July 15, 2002

9:26 PM

Emboldened as I am by positive reinforcement (thank you Stavros, and Sennoma), and joyous as I may be at the successful migration to the new server ( Happy Birthday, MetaFilter!), I am still saddened by the many "things are not so good at MetaFilter" discussions that seem to have been occurring recently, both here and off-premises. Although you may all count me in the "I love this place, and all who frequent her shores" category, after carefully reviewing the complaints and giving the matter due consideration, I do have two (and only two) suggestions ... (more inside)
posted by yhbc to MetaFilter-related at 9:26 PM (75 comments total)

1. It was a big deal when posters were limited to one post a day. That marked a kind of turning point, when the quantity first had to be choked to preserve the quality. It's time to do it again. Limit posters to one post a week, and people who want to post to MetaFilter will again be forced to consider if their post is really worthwhile. Is it a news link that may be stale or redundant within two or three days? Reconsider. Is it a timeless oddity, that many people wouldn't hear about otherwise and would spark discussion? Post away. Is it the latest happening in the Middle East/on Capitol Hill/in the White House that you just have to talk about right now? Fine, but recognize that you won't be able to post another one for seven whole days. Is it a flash animation, an online poll, or the latest "what 'x' am I" quiz? Well, think about it - did you see it today, or three days ago, on fark or memepool? How likely is it that "most people haven't seen it"? If it still passes that smell test, then again, go ahead, but recognize that you will be shut off for another week.

2. This may be even more controversial, if that's possible. Email authentication. Anonymity is one of the many things that makes this whole thing work - it allows each of us to participate to the extent each of wants to, divulging just as much of our own selves and personal information as we want to. That's a very good thing. Everyone has their own reasons for their own personal limits on their privacy, and some of us are by nature more open than others. But, and this is a very big butt (sorry, but I'm one of the jokers), complete anonymity also enables trolling, personal attacks without fear of reprisal, and slash-and-burn raids on the site itself and its members to be carried out with impunity. At the very least (and I don't know if this is feasible, or even possible) each member should provide an email address to mathowie; an automated "opt-in" email could then be sent to each address asking if the recipient would like to have their posting and commenting privileges continued. If you don't want to be contacted by people who may not appreciate your positions or your methods, don't reply, and then don't participate when you aren't renewed. If you have enough faith in your own convictions, and the willingness to face up to a possible personal rebuke when you step over one or another lines, 'fess up to how you may be reached, and then go and be fruitful. In the best of all MetaFilter worlds, everyone's email address should be continually available to all members - they are not available to the world at large, after all, and I would like to think that each of us should be able to let another member know when they may be acting like an ass, or just not carrying the very real weight of being a MetaFilter contributer, and to politely discuss the real or perceived transgression, off-site.

Again, Happy Birthday, MeFi. Matt, thank you for all you've done, and thanks also to all those (past and present) who have made this place something to both preserve and nurture.
posted by yhbc at 9:27 PM on July 15, 2002

Well, this just turned into a "bug" post.

Here's what I meant to say on the front page:Emboldened as I am by positive reinforcement (thank you Stavros, and Sennoma), and joyous as I may be at the successful migration to the new server ( Happy Birthday, MetaFilter!), I am still saddened by the many "things are not so good at MetaFilter" discussions that seem to have been occurring recently, both here and off-premises. Although you may all count me in the "I love this place, and all who frequent her shores" category, after carefully reviewing the complaints and giving the matter due consideration, I do have two (and only two) suggestions ... (more inside)


posted by yhbc at 9:30 PM on July 15, 2002

hmmm... i'd rather one was forced to read a posting guidelines page before one could post for the first time. but in order to make sure they read it, they have to answer a quiz. a list of links or posts, and which ones are 'good'.

you have to score high, or you can't post.
posted by jcterminal at 9:33 PM on July 15, 2002

The one-post-per-week idea sounds good to me. It keeps one person from hogging the podium and may reduce some of the resentment about people who are using the front page to push an agenda.
posted by rcade at 9:38 PM on July 15, 2002

Hear Hear! One post per week is plenty. If you've found a gem, and already used your quota, you could still e-mail Matt, or, (gasp!) e-mail to a MeFi buddy and let them steal your sunshine.
posted by Ufez Jones at 9:43 PM on July 15, 2002

I'll vote for one post per week as well, especially if that's one post to either 'Filter or 'Talk, not one to each. I'm not so keen on email validation. What's to stop someone using a hotmail account for all the necessaries then never reading that account again? It just seems to make work for Matt for no real gain.


posted by sennoma at 10:01 PM on July 15, 2002

Ditto on the one-post-per-week meme. I think it would improve things measurably.
posted by donkeyschlong at 10:12 PM on July 15, 2002

sennoma, because taking the effort to reply to an email validation request also has another benefit that I didn't mention earlier - it also culls the herd, so to speak, and eliminates JoeLurkerSlashBoy, who checks into MetaFilter once every six months to shit on a thread and generally piss everyone off.

There are (at least) two downsides to this approach, though - as you note, it's more work for Matt and Skippy. It also could result in the permanent deletion of once-valued members who, for whatever reason, don't wish to opt in when they get the notice. That could be bad, and thats the main reason I think my second suggestion needs some fleshing out from the bright folks around here.
posted by yhbc at 10:13 PM on July 15, 2002

I don't think poor posts are the real reason for decreasing signal-noise ratio. It is true that many posts now are very shallow and ill-researched, but they can be made much better by thoughtful comments, which leads me to believe that poor comments are the bigger issue. MeTa has had a number of discussions in regards to limiting comments, and the majority here tend to agree that it may be a bad idea. Perhaps it is best that this debate be reexamined.

