, have at it. I prefer to spend more time reading original comments as opposed to pasted content.

whatever
posted by lampshade at 6:40 AM on January 28

Yeah, fuck that FPP. If you have argued online with any global warming denier you have seen similar lists of geologists a million times. If the lame FPP stands, the lame but obvious rebuttal should too.
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:45 AM on January 28 [9 favorites]

Both the FPP and the comment should have used commas or semicolons instead of new lines.
posted by michaelh at 6:54 AM on January 28

It will also spawn others to add to this sort of nonsense. Then you get entire threads full of just C&P reposting of existing articles.

And when that happens we can have a metatalk post about bit and do something to stop it. But getting upset now is just catastrophising, and a total waste of energy.
posted by shelleycat at 7:03 AM on January 28 [4 favorites]

I just figured out the other day that you can use CTRL I and CTRL B to get the em and strong tags in the comment box. It was a good day. Is the a similar shortcut for the a href tag?
posted by desjardins at 7:06 AM on January 28 [3 favorites]

Even though it's already inside, what that comment needs is a "more inside"
posted by crunchland at 7:12 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

Additional MeFi keyboard shortcut: Pressing 'M' will display additional comments if there are any to display.
posted by nobody at 7:15 AM on January 28

Alt-F4 will automatically highlight any instances of your username in a thread.
posted by Edogy at 7:20 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]

CTRL+CAPS LOCK+TAB+SYS REQ+NUM LOCK+ESC+F2+PAGE DOWN will cause 12 favorites to be added to your most recent comment.

It may take a few minutes, so keep holding it until they appear.
posted by Horace Rumpole at 7:28 AM on January 28 [6 favorites]

ctrl-alt-del is more effective.
posted by crunchland at 7:28 AM on January 28

Seems like a perfectly reasonable response to the [more inside].
posted by Artw at 7:34 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Making a comment that consists of several pages of names is annoying, and doesn't make the point that much better than linking to the source would.

I think forcing people to see all the names and find a way to scroll past it makes the point about a billion times better than linking to the source would have.
posted by 23skidoo at 7:36 AM on January 28 [6 favorites]

I might feel a little differently if it were right at the top of the thread, but 200 comments in it feels like the positives outweigh the negatives in this case. It's certainly a striking refutation.
posted by gerryblog at 7:38 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

The whole FPP should have been deleted to begin with. A single editorial post from the WSJ? What's next, posts from Newsmax or Redstate?
posted by octothorpe at 7:43 AM on January 28

^♫
if you see me scrollin' down the page
and seeing a list, fly into rage
scroll on by...
scroll on by-eye-eye,
foolish pride
that's all that i have left,
so let me scro-ohll
past long lists of names and initials
i break down and cry...

just scroll on by...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:43 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

The whole FPP should have been deleted to begin with. A single editorial post from the WSJ? What's next, posts from Newsmax or Redstate?

But look at the list of people it's signed by!

(They probably would prefer it if you didn't look as close as soke of our commenters have)
posted by Artw at 7:45 AM on January 28

Or, as Randy Newman sang...

^♫
scrollin', scrollin', ain't gonna worry no more,
scrollin', scrollin', ain't gonna worry no more
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:46 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

They see me scrollin'
They hatin'
A'trollin' they tryin to make me write it purty
Tryin to make me write it purty x 4
posted by Edogy at 7:51 AM on January 28 [7 favorites]

I often post lists of numbers here in MetaTalk, and when I do that I generally make it a blockquote and in small text. I think that makes it a little easier visually to scroll past it. Maybe that would be a good middle ground on this issue?
posted by FishBike at 7:53 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

wait, wait...!

