Is it time to reconsider a one-post-per-week limit?

August 22, 2002 6:46 AM

A lot of days it seems like newer members make an equal number of posts compared to all other users combined. - jonah

His non-troll posts seem quite rare*. - websavvy

* - not to pick on hama7 again, just using his posting frequency as an example.

Frankly, there are too many things being posted now that we have all these new members ... - mathowie

Is it time to reconsider a one-post-per-week limit?
posted by yhbc to etiquette/policy at 6:46 AM (148 comments total)

No.
posted by y2karl at 6:48 AM on August 22, 2002

Touche.
posted by yhbc at 6:52 AM on August 22, 2002

Hah. Good one y2karl and yhbc. I don't think there should be an enforced limit, only fair criticism and positive encouragement of the newbies.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:03 AM on August 22, 2002

Who aren't really newbies, by the way, most of them are probably longtime workers. Sorry new members, I didn't mean to be derisive 1 post ago! I'm really enjoying the input of the 14000 and now 15000 numbered members, by the way, so on the whole, I think things are looking up.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:04 AM on August 22, 2002

longtime workers? WTF, 3 hours of sleep is messing with my head. I meant longtime LURKERS.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:08 AM on August 22, 2002

What if you got two or three posting tokens per week, and still couldn't post twice in a day? That seems like a good compromise.
posted by machaus at 7:10 AM on August 22, 2002

I've been very happy with most of the posts lately, thankyavermuch.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I've got some lurk to do.

posted by ColdChef at 7:14 AM on August 22, 2002

*slowly slipping on his Ned Kelly cast iron outfit, whilst oiling his heels and dowsing his soles with habanera sauce*

So I guess it's officially over, our slow yet golden perio

*off in a flash, mangled 'd' round his ankles*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:16 AM on August 22, 2002

*quick dart back to retrieve crass spelling mistake*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:20 AM on August 22, 2002

I think all posts should be cut of in mid....
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:21 AM on August 22, 2002

Yeah, at least that would save band
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:25 AM on August 22, 2002

The 2-3 posts per week idea does seem like a good compromise, but it might be harder to implement. I'm no code monkey, but my thinking is that if we're already limited to one post per 24-hour period that there's already a "24" somewhere in the code that can be replaced pretty easily with a "168" or whatever lesser number is appropriate, without causing Matt to do a lot of work.

And to clarify, I have also been enjoying and appreciating the input of all the new folks - it's just that Matt's comment made me think the subject should at least be revisited.

* also goes back to lurk mode *
posted by yhbc at 7:25 AM on August 22, 2002

Matt is wrong. The site is better with more content, increased participation, and new perspectives.

Matt is right. It's more work for him. We remain on the razor's edge of his generosity and personal interest/commitment level.
posted by rushmc at 7:30 AM on August 22, 2002

There is a small cadre of members who post to the front page quite regularly (I have no problem with this, some people are more willing to go out on a limb than others), sometimes for better or for ill.

But the vast majority of front page posters are people who post less frequently than once a week. The sheer size of the membership base guarantees that on a busy day, however, there will be a lot of posts. So I don't know just how much of a change this will make. It would probably reduce the total number of posts by an average of 5 per day (guestimation).

Matt is wrong. The site is better with more content, increased participation, and new perspectives.

Matt is right. It's more work for him. We remain on the razor's edge of his generosity and personal interest/commitment level.

The truth of those arguments mean that we must strike a balance between the two. I don't think we're that far off.
posted by insomnyuk at 7:35 AM on August 22, 2002

I would vote for "no more than once a week," if, for no other reason, than it would discourage people from posting "New York Times Editorial Here. Discuss!" and blowing their weekly allowance.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 7:43 AM on August 22, 2002

...and given that Matt's now accepting $5 donations to jump the sign-up queue, perhaps a dollar into the bucket if you absolutely must post again in the course of a week.

No, I'm not seriously advocating this.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:14 AM on August 22, 2002

My post should not be taken as an attack on the quality of new user posts. It's not like I'm some super poster who has the right to criticize others. More of an observation than anything.

Yesterday 11 out 32 posts were made by users with ids 14k+ and a couple by 13k ids. It would be an interesting study of community dynamics to chart how active new members are and how much their participation drops off after intervals of time.
posted by jonah at 8:17 AM on August 22, 2002

thankyavermuch. thankyavermuch, thats the nicest thing anyone ever...did...for me.

Name that tune.

posted by clavdivs at 8:23 AM on August 22, 2002

I have a 13k idea and I've been lurking since Sept. 11 and posting since Dec. 2001. Does that mean I'm still a new user? When do I get to be called a crusty old curmudgeon anyway?
posted by insomnyuk at 8:27 AM on August 22, 2002

a 13k id. that's it, i'm taking a 1 day MeFi hiatus
posted by insomnyuk at 8:28 AM on August 22, 2002

When do I get to be called a crusty old curmudgeon anyway?

When clavdivs' posts start making sense, you have arrived.
posted by machaus at 8:30 AM on August 22, 2002

I've always thought you were a crusty old curmudgeon insomnyuk.
posted by timeistight at 8:52 AM on August 22, 2002

I think once a week is plenty.

it would discourage people from posting "New York Times Editorial Here. Discuss!"

Exactly!
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:13 AM on August 22, 2002

Thanks a lot clavidivs, I'm gonna have the painful vision of Albert Finney poncing around in a night shirt blistering the burned retinas of my imaginations eyes all day long now.

Not the nicest thing anyone's ever done for me.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:42 AM on August 22, 2002

Now that I've deleted three or four instances of "turn your cremated relatives into diamonds!" I think it's obvious there are problems with the number of posts as of late.

It's impossible to follow the entire site anymore, and many of the new members are posting lame news articles as posts. I've been thinking about upping the limits, and 2-3 a week sounds good.

I think at best, it'd be cool if people could rate the quality of front page posts (without any unfair voting and/or hacking), and let the highly rated posters post more often than the others. So if you're y2karl or Miguel or mediareport, you can post once a day, or maybe even more, but if you're new and posting your first couple posts, once a week is your limit. I know that discourages new users to some extent, but that's fine, since there are too many posts on the site, period.
posted by mathowie at 10:02 AM on August 22, 2002

I can't see why anyone needs to post more than once per week.

If you have a great second link to post that absolutely can't wait a week, send it to someone who doesn't post as often.
posted by timeistight at 10:08 AM on August 22, 2002

It's impossible to follow the entire site anymore

Why should someone feel compelled to follow the entire site? I think expecting people to limits MeFi to a very small kind of community--of an exclusive, elitist, cliquish nature which you have previously spoken against. Why not allow it to operate as a more universal resource, where people come to be exposed to as many--or as few--links as suits their inclination, temperament, lifestyle, and time available, with no penalty for not reading every comment, pursuing every link, and knowing their "pancakes" from their "fuckwits" from their "FPPs?"