I have no objections toward a 1 post per week policy, but I strongly believe that a limit on comments may be a better solution to improving thread quality and MetaFilter content.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:35 PM on July 15, 2002

Are there a lot of people posting more frequently than once a week? I have to confess to rarely looking at the names of the posters unless I need to reply to a specific individual. I would be surprised if that was happening too frequently. I would be OK with limiting to once a month.

Trolls are trolls not because they can't be traced to an e-mail address but because the act of typing in the magic box doesn't really personalize the experience at all. It's just me and my computer. N ow watch as I make the electrons dance and scream for me. It's the technology that causes it. You won't find a technical solution that will fix it. I suppose Matt can always ban somebody which might work as long as user sign-ups are off or they're on a static IP, but basically, if you don't want trolls, then don't feed trolls. There minds are small, they tire easily.
posted by willnot at 10:45 PM on July 15, 2002

I, um, agree with Bluetrain. Take a moment to scroll down the Metafilter front page, looking only at the usernames who have posted over the last few days. Yes, you'll see a few names repeated (*cough*Miguel, Su*cough*) but by and large theres a huge diversity of posters here. Why implement a policy that will affect only a few users out of thousands (plus, I enjoy Miguel and Su's posts) if the stated reason is to increase quality?

I think the quality of front-page posts is as high as its ever been. And so are the comments, in general. Its the exceptions, the ad-hominem attacks, the obscene and insensitive which derail threads which need to be addressed.
posted by vacapinta at 10:53 PM on July 15, 2002

yhbc, limited posts to one per week should reduce the volume to a level such that a human being can follow most of it without spending every waking moment at MeFi and should improve the quality as well. Gets my (14x user, therefore low value ;}) vote.

A side-benefit would be drastically increased productivity in countries all over the globe.

I also agree in principle with e-mail authentication, although the hotmail/yahoo et al account problem would need to be overcome without discriminating against those who do not have access to other suitable e-mail accounts. Would it be possible to automate some sort of revalidation process that sent random messages to each user requiring them to reply in order to retain posting/commenting rights?

posted by dg at 10:54 PM on July 15, 2002

I wholeheartedly agree with BlueTrain. A bad post can elicit a wonderfully written and well considered thread. A good post, per se, tends quite naturally to recruit boring, yet well-deserved "thank you" posts.

If this were the benevolent dictatorship some mistakenly say it is, active members would be required to make one well-researched, personally-found and stimulatingly-worded post a month. But it isn't.

My own impression is that quality, not quantity, is the salient issue. But you can't legislate quality.

In the end, as BlueTrain implies, threads are more important than posts - so it's the comments which decide. But you can't - and shouldn't - try to rule on such a subjective bunch of coconuts.

To sum up: it's a pity so few users actually bother to post something interesting.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:55 PM on July 15, 2002

To sum up: it's a pity so few users actually bother to post something interesting.

Well, you say that, then there's...

If this were the benevolent dictatorship some mistakenly say it is, active members would be required to make one well-researched, personally-found and stimulatingly-worded post a month. But it isn't.

Such pressure! As well as such comments as...

you have to score high, or you can't post. - in regards to the "intelligence quiz..."

And you wonder why there's not more people posting? It's intimidating as hell. Well, to me, at least. Post a non-worthwhile or poorly worded link, and you're dragged into the town square and flogged publicly. Not to mention the subsequent feelings of guilt that you've just become a part of the "downfall of Metafilter (c) - 2002." Sheesh, I had to pop some Zoloft just to post this. ;)

*goes back to rocking in her corner*
posted by digital_insomnia at 11:30 PM on July 15, 2002

I have trouble posting something I think people will find interesting once a month, let alone once a week. So keeping your guidelines in mind yhbc (and they are excellent by the way) I looked randomly through the archives, searching for the golden days of MetaFilter, back before all we newbies wrecked it and came to the following conclusion...same as it ever was.
posted by Tarrama at 12:25 AM on July 16, 2002

I'll jump on this bandwagon, in the hope that once-per-week posting would eliminate the more evanescent, common links. Instead of a link to a current headline, a well-researched link on a larger topic might emerge.

Once a day prevents single individuals from dominating the front page. Once a week would pare down domination by ubiquitious topics.
posted by frykitty at 12:31 AM on July 16, 2002

I haven't seen anything new in the above comments, which leads to the question I was intending to ask anyway:
YHBC: These specific topics have been rehashed so many times that I'm pretty sure you've been around for at least one of the occurences, and seen the reasons they haven't been implemented. And if you haven't, it's a bit of a sign you didn't research your post. Given that, I think that it becomes your responsibility in bringing it up again to find a new, compelling reason for doing so. A new server doesn't qualify.

One of your checks for a post is not having seen it the last few days on Fark/Memepool/whatever. Do you realize the other part of your system essentially requires that many topics be a week old before being posted? Redundancy of users won't cover this. E-mailing Matt is not a real option here, because that will eventually get overwhelming, or at the very least just annoying for him.
I, for example, regularly forgo posting for weeks, and then post for three days at a time. I just tend to find my links in bursts. But, other than one which was intentional crap, I've never had a post removed from the front page, so they've apparently been of some quality, in the opinion of the only person with the power to have removed them. User redundancy also falls apart here because frankly, few people tend to post on the topics I do. Generally, they're the same people who comment on my posts, for that matter.