Scrollin', Scrollin', Scrollin'
Though this post is swollen
Keep that web page scrollin' Mefi!
Strife and tears and anger,
abuse from online strangers,
wishing that the mods were on my side.
All the sleep I'm missing,
to sit and read this pissin',
Please close this meta up, MeFi.
posted by HuronBob at 7:54 AM on January 28 [12 favorites]

SCROLLIN'

SCROLLIN'

SCROLLIN' ON THE MEFI
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:55 AM on January 28 [6 favorites]

It's silly to call for a moratorium on something that almost never happens.
posted by grouse at 8:03 AM on January 28 [8 favorites]

It's silly to call for a moratorium on something that almost never happens.

That's the best kind of moratorium! "Hey guys, let's call a moratorium on eating popcorn while riding an orca!" "Wha...um, ok."

No one's eating popcorn and riding orcas anymore? Must be an effective moratorium.
posted by Philosopher Dirtbike at 8:10 AM on January 28 [5 favorites]

It's silly to call for a moratorium on something that almost never happens.

It's *genius* to call for a moratorium on something that almost never happens. Just wait a couple of days, declare victory, and by the time reality inconveniently intervenes to correct you, everyone will have forgotten all about it.
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 8:12 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Dammit Philosopher Dirtbike!
posted by Proofs and Refutations at 8:12 AM on January 28

Often we'll delete wall-of-text comments that people could have just as easily linked to. In this post specifically it mimics the [sort of ungreat] framing of the original post which is why we didn't delete it, to my mind. But it is a pretty annoying tactic and one that doesn't succeed often, so I'd suggest not presuming that wall-of-text comments will always remain inviolate.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:14 AM on January 28 [2 favorites]

Homer: Not a [long list of names] in sight. The [moratorium] must be working like a charm.
Lisa: That's specious reasoning, Dad...By your logic I could claim that this rock keeps tigers away.
Homer: Oh, how does it work?
Lisa: It doesn't work.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: It's just a stupid rock.
Homer: Uh-huh.
Lisa: But I don't see any tigers around, do you?

[Homer thinks of this, then pulls out some money]

Homer: Lisa, I want to buy your rock.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 8:22 AM on January 28 [6 favorites]

I only come here for flapjax's songs
posted by infini at 8:38 AM on January 28

I'd like to call a moratorium on Simpsons references. In the spirit of friendship, Monty Python quotes will now be allowed. So say we all.
posted by Potomac Avenue at 8:41 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Yeah: problematic as an ongoing schtick, annoying but sort of understandable as a one-off in this very specific circumstance. Folks who like it should just appreciate it as a moment frozen in time rather than a model to follow; folks who don't like it can rest assured that it's not going to be okay for it to be the hot new thing to do in threads.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:44 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

One moment in time.
posted by box at 8:48 AM on January 28

I feel it was an appropriate low-value comment in response to, and in the same style of, the low-value post. Sometimes imitation of foolish behavior is the best way to illuminate the magnitude of it.
posted by introp at 9:31 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Imagine that I'm repeating the last sentence in a dumb-cartoon-bear voice.
posted by box at 9:42 AM on January 28

...folks who don't like it can rest assured that it's not going to be okay for it to be the hot new thing to do in threads.

I am soothed by the Mod's statements on the prospect of more multipage comments.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:42 AM on January 28

I am soothed by home-made chicken soup.
posted by HuronBob at 9:48 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

cortex: "...for it to be the hot new thing to do in threads."

An official trend statement would be helpful for those of us who want to make sure we're up on the upcoming season's hottest, hippest and most fashionable FPP and comment conventions.
posted by zarq at 9:49 AM on January 28 [1 favorite]

I prefer perunamussi (a more mousse like version of the homely mash) for soothing meself.
posted by infini at 10:29 AM on January 28

I prefer a carefully boiled and thickened paste of the opium poppy.
posted by Splunge at 12:16 PM on January 28 [1 favorite]

It will also spawn others to add to this sort of nonsense.

