y2karl: informative and interesting

August 6, 2002 6:10 AM

I just wanted to say y2karl has some great posts lately [1, 2 & 3].
I liked them not for the content, but for how he did it.

In order to understand his point I had to read the links. Not only that, the TITLE tags he put in there were wonderfully informative.
I've seen others do this from time to time, I just think it's quite nice.

I like the idea that to fully understand the thread people need to go and read something, learn something to actually make a comment that makes any sense.
After all, we are all here to learn something, are we not?
Anyone have any favorite threads, based on how they were done, not what they talk about?
posted by Blake to etiquette/policy at 6:10 AM (21 comments total)

Thou shalt not have title tag envy before Tamim's Bollywood post.
posted by machaus at 6:34 AM on August 6, 2002

I actually did exactly this last month on my blog, and picked out four threads that I particularly liked. Note that all of them are about completely different topics, they range from serious to silly, and they are all constructed in different ways - there's a single-link post, a couple few-links posts, and a multiple-linker with lots of information. All were good in their own way, though. In the end, it's more about diversity, and the many different voices and means of expression around here, and less about the nature (or topic) of any single post, that make the site what it is.
posted by yhbc at 6:39 AM on August 6, 2002

I completely missed the title tag information. Too bad there isn't a better means of indicating that information exists or a preference to make it popup sooner. I wonder how many others I missed?
posted by joemaller at 7:07 AM on August 6, 2002

While I do like title tags, this is not the first time that people have creamed over title tags here in Metatalk.
posted by crunchland at 7:41 AM on August 6, 2002

i taught him everything he knows.
posted by jcterminal at 9:07 AM on August 6, 2002

Sometimes, when it's late and the lights are low, I can still see Tamim's Bollywood post as an after image of light on the the backs of my eyelids.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:09 AM on August 6, 2002

I'm just now about halfway through the Bollywood links. I find something new and wonderful every week.
posted by ColdChef at 9:10 AM on August 6, 2002

i like anthropologically- or psychologically-themed threads, because i'm a nerd and i like to talk as though i'm an expert based on the two or three classes i've taken on the subject in college. (but this behavior is bolstered by the fact that i remember a disturbing amount from those classes.) and i like interesting and expressive art and music projects, and interesting computer projects. (so post more of those, people.) i don't always learn much, since i know some things already, but what i do learn is always something i'm interested in among those subjects.

some poll threads are bad. i respond in some, and i like them, but it's real easy to have had too many posted in a timespan and that just makes me roll my eyes. i dislike political agendas: conservative, liberal or otherwise. i dislike threads posted in a high-frequency by a person; after a while, i feel bored with their style and i feel like i'm being lectured to. (this group includes SDB, postroad and miguel.)
posted by moz at 9:18 AM on August 6, 2002

Karl, I love your posts as they are succinct and very complete as being informative for the reader..........and he's on the radio.

I completely missed the title tag information
I wonder how many others I missed?

May, I ask this from the above statements, as this is something I've noticed repeatedly, folks. Members saying, "I don't understand ???" Also, I've seen the quoting of members who post with a link, but on the copy, the one commenting leaves it out in the posting of the copy and paste. I answer yes to all of the above, too.

Now we all are unequal members on this site. In, some fly with their systems, yet there are those who are at snail speed. So I'm understanding this, that some of you on first preview, may not see something and move on or ponder "???." Yet, you then fortunately take a double look and then read, the rest of story.
And, this being a self policing community here. Am I right, if your commenting, you should've read, as in all, Yes?


posted by thomcatspike at 9:22 AM on August 6, 2002

It's funny -- I just was pointing out in another thread how I tend to skip over y2karl's posts because of link overload.

I can appreciate y2karl's method, but my ADD just can't handle it. (I like it better when the linkage is added by other members through discussion; I can somehow process it all better that way.)
posted by jennak at 9:47 AM on August 6, 2002

Well, I missed obiwanwasabi's informative thread, remember anathema's as being the first time I got an inkling that writing comments could be done and missed the tags in Tanim's Bollywood post altogether because I was zippity-bopping along on the clicking back then. Before I crashed from exhaustion. Tanim's post really is the standard by which all such posts are judged.

