Time to remove the bold tag from MeFi front-page posts?

August 21, 2002 6:49 AM

Time to remove the bold tag from MeFi front-page posts? I say yes. The unthinking over-use of bolded text seems to be spreading. Simple italics or using *this* works fine and doesn't light up the page so garishly.
posted by mediareport to Feature Requests at 6:49 AM (57 comments total)

way to jump on someone's first post...
posted by machaus at 6:54 AM on August 21, 2002

Use all tags sparingly. We have a limited amount of them and I think we're running out.
posted by ColdChef at 6:57 AM on August 21, 2002

wah! my diversity and inclusiveness is being sabotaged by the bold tag. wah!
posted by quonsar at 7:09 AM on August 21, 2002

Oh, relax, machaus. I thanked him for the link, offered comments the link inspired, and only then mentioned that he'd gone just a bit overboard on the "look at my post" thing. I hardly "jumped on" him. The use of *both* bold and italics to emphasize whole paragraphs of text is spreading, though. It makes the front page look horrible and the gentle comments that have appeared in recent threads haven't done much to stop it. Thus, this.

I'm sure Josh's courage to post will survive.
posted by mediareport at 7:29 AM on August 21, 2002

No! Every loss gives you less to work with, makes it harder to do something fresh, takes more fun out of it. I ♣ this cookie cutter formatting trend. I'm still pouting about the blockquote disabling--forgot about it, everything looked good in practice, ends up crap on the
front page--totally wrecked my post.
posted by y2karl at 7:36 AM on August 21, 2002

*weeps a tear for the late, lamented blink tag*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:38 AM on August 21, 2002

Noooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

Long live the bold tag.
posted by Blake at 7:41 AM on August 21, 2002

::: eyes the slippery slope solemnly :::
posted by rushmc at 7:58 AM on August 21, 2002

The use of *both* bold and italics to emphasize whole paragraphs of text is spreading, though. It makes the front page look horrible and the gentle comments that have appeared in recent threads haven't done much to stop it. Thus, this.

Then provide some examples rather than singling out one 14Ker. Frankly, I don't think most people give a rat's ass.
posted by machaus at 8:02 AM on August 21, 2002

*gives rat's ass*
posted by ColdChef at 8:05 AM on August 21, 2002

* dives headfirst off the slippery slope *
posted by yhbc at 8:06 AM on August 21, 2002

It's all Cardoso's fault, let's pants him!
posted by y2karl at 8:07 AM on August 21, 2002

Miguel doesn't have time to put pants on, so pantsing him wouldn't help.
posted by ColdChef at 8:09 AM on August 21, 2002

Well, if we're going to get nitpicky, I *really* *strongly* dislike the asterisks. That's what people did before they could italicize stuff, and it was unattractive then, too. I start looking for footnotes. (My only good alternative, provided italics or bold are, for whatever reason, out of the question, is to _faux-underline_ it.)

I only deign to bring this up since the thread is about quasi-trivial design matters.
posted by blueshammer at 8:16 AM on August 21, 2002

Sorry, machaus, I should have linked these two, too. I really don't get how some folks think that's a good way to post. I've almost always been a voice here against new rules, but the overuse of bold really bugs me. It's hideous on the page and strikes me as totally unnecessary.

the late, lamented blink tag

*shudders*
posted by mediareport at 8:18 AM on August 21, 2002

~scratches belly~

Everyone should use the tilde. It's just creepy.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:31 AM on August 21, 2002

I don't think bold and italics are interchangeable. Italics usually means quoted material around here.

And asterisks seem to be shorthand for a non-verbal response:

*shudders*

posted by timeistight at 8:33 AM on August 21, 2002

asterix's'ss suck.

but too much bold is vulgar.

beware people, your class shows in your posts's's'
posted by Frasermoo at 9:00 AM on August 21, 2002

I ? this cookie cutter formatting trend.

You "club" this trend?