The only problem with this approach is the possibility of people doubleposting links because they have not seen them posted earlier. Aside from the fact that this is inevitable and can only be minimized, not eliminated (see: entire history of Metafilter), I submit that it is a problem best addressed by technical solutions. The current "check the link" strategy is a good start, but can this be taken further? Perhaps a comparison of keywords, with a recent match leading to an "are you really sure you want to post this, as it appears to be a doublepost" page. I'm sure there are many techies with more detailed and creative solutions than I can postulate.

I'm surprised to see you speak in favor of any type of rating system, since you have been so opposed to them in the past. This particular implementation seems certain to lead to an "A-List" vs. "subclasses" mentality, which you also have a history of opposing. Is your vision for the site changing this dramatically of late? Also, how effective would such a system be, given that a poster like Miguel, whom you cite as a positive example, would almost certainly garner at least as many negative ratings as positive ones, given the polarization with which members react to his posting style (this applies to other posters as well, of course, if not as blatantly).
posted by rushmc at 10:21 AM on August 22, 2002

The quality of links has gone down since signups were turned on again, which surprises me since I think most new user hordes haven't resulted in a big steaming pile of suck.

I'm not opposed at all to it, but I wonder if the new official donate to receive an account policy is bringing us new members who think they are entitled to post what they want, community standards be damned, because they paid to be here.
posted by rcade at 10:25 AM on August 22, 2002

given the polarization with which members react to his posting style

That's been almost exclusively here and not over there.

The quality of links has gone down since signups were turned on again

I haven't got that impression at all. Just that there are too many posts.
posted by machaus at 10:29 AM on August 22, 2002

It seems like just yesterday that Miguel was the poster child for "I-just-can't-stop-posting-itis".
posted by websavvy at 10:35 AM on August 22, 2002

That's been almost exclusively here and not over there.

Why thank you, machaus. *polishes nails on shirt collar, admiring reflection* And next Tuesday, I'll have you know, it'll be a whole month since I last posted a thread to MetaTalk.

Self-control, that's my secret. That and intense suffering and learning by brute force, of course. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:45 AM on August 22, 2002

The ability to rate posts would have another benefit too, Matt. Many people seem to feel that the quality of a thread is measured by how many comments it gets (E.g., this recent discussion). Well, perhaps "quality" isn't the right word. But let's face it: posting to the front page is (at least for me) a bit of vain self-promotion, a way of saying "Look what I made!" And the longer the discussion continues, the longer your ego gets stoked. The logical consequence of this, unfortunately, is that people toss up editorials, links to websites about well-known but controversial topics, threads about titillating news stories, and purposely inflammatory posts ("Bush is a dope. Discuss.") knowing that they will get 100 comments, the debate will drag on forever, and they will have the joy of seeing their name at the top of the page (if ranking by "Recent Comments") for days.

We need another way to "reward" people for good posts. Having just a single "This is a good post" button might be all it takes. (Based on Filepile, where the "[This is bad]" ranking is rarely used, negative reinforcement doesn't seem necessary -- although a "This is a doublepost" button my help you to ferret out the repeats.) So while "Man mails excrement-smeared jury summons to state offices!" will still get 75 comments in 24 hours, people can also see that vacapinta's recent thread, while only garnering 7 comments, is worth a read. Throw a "Sort By Highest Rating" option in there and, wa-la!, people can get their ego on by crafting a well-reasoned post.

On preview: rushmc raises a good point about creating an dividing MeFi into The Gold Group, The Silver Group and the Brown Group. But I think it would have to be made clear that users are rating posts and not people. I also agree with this statement: I haven't got that impression at all. Just that there are too many posts.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 10:53 AM on August 22, 2002

I spend some time on PhotoSig, which suffers an interesting problem pertaining to ratings of postings. The ability for people to indiscriminately hand out goods or bads ended up skewing the "rating economy" and things got weird. My idea for coping with this was that people should be given a certain, small number of opportunities to praise or condemn daily. The users would use them wisely, since they weren't handed out willy-nilly, but could use them to give their favourite posts a kind of "gold star". A person's stocks of "gold stars" could start at say 3 or 5, and be replenished at midnight, server time.
posted by websavvy at 10:58 AM on August 22, 2002

Why can't Metafilter rate people? Doesn't everybody do it in their head anyway?
posted by luser at 11:00 AM on August 22, 2002

rushmc:

Why should someone feel compelled to follow the entire site? I think expecting people to limits MeFi to a very small kind of community--of an exclusive, elitist, cliquish nature which you have previously spoken against.

matt is not arguing for a "very small kind of community," though he is asking for a smaller one. i don't see why any attempt to limit posting should necessarily be considered a symptom of elitism or cliquishness. i will say, though, that if it does, metafilter must already be elitist since we are limited to one post per day as it stands right now.

you have to pick your poison. if metafilter were to implement a voter system, an a-list could be established via the structure of the website; as it stands, there is already an a-list established by posting frequency and quality but not formally tracked by the website. in that respect, little would change except for the structure.

Why not allow it to operate as a more universal resource, where people come to be exposed to as many--or as few--links as suits their inclination, temperament, lifestyle, and time available, with no penalty for not reading every comment, pursuing every link, and knowing their "pancakes" from their "fuckwits" from their "FPPs?"

control. that's what it looks like to me. the larger metafilter gets, the harder it becomes to maintain control. i suppose that if metafilter were a true commons, in which all were responsible for its maintenance, a larger size would be ok. but it's not.
posted by moz at 11:03 AM on August 22, 2002

(i guess, in retrospect, there's not a whole heck of a lot elitist about the ability to post only once a day. so that's maybe not a fair analogy.)
posted by moz at 11:04 AM on August 22, 2002

I'm surprised to see you speak in favor of any type of rating system, since you have been so opposed to them in the past. This particular implementation seems certain to lead to an "A-List" vs. "subclasses" mentality, which you also have a history of opposing. Is your vision for the site changing this dramatically of late?

I don't understand how the classism would be created out of thin air. It would be based solely on posting quality. Is that a bad metric?

I've changed my tune because I feel that many new posts (not solely by new members) have dipped in quality, so I brainstormed ways to award high quality posts. New users often asking via email "what makes a good post?" A metric would be nice. I've also changed my tune because the membership seems to be outgrowing the site. One post a day seems like not enough, and when I'm thinking of making a change like that, I have to wonder if there's another way to solve the problem.

Sorry to mention Miguel, I just grabbed a name out of thin air, but I think he would garner a lot of love-hate votes. And you know what? That'd be a good thing. Miguel could gauge instantly what is a good post and what is a self-indulgent pile of crap, based on the scores.

Rushmc, I'm surprised you don't think having 30-40 posts everyday is too much. Aside from the doublepost problem (which you're right, can't go away completely), I get the feeling a lot of people feel the site is too much to keep track of, that just the nature of having so many posts makes users feel like there is too much to read and they might miss good posts (though I suppose a rating system could show people "good posts").
posted by mathowie at 11:06 AM on August 22, 2002

"But let's face it: posting to the front page is (at least for me) a bit of vain self-promotion, a way of saying "Look what I made!"