This isn't to say I disagree with your ideas, but I'm suggesting you read what's been said before, and find a reason the situation is different now. It doesn't seem significantly so to me.
posted by Su at 12:49 AM on July 16, 2002

BlueTrain got me thinking. So far this month, there are five users who would have gone over a 4-post/month quota, only one of whom (guess, just guess) would have exceeded a 2-per-week quota. This is out of a couple of hundred comments. Even though we'r e only halfway through the month, it does seem that a 1-post/week limit would not have a dramatic effect on the posting volume. I'm still in favour of further limiting posts, but perhaps we should also look again at limiting comments. I've made about te n comments so far (MeFi + MeTa), and it's been a blabby month for me. Would, say, fifty comments per month leave anyone (except Miguel) feeling stifled?
posted by sennoma at 12:50 AM on July 16, 2002

There definitely is a fair amount of intimidation when writing a front page post. What if it's already been posted? What if you make a mistake and everyone drags you over the coals for it? Heck, I've had one I've been meaning to post for two weeks now. I would hope that the one post per week limit would help improve the quality as well as reduce the quantity and those would both help to improve MeFi.
posted by jaden at 12:52 AM on July 16, 2002

... out of a couple of hundred comments

Sorry, I meant "... couple of hundred posts.ü
posted by sennoma at 1:10 AM on July 16, 2002

Nuh uh. Post limitation, maybe, but there's no way a comment limit is going to fly.

So, if a particularly good, or even just angrily controversial(yeah yeah Palestine) topic comes up, say at the end of a month, we're all supposed to suddenly drop it because we've gone over quota?
Or are we supposed to e-mail Matt about that, too?
How about we just impose a byte quota? Yeah!
posted by Su at 1:13 AM on July 16, 2002

The email address in my profile is valid, but it isn't my main one, and I rarely check it. I'm not sure that email confirmation would do anything except prevent new users from signing up with someone else's email addresses. Has that really been a big problem?
posted by bingo at 1:27 AM on July 16, 2002

I tend to agree with the post limit, in theory, but then looking at what everyone else has said, I can't help but think it would be more of a burden than a blessing. Based on what sennoma said, hardly anyone is posting more than one time a week anyway, so to limit it would not make people think harder before posting, but it would stop people who just happened to find two excellent links in the span of a few days from posting both.

I break it down like this: There are users like myself, who post very rarely; there are the mediocre active posters, who post a lot, and without much sense; there are the good active users, who frequently post great stuff, with a few rare exceptions; and finally, the bad active users, who post a lot of crap. Now, a post limit would not affect the infrequent posters, the majority, at all. The good frequent posters would be limited, the bad frequent posters should be banned anyway (or restricted from posting), and that leaves only the mediocre frequent posters, the minority of a minority, who might change their ways for the better in the face of such a limit.

So I guess what I'm saying is I don't think it will work.

posted by Nothing at 1:44 AM on July 16, 2002

I would agree limiting posting to once a week might not have that much of an effect, so, particularly since I infrequently make posts to the front page, I would be fine with it either way.

I would strongly argue against a comment-quota, though, if Matt were to consider it. Some of the best threads can d/evolve into a conversation between two or three people who know what they're talking about, and limiting numbers of comments might curtail that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:55 AM on July 16, 2002

Legislating quaily works about as well as legislating morality. Curtailing participation in a site that needs user particpation like this one does is analogous to a nation trying to create security by curtailing civil liberties.
The site would become less encouraging all by itself, without the help of the people who's behavior you're trying to control.
posted by dong_resin at 3:00 AM on July 16, 2002

POSTS WITHOUT LINKS / CONTENT: I don't think the problem here is how often people post. I think it's that they add posts without links. More links = richer content. (Naturally it helps if they're intelligent links.)

POSTING QUOTA: Could well shut out the articulate people.

E-MAIL AUTHENTICATION: Sorry, I'm picky about who I give my primary e-mail to. This is a girl thing, we find out pretty quick that you don't hand your phone number out to just anyone.

CIVILITY: I think that all the whore, slut, and sexual aggression pulls the level of conversation down.

PERSONAL ATTACKS: Perhaps adding something to the user page about "This is a personal attack: any post directed at another user which begins 'YOU ARE A SO-AND-SO ...' Although it is legitimate to comment on other opinions, attitudes, and behaviors, personal attacks may be deleted without warning."

TOO MANY COOKS: These conversations on MeTa spin out indefinitely and go over the same ground over and over as the group gets larger and everyone is compelled to have their say. Luckily Matt seems to be able to ignore us as necessary.
posted by sheauga at 4:14 AM on July 16, 2002

all the whore, slut, and sexual aggression

could you give some examples - i'm not sure what you're referring to here. i just did a search and neither whore nor slut appears in the site archives over the last month, so i'm not sure if i'm misunderstanding, or if there's really some problem (which sounds serious) that i've missed.
posted by andrew cooke at 5:07 AM on July 16, 2002

Curtailing participation in a site that needs user particpation like this one does is analogous to a nation trying to create security by curtailing civil liberties.

If Matt restricts posts, the terrorists have won.

Sorry, I'm picky about who I give my primary e-mail to. This is a girl thing, we find out pretty quick that you don't hand your phone number out to just anyone.

It doesn't have to be your primary e-mail; just an e-mail address where you receive mail and can click on a verification link.

Besides, I don't think a valid e-mail address is too much to ask for free access to a Web application and server developed at considerable time and expense.
posted by rcade at 5:15 AM on July 16, 2002

*Reports rcade to the TIPS home office*
posted by dong_resin at 5:39 AM on July 16, 2002

I have this to say about that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:42 AM on July 16, 2002

I'm with stavrosthewonderchicken in not wanting to have comments limited, for the same reason.

However, I feel that the number of posts to the front page could do with some trimming and restricting posts seems to be the only way of doing that, short of some form of moderation, which would be impractical. Maybe, if once a week won't make a difference, the period needs to be longer? Being a dedicated metric-using person, how about once every 10 days?

Slightly off-topic, I am impressed by the way that newer users are able to participate in a discussion such as this without being abused. Now if more threads were this polite ...
posted by dg at 5:50 AM on July 16, 2002

But dg, it has already been pointed that only Miguel the alcholic posts more than once a week.