*wonders what that means*

I don't get it.

*resumes picking nose*
posted by pardonyou? at 9:20 AM on August 21, 2002

I think ? is pronounced 'deprecate'. It's one of those unfathomable English spelling fubars, like 'Cholmondley' and 'Featherstone' and 'ye' which was never really pronounced 'ye' and that artist who was formerly known as the artist formerly known as Prince.

HTH.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:43 AM on August 21, 2002

well, drat, and I thought I was using the evanizer technique, too.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 9:44 AM on August 21, 2002

"Time to remove the bold tag from MeFi front-page posts?"

If that is going to be the consensus style of the front page, I think you should.

Posts like mine (referenced here above) may have come from seeing previous posts using bold (as mine did.)

Mediareport, it's very nice that you compliment new post-ers and then "gently" criticize -- but why not just make it irrevocably known that BOLD is BAD, or prevent it altogether?

Should guidelines regarding FPP fonts/italics/bold/general style be in the guidelines in the About page? Are they there, and maybe I'm just missing them?

I agree with your dislike of bold (I think I'll go back to Strunk and White for my use of quotes from here on, rather than looking at FPP examples), now that I think of it, but not everyone does. Who decides what is right for the front page? Mediareport, are you some sort of moderator? Maybe that is a stupid question, but I am a newbie. I'm interested to know how the FPP style is decided and evolves...

Speaking of newbies, I get the feeling that the bulk of "old time" MeFites are horrified by the large new wave of them. I get the feeling that newbies are even, to some extent, jumped on in discussions more readily (or maybe just with less caution and restraint) than others.

No biggy, but I'd like to remind you that the average newbie may have been reading MeFi for ages before deciding to post links or comments. Sure, watch the newbies for trolls and for FPP goofs/abuses -- but I would suggest you do not underestimate their intelligence or potential contributions to the community.

Since you do not know me, let me say that I mean all of this in the best way possible; I do not mind that my 1st FPP was singled out for use of BOLD, I don't mind criticism or good-natured argument in general, I am not grinding an axe, and I am only saying "Who is Mediareport" in a curious way, not in a "Who the f*** is Mediareport" sort of way : )

(Also I generally hate emoticons, but they do ease the tension sometimes.)
posted by Shane at 9:58 AM on August 21, 2002

No, Shane - BlueTrain and rcade are the only moderators.

* runs *
posted by yhbc at 10:09 AM on August 21, 2002

why not just make it irrevocably known that BOLD is BAD, or prevent it altogether?

Because that's not my place, Shane. I'm a member of MeFi just like you, with no more or less a right to suggest policy changes than anyone else*. There are no moderators, only people who care enough to occasionally comment about what's happening in the community in addition to the content posted to the front page.

I've consistently been impressed by the contributions of lots of "newbies," btw. But I am glad you pointed out that it was the appearance of other over-bolded posts that suggested to you that it was the norm to do that. It makes the case nicely for an active group of gently correcting members (whether new or old).

*except mathowie, of course.

posted by mediareport at 10:18 AM on August 21, 2002

Worst. Nitpicking. Ever.
posted by subgenius at 10:24 AM on August 21, 2002

"It makes the case nicely for an active group of gently correcting members (whether new or old)."

And would these "correcting members" seek a consensus (as you are here) before taking action?* Or would they be a vigilante posse (humor.)

*except mathowie, of course.

Hell, I don't even know why I'm voicing these concerns. I agree that bold is tacky when used to call attention to large blocks of text (although there are proper uses of bold for emphasis, usually on one word or short phrase.)

In writing outside of MeFi, I would never use bold as I did in my post. But, you're right -- style on a forum or internet community forms by trend and example.

I also agree that a certain amount of uniformity in the presentation of links forces the content of the link to speak for itself. It's also more graceful, and "evens out the playing field" amongst links.