I don't think of it this way at all; when I found out about metafilter, I liked it not for the up-to-the-minute news postings, but because it introduced me to things that I didn't know about before, like Jandek. That's how I try to use it. I'm interested in some stuff, and I think other people should know about it. Also, people posting comments can point out things I didn't know about whatever it was that I posted. That's useful.

My posts (aside from this mistake) rarely get very many comments, and that doesn't bother me; it's not about my ego: I just want to spread the joy.
posted by interrobang at 11:10 AM on August 22, 2002

(Probably impractical and probably not the direction Matt wants to go in suggestion follows)

What about a group of categories that users could sort posts by: Politics/News, Arts/Entertainment, Funny, etc.? While this wouldn't necessarily limit the number of posts per day, it might allow users to follow the particular kind of posts that they enjoy, without worrying about keeping up.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:14 AM on August 22, 2002

I am profoundly in favour of keeping the present system going, exactly as it is, free from any interference by anyone except Matt. It's not only manipulation I'm afraid of - it's the haphazard nature of rating.

It's far better that users express their objections in words and arguments and that these too can be discussed. This is the most democratic and interesting feature of MetaFilter. Rating would encourage extreme laziness and personal vendettas, back-scratching and cliquishness could be conducted by simple clicking.

If someone says "This is bad" it's fair to say most people would like to know why. Similarly, people who post good threads don't need a lot of "this is good" marks. One or two and the fact that they probably know it's good are more than enough.

A final worry, which does happen at filepile, is that rating will lead to unexperienced members using the ratings to decide what threads to read. So it encourages further laziness and even more superficial reading. It would also make it more difficult to notice great new posters as any rating system fossilizes in time and, due to brute accumulation, becomes outdated and severely skewed.

My two centimes, anyway.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:15 AM on August 22, 2002

Good points Shadowkeeper about attention getting. The thought has crossed my mind, but it's not my motivation when posting. I can't speak for anyone else.

Why can't Metafilter rate people? Doesn't everybody do it in their head anyway?

Yes absolutely, people naturally categorize, sort, and develop schema describing each user as much as they can, it's the only way to possibly have a coherent grasp of the place. Oftentimes, the schema is wrong (first impressions), but it is still functionally valuable.

rushmc: I don't think there is going to be class-like distinction here, especially since you cited members who post in very different styles. If anything, a rating system would help identify quality posts from a variety of styles. There is nothing wrong with trying to help members identify quality. Besides, the class analogy fails in that a class distinction is often not earned. A reputation (what would develop for users with good posts) is something which must be earned over time, and it would be a goal to be sought after. This would also help highlight good posts (since there are so many posts going around nowadays), reduce the distraction of posts receiving 100+ comments, and reduce the overall signal to noise ratio.

Furthermore, the community is large and diverse, and even experienced members often get called on the carpet, regardless of their existing reputation. I don't think the system would give anybody an automatic pass.

A final worry, which does happen at filepile, is that rating will lead to unexperienced members using the ratings to decide what threads to read.

I propose that the voting be available one time per user in the comments section of each thread, and that the ratings for posts be displayed somewhere separate from the actual post, so as not to unduly influence voting. Maybe votes could be tallied at the end of the week. We could even do a post of the week, the highest rated post, etc.... This would all be easy with a system in place.

I don't think anyone is proposing that you have an option to not view low-rated posts, rather that this is a way to point out good posts ex post facto, and to provide an example to future posters and members.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:21 AM on August 22, 2002

Running with the highest post of the week, how about if we never broadcast the point totals, but just list on the sidebar the top ten and bottom ten rated posts of the week? Or, if the coding could be done, just have the post score appear in the archives or on someone's user page. So it's not prominent, but can be found by someone who wants to know if their post was good or not?
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:35 AM on August 22, 2002

While people may 'rate' others all the time, it's my impression that metafilter is ostensibly about the POSTS themselves, with the community growing up around the quality of the thread contributions - not just a 'gab with friends' or 'focus on the people' site. The best posts, for instance, seem to be when people talk about the issue itself and don't get pulled off by focusing on/arguing with the individual who posted it, or others, don't get drawn into the dramas that can be evoked in a hot topic. I don't know that rating a poster would be helpful to that extent.

What if a rating system had only one vote, a "good post" vote? That would put the focus on the posts that people really seem to think of as a quality addition and get participants thinking in those terms, rather than trying to draw a line between good and bad - another kind of polarity that doesn't 'help', IMO. With only ONE kind of vote (each user could only do one vote per thread), there'd be an avenue for a thread which may not get many comments, but is high quality, to really shine. And NY Times editorial posts, for instance, that might get a lot of reactive comments (not all do, just as an example), probably wouldn't get a lot of votes at all.

I'd prefer the votes to be with the posts on the front page, in real time, myself. Otherwise, IMO, the voting system isn't all that helpful. I'd want to know BEFORE I clicked (not just because I have a slow dial-up connection - LOL) which posts MeFites are liking.

My two cents at the moment.
posted by thunder at 11:50 AM on August 22, 2002

Ugh. Once again y'all are making this a lot harder than it has to be.

Rather than curtailing the quantity of posts, how about just relegating the quality a bit? Wouldn't it be possible to restrict certain web domains from being used in the Front Page Post URL field? Start with nyt.com and its variants and then work from there. This wouldn't have to be permanent. Matt could opt to remove said limitation after the bulk of MeFi's community gets a clue that maybe instead of just grabbing a link from a news source they should google a bit more intelligently.

This isn't NewsFilter. Granted, it's nice to see the occasional thread about current events, but overkill is overkill, and if I'm admitting that then there's definitely a problem. However, I don't want to see anyone restricted from how often they can post. I'd just like to see better quality.

Everyone knows about the New York Times. The intent has been from the start of MeFi to seek out websites that are creative, intelligent, thought provoking and just plain weird. The occasional news article is okay, but instead of using NYT there's hundreds if not thousands of better news oriented sites out there. Sites with intelligent reporting and commentary which don't require passwords. Sites that deserve MeFi community attention more than the New York Times.

Whenever Matt sees a certain website getting overused, he could just block the usage of that web domain in the Front Page Post's URL field to encourage people to seek out something more novel and enlightening.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:01 PM on August 22, 2002

I agree with those who have said that the main page is becoming unruly. It's just too big to keep a handle on, and even if the number of posts weren't a problem, it's the quality of the posts. I think they've gone downhill. Admittedly, I want to post something, but I haven't found anything worthy to put out there. I've been lurking for almost a year, and this is about as bad as I've seen it. There are certainly great posters, but it seems like most posters aren't.

About the NYTimes: perhaps it's my bias, but I love the Times. Yeah, it's one news source, but it's a very good and comprehensive one. Unless you're Ann Coulter. Yeah, there are lots of Times posts, but I think it's the quality that should be monitored (by Matt, not us), and not the quantity of articles from a single source.