To tell the truth, it's just new toy that I finally learned while at iconomy's. She put one in on the link to my show. I thought Gee, that's sweet, and finally got the urge to find out how it was done, so I clicked on View - Source and scrolled down. And, voila, etc. View Source--That's how I've learned what pitifully few HTML tricks that I know. Now, if someone would explain how to do what she does when she does The Weblog OF The Inventor Of The Weblog thingie....
posted by y2karl at 9:56 AM on August 6, 2002

jennak, I like it better when the linkage is added by other members through discussion
I was thinking, that would be a "great" post in that format. What am I saying, you post a link or two, yet it can be light or deep as in no one comments or as it grows the thread is revealed more with information. How is this done, like a thread and a needle, threading in one ear and out of the other ear, thus linking our minds together.

posted by thomcatspike at 10:08 AM on August 6, 2002

i don't really mind y2karl's type of link, where you don't really know what's up until you read, but at least you have an idea of what it's about. (although i agree with jennak, i rarely read them, but different people like the internet for different things)

lately however there is a new sort of post i've seen which i can't stand, it goes something like this. (fake links)

An important man did something you wouldn't believe last week. the repercussions will probably be severe. how will this change your outlook on china?

NO thank you!

an example.
posted by rhyax at 1:36 PM on August 6, 2002

threading in one ear and out of the other ear, thus linking our minds together.

Ah, mental floss.
posted by luser at 1:57 PM on August 6, 2002

no, more like "mental dross"?
posted by interrobang at 2:24 PM on August 6, 2002

Just as a public service announcment re the title=" " >'s -- The rich text quotation marks that bollix into boxes here also bollix the comment tags into not showing up at all. Moreover using the double (") marks at all will abort the comment at the first appearance--one has to use 2 singles ('+'=") instead. Which I forgot to do on the 'here' tag (after 'Yezidi') in the Gurdjieff link. (Must remember to replace all 's &"s in the comment box from now on...)
posted by y2karl at 2:44 PM on August 6, 2002

ryhax, all the links in your example worked for me. See what I said above. See, I see things, and no not dead folks, just dead air about someone which is making a mess of things here. Like, why I am misunderstood.

PS, to your problem, I made it too as a newbie. When you link make sure your not double posting, "http://", in side the link. Best to preview your link, or even the time it takes to load. As, if it takes me a minute and I'm flying on my system, well think, the slower member's systems will have no choice but ignore me. And you will be a misunderstood members. I always wonder why I'm flamed and it is all right there, their answer.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:04 PM on August 6, 2002

"And you will be a misunderstood members. I always wonder why I'm flamed and it is all right there, their answer."

yep. ›
posted by interrobang at 3:25 PM on August 6, 2002

y2karl's posts have been great - well-researched and interesting to most. I find that there are too many links initially for my taste, mainly because of my excruciatingly slow connection that means it would take me 10-15 minutes to go through them all. It is for this reason only that I regretfully pass on most of them.

Did anyone actually go through all 109 links in the Bollywood post? Tamim certainly never does things by halves, does he?
posted by dg at 3:51 PM on August 6, 2002

thomcatspike has the right of it, comments and posts following a link should be threaded through like mental floss [which is why I suspect the word thread is used in reference to forums and the like].

Personally I prefer very few links on a FPP, leaving others to post additional links and comments inside. Especially over the past week where there has been an increase of FPPs, I find I am skimming for something to catch my eye or choosing ones where I recognize the person's name posting them in order to devise some sort of information filter. [information overload breaks clones]

posted by nemesis at 8:37 PM on August 6, 2002

Now, if someone would explain how to do what she does when she does The Weblog OF The Inventor Of The Weblog thingie

You have title tags at the top of your page - it says drylongso up there already, so you just delete the word drylongso and type whatever you like in there, on your 3rd line, after the initial html tag and the head tag. And I see you have a paypal link now- that's great! I'll be donating shortly - I'm listening to drylongso right now and loving it as usual.
posted by iconomy at 6:09 PM on August 8, 2002