I like the quantity, because it ensures there is something of interest to me. I am not an art lover, book critic or NYTimes reader all the time. Sometimes I WANT to find out about cats-in-scanners and the fourth-dimension.

When I first started out at this site *cue music...fog..* I got hammered a few times about my posting, the way I said things etc.. I was brought into focus by the community that is MeFi. It works.

I say NO to point 1.
and shrug my shoulders to point 2 as I have to get back to work.

That is all.
posted by Frasermoo at 6:02 AM on July 16, 2002

At the very least (and I don't know if this is feasible, or even possible) each member should provide an email address to mathowie; an automated "opt-in" email could then be sent to each address asking if the recipient would like to have their posting and commenting privileges continued.

Ok, I'm confused. Matt already can see my email address, even though its not on my profile page - there's a nifty box that says Show email on profile page?: which you can check or uncheck. How is your system different from what we have now, except that it makes more work for (the already overworked) Matt?

I know that not putting an email address or homepage link on my profile page makes me a "bad" Mefi user ... but honestly, I don't feel like one. I'm just in the same place sheauga is ... I'm a girl. I've learned by hard example that most of the people who would use my email address in a nefarious way are ... well, are not girls. Its all well and good to say "well, get a Yahoo address", but I honestly don't see how setting up special MeFi email that I'd almost never check would be better than having no email at all. At least the way things are now, Matt can get in touch with me should he need to.

I would also like to say that I'm not sure a 'once per week' restriction would do any good. As I've refrained from saying many times before, I feel pretty strongly that its the lack of comments (read: positive reinforcement) in really good posts that has lead to the 'NewsFilter' situation.

Regardless of what we want comments to be about, I firmly believe that most posters look at comments as a reflection of what is interesting to and valued by the MeFi community. When posts about current news items get 75 - 80 comments and truly excellent posts only get three or four comments, its hard for newer users to draw any conclusion but that its the NewsFilter posts that everyone enjoys and wants most.

Bottom line - if you want MeFi to improve, then comment on good posts and don't comment on bad ones. Like the tag-line says - we're all in this together. Its not up to Matt to implement something to "make MeFi work" - its up to us to make MeFi work.
posted by anastasiav at 6:29 AM on July 16, 2002

Gee, well-reasoned arguments on both sides of each issue. What a surprise. ;)

I didn't provide specific examples of over-posting that "need" to be curtailed because, one, when three people say there's "bad" posts on MeFi, they will each name three different posts; and two, it's true that a once-a-week limit wouldn't as a practical matter affect anyone other than Miguel. Sorry, Migs. However, unless I'm wrong, I didn't think that the once-a-day limit was intended to actually limit any particular poster. It did, however, put a higher "value" on the ability to post, and I believe that an increased limit would increase that value, even if only in the perception of the person pressing the "post" button. Even if the effect is only psychological, limiting everyone's ability to post could result in a form of self-moderation short of the active type of moderation that I don't think anyone wants to impose. Besides, if it wouldn't really impact anyone, what's the harm in trying it out? ;)

On the email issue, it is probably too late to do a full-scale authentication, but I think rcade said it best - no one's asking for your primary address, but a valid address isn't a lot to ask for all the free access we are provided. (anastasiav, I think there are still lots of users that even Matt doesn't have any email address for).
posted by yhbc at 6:33 AM on July 16, 2002

Why don't we just see what happens when the posting limit is gradually increased? Can't we try two or three days first, to see if there is a noticeable change? I think a week is too long, because it tends to discriminate against certain individuals whose posts I particularly enjoy (especially relating to alchohol). There are a few folks whose regular posts I do not enjoy, and a two or three day limit would cull some of that, but in the end, you have to take the good with the bad, and then bitch about it in MetaTalk. This solution of course does not resolve the question of quality for comments within a thread, which will probably have to be dealt with in the traditional MetaTalk fashion.

As for e-mail authentication, I think this issue is much-ado about nothing. Blogroots uses e-mail authentication, so it would probably be easy to implement, and not to controversial, so long as it is not made retroactive. I have no problem with requiring new users to provide authentication, but retroactivity is unfair, as most of the existing users have proven in one way or another their 'authenticity', so to speak.
posted by insomnyuk at 6:50 AM on July 16, 2002

Thanks for your passionate yet well reasoned post yhbc.

If the polls are still open, I have to vote "no" on both accounts (limiting posts & comments). Why?

Say I use up my one post per week quota. What does this leave me with? Comments. What happens when this well runs dry? I do like to participate and can see my comments being used up quickly. "Well thats the idea - Think before you comment" you say. I understand this to a certain extent but, as has been repeatedly flogged here before, the free-wheeling side of Mefi is what I enjoy so much. I'd hate to see limits (aside from whats already in place) implemented.

The email verification is a no-brainer and makes good sense.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:50 AM on July 16, 2002

I think the quality of front-page posts is as high as its ever been. And so are the comments, in general. Its the exceptions, the ad-hominem attacks, the obscene and insensitive which derail threads which need to be addressed.

That sums up my view. I think any additional posting limits would be ineffectual and a mistake (except for individual users who habitually contribute the above).
posted by rushmc at 6:57 AM on July 16, 2002

But dg, it has already been pointed that only Miguel the alcholic posts more than once a week.

I suspect that the Pride of Lisbon is not the only one posting links more often than weekly. However, even if you're right, I think a software-imposed weekly limit sends a worthwhile message to users: This is a limited resource. Use it wisely.
posted by rcade at 6:58 AM on July 16, 2002

Sometimes it pays to do some legwork. So far in July, as of 6:28 PST this morning, there have been 299 front page posts to MeFi. Of those 299 posts, 204 were made by posters who only contributeda front page posts once during that time. Only thirty members have contributed more than once so far in July, and only 14 of those have contributed more than twice. The award for the most front page contributions goes to Miguel with 9, followed by Su with 7, and then Mathowie and Mediareport each had 6. That brings the average posting rate to about .5 posts per week for each of the 234 unique contributors in July.