As much as I agree with you, though, I have to wonder if I should force my opinions on anyone else. I'm actually a grammer-asshole, and I cringe when anyone says "Irregardless." But I rarely tell people not to. I think keeping slush-links off the front page is probably most important, and Matt does a good job of that.

I still think some of you old folks are just freaking out over all the newbies crawling around ; )

(And, Media, I have definitely been entertained and informed by a great number of your links for a long time now...)
posted by Shane at 10:41 AM on August 21, 2002

I agree with mediareport, to an extent. The bold does uniquely bother me when I see it on the front page, and I generally don't mind a hell of a lot (even long, broken up posts don't irk me). But the bold turns my world all askew. It makes my eyes unhappy. Although I don't mind it at all when used in moderation. Once again, perhaps something that can be fixed with slightly more aggressive self-policing?
posted by grrarrgh00 at 10:43 AM on August 21, 2002

Heh. This grammar-asshole just misspelled "grammar." Glass houses, etc...
posted by Shane at 10:43 AM on August 21, 2002

Speaking of newbies, I get the feeling that the bulk of "old time" MeFites are horrified by the large new wave of them.

Really? I think the "new wave" is perhaps the best thing to happen to this place since I've been here. By and large they've been intelligent, literate, respectful of the site, and interesting. Contributing a freshness comparable to eating a York Peppermint Patty.
posted by rushmc at 10:54 AM on August 21, 2002

Worst. Nitpicking. Ever.

Yeah, whatever. Thanks, Matt, for removing the bold in the post.
posted by mediareport at 10:55 AM on August 21, 2002

"Contributing a freshness comparable to eating a York Peppermint Patty."

We aim to give you that cool, refreshed sensation of skiing the Swiss Alps as you read our babble about politics and curent events.

posted by Shane at 11:04 AM on August 21, 2002

If you use bold to emphasize more than two or (very rarely) three words, then you're defeating its purpose. It should generally be used to highlight one single word.

There's an enormous difference between banning something outright and calling for its proper use. Bold has been used since printing began and it would be silly to prohibit it just because a few people have abused it. It's not stylistically replaceable by any of the other devices.

I think mediareport's objection is deeper and more important but perhaps politeness and a wish not to be cruel are preventing him from spelling it out.

In my opinion, it's aesthetic and semantic. Posts shouldn't use gross, quantitative highlighting (be it with bold, capital letters, italics, line-breaks or link-highlighting) to call attention to themselves - not only because it's ugly but mainly because it disrespects the house style here.

I think it's all about quantity, length and balance. You could ban bold, asterisks and italics and people would still be able (and prOne) to make loud, garish posts.

There must be a good style-sheet out there that could guide posters on how to use the many graphical emphases available without shouting or generally distracting from what they and, specially, others sharing the same page, have to say. This seems just like a simple application of good old-fashioned Netiquette, no?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:12 AM on August 21, 2002

People have since told me that FPPs should be one paragraph. Is this a general rule of thumb?

When I posted my link, I divided my post logically by ideas into separate para's. I used an HTML para break, which somehow resulted in more than one line space between para's. (My mistake.)

Miguel, there are plenty of style-sheets, but how does one ensure that new post-ers read one? This thread is probably an effective style-sheet already. But this thread will fade away.
posted by Shane at 11:27 AM on August 21, 2002

Speaking of newbies, I get the feeling that the bulk of "old time" MeFites are horrified by the large new wave of them.

I'm not really old time, but I welcome new blood... er, I mean membership.

I haven't really seen newbies get jumped on any more than anyone else gets jumped on around here. Although I have been hovering over usernames more to see who all these new names I don't recognize belong to. It's exciting seeing fresh faces, the place was getting stagnant when certain topics came up.

As for the issue with bold, I think it should be used sparingly, one word at a time, if ever. White on the MeFi shade of blue looks ok, because the font face is not bold. Bold throws off the balance. Hence the yellow for links, which are bold. The mustardish color (I don't care what the official name or hex value is, thanks) provides good contrast without being abrasive. Bold white throws all of this out the window. It is visibly brighter on any screen I use to visit the site. I hates it. Bold is ok on Lofi, but most folks don't use Lofi.

