Why didn't moviespoilers FPP show up as double

August 6, 2002 11:36 AM

When I posted this it came up as not a double. Then brownpau pointed out this. The HTML for the links seems to be identical, plus I searched the archives (used the google search option). What else should I have done?

posted by PinkStainlessTail to MetaFilter-related at 11:36 AM (32 comments total)

wow. today is a banner day for lofi.mefi.
posted by ColdChef at 11:38 AM on August 6, 2002

Double Post, ColdChef.

PinkStainlessTail, whatever, it's an easy mistake to make, especially when the original post was 11 months ago. Shrug and post again tomorrow.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:42 AM on August 6, 2002

BlueTrain: it's just that I took what I thought were adequate precautions to avoid a newbie mistake...and then went ahead and made the mistake anyway. Drives one a little crazy.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:43 AM on August 6, 2002

Curse you, Red Baron.
posted by ColdChef at 11:45 AM on August 6, 2002

PinkStainless - Perhaps you only searched within the default date range of "in the past month." I found the original thread by searching for the term "themoviespoiler" since Day 1.

It's okay, you know. Sincere isolated double posts are just a venial sin.
posted by brownpau at 11:51 AM on August 6, 2002

PinkStainlessTail: I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you'd been imaginative and typed "movie spoiler" into the search box this senseless tragedy would have been averted. Which is just another way of saying "Welcome aboard!" ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:54 AM on August 6, 2002

Man, I just got an account yesterday after looking from the outside for months now. But with all these double posts, sheesh, I might I have to sell my login on ebay.

posted by Mushkelley at 11:55 AM on August 6, 2002

PST, the difference between the two links is that the original one didn't end in a slash and yours did. It sounds like you did pretty much all you could.

Typically when I'm posting something, I search a key term from my post in all threads since day one. If nothing matches what I'm about to post I next look at the main link I'm posting. If it's to a general site (say, Salon.com or nytimes.com), I look for keywords in the title in other posts, or the exact URL, if it's an somewhat obscure site, I search for just the domain name, in all threads since day one, like brownpau suggested.

I need to:

a) make the old link searcher more robust

b) write up a "how to prevent double posts" faq.
posted by mathowie at 12:01 PM on August 6, 2002

Miguel: I hate to be the one to break it to you, but if you'd been imaginative and typed "movie spoiler" into the search box this senseless tragedy would have been averted.

So basically I need to think inside the box. Got it.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:03 PM on August 6, 2002

Group hug!
posted by brownpau at 12:05 PM on August 6, 2002

I might I have to sell my login on ebay.

No, don't do that, Mushkelley! You newbies are soooo lucky that the MetaFilter search works perfectly nowadays, thanks to the new server. When I joined, back in late 2001, we had to crawl on our hands and knees to the public library, ask to see the Skippy catalogue and sift for days through the entries, written in longhand, with a crude magnifying glass.

And when we'd finally discover something had never been posted before, we'd still get our fingers stepped upon and the napes of our necks whacked with giant pimentos by the jackbooted MeFi junta, just for the fun and pain of it.

It's said that some desperadoes even had to resort to G**gle...

So stick around, why don't you, now that everything's handed to you on a plate. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:17 PM on August 6, 2002

you know, you could admit your (also honest) mistakes too, and make everyone feel just a little better, no. 1. ;)
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:17 PM on August 6, 2002

Metafilter : It's not about the links. It's about criticizing the links.

...and criticizing the criticizing of the links...
...and criticizing the criticizing of the criticizing of the links...
_{...and criticizing the criticizing of the criticizing of the criticizing of the links...}
posted by crunchland at 12:19 PM on August 6, 2002

Could someone get Crunchy some chamomile? Maybe a cookie too? He's crabby today...

Seriously: I didn't feel called out by brownpau. I want to know if I f‘ck up. It was a doublepost, with less than a year since the first link. Now I know what steps to take next time (and so do the other noobs).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:30 PM on August 6, 2002

Okay I will stay. I actually am tempted to make my first FPP a double post on purpose because it always causes a clamor for commenting when that happens. I'd rather have a double post than one of those sad sad posts that everyone ignores. But then I guess I would be facing a whole new wing of the Metafilter mafia, the one that beats you up for low quality posting.
Weep.

posted by Mushkelley at 12:33 PM on August 6, 2002

They beat you up anyway, Mushkelley. It's supposed to be good for you, like All-Bran. I've been here for a year and get my ass hauled over here and whupped almost daily. Except when they can't even be bothered to bring it over and go ahead and whup it there and then, in loco . That's Latin for "insanely", by the way. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:11 PM on August 6, 2002

Mushkelley - there is often an inverse relationship between the quality of a post and the number of comments in a post. I hope to one day find a post so spectacular that it leaves everybody speechless and I achieve the nirvana of a zero comment post. Posts that rake in lots of comments are easy to come by - just find some news story that pushes people's hot buttons - but avoid the temptation of that. There be dragons.
posted by willnot at 1:11 PM on August 6, 2002