It seems to me, therefore, that the problem--assuming that such a problem exists--is not an excess of posts by persons otherwise unqualified to do so. A more refined system might be one where the ability to post to the front page depends on the amount of contribution within threads previously posted. However, that solution would likely encourage contribution for the sake of the later ability to post, and would require a moderation system.

All of these are solutions which have been introduced at the various other community weblogs. The truth is, I don't like them, particularly at MeFi where we've gone so long without them. The solution is, in my opinion, to keep self-policing and to limit the membership of the community to a manageable size. For example, lurkers don't need memberships. To that extent, I think that an email opt-in system or a certain level of required activity for continued membership might be appropriate.

We shouldn't be discouraging those who post often and stick around for the discussion--a la Miguel and Su. Those are the posters which often generate discussion and point out things we haven't see before, as opposed to the latest I/P update. Rather, we should be discouraging the post-and-run people from filling up the front page with things we might not want to talk about. To that end, requiring participation of members within the threads is a good start, but in my opinion, not entirely necessary.

Remember, though, some of the "problems" we complain about here are a direct result of the desirable attributes which separate MeFi from some of the other communities out there. In other words, be careful what you wish for.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:02 AM on July 16, 2002

Once-a-week posting will only have an effect - real or psychological - on those who try or intend to post a second time in a week.

Looking at the archives, the number of such users is very, very small. What's more, they tend to make good posts.

A posting limit will have a very negligible effect on the quantity of poor posts. We know this because there would be a miniscule number of violators if we were to apply the rule retroactively.

Email authentication, I approve of.
posted by Marquis at 7:05 AM on July 16, 2002

Once-a-week posting will only have an effect - real or psychological - on those who try or intend to post a second time in a week. [emphasis mine]

Those, that is, who are somewhat forgetful and do not remember that there is a limit when the y make their first post. This, as yhbc, rcade and others have noted, is the whole point of the proposed limit: getting people to think before they post.

I submit that a comments limit would have a similar effect. I am not going to do a full workup now, but I looked up a dozen or so people I thought of off the top of my head, and thought were pretty prolific. Among these folks the average was about 140 comments (MeFi + MeTa) per month of membership. I average 13/month, MC blows 'em all away at 308. (Since Su was mentioned by name, I'll add that 32 comments/month does not seem to be a very high average.) A limit of, say, 100 comments per month would certainly give the more prolific posters pause; would it be unnecessarily restrictive? I can't say, as I'd never run into the limit myself. Perhaps it could be put in place for a one- or two-month trial?
posted by sennoma at 7:34 AM on July 16, 2002

I think that people need to remember that not everyone has such a grasp of language that the 'San' Miguels and the rcades do in this world. Therefore there is a danger in trying to impliment a restriction of quantity in the hope of increased quality.

One man's pizza is another man's poison. Or something like that.
posted by Frasermoo at 7:40 AM on July 16, 2002

(PS - Miguel I know you are a connoisseur, not an alcohlic.)
posted by Frasermoo at 7:47 AM on July 16, 2002

*personal note*

I know I post way too much and how annoying it is but the truth is I have steadily posted less and less with every passing month (except July, a lamentable relapse brought on by server anxiety, is my excuse...) and I do promise to continue trying to keep my big trap "shutter and shutter" as time goes by. Though it's not easy when you're still bright-eyed and bushy-tailed in love. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:29 AM on July 16, 2002

in love with what? yellow buttons?
posted by Frasermoo at 8:52 AM on July 16, 2002

I enjoy Miguel's posts and comments and have no trouble with their frequency. He may be in love with the sound of his own voice, but, after all, he has a lovely one.
posted by timeistight at 9:06 AM on July 16, 2002

*wild eyelash-batting in timeistight's direction / merrily takes back his promise to post less*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:12 AM on July 16, 2002

I say if you have to comment incessantly, just scream your comments into a jar and open the jar at the end of the month, setting your comments free to seek their place in this complex society. The ones that return to you, stronger and wiser for their journey, those are the ones you should post.

Unlike, you know, this one.

To continue, Miguel's comments would be preening peacocks, blissfully unaware of the threat of circling owls. If owls attack peacocks. Which they probably don't.

I'm no ornithologist.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:33 AM on July 16, 2002

But you'll always be my ornithologist, Kafkaesque.
posted by Marquis at 9:34 AM on July 16, 2002

When I introduced the idea of limiting posts yesterday, it wasn't because I thought it would improve the quality of posts; it was merely to reduce the number so that more casual members like D and I could keep up a little better. The excellent research done by monju_bosatsu shows that this was a fallacy.

As to the email verification, I can't see how it would have any effect one way or another, aside from weeding out inactive members.
posted by timeistight at 9:46 AM on July 16, 2002

The irony of restricting quantity of comments over time is that, I think, it would rule out precisely the sort of member contribution people most seem to miss. E.g., the early days of the site when more ongoing discussions would occur in threads, and members had the opportunity to truly explore an issue; and the somewhat later days when various members regularly made valuable contributions (of both their own personality and useful outside resources) to all sorts of threads (holgate and carol anne to name a couple such posters).

The fact that some people may not like some other people who at this time happen to be the most prolific commenters on this site isn't a good reason for a policy of this sort, unless there's a strong case to be made that, given the larger size of this community, prolific posters are unlikely to have much to contribute. Maybe that's the case; I'm not sure.

Of course, there's the hope, as has been described, that a restriction would encourage people to think before they submit. That would have a value, if it worked; but to work for more than a short while I think it would have to be a restrictive limit -- and I don't see that some people wouldn't continue to just post they way they always do, until the limit.

