When a double is better than the original

April 17, 2013 3:28 AM

The Beatles post from filthy light thief was deleted because it was a double, but the original post had only a 7 minute video, while thief's post had the whole hour-long show. Is a double post always deleted even if the double is better than the original ?
posted by Pendragon to Etiquette/Policy at 3:28 AM (27 comments total)

Being a moderator is going to get pretty tricky if they have to decide whether a post about subject X is better than the previous post about subject X, which was slightly better than the post about subject X before that, which was a tad better than the one before that, which was miles better than the first post about subject X.
posted by pracowity at 3:36 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]

In my experience it depends on timing. When two posts about the same thing crop up within minutes of each other (typically obits or newsfilter) the better one will stand. And if a new post expands substantially on one from years ago, it has a decent shot at surviving. But when the original is only a few months old, that is a tough sell at best.
posted by Holy Zarquon's Singing Fish at 3:39 AM on April 17, 2013

It was flagged a few times, and it seemed like a double to me. We usually allow things if it's been a while since the earlier one, and the new one offers new material. The previous one was posted fairly recently, though, and it's the kind of thing that we would normally delete as a double.
posted by taz (staff) at 3:41 AM on April 17, 2013

I can't be arsed to look up the meta threads, but IIRC there have been instances where the subsequent post stayed - but generally with discussion and the consent of the original poster.
posted by pompomtom at 3:43 AM on April 17, 2013

(should add: those instances were where the posts were on the same day....)
posted by pompomtom at 3:44 AM on April 17, 2013

But there's a heap more in filthy light thief's post - putting the 7-minute-segment in its proper context of the full variety show. This is a bad deletion.
posted by crossoverman at 3:45 AM on April 17, 2013 [6 favorites]

Honestly, I'm personally less a stickler about doubles than probably most mefites – they don't really bother me as a user. In terms of moderation, I just try to be as consistent as possible with the site norms. In other words, if an artist's show had been posted three months ago, and then posted again today, except it had links to all the images in the show, instead of only 10 featured in the original post, it would still be deleted as a double. Likewise a post about an album featuring some of the songs, and then a new one a couple of months later linking to the full album, would still be a double, I think. I do get that it's much cooler to be able to see the whole thing, but I'm not necessarily really feeling that this automatically makes it not a double.

I feel like there probably is a way to do a legitimate post that includes that link , though – maybe a different sort of Beatles post.
posted by taz (staff) at 4:08 AM on April 17, 2013

taz: In terms of moderation, I just try to be as consistent as possible with the site norms. In other words, if an artist's show had been posted three months ago, and then posted again today, except it had links to all the images in the show, instead of only 10 featured in the original post, it would still be deleted as a double.

I think that's a shame. I don't particularly understand the need to be so merciless with the deletion of doubles. Is there any sense from the rest of the mod team that there might be a willingness to change that policy? I'm not asking you for inside information, taz, just wondering if it is considered a settled question or if there is room for debate.
posted by Rock Steady at 5:56 AM on April 17, 2013

I don't think that's a great analogy, taz. To me, the new post is what the original post should have been - weird clip in its proper context.
posted by crossoverman at 5:57 AM on April 17, 2013

I think there's always room for debate about most of this stuff, Rock Steady, absolutely.

And, yeah, I don't know if the analogy is apt or not; perhaps the other mods will feel differently about this post. I understand why people are looking at this one differently, and it's helpful to hear everyone's thoughts on this.
posted by taz (staff) at 6:27 AM on April 17, 2013

If we were going to allow more doubles if the doubles added valuable material, I'd rather see the old posts reopened with the new material appended. In this case, filthy light thief would have posted the expanded material in the Append box and clicked Post, and the appended post would have been brought forward to the front of the post queue for renewed viewing and commenting.
posted by pracowity at 6:45 AM on April 17, 2013 [1 favorite]

I wasn't expecting a MeTa on this deletion (then again, I wasn't expecting a deletion, but that's what I get for late-night posting without properly searching for prior posts).

Anyway, I agree with folks here who say that my post is significantly different than the prior post, in that this has the whole show (in black and white), along with the color segment of The Beatles performing a bit of Shakespeare. We'll see what other mods think.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:00 AM on April 17, 2013 [2 favorites]

Yeah, double-or-not-or-sorta is a tricky if mostly low-stakes bit of the territory, because we end up dealing with contrasting reactions from within the userbase—folks who see it as, yes, this is a thing we specifically saw before (particularly if recently) and flag it accordingly because that's how the site works, and people who are happy to see it for the first time or are making the distinction between the form and content of the new vs. the old post or the site content.