I'd rather have a double post than one of those sad sad posts that everyone ignores.

just a quick note: oftentimes some of those "sad sad posts" that everyone ignores are very very good -- it's just that they don't generate discussion, which is perfectly fine, and sometimes even preferable (as compared to threads produced by the notoriously voltatile subjects of : israel/palestine, weight, vegetarianism, SUVs, and partisan politics). Ask Su, who consistently posts art-type links that i (and i'm guessing many others) enjoy, but don't always garner a lot of comments (i say we break off -- all five of us! -- and form avantfilter! where we can compare the relative merits of hating Jeff Koons vs hating Damien Hirst [i suspect they're one and the same -- birthed by some porn star sex czar.])

posted by fishfucker at 1:14 PM on August 6, 2002

Just wanted to point to some fine posts about fun and interesting topics that got only a few comments.
posted by mediareport at 1:18 PM on August 6, 2002

well, I'M crabby today since actual work prevented my hanging out here all day, and it seems to have been the day of the disappearing FPP! So what happenned to the drudge report thing, and the mathowie hiroshima post, and the "bait and switch movie" post? 3 in a row, gone! did matt delete his own FPP? i sooooooo confuseled!!!!
posted by quonsar at 1:21 PM on August 6, 2002

"It's not about the links. It's about criticizing the links."

What this place needs is a Special Vigilante Unit to crack down on the jackbooted MeFi junta who are constantly criticizing the criticizing of the criticizing of the criticizing of the sad sad posts that everyone ignores while the poster gets his ass hauled over here and whupped almost daily.

Clearly something needs to be done.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:23 PM on August 6, 2002

But both are so good. Having a post that is awe inspiring and mind expanding, and having a post that makes people get irrationally mad at each other. Well, I have one week to come up with something to do this with. Then I will post it and sit back and watch the mayhem, and the awe-inspired silence. (the second part will have to be assumed since there is no outward expression of silence)
posted by Mushkelley at 1:24 PM on August 6, 2002

Great - just don't call it an "FPP" again, or we'll schedule your ass for a whuppin'.
posted by yhbc at 1:26 PM on August 6, 2002

having a post that makes people get irrationally mad at each other [is good]

huh? i would submit that most of us here would think this is NOT a good thing, and uh, i'm really not sure how you got this idea. i do hope you wouldn't purposefully try to post something that would cause irrational and angry conversation. conversation is good, yes, but angry arguments that don't contribute anything to the site seems to be generally disdained.

i hope you're kidding.


posted by fishfucker at 1:33 PM on August 6, 2002

Damn, I thought that was the lingo around here. LOL!!
posted by Mushkelley at 1:33 PM on August 6, 2002

Yeah, I guess I'm a bit cranky. Sue me. I asked Matt to delete the drudgereport message since it was doomed to failure and criticism about the method of posting, and not the subject itself. It's so hard to raise a rabble when the mob is more concerned about your style and not your substance. So I'm a little bitter, and I've decided to stay away from Metafilter from now on... at least until I get bored in five minutes.

(Just for the record... not really worth making a whole new metatalk thread about this... especially because it's probably already been pointed out, and the only response I'd get is that it was a double post... besides, I'm boycotting metafilter, remember? Anyway, if you leave the url field blank, metafilter automatically makes it link to the metafilter contribution page, instead of throwing an error, which I took as a sign that it was an a-ok thing to do... and better than me linking to drudgereport, which would have been counterintutive to the whole point of my posting...)
posted by crunchland at 1:33 PM on August 6, 2002

and what happenned to mathowies hiroshima post?
and the falsely advertised movie thing?
anyone?
posted by quonsar at 1:39 PM on August 6, 2002

The hiroshima was a double-topic-post. The movie thing was just freaking dumb, and getting nothing but slams at the poster from the peanut gallery.
posted by Ufez Jones at 1:45 PM on August 6, 2002

Oh Fishfucker, that was total sarcasm (along with that LOL crap I just put in my last comment)

posted by Mushkelley at 1:45 PM on August 6, 2002

The falsely advertised movie thing was dumb because the link was just to the movie's IMDB page, and was just an excuse to complain about the movie. I think it would've been OK if it had linked to an article or editorial that was specifically about how the movie you see in the theater supposedly isn't what they advertised in the preview.
posted by kirkaracha at 3:04 PM on August 6, 2002

dont know how to post links.................sniff..........
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:06 PM on August 6, 2002

I'd rather have a double post than one of those sad sad posts that everyone ignores.

I agree - particularly when it is your first post and you check, double-check and triple-check that it is not the type of post that caused a severe flogging on MeTa for so many while you were lurking, then make sure it is a non-news, tech-type post and they still ignore it, so you throw in a comment about fat people to see if anyone notices, but still nothing, nothing, nothing.



*sniff*
posted by dg at 4:17 PM on August 6, 2002