The type of comments made on this site will always reflect how its current users envision the site and its membership. Limiting how much people can say isn't likely to change what they'll say within those limits -- people say what they do by and large because they believe MetaFilter is a place to say those sorts of things. If you think there's a certain "quality" missing, you can only seek to contribute it yourself, and hope that other people start to also feel that that's a defining characteristic of a place they care about -- and that they contribute to it, as well.
posted by mattpfeff at 10:23 AM on July 16, 2002

Okay, so what I gather from Sennoma's analysis above is that very few people are currently "breaking" the proposed comment limit rule. And if the rule actually existed, the only people affected &ndas; and not by much &ndas; would be those people, since most of the rest don't get anywhere near the limit. This is, of course, regardless of the quality of their posts. From the names I've seen so far, most users would not want those people restricted.
...
So remind me why there has to be a rule? This isn't a question of want; that's never been enough. It's pretty clear Matt doesn't want rules, in general, so the only reason one is going to be created is an actual need, and no one has provided that yet. Any single person^* who has made themselves a nuisance through their comments has eventually gotten bored and left, or been removed, which again negates the "neccessity" for this rule.

And I've still had no answer to my question. What happens if a good thread gets going and somebody suddenly slams up against quota? I can pretty confidently guess that "E-mail Matt" ain't gonna fly with Matt.

^*...and the more this discussion goes on, the more it becomes about particular people. In general, names haven't been mentioned(they're irrelevant anyway) but the fact is the more this gets analyzed, the smaller the number of people who'd be affected seems to get. So basically, you're asking Matt to add several new sections of code and queries to the database, all for a handful of users.
posted by Su at 10:33 AM on July 16, 2002

In my opinion, there really only needs to be one modification because we as contributors cannot seem to all hold to positive behaviour:

Any user who is accused of any ad hominem attack, and who on examination by the site owner is deemed 'guilty', receives a ban. Persistent abuse will result in persistent banning.

Details can be fleshed out [i.e., terms & conditions, fair warning, etc.]

Can you imagine how much space and energy that would free up?

Can you also imagine the pause for thought that that would give to misusers?

I'd be intersested in your responses, and to see who falls where on this issue.

posted by dash_slot- at 10:39 AM on July 16, 2002

This may or not be pertinent to what mattpfeff just said but posting frequently actually makes you think more about your posts and try harder to make them relevant. Say, by buttressing them accordingly with supplementary links; searching for them without using your favourite sources; striving to make them worth clicking on per se; and being attentive to users' comments et caetera.

Because, by posting frequently, you suspect you're abusing some unspoken agreement about sharing this valuable resource and you need to be able to defend your enthusiasm. Infrequent, fly-by posters are often lazier and more devil-may-care.

In the end, whether you're more or less assiduous, you end up getting your just deserts because the community judges every thread on its own merits. As rushmc and other members have often said, only a small minority take the trouble to follow particular names and characters. The content's the thing, however old/young or seasoned/new you are. Bad posts and good posts happen because of unlegislable variables (passion; knowledge; committment; generosity) which are probably impossible to predict, fathom or set down.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:49 AM on July 16, 2002

I'd get behind email verification for new users (none of this regular interval stuff- ick).

I'd also support forced posting intervals, but only in the form of "now that you've posted, you can't post for another X days", not calendar-based systems like "once per week" or "once per month".

Since those two have been beaten to death, how about some more creative solutions? C'mon, we're all smart (I hope) people. Here are two-

1. Put the posting guidelines ON the posting page, not as a link. Make people scroll through them. A link (as we see in discussions) is too easy to ignore.

2. Check the link for certain news sites like cnn.com, nytimes.com, etc. If people are worried about MeFi turning into "NewsFilter", popping up a warning like "Hey, is this a good story or just the latest headline?" may cause people to think twice.

posted by mkultra at 10:52 AM on July 16, 2002

Yeah, I think we can say a posting limit wouldn't do much. (thanks sennoma.) I'd be against a limit on comments, for numerous reasons - many outlined above by others.

So, my last hope is a moderation queue, I'm afraid to say. That, or someone setting up a MetaFilterFilter, or some sort of concerted site-improvement effort by a broad group of users. Which, cynically, I can't see happening.

*sigh*
posted by D at 10:55 AM on July 16, 2002

How exactly would this work, dash? Anyone who spots an ad hominem attack would do what? Email Matt, post a MetaTalk thread, or would you see a new j'accuse.metafilter.com set up?
posted by timeistight at 10:55 AM on July 16, 2002

Users can't do anything, in general, because they are too dis-organized/apathetic/busy. Whatever become of the Mefi Magazine that got so much talk...

All of this is hype and vaporware unless the admin makes a change, otherwise, most users will continue their current trends.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:05 AM on July 16, 2002

the problem, as i see it, involves a combination of the following:

* a ton of posts are being made.
* a good number of these posts are unloved by one member or another for one reason or another (and these posts that are unloved vary from member to member -- I might hate, say, posts that aren't about scat fetishes, and you, well, you might hate that very thing).
* posting limits (beyond one post a day) will probably not serve to remedy these posts that you or i don't like to see.
* moderation *may* make a great deal of people happy (the majority) but will probably also make life *very* unhappy for a small minority (who might be very nice and intelligent people). also moderation is poo on our sense of egalitarianism.

i think there's already a rather *proven* situation to this particular problem, one that's been in use on USENET for (i'm guessing, so permit me to exaggerate here): killfilters.

i realize this has already been discussed before, and there are many arguments against it, the primary ones being that 1) more work for matt, and 2) LOTS more server load (again, i'm guessing).

still, this seems like the only solution that will make people happy: those who want mefi in all it's unadulterated glory can get it, and those who want a nice abridged version read by sean connery can get that too.

i would imagine killfilters could work in a couple ways:

by poster, by topic, by link.