That said, I love MetaFilter, and I want to see it become a better, not worse, place to engage in thoughtful intelligent discussion.
posted by The Michael The at 12:17 PM on August 22, 2002

I think limiting front page posts to 2/3 a week is a good idea. Too many posts at the moment.
I don't like the rating idea. I like making up my own mind whether a post is good or bad, interesting or boring.
Also I think most people would be influenced by a certain rating, before reading the post or comments.

posted by ginz at 12:23 PM on August 22, 2002

Now that I've deleted three or four instances of "turn your cremated relatives into diamonds!" I think it's obvious there are problems with the number of posts as of late.

Boy, and I'm usually late to those memes!

I like the idea of post categories -- sort of like what we've got here in The Grey -- but as anyone who's accidentally posted to "bugs" instead of something else knows, mistakes are rampant with such a system. Maybe if the pull-down menu didn't default to a specific category...

One of the things I've liked about MeFi vs. Plastic, Slashdot is the lack of a rating system -- we're all on the same footing, not competing for karma. I can see how it might be needed, though.
posted by me3dia at 12:26 PM on August 22, 2002

I'm not saying the idea of rating posts is totally bad, but it certainly validate the concept of Mefi as groupthink that's been tut-tutted by a few...
posted by owillis at 12:42 PM on August 22, 2002

Maybe we should be thinking of recommending rather than rating &#150 just a button that allows you to recommend a post (once per post), a total number of recommendations listed with each post and an option to sort by most recommended. That would certainly help me filter MetaFilter,
posted by timeistight at 12:45 PM on August 22, 2002

Damn! Forgot the semicolon.
posted by timeistight at 12:46 PM on August 22, 2002

Come on, owillis. There has to be some sort of cohesion to the site, some sort of unifying flavour that makes it what it is. Attempting to maintain that isn't groupthink.

If someone came on and only posted in Polish, they'd get turfed. If someone only published Fark or Onion links, they'd be corrected. Because this place isn't in Polish, and isn't about how great (or awful) the content of Fark or the Onion is. Entities that grow end up requiring a hierarchy and some rules, or they end up in big trouble. This is true of a startup tech company, as well as a makeshift community in the desert (eg. Burning Man) or a virtual community weblog (this place).

Which is not to say that ratings done wrong won't kill a website...
posted by websavvy at 1:01 PM on August 22, 2002

I think that giving posters access more often based on more positive votes would most likely have the effect of increasing the quantity of posts. People would be inclined to throw posts out there as often as they were allowed with the hopes of becoming the Golden Poster who is allowed to post once per minute. Of course, many would flame out and get to make a one sentance post every year, but with 15k+ users to participate, this battle royale could go on for a while.

What about trying a week of comment free Metafilter? I, for one, don't think that the main focus of a weblog is to create discussion. The main focus is to share interesting links with the site visitors. Comments and discussion are secondary to that goal, in my mind. I'm pretty sure that this is not a universal thought, but I think that without comments on posts, you would shed some of those I read this Yahoo news story and I thought it was funny, what do you think???.
posted by jonah at 1:04 PM on August 22, 2002

MetaTalk: were even albert finney at christmas can be recognized. (apologizes to wulfghar for the...disturbing image...But i saw the secret ELVIS' AHAH CHRISTMAS CAROL add those lyrics to elvis playing Finneys role and I'm in tears....ahhh. why i still heart this place. As a posting pro i can offer this. be more the librarian then the 'fisticuffs news badge' on matts deletion dime-time. Limiting a post per week thingie is more not god then good. What if...X has a good week, squeaks in 4-5 posts, all good. the only pull is posting the story to ones own site...but....i say go back the idea of (a) meta arch mage. so matt does have to weed the double posts and obvious nonsense. er, yeah. really, the archmage could even be secret to some degree. hey it's benevolence with a cricket bat or more chaotic clogging. (but in the middle-road i would say (we) are not there yet)

What about trying a week of comment free
(hastens Gate spell)
posted by clavdivs at 1:20 PM on August 22, 2002

Although I have been in favorite of post ranking (although I agree with timeistight that "post recommendation" is a prefarable way of phrasing it), I do not think the amount someone is allow to post should be tied to the ranking his prior posts have received. That really would set up the "Gold Group / Silver Group / Brown Group" division, and leads to "voting on the person not the post" by proxy.

On preview: What clavdivs said, whatever that might be.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 1:29 PM on August 22, 2002

I don't like the idea of a ratings system, but I've often wondered if I'm the only user at Plastic who doesn't like getting mod points. Ugh. You mean I have to rank stuff now? It's all I can do to absorb it.

I agree that the flood of new folks posting seems to have resulted in a slight drop in quality, which I figure probably looks worse than it is with the increase in quantity. How about a longer probationary period for new users? This has been mentioned before, but giving comment privileges for a month or two before giving posting privileges might be a good way to force folks to slow down and pay closer attention to how things are done.

Oh, and ban all single-link news story posts. ;)
posted by mediareport at 1:50 PM on August 22, 2002

If you have a great second link to post that absolutely can't wait a week, send it to someone who doesn't post as often.

That messes with the point of a user profile, though, doesn't it? I have no problem with a once-a-week limit; I just don't think it'll solve the problem of too many low-quality links.
posted by mediareport at 1:58 PM on August 22, 2002

rcade: I wonder if the new official donate to receive an account policy is bringing us new members who think they are entitled to post what they want, community standards be damned, because they paid to be here.

I've wondered that, too.
posted by mediareport at 2:01 PM on August 22, 2002

I think at best, it'd be cool if people could rate the quality of front page posts (without any unfair voting and/or hacking), and let the highly rated posters post more often than the others.

But I'm already a highly-rated poster on Everything2.
posted by WolfDaddy at 2:34 PM on August 22, 2002

Idea: only let the post author's name become visible *after* someone has rated the post. Heh heh heh...
posted by beth at 2:35 PM on August 22, 2002

i don't see why any attempt to limit posting should necessarily be considered a symptom of elitism or cliquishness.

I wasn't addressing the idea of further limits on posting but rather some of Matt's other comments, so I agree with you that there is no readily apparent link between posting limitations and elitism/cliquishness--with the caveat that any such limitations be applied equally to all members, and in fact, Matt is hinting that they would be applied disproportionately in the scheme he is considering, with more highly-rated posters receiving more posting privileges.
posted by rushmc at 2:44 PM on August 22, 2002

The ratings system isn't so much a bad idea as not a good one... If its primary purpose is to show the difference between a good post and a bad post, then it shouldn't be implemented. Instead, we should consider creating a page with examples of good posts and bad posts for the consideration of the new poster.

If a ratings system _is_ implemented, though, a system of, say, one 'gold star' or 'black mark' in a given time period (a day or a week?) would be advisable to reduce the randomness of people's opinions.

I would like to see fewer front page posts per day (FPPp/d/d?)... I don't get to swing through Metafilter all too often these days, but when I do I like to see thoughtful, well discussed posts rather than a great smattering of links.
posted by kaibutsu at 2:46 PM on August 22, 2002

When this was discussed before, didn't someone figure out that the amount of users who posted more than once a week was already such a small percentage of the posting userbase that a 1 post/week limit really wouldn't do anything? Has that changed? Is there any way to determine the efficacy of such a limit before enacting it?
posted by LionIndex at 3:13 PM on August 22, 2002

This Week in Review: Between Thursday, August 15, and today, there have been roughly 202 Metafilter posts total. Two-fifths of these posts -- 80 -- were made by someone who posted more than once over this 7 day period.