I appreciate mediareport bringing this up, it's a style issue, and ought to be addressed. There doesn't need to be a written rule, but a nice unwritten one, regarding visual aesthetics, that I hope most users will respect. I don't think disabling the bold tag is appropriate, either.

People have since told me that FPPs should be one paragraph. Is this a general rule of thumb?

It's the most common way to post, but if you can keep two paragraphs small and compact, and have only one line in between them, I personally don't mind it. I just can't stand the multiple line breaks used on some posts which practically dominate the entire front page (even on my 19" 1280x1024 res work screen).
posted by insomnyuk at 11:34 AM on August 21, 2002

When reading the post, I thought it much more likely that he would get Meta'd for using three paragraphs to frame one link.
posted by Hildago at 11:36 AM on August 21, 2002

Whoops, redundant griping.

And I'm just making it worse by calling attention to it.

But I can't seem to stop typing.
posted by Hildago at 11:37 AM on August 21, 2002

BTW, I'm not the guy who posted "Multiculturalism v/s Democracy On this day in 1858, Senator Stephen Douglas..."

I was just a little confused about the content on that one.

(Sorry, just had to clarify. Pride, you know.)
posted by Shane at 11:58 AM on August 21, 2002

If we're nitpicking here (and I thought the point of MetaTalk was to have a place to discuss these sorts of issues, but call it nitpicking if you will):

Bold has been used since printing began

That's erroneous, Miguel. Bold type, (as used intermixed with standard-weight type) was generally not used until the 19th century, which leaves about 400 years of the printed word surviving without bold type. What was used to serve the same function as today's bold type will probably make Mefiers cringe: a mixture of seemingly random first-letter Caps and ALL CAPS and Italics (which was meant to imitate the "Italianate hand", or a fast, cursive handwriting). In Most of the 17th and 18th century Books I have, this TECHNIQUE of using CAPITAL letters to EMPHASIZE words would probably drive today's Average Reader CRAZY.
posted by evanizer at 1:20 PM on August 21, 2002

oh

posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:22 PM on August 21, 2002

Just slightly more annoying than a post with the Bold tag overused, is when the linked text is 3 lines long (even on 1024 x 768 maximized). Please ... pick a phrase.
posted by schlyer at 2:20 PM on August 21, 2002

MeTa discussion from March about using bold on front page posts here. No consensus reached, but it made lots of people itchy then, too. (Also, Kafkaesque wanted to know the right font style for grabbing people by the lapels and shaking so the loose change falls out of their pockets, which was never really debated by the larger community.)
posted by onlyconnect at 3:02 PM on August 21, 2002

How about underlining, since it is not used for links here by default?
posted by insomnyuk at 4:08 PM on August 21, 2002

no underlining! you can't underline on the web, period. Everyone will always assume it's a link.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:57 PM on August 21, 2002

Does this mean Jakob Nielsen is going to come and beat me silly with an 80 lb UNIX manual?
posted by insomnyuk at 5:45 PM on August 21, 2002

He'll have to get in line.
posted by timeistight at 5:59 PM on August 21, 2002

My problem with excessive boldface and multi-paragraph FPPs is pretty much the same -- they make the front page harder to scan and to use. The conventions observed in most FPPs are conventions for a reason; they preserve the texture and flow of the site, so that frequent visitors have a much easier time scanning the new topics and developing an internal "chart" of what's being discussed.