(this is in a perfect make-believe world, where we've got loads of server cycles and matt lives on a beach and doesn't have to work except at the whim of the mefi community -- basically, an 80 hour week. but did i mention there's a beach?).

killing by poster is self-explanatory.
killing by topic would require the poster to categorize the post before posting it (i realize there's problems with this, as stuff will get miscatergorized, ending up in endless meta conversations about whether the "art" section is truly the place to post that 3d porno site, but, hey, whaddya gonna do?)
killing by link would allow me to never have to see posts to yahoo, ananova, or the chron ever ever ever again.


or, of course, there are several client-side solutions that don't require matt to do any work at all, the principal of which is : ignore posts you do not like.

i realize this may imply we're less of a tight-knit community -- less of a hive mind -- but hey, at 14,000 strong, well, there's going to be some differences.

(also, say, does anyone skilled in scripting know if there's a method of say, filtering for name and then killing the post [say, by little div id tags matt could add if they aren't already there] using some sort of html file that lives on the user's hard drive? i'm thinking like a windowed thing that would open up mefi and run whatever scripts needed to run a filter.)

oh, lastly: i'm not advocating that we implement a killfilter and then get lax about having a noise policy, or allow multiple posts a day or anything -- i'm just thinking killfilters would be nice for those who can't stand to see what they think is a bad post on the front page.

posted by fishfucker at 11:29 AM on July 16, 2002

When I introduced the idea of limiting posts yesterday, it wasn't because I thought it would improve the quality of posts; it was merely to reduce the number so that more casual members like D and I could keep up a little better.

And why should "casual members" be catered to at the expense of those who devote more time on the site? In other words, why should others be penalized because you do not/cannot spend more time reading Metafilter? It seems to me far fairer and more sensible to continue to let everyone choose for themselves just how much time they wish to spend/waste here.
posted by rushmc at 11:44 AM on July 16, 2002

I had written up a nice long post with the ideal solution to our problem, but then I accidently hit the back button and it all disappeared into the aether. Now I'm too peeved to rewrite it. Plus, I have to actually get some work done today. I may be back later with enlightenment, but then again, I may just keep it for myself.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:45 AM on July 16, 2002

It seems to me far fairer and more sensible to continue to let everyone choose for themselves just how much time they wish to spend/waste here.

I agree. Now if everyone would just spend their time on the posts they like and not waste their time on the posts they don't like, we'd all live happily ever after.
posted by timeistight at 11:54 AM on July 16, 2002

How exactly would this work, dash? [Details can be fleshed out [i.e., terms & conditions, fair warning, etc.]]
- You tell me!

Anyone who spots an ad hominem attack would do what?


1. Challenge the alleged miscreant and request a change in attitude. The challenger would refer to previously agreed guidelines, so as not too seem too much like a MefiCop.

2. The response from the alleged miscreant is indicative of future posts: if Matt feels like they are beyond the pale, then privileges are withdrawn. 3/5/7/whatever strikes = you're out, buddy!
Email Matt, post a MetaTalk thread, or would you see a new j'accuse.metafilter.com set up?
Not necessary: Matt will pick up on it, I'm sure.

I don't see it as being that complex: we have had people virtually every day making personal attacks simply becase they don't understand that attacking the person does not diminish the validity of their opponent's argument.

Matt has said many times how personal attacks piss him off and are not what the site is for. He clearly reads most of the controversial threads. I do not know why persistent offenders aren't put in the sin-bin: to be honest, if I was an offender, and maintained my attitude over time, and was not banned, then - like some folk have pointed out before - I would assume that there was tacit approval from the only one with power to stop it (rather like a bully in the playground).

The model I work to is positive parenting: maximum freedom, minimum intervention. Please don't (accidentally or otherwise) misunderstand me: I actually think that a little work here and there, like a stitch in time, will save much more down the line.

Also: don't let it be thought that I am a prude, and wish to eliminate all traces of 'adult' discourse - I don't. I simply want to hang on to intelligent, creative and stimulating contributors, many of whom (it seems) think, like I do, that it's pointless to belong to a community that eats it's own.

There's no-one here at the moment whom I would exclude from the requirement to retain a semblance of decent manners, whilst promoting with passion their thoughts, opinions and beliefs. I doubt there could be such an exclusion.
posted by dash_slot- at 12:02 PM on July 16, 2002

j'accuse.metafilter.com made me giggle.

MKUltra: 1. Put the posting guidelines ON the posting page, not as a link. Make people scroll through them.

This seems like it would be effective on first thought, but unfortunately, it's pretty much useless in reality. Do you read the TOS when you install a piece of software(if you answered yes, you're a freak.)? Same concept. The best term I've heard for this is "button gravity." Users know where the Yes/Next/Submit button is supposed to be and gloss over everything else in the process of getting to it.
A link (as we see in discussions) is too easy to ignore.
A huge list of things you're forced to scroll past every time you post is too annoying to pay attention to.

Same basic idea with the automated warning for CNN/NYT links. If a person is attempting the post, they've pretty much already convinced themselves it's worthwhile. A bit of popup text they probably started ignoring a long time ago won't really do much against that.
Besides, news sites often use syndicated stories. The Newsfilter issue isn't because of CNN. It's a matter of content.
posted by Su at 12:23 PM on July 16, 2002

fishfucker:[say, by little div id tags matt could add if they aren't already there] using some sort of html file that lives on the user's hard drive? i'm thinking like a windowed thing that would open up mefi and run whatever scripts needed to run a filter.)

Assuming the comment divs are something along these lines or could be changed to be.

[div class='comment' id='user12649']
some annoying comment
[/div]

each user could have a user stylesheet {i know IE, Mozilla and Opera support this, not sure about the others}

the stylesheet would need to be maintained by the MeFi member and could have something like..