It will?
posted by edgeways at 12:54 PM on January 28

And... that FPP should have been deleted. It was Axegrindy and agenda based single link Op-Ed. Not even a close call.
posted by edgeways at 1:00 PM on January 28 [6 favorites]

We should only be allowed to post a list of names if one of them is a former astronaut.
posted by evilmidnightbomberwhatbombsatmidnight at 1:22 PM on January 28

Maybe the OP should gather a list of Mefites who ascribe to his/her proposal and post them here.
posted by smirkette at 1:32 PM on January 28

Which OP? If you're referring to me, I've had bad reactions to making lists...
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:35 PM on January 28

Sorry, I guess the joke got lost in the Internet.
posted by smirkette at 1:38 PM on January 28

It was Axegrindy

Does this mean anything other than "I disagree with it"?
posted by John Cohen at 1:49 PM on January 28

Yes. Usually when we use it, it means that there's a topic that you have strong feelings about and basically bring it up in any thread even remotely related and then just grind-grind-grind that topic at the expense of the larger conversation. Many MeFites have pet topics, but most of them are able to discuss them in the context of larger conversations. Some can't.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:53 PM on January 28

"Pet topics" should be limited to dogs, with cats mentioned only once in a while. Fish should never be mentioned.
posted by HuronBob at 2:06 PM on January 28

Fish should never be mentioned.

Why? Because they're in your pants?
posted by likeso at 2:16 PM on January 28 [1 favorite]

Does this mean anything other than "I disagree with it"?

Yeah, it means it was silly dogmatic nonsense, more concerned with ideological adherence than any facts or dicsussion, and the ignorant poster's refusal to actually return to the thread and engage with people about their harmful, stupid case of medieval corporate Stockholm Syndrome is an excellent signifier, and shows they full well knew what the point and result of posting arrant nonsense like that would be.

Though I believe this particular brand (denialism) of mental faeces is more destructive and pointless than most (what next, antivax petitions?), I would say it has a fairly broad application to many posts of both political and apple/google nature on the blue.

It was a shitty shit shit shitty post and even with a hundred comments I wish it had been deleted with extreme prejudice. If you're gonna link to denialist propaganda, at least make a bloody effort to find something substantive (difficult I know, but hey, that's what you get).
posted by smoke at 2:36 PM on January 28 [5 favorites]

Eh, let people have their moral panics. You need to make Big Statements about the Important Problems, and a measly link just isn't going to cut it.
posted by planet at 4:20 PM on January 28

Maybe the OP should gather a list of Mefites who ascribe to his/her proposal and post them here.

Ascribe what to it?
posted by Crabby Appleton at 5:01 PM on January 28

The following people agree the post was fine:

andoatnp, Professor of Chihuahua Mating Rituals, University of Pennsylvania;
nobody, Former director for the Institute for the Study of Clown Related Artwork;
Pope Guilty, Undersea Interior Decorating Engineer;
HuronBob, Member of the National Academy of Hamburgalers;
Kattullus, President of the World Federation of Plankers;
iamkimiam, Professor of Zero-Gravity Cheese Making, Massachusetts Institute of Technology;
dumbland, Head of Research and Development, Slugworth's Candy Corporation;
carsonb, Cofounder of the Journal of Sports Numerology and the International Journal of Sports Numerology;
jeffburdges, Former head of Schnapps Research, University of Qumar;
inigo2, Cosmonaut, served as Ship's Counselor on Vostok 7 mission;
furiousxgeorge, Former president and CEO of the Philadelphia Academy of Phrenologists;
shelleycat, Former director of the Royal Dutch Astrological Service and Olympic gold medalist in Curling;
Artw, Professor of Unicorn Studies, Hoofington College;
23skidoo, Professor of Modern Geocentrism, Greendale Community College;
gerryblog, Founder of the Journal of Loxodonta Aerospace Engineering;
flapjax at midnite, Dowsing Consultant for Amoco Corporation;
Edogy, Head of Agniology Research and Promotion, International Policy Network Enviornmental Division;
grouse, Director of Mime Vivisection, Johns Hopkins University;
introp, Epidemiologists at The Apothecarium of Undercity;
edgeways, Professor of Monty Python Studies, University of Oxford;
posted by furiousxgeorge at 6:05 PM on January 28 [28 favorites]