Thirty-five people posted more than once in this period. Twelve of these people were 14Kers. One of the 35 people was a 13Ker. Seven of these 35 people posted more than twice (4 people posted 3 times; 3 people posted 4 times); only 1 of these 7 was a 14Ker. I debated listing names here, but didn't want to seem like I was attacking these people. Some of the triple posts, etc., were in fact pretty interesting to me, and compared to the double posters were more related to culture than straight out news.

Note that these stats don't include threads that Matt shut down, that I didn't doublecheck my results or my math, and that technically today isn't over yet so they doesn't accurately reflect a full week.

202 posts a week translates into about 30 posts per day. Limiting to 1 post a week from everyone might reduce this average to about 22 per day. Limiting only 14Kers to 1 post per week should reduce it to about 26 per day.

I like mediareport's idea of restricting newer members like me from posting to the front page for a longer period, e.g., a month. This forces people to read and comment for a month to be sure they have the jist of the place. Once we have the privilege, maybe we could be restricted to 1 post per week. I'm less sure about limiting older members to 1 post per week; the older members are more likely to submit 3 or 4 posts than the 14Kers, but lots of these were culture posts rather than straight out news. But I have no clue about how hard it would be to code things by length of membership. I'm not crazy about rating posts; I'm afraid things will become more competitive and high schoolish. Plus, wouldn't popular, divisive news-related posts get higher ratings than quirky posts that mean alot to a few people, and is that necessarily what the oldtimers want? (Look what happened to poor Tamyra Gray on American Idol when things were left to the wisdom of the masses.)

My suggestion would be (1) people must be here a month before posting to front page; (2) people must be here more than six months before posting more than once per week to front page; (3) no one can post more than twice per week. (Assuming that's codable.) Just mho; sorry so long.
posted by onlyconnect at 3:17 PM on August 22, 2002

Rushmc, I'm surprised you don't think having 30-40 posts everyday is too much. Aside from the doublepost problem (which you're right, can't go away completely), I get the feeling a lot of people feel the site is too much to keep track of, that just the nature of having so many posts makes users feel like there is too much to read and they might miss good posts

30-40 posts a day are too many for me to track, certainly. But I will not have equal interest in all 40 of them, either. What I guess I don't completely get is this idea that every user has to follow every thread. I have certainly felt that pressure myself, but I don't think it's sensible and am not sure why you seem to feel it is a valid feeling that the site must be configured to accommodate. I do understand that feeling that you might be missing good posts--I've come back and seen "80 new posts since your last visit" more than once. But it isn't as though the opportunity to read the posts/explore the links vanishes in 24 hours. They remain there to be explored in the future, if one has the time and inclination to do so. And a new crop will sprout tomorrow if you don't. I would go so far as to say that I think this idea that people have to read/comment on every single thread actually contributes to poor threads. If we all scanned the day's posts and only chose to go deeper into those which truly interested us, it seems to me we'd have more motivation to contribute meaningfully when we did contribute. So if we choose the 5-10 (or whatever) posts that grab us and pass on the rest, what difference does it matter whether the "rest" consists of another 10 posts or 50 more? Other people will choose THOSE posts (or not) and the site will still function as intended. In fact, with less traffic in each thread, it will be a lot more like it was in the "old days" when there were less users overall.
posted by rushmc at 3:28 PM on August 22, 2002

Just mho; sorry so long.

Don't apologize, onlyconnect. That was both an informative and clear post. And, I like your ideas. Course, I only post about once a month, so I guess my opinion doesn't hold a lot of water.
posted by Ufez Jones at 3:38 PM on August 22, 2002

Idea: For a less brutal, more encouraging-by-example way of improving posts, how about having a prominent "Matt's Picks" page where he lists posts from the previous week that he particularly liked. And to be egalitarian, add code to produce a similar list on each user's userpage ("MiguelCardoso Recommends"). Then tally the totals and present them on a "Best of MeFi" page.

Okay, that's three stages of evolution. Chose 1, 1 & 2, or 1, 2 & 3 (or none of the above) as you like.

I'd also like to say here that while there have been more weak posts in the last 2-3 weeks since the floodgates were cracked open, there have also been more GOOD posts than I've seen in quite some time. I would hope that the baby would not be lost when the bathwater was tossed by any changes to the system.
posted by rushmc at 3:43 PM on August 22, 2002

Idea: only let the post author's name become visible *after* someone has rated the post. Heh heh heh...

Well! That would certain add a dash of mystery now, WOULDN"T IT? We simply couldn't identify ANYONE--Portuguese sexual terminology or not!--now COULD we?
posted by y2karl at 3:43 PM on August 22, 2002

I think the wonderful smorgasbordness of metafilter would be deeply impacted by post limits. Where else can you find (at this very moment): posts on Opie and Anthony, some religious motorcycle ministry, a fugitive story, medical marijuana, the business reporter's death, etc...It's marvelous--like a really good Vegas buffet! (Actually, better than that!)

If post limits are going to be implemented, I think they would have to apply to all members, not just newbies...otherwise it's unfair...if membership had been opened earlier there wouldn't be a flood of newbies (it prob would have been smoother), but deal with it...we're loving it here! And the thrill of a first front page post (see how i wrote it out?) is going to go on as long as there are new people coming in--and that's fine with me. If I don't want to investigate an Opie and Anthony post, I know that somewhere on the page there's something interesting to discover...
posted by amberglow at 3:46 PM on August 22, 2002

I don't think that making people wait an extra month after they have joined before they could post would do anything. I assume that most, if not all of the new members were lurking before new sign ups were allowed anyway. It's not as if they had to be logged in just to see the site and read the comments.
posted by jonah at 3:50 PM on August 22, 2002

Everyone's a newbie. I vote for one post per month.
posted by rschram at 3:54 PM on August 22, 2002

Regarding suggestions of assembling a "best of" or me doing "Matt's Picks", those are all well and good, but they're a lot of work that someone has to do by hand.

I was hoping in a rating style system is that the community can do the work, as I don't have the time to keep up a good threads db, and it's too much work to do by hand.
posted by mathowie at 3:55 PM on August 22, 2002

Jonah, I think they could post comments, just not to the front page. It would give them an acclimatizing period as active members, some time as a sous-chef before they get to contribute to the menu.
posted by liam at 4:00 PM on August 22, 2002

... while there have been more weak posts in the last 2-3 weeks since the floodgates were cracked open, there have also been more GOOD posts than I've seen in quite some time.

Ditto. I used to feel that I had to follow every post but, once I gave up on that and started concentrating on those that particularly interested me and that I felt I could make some contribution to, the pressure went away.