The default move with same basic content, less than a few years apart is it's a double and gets deleted as such. It's not cut in stone, but it's a pretty straightforward move and the sort of call we're in the position of having to make on a regular basis even when it might bum folks out a little bit. Whether this is a compelling bring-it-back-to-life situation I'm not even gonna take a stab at right this moment, since I'm only half-awake and getting caught up on other site stuff up from overnight.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:01 AM on April 17, 2013

The updated posts idea is kind of neat, but ultimately, I imagine that it's something which could cause more trouble than benefit. For example, what if the new material is a loose tangent of the original post, or is incorrectly understanding the gist of the original post, but is still good on its own? Should the addendum be deleted, or get branched out into a stand-alone post? And I could see new posts dragging up old conflicts, making the whole thing a headache for mods to handle.
posted by filthy light thief at 7:05 AM on April 17, 2013

It's not a double if the new post leads you to things that you would not find simply by reading around in the links from the prior post. It's not that flt's post just highlights different examples from an artist's show--all of which is available via the links from either post--or some such; it provides access to content that is not available via the first post.

Isn't providing us with access to neat stuff on the internet we wouldn't easily find ourselves pretty much the raison d'etre of Metafilter?
posted by yoink at 7:34 AM on April 17, 2013

The poster would have used different framing if they knew it had been (partially) posted before. Deleting it gives them a chance to repost it with better framing and a previously. The system works.
posted by smackfu at 7:56 AM on April 17, 2013

Funny thing is, the youtube link from the original post gives me a copyright violation error, but the Dailymotion link from the deleted post works.
posted by Pendragon at 8:05 AM on April 17, 2013

I was thinking about that, smackfu. If I had found the prior post, I would restructure my post. It wouldn't change the content, but would tie back to the prior post a bit more than simply noting "previously."
posted by filthy light thief at 8:07 AM on April 17, 2013

A couple of weeks ago I was about to make an FPP when the URL showed up as a double of this FPP by the man of twists and turns from a few days earlier. That FPP was deleted for being a double of this FPP from a few years earlier.

I didn't agree with the deletion reason for tmotat's FPP deletion, and since the original post was a few years old, his was a single link, but my draft included more background and different framing I e-mailed the mods and asked if I could take another shot at posting it. taz said I could, and after getting a thumb's up on my draft I posted this FPP (with a previously, per taz's suggestion), which ended up being a pretty successful post.

smackfu: "Deleting it gives them a chance to repost it with better framing and a previously. The system works."

It definitely worked in this case. It's just a coincidence that I happened to do this to another post, but I'd certainly contact the mods again in similar circumstances.

On preview, I did what flithy light thief would have also done.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:21 AM on April 17, 2013

I should add that I MeMailed the man of twists and turns to give him a head's up to see if he wanted to add anything to the post, and so as not to seem like I swooped in and usurped his FPP. He was very gracious about it.
posted by Room 641-A at 8:27 AM on April 17, 2013

I feel like there probably is a way to do a legitimate post that includes that link , though – maybe a different sort of Beatles post

a different sort of Beatles post
where they're drinking tea
or they're eating toast
where they're shucking corn
or they're frying beans
where George or Paul
don't know what it means
where Ringo and John
do the mashed potato
while Yoko and Julian
fry a green tomato
where Brian Epstein
buys 'em new suits
and the Maharishi
offers 'em fruits
where they wave to fans
steppin' out of a jet
and the iTunes sells 'em
on the internet
posted by flapjax at midnite at 8:52 AM on April 17, 2013 [6 favorites]

I say we nominate this one for "best post that was deleted." Surely we should have collection of those!
posted by salishsea at 9:42 AM on April 17, 2013

Candidates: MetaFilter Deleted Posts
posted by pracowity at 10:22 AM on April 17, 2013

I love that this thread is exactly the opposite of this thread, including the involvement of filthy light thief.
posted by Confess, Fletch at 11:46 AM on April 17, 2013

I've learned (some) :)
posted by filthy light thief at 11:48 AM on April 17, 2013

The new, improved take on my deleted post is up now. I'm not sure there's more to be said here.
posted by filthy light thief at 5:52 AM on April 18, 2013

I think the new post is great. Thanks, flt.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:11 AM on April 18, 2013