That was one stunningly bad FPP, especially in light of what kind of FPP it could have been. The list of names that takes - let me check - five mouse scrolls or three pressings of "Page Down" to skip was not the problem.
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 6:48 PM on January 28 [4 favorites]

Pope Guilty, Undersea Interior Decorating Engineer

That reminds me, I should get on Minecraft for a bit.
posted by Pope Guilty at 7:04 PM on January 28

Sixteen Concerned Scientists is my new band name.
posted by Ironmouth at 12:22 PM on January 29 [2 favorites]

That entire list of names posted in univac's comment is my new band name.
posted by Rock Steady at 1:57 PM on January 29 [1 favorite]

They see me scrollin'. They haten'
posted by jeffburdges at 3:12 PM on January 29

You know, the Dead Sea scrolls.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 3:32 PM on January 29

I can't decide who I envy more, edgeways or grouse.
posted by Ivan Fyodorovich at 4:25 PM on January 29

edgeways, Professor of Monty Python Studies, University of Oxford;

If I could actually get paid for that.. I .. uh... would spend my life nose deep in some illicit substance or another.

And now.. a man with three buttocks.
posted by edgeways at 4:28 PM on January 29

nobody: "And I was going to say you can skip the comment by tapping 'J' but I'm using Chrome now and that doesn't seem to be working ('K' still jumps back one comment)."

HOLY FUCKING SHIT THIS IS AWESOME.
posted by not_on_display at 5:21 PM on January 29

What an excellent and appropriate comment.

I think a lot of us have tried to argue with someone who tries to tell us Global Warming is fake or Jesus created dinosaurs last Tuesday or whatever and it's so frustrating because they can always find someone with a vaguely science-y title who, whether because he's bought by oil companies or just has an agenda, backs up their theory.

And then I say, "well that guy's not a real scientist." and then say "Why? he has a degree and a lab coat." At some point the only retort is pure numbers.
posted by drjimmy11 at 7:13 PM on January 29

You know, there are some very good books that utilize "the list" to either make a point or to add to the general feeling of the book. Pynchon jumps to mind. He was a master of the list. As well Umberto Eco did it. Robert Anton Wilson also used the list at some point in his various books. I'm sure that there are more writers that I've forgotten. But unless you are a Pynchon or one of the others, please don't do it. It's lazy and stupid.
posted by Splunge at 8:20 PM on January 29

You know, the Dead Sea scrolls

So I shouldn't have to.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:00 AM on January 30

Can we please not do this?

Can WE (meaning you) please not include me in any discussion of "WE"? WE (meaning I) don't belong there.

But yeah, WE (meaning you) can do -- or not do -- whatever WE want until mods decide otherwise.

Thanks.
posted by coolguymichael at 1:03 PM on January 30

If you don't want to be part of the community I was addressing, suit yourself. Don't tell me I can't address the people who are part of that community, though.

I wasn't calling for the mods to do anything, but it looks like they are inclined to anyway.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:35 PM on January 30

I'll add my voice to those wondering how on Earth this FPP didn't get yanked. It's basically a single link to an op-ed in the Wall Street Journal (which refused to run a similar one signed by hundreds of scientists taking the view that global warming is something to be concerned about, by the way). I know Metafilter doesn't do environmental issues very well, but wow, people. For an online community so in love with "science" - especially whenever it can be contrasted to anything with even a whiff of the religious or spiritual - this is appalling and ridiculous.

How many seconds would it take for an FPP consisting of a single link to sixteen concerned "scientists" - many of whom with no expertise whatsoever in anything related to biology - in favor of young-earth creationism to be deleted?
posted by jhandey at 8:18 AM on January 31