#user12649 {display: none;}
#used1212 {display: none;}

this wouldn't be correct as an "id" is supposed to be unique to one element on a page. But I've found in IE anyway, class and id can be used the same way.

This wouldn't be so much work for Matt in some ways, depending on if the divs already have an id i suppose. It wouldn't put any strain on the server above the extra txt coming down. But each person would be able to filter out individual users comments to some degree...
posted by selton at 12:37 PM on July 16, 2002

...without spending every waking moment at MeFi ...
nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!
posted by quonsar at 12:58 PM on July 16, 2002

selton:

this sounds like a really good idea. it should be acceptable to instead use:

[div class='comment user12649']

that would be more in line with the spirit of css. you can specify multiple classes to inherit style information from; i'm assuming their attributes are applied in a left-to-right order. if so, that would guarantee the information from a user stylesheet takes precedence. i'm sure you could instead use 'user_moz'. for example:

.user_moz { color: red; font-weight: bold; text-decoration: blink; }

my comments would then appear similar to local car dealer commercials. (supposing there were a blink attribute for text-decoration, but -- damn it -- there isn't.)
posted by moz at 1:07 PM on July 16, 2002

(don't feel married to the underscore line, of course. you can use hyphens in class names. that'll save a shift key, eh?)
posted by moz at 1:09 PM on July 16, 2002

Actually, underscore is illegal (although widely accepted). Hyphens are better.
posted by timeistight at 1:15 PM on July 16, 2002

moz:

I never knew you could have multiple classes applied to an element in that way.

I just tried it, the way you do when you think you're gonna be proved right... and then saw it worked perfectly.

I'll probably be using that technique somewhere along the line, thanks.
posted by selton at 1:34 PM on July 16, 2002

Wasn't Metafilter-as-Usenet one of the pet peeves of Mefi lore?

Seriously though, the killfilter creates more problems than it solves:
- Generates an underground community of trolls or semi-trolls who post for the benefit and/or aggravation of non-member lurkers who don't have access to a killfile script, as well as casual members who don't have the time or savvy to set up a filter
- Creates an automatic excuse for people who want to ignore valid criticisms of others. And now, an illustrative skit:

UserX: UserY blows goats. Here's a link to pictures and primary source documentation.
UserZ: Wow, UserY, that's sick.
UserY: Whaaaa..?
UserZ: Uh, UserX's accusations of goatblowing.
UserY: Oh, whatever, I've got UserX killfiled, so by extension I don't know what you are talking about.

posted by PrinceValium at 1:50 PM on July 16, 2002

UserY: Oh, whatever, I've got UserX killfiled, so by extension I don't know what you are talking about.


this is actually really the only problem i can see with a killfilter. someone makes a comment triggering a series of responses and you can't see the original because it's kill filtered (this is why i was thinking a sort of "window" type script could be implemented, so it could be turned on and off easily). this already happens in the rare case when matt deletes a comment, and yeah, i have to admit, it's annoying; but, hey, you're the one who wanted the killfilter, so suck it up.

as far as trolls proliferating, etc: i don't expect that because some people might use a killfilter on mefi that we would see an upswing in noise; i'm sure those people trafficking only in trolls would be banned, as in the past, and given that mefi user signups are metered (aren't they, right now?) it'd be pretty tough for them to get back in. there are already measures in place to protect against widespread trolling -- i can't imagine they'd be repealed if a killfilter was implemented.

anyhow, to be fair, i was just talking about kill filtering front page posts -- not comments, as i thought that would create the user Y problem you describe above. but i did think the style sheet solution that filtered comments by user was pretty cool (thanks selton and moz).

posted by fishfucker at 2:04 PM on July 16, 2002

Back in 1985, I and a couple of other geeks started this thing called DragonLaw in New Jersey. We created this whole code of ethics and laws for posting on BBS's, with different groups that did different things to further the effort to foster this 'better' society online, complete with a 'Red' wing that I was in charge of that would fight the flamers and such.

(just as a side note, the BBS it started at was based on Anne McCaffery's books, so.. anyway)

Sounds completely silly, doesn't it?

My point being - you can have codified 'rules' but the thing is that it just becomes silly if you are artificially creating order.. I'd rather see rules banning people for jumping all over new people.

See, order creates stagnantation. New people bring new ideas, new ways of looking at things. Stifle them, and you stifle creative thought. Of course, you have th issue of bad posters and stupid people.. but the way to deal with them is not a single heavy-handed rule and order that subjegates anyone else that may be a good contributor.
posted by rich at 2:24 PM on July 16, 2002

anyhow, to be fair, i was just talking about kill filtering front page posts -- not comments, as i thought that would create the user Y problem you describe above.

There's a danger here of selective content - "My Mefi" in the same vein that has transformed the standard Yahoo front page into a customized My Yahoo product. Can you selectively filter a Metafilter? The running gag around here recently has been the reMeta-ing of Metafilter into MetaMetaMetafilter. But killfiling individualizes what is supposed to be a community experience.

In other words, I'd rather see quotes for my own stocks on Yahoo, not the 20 most popular. But I don't want the ability to do that to Mefi. It would really damage what this is - a permanent blog, and an ongoing experiment.
posted by PrinceValium at 4:46 PM on July 16, 2002

supposing there were a blink attribute for text-decoration, but -- damn it -- there isn't.

oh, but there is, moz; there is.... except, that, um, none of the browsers support it. (see the spec: "UAs must recognize the keyword 'blink', but are not required to support the blink effect.")

please resume your regular deconstruction of MeFi. (which I honestly find rather tedious. I too miss the alleged days of yore when you could follow a thread over several days, but what're you gonna do?)
posted by epersonae at 11:09 PM on July 16, 2002