I would not like to see a ratings system introduced, as it would tend to encourage posts that gain "stars" rather than innovative, interesting posts that, while they may not appeal to everyone, hold great appeal to a significant portion of the membership - given the size of the MeFi community, there is plenty of potential post material to suit all interests. Elitist? Probably, but I do not think that is necessarily a bad thing. Why avoid putting MeFi above the norm?

Links from NYT, Yahoo etc are not usually of great interest to me and I would certainly not object to them being blocked as the only link in a post. That would surely cut down on the number of so-so posts that are not researched at all.

Perhaps you could auction "posting vouchers" on e-bay :-)
posted by dg at 4:20 PM on August 22, 2002

One, mine were on the blue no longer than a fraction of time, in a 3 month time period...............;P
posted by thomcatspike at 4:43 PM on August 22, 2002

Memepool is unique (lots of links, no comments); Filepile is unique (lots of links, simple ratings, no real discussion); Slashdot, K5 and Plastic are unique (though different, lots of links, lots of comments, lots of ratings and reading modes); Fark is unique (lots of funny news stuff; comments; photoshopping).

But MetaFilter is unique too, as it is. Why not keep it that way? People clearly love it to bits; they can't keep away. It's only problem is overpopularity. "Too many people love me" is a great problem to have. The reason it's so popular is that it's straightforward, democratic, offers a level playing field but wildly disparate links and discussions. That's why it attracts so many different people and what makes it so damn interesting.

Restricting newbies or promoting oldies is beside the point. It's not being new or old that makes you a good poster. It won't be ratings that will improve the quality or cut down on the number of mediocre posts.

We all know what makes a good post. Why keep pussyfooting around it? It's hard work. It means searching and compiling, balancing and composing.

I bet a so-called mediocre poster, if he dedicated even two hours to researching and modelling a post, would come up with a good post.

Good posts are essentially like customized vehicles. They're engineered to carry us somewhere and show us what we wouldn't otherwise have seen. They do the work for readers, presenting them with a quick click-click ride to a well-defined and unknown reality. Good posts are exercises in saving time for readers. Still, if you take two hours over a post and 120 people take ten minutes to go over it, you've multiplied your effort by 1000%. So it's definitely worthwhile.

I think it would be far better to teach (yes, I know it's un-pc) users how to go looking for stuff that interests them and how to put it together to make it interesting for others. Pointing at good posts isn't enough. You'd have to explain how to research and how to present.

Sorry about the length. But keeping MetaFilter unique is, I think, the most important thing there is in this discussion.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:49 PM on August 22, 2002

Damn. Forgot Boing Boing, my favourite after MetaFilter - also because it's the most similar in spirit and style.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:58 PM on August 22, 2002

I don't understand how the classism would be created out of thin air. It would be based solely on posting quality. Is that a bad metric?

Matt,

I think it may be, because "posting quality" is a nebulous term which is often confused with agreeing with the poster and wanting to show support. S'why I left Plastic, at any rate.

Personally, if there had to be a system in place for deciding which posts or posters are the best, the ideal to me would be an invisible system that measured things like how many people clicked on the links in the post, how many people posted comments, the length of those comments, the amount of supporting links in those comments, the amount of return traffic (people checking the thread again and again), number of trackback links, etc. Lots of work for Matt, and definitely not a perfect system, but I hate hate hate the whole [+5, partisan] phenomenon that occurs when people rate things.
posted by Hildago at 5:31 PM on August 22, 2002

Late to the party : I just woke up.

I find all this discussion of what a 'good post' is a little amusing, to be honest. I mean, I dislike 'Newsfilter' as much as anyone else, but seriously that's the only thing pointed to in this thread that can be counted as a 'bad post' : links to news items.

A post is a link to some other thing, something that meets the guidelines of being relatively new to most members, and somehow interesting. Simple stuff. Granted that some posters take care to craft a lengthy post, rich with links (and this is often identified as a 'quality post', for reasons completely beyond me, to be honest, but I defer to my community elders, this once at least, on that), but this isn't really getting up into high-IQ territory yet.

Really : how hard is making a post, and why on earth would we need ratings for it?

I would find it very amusing if the large number of users here (both old and new) who appear to enjoy newsfilteritis and using MeFi as a pure discussion board ended up modding all the newsfilter posts right up, and Metafilter transformed into something the old-timers (including myself, who is arguably not an old-timer) disliked. That'd suck, but be funny as hell.

Ratings are pointless unless you clarify exactly what you're meant to be rating, and even then, given peoples' ability to follow the guidelines, of questionable utility. Is it how interesting the linked material is? Is is how well crafted the post is? Do I rate the post highly because it links to and opens discussion about something I'm interested in? Or do I rate it highly because the resulting discussion was one I enjoyed and got something from?

Unless you can make it very clear in the minds of those who might rate a post which of those criteria they should be mindful of when they make that rating, you're adding unnecessary baggage.

My vote : ratings are a bad idea.

As far as the 'too many posts' problem? Off the top of my head.... Three crap posts, and you're on probation for a week, with no posting rights. Second offense, a month. How do you figure out which posts are crap? A tickbox, which appears once per member for each thread, saying 'Is this a bad post?' Make the votes anonymous, and invisible. Count the votes. Over a predefined limit, post goes bye-bye (or gets flagged, invisibly or visibly), poster gets warned. Go on from there as far as implementation details. The payoff would be that although Matt would have to bash out the code up front, he'd not really have to patrol for double posts and so on either, anymore. Community policing.

I realize that this is a little like rating, but I think it is significantly different, in that all of us have different criteria about what a good post is, and we contribute to those threads that meet those criteria (or one that piss us off, but that's another thing entirely). This is my primary problem with a rating system that is not binary. But we have much more agreement I think, on what a bad post is. It's pretty much always recognized.

Crap, I need a coffee. You get the idea. Pushback welcome.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:44 PM on August 22, 2002

I have to add my eternal gratitude to Matt for spiking the UK & US; two Nations at the forefront of Paedophilia post at the git go. I am so sick of all these sleazy crypto-pornographic child abduction, rape and murder threads. Could we have a moratorium on those for like maybe 47 years or so?
posted by y2karl at 8:05 PM on August 22, 2002

No, stavrosthewonderchicken, I think you are close to the mark with your idea. The main drawback is the same as with any rating system - it is all subjective. Just because 500 people say "this is a bad post", that doesn't mean that it is, as it could be pure gold to another 500 people. Perhaps a "this is a great post" button would be needed as well, for balance?

The common complaint in this and the numerous previous threads that end up discussing this subject is that pure news links are not what the community as a whole wants to see more (or as much, or any) of. Would a simpler way be to automatically reject any post from NYT et al unless it contains a link from a different site as well? Is that possible to code?
posted by dg at 8:06 PM on August 22, 2002

My only complaint since transitioning from lurker to registered user last month is the constant bashing of the new people. It is as if this place was some sort of utopia before the floodgates were opened and they all came in. But when one follows the links in MeTa some of these things were problems for a long time.

The beauty of Metafilter's relative unmoderated, freestyle flow is the variety. There is a little of everything. Some of the posts I've read where there are comments indicating it is not a good post I've actually liked and vice versa. Some days the there are too many posts. Sometimes people get a little long-winded on the front page.