I don't see a lot of picking on newbies; but I'm sure some newbies haven't pored over the Meta archives to see what's ticked people off in the past. Thus the appearance that newbies are being picked on, when in some cases they're just wandering into old arguments without knowing the context.
posted by macrone at 6:00 PM on August 21, 2002

macrone, a lot of you oldies are very, very, very cranky though (not you personally). And much too quick to pounce IMHO.

notice how the repetition took the place of bolding--tee hee!
posted by amberglow at 6:10 PM on August 21, 2002

*gives rat's ass too*

I hate hate hate long blocks of bold almost as much as even more than paragraph-long links. It is the equivalent of shouting when over-applied and should only be used to emphasise the particular importance of one word or, at most, two.

Also, what mathowie said, with bells on.
posted by dg at 6:22 PM on August 21, 2002

Wow. You learn so much on MetaTalk, Evanizer, thank you for the brief lesson in the history of mixed type weights. I've always found typography, especially the history aspects fascinating, but never had the time to really study it.

Anyway. If bold is out, and underline is out, can I at least have inline style declarations? I know this place is more about discussion, and we don't want to look like a Fark photoshop thread, but still...
posted by Grod at 8:21 PM on August 21, 2002

I love typography too. I know the underline is a mortal sin unless it is supposed to be a link, but I thought within the context, it would be ok... I know, I'm wrong, consistency is important.

Grod: what specific CSS tag would you suggest to emphasize text? Maybe just a margin declaration to push a specific block of text in, say, 15 pixels? A different background color (that could really throw people)?

The problem with bold is that links are in bold as well.

no underlining! you can't underline on the web, period. Everyone will always assume it's a link.

This seems like an ironic thing to say, in light of the fact that this site uses bold and no underline to differentiate hyperlinked text. I think as a corrolary to everyone will always assume underlining is a link is that, everyone will always assume a consistent pattern of different colored words will show where the links are.

Web designers have been notorious about trying to come up with their own special UI in places, so I think the common user response is to just hover the pointer over objects that look different from the normal text in hopes that the hand will pop up.
posted by insomnyuk at 8:43 PM on August 21, 2002

links are in bold as well.

Huh? Mine are a mustardy-yellow colour, but I guess they must be bold as well, because they change to a paler colour when they have been clicked. Of course, I can make them underlined if I wish by visiting here.

I generally hate it when site designers use other than standard underlining for links but, for some reason, MeFi's work well as they are. Perhaps it is just familiarity with the site that makes them seem normal here and annoying elsewhere.
posted by dg at 11:30 PM on August 21, 2002

Oh, I don't know, ocassionally you might want to change the font size and color. I know you can use <small> but you can't say "font-family: 'times new roman', times, serif; font-size: 12pt; font-weight: 700; color: green" for example. I can't actually think of a time when I'd want to do such a thing, but for some reason it irks me that the option isn't even available.

Also, Mat has some classes in his template, for example the small text beneath each post is "smallcopy". If, for some reason, you wanted to make a comment small and light gray, it would be nice to be able to wrap your text in a <div class="smallcopy">text<div> Again, I haven't actually found myself in a position where I'd want to do such a thing, but I want to be able to. Silly, I know, but there you have it.
posted by Grod at 11:41 PM on August 21, 2002

Grod: the reason this isn't done is because we took use of that particular trick to the extreme. Basically, we could use the smallcopy class to simulate fake posts quite well. For the life of me I can't find the thread where it happened though, but it sure was a guilty pleasure while it lasted.
posted by insomnyuk at 12:19 AM on August 22, 2002

Here, Insomnyuk. Grod, confuse the hell out of yourself trying to figure out the real posts from the fake ones.
posted by dg at 12:36 AM on August 22, 2002

Humph. All the fun was had before I got here. 1142 is closed 9622 moved to its own website (yeah, I've been lurking for a while) there's nothing left for us neophytes to play with.

*sulks*
posted by Grod at 12:42 AM on August 22, 2002

Here, Insomnyuk. God, confuse the hell out of yourself trying to figure out the real posts from the fake ones.
posted by y2karl at 10:45 AM on August 22, 2002

Oh, Grod, it wasn't a typo!
posted by y2karl at 7:57 PM on August 22, 2002