I don't like the ratings idea since it won't necessarily fix the quality issue. Instead I think it might have the opposite effect: people will make their posts more appealing to more people. High ratings do not equal high quality. Just take a look at primetime network TV.

I also don't think there is a need to have it coded into the site to reject NYT or Yahoo news links. It doesn't fix anything since one can just as easily have a newsfilter with other media sites.

I think the best one can do is lead by example. With a little constructive criticism when people veer against the common goal.

Perhaps the only thing that Matt could do is put a the guidelines link on the sideblog. My guess is many people might blow past the link on the 'post a link' page since they're so fired up to post. Presumably one clicks 'post a link' after they've already decided to post something. It also might not hurt to have a gentle reminder in the sideblog that reminds people about the etiquette discussions in MeTa.
posted by birdherder at 8:22 PM on August 22, 2002

After all was said, I think I like onlyconnect's suggestion the best. I really don't like the idea of any rating systems at all, because that fundamentally changes the nature of this "thing" called MetaFilter. My original suggestion wasn't intended to do that, but just to recognize and deal with the fact that there are a lot more people here now making posts, and there's still only one guy who culls out the "bad" ones.

A lot of the other suggestions I think would only make more work for Matt, and not less - and making less work for him was my intention.
posted by yhbc at 8:30 PM on August 22, 2002

so starvos, just to be clear, rating things as good is bad because it is ill-defined what good means, and prone to abuse. It's also a bad idea to give people special privileges for doing well. But rating things as only bad is a good gauge of value, and taking rights away for excessively bad posts is a good idea?

It sounds like the same implementation, just reversed, so I don't understand how it is better.

It seems the consensus is that rating systems are bad. I really wish I could read every single thread on the site, and post a daily list of what I think are pretty good ones, and maybe even have a hall of fame of the best, but I can't possibly cover the entire site in a single day. So farming out the choosing of what is good for the day seems like a good idea on the surface, because together, we can all read the entire site, but it sounds like any and every implementation of it is bad, because it would kill the culture and turn everyone into karma whores. You can see why there's no good answer to the question "what makes a good post?"
posted by mathowie at 8:51 PM on August 22, 2002

Perhaps I was unclear in my suggestion above.

dg : If you also add a 'This is a great post' button or tickbox, you get into precisely the territory of ratings again. Why put it there, if you're never going to use it for anything. To invert-paraphrase Tolstoy, sort of, bad threads are all the same, but each good post is unique. Essential to my idea is that the tickbox is bad only, and the count invisible.

yhbc : My suggestion would mean work upfront for Matt in terms of writing code (and simple an idea as it is, I'm sure there are dozens of people here who could write the code for him) but subsequently a lot less. onlyconnect's idea is a good one, but on average half of the detritus (at least) on the front page is not due to newbies messing up, and forcing a longer probation period will not address the issue...I've recently seen horrendous posts (in my opinion) from people who've been members since 1999 , for goodness sakes...

I don't have that much invested in my idea (coming as it did before my first coffee), but if Matt is seriously considering ratings, I think we need to address that with a modicum of concentration.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:52 PM on August 22, 2002

Whoops, Matt posted at the same time as I did....

so starvos stavros, just to be clear, rating things as good is bad because it is ill-defined what good means, and prone to abuse. It's also a bad idea to give people special privileges for doing well. But rating things as only bad is a good gauge of value, and taking rights away for excessively bad posts is a good idea?

Well, yes, in a nutshell. Although the 'taking posting rights away' part of the plan is certainly something that is debatably wise, you've gotta admit it would lighten your load...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:57 PM on August 22, 2002

My $0.02 :

- keep the rules simple, not to have discussions about small details (e.g. multi-stage bans);
- no discrimination: same rules for all, old and new members alike;
- no censorship: do not ban any specific web site (even news headlines could create an interesting discussion)
- no stars: do not create star/golden members, as it will divide the community (patricians / plebeians, rich / poor ...).

I am in favor of stavrosthewonderchicken and dg's suggestions of a great/bad post button /check box, invisible count, and a probation period when a threshold is reached (an abuse is punished). An automatic Best/Worst Top 5 of the week, without giving points to the members, would serve as a quick up to date reference.

Let's not follow path of other e-boards, even if we are used to their methods.


on preview: hmmmm, maybe having two buttons (great/bad) is not a simple rule, but I'm afraid that only one of them could lead to abuses. And, besides, we should allow for both positive and negative feedback in the rating system.
posted by MzB at 9:17 PM on August 22, 2002

stavros, but there's always exceptions, and if you code in an algorithim that can't account for them, you lose the human side that makes MetaFilter, at least arguably, "work".

Under all standards and guidelines, this is a bad post, and would be deleted.

That's just one reason why I think the simplest solution is the best - slow down the ability to post to the front page, and don't code in (or allow for voting on) what makes a good, bad, or indifferent post.
posted by yhbc at 9:27 PM on August 22, 2002

i like newsfilter sometimes, does no one agree with me anymore? sometimes news happens that is important, and i think an intelligent forum like metafilter is a good place to discuss it. i don't think it should be all that's here, or even most of what's here, but i don't think people should be discouraged from posting discussable news. Sure, i'm not getting my news from mefi, and i've probably already read it, but i haven't seen what other people think about the issue, and that is important to me, and it's one of the things i like about metafilter.

I think if the attitude changed with news posts from "informing the group to something you think is new" to "posting something everyone has probably seen because it merits discussion" i think it would solve a lot of problems. There would be less posting of news in general, because people would exclude things that, while important, are non-discussable, but would still allow stories that people want to discuss.

it's important to remember that what one person thinks is a good post is not what another may think. right now i skip over a lot, and that's fine. any sort of moderation that results in a change in what is posted will make the posts more similar, and if you're a fringe person it will stop the posts you like. part of the energy of metafilter is the completely open posting, just because there are a few bad posts doesn't mean we should rush in with the scoop voting queue (no offense :)

i do however think posting limits are fine, because with that you are not penalizing posting style/viewpoints, you are only cutting down on the number of posts, as well as increasing the relative quality. (from the viewpoint of the poster, since they will be using up their finite posting ability)
posted by rhyax at 9:31 PM on August 22, 2002

I think it's a great idea Matt. I hope you do introduce something like this. It could be a big improvement. With some provisions:

Lots of people already think MetaFilter is too negative. A this is bad type of rating will only feed that.

A this is good rating, particularly if everybody has a limited number to bestow (props to websavvy), would focus the community on the positive. It would give you a nice way to support a thread without getting all cheerleadery in the comments, and it would be something you could use to filter when you don't have time to read through everything.

I do sort of see where rewarding good posters with additional privileges does seem to run against what I understood your vision of the site to be, so I was kind of surprised by that too. I suspect (hope), that's the part of the idea that has people questioning what it would do to MeFi.

And Miguel: A final worry, which does happen at filepile, is that rating will lead to unexperienced members using the ratings to decide what threads to read. So it encourages further laziness

That's just idiotic. It's not laziness that prevents people from reading things - it's that we're not all just sitting around with nothing but time on our hands. Let's bring some filter back into Metafilter is what I say.
posted by willnot at 9:32 PM on August 22, 2002

Ratings: I like the diversity and utter unpredictability here, so approval ratings wouldn't do any good for me, just make the site less usable.

Categories: Howabout, "Regular - Chewy - Toasty - Fluffy."

You get a button that lets you vote on how the thread is shaping up ... fluffy for entertaining / quick reading / banter, chewy for outstanding or substantial content, regular for regular stuff, toasty for flame wars. You can change your rating depending how the thread goes.

Putting these category results on each front page thread would let Matt tell at a glance where the flame war and fluffy threads are, just by looking at the front page, so he wouldn't have to read everything constantly. It would also help the rest of us select the kind of reading we like ... (No idea how this would be to program)..
posted by sheauga at 9:33 PM on August 22, 2002

Under all standards and guidelines, this is a bad post, and would be deleted.

Bogue example and you know it.
posted by y2karl at 9:38 PM on August 22, 2002

The problem I have is that quality is elusive and I'm not sure, as other posters have also said, that I trust the masses. I admit it - I'm a snob.

My favorite post of the last couple months was a news link. It was this post by KevinSkomsvold. It was not something I would have stumbled on and it provided insight into a fascinating subculture. It was hilarious and memorable. Comments by ColdChef and chuq raised it even higher and the post would enter into my private MeFi Hall of Fame.
posted by vacapinta at 10:06 PM on August 22, 2002

ah, that gives me an idea vacapinta.

Let users create, track, and categorize their own favorite posts. So say you could have a few piles like "currently watching" "sports" "good movie links" "interesting music" and "best. posts. ever."

Let people publicly view others lists, so people find their own personal best-of by following users they trust. This way, everyone gets to try and publish their "best threads of the day" lists.

(I'm trying to come up with a way to distribute the work among everyone, so it doesn't hinge on a single person (me), and I understand that the masses can sometimes be wrong. This may be a happy medium between the two)
posted by mathowie at 10:55 PM on August 22, 2002

Perhaps not all news posts are created equal? The one linked by vacapinta is not what I would describe as a "news" post (but them, I'm a bit new at this myself). What I feel people are complaining about are the headline stories in mainstream media being presented as meeting the posting guidelines:

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

While lots of people may not have seen the latest NYT headline, that is because they choose not to see it by not visiting their site. Better to find things that are not mentioned in the mainstream press or, if they are, links to a different point of view.

On preview, mathowie's idea sounds very interesting. Would the thread show the users that had tagged that thread, or the number of users that had marked it as a "good thread"?
posted by dg at 11:21 PM on August 22, 2002

Yowsa! That would rock. Might have the effect of raising the quality too, once people see the sorts of posts that are most respected.

(But : *gets on hobbyhorse* I still think it's important to draw a distinction between and account somehow for the difference in the quality of the post and the quality of the resultant discussion. Most of my all-time-favorite threads are favorites because of the quality of the ensuing discussion. I'm not sure if this is the case for most folks, but I suspect it is, or at most a combination of the two. Personally, I don't have 'favorite posts' per se, although I often find myself searching for old stuff (and not finding it, like the very long large horizontal cartoon with the flying cat and the naked woman and all that stuff that I couldn't find anywhere last night (or did I dream it?)) About the only post that I can ever remember as a good one was Tamim's, and that was a stunt-post!)

Are we talking about MeFi Pro again (or whatever it was to be called)? Also, as an aside, you teased us a week or two ago about some spiffy new functionality, Matt, which I missed, if it was released...not to derail, but care to spill the beans (or inform my unobservant ass?)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:22 PM on August 22, 2002

(The aforementioned rockage was describing Matt's proposal, not so much dg's addition, although that might be an interesting (and heavy with consequence) addition!)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:24 PM on August 22, 2002

Once everybody can post their own lists of the best threads, all we need is a function allowing us to point to the best of the best-of lists.
posted by jjg at 11:39 PM on August 22, 2002

Perhaps an entirely new site, MetaBestofMetafilterFilter!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:46 PM on August 22, 2002

Yes, stavrosthewonderchicken, the consequences could be more than interesting if the "best-of" ratings were to appear on the thread itself.

On further thought, however (and the best ideas often being the simplest), perhaps the original idea of mathowie's would be the way to go - if it works, it will naturally grow into a workable system and, if it doesn't, it will just as quicky dissapear due to lack of use. Hopefully, users will give it validity by frequenting the threads that respected users rate highly and the rest will languish where they belong.

Hey yeah! what happened to the promised fantastic new feature?
posted by dg at 12:16 AM on August 23, 2002

This is starting to sound like Amazon customer reviews... hmm,do we get About Me's, buddy linksand theme lists, too? Philistines and Palestine: What's The Difference?, My Name is Legion Weiner, Lonely Log Cabin Boy, Hi, Everybody! Hi Dr. Nick Miguel!, Spoon's Splendid Sillies and so forth... I can see it now.
posted by y2karl at 12:36 AM on August 23, 2002

new feature is set to go if I put in two hours of coding I've been putting off for a couple weeks. It's gotten too much buildup now, so it'll probably disappoint, but it could be cool. I'll see if I can get to it tomorrow.
posted by mathowie at 12:37 AM on August 23, 2002

Yes! I think that's a very good idea, Matt. It adds a lot to the experience, humanizing it, without massifying it. It creates responsibility and diversity. It's practical, it builds on human nature (you do, of course, trust certain posters more than others) and, for those who've just joined and want to cut down on the adaptation period, it provides a pain-free, interesting way of learning the ropes.

It'll also be great fun; not a small consideration!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:48 AM on August 23, 2002

Let users create, track, and categorize their own favorite posts. So say you could have a few piles like "currently watching" "sports" "good movie links" "interesting music" and "best. posts. ever."

Sounds interesting. If you can find a way to encourage members to link descriptively to posts, MetaFilter can have its own baby Google effect, where an algorithm can look for the best stuff floating to the top based on the number of links it has received. And the worst stuff.
posted by rcade at 6:10 AM on August 23, 2002

Lets not comment in a bad post, and the poster will pancake themselves. How, well no fun to throw a party and left to dance with yourself. It is easier to not read a poor post and skip it, I'm sure for anyone. And besides for the poster it is not easy to read finger pointing comments about themselves. Matt wants us to police. So maybe start with us, the poster. Please think, whom am I representing about myself if I post this crap. Don't get me? Then take a look in a mirror. It will tell you, your age and appearance. To say what most have already said, "Lets make the Blue #1 and the Grey, the talk to drift to the back of the room.........shhh, I'm reading, and the babies are napping too.
posted by thomcatspike at 8:29 AM on August 23, 2002

Let users create, track, and categorize their own favorite posts.

As I read this, I was getting ready to post a snarky comment about people asking Matt for the sun, moon, stars and a pony. When I realized Matt had proposed it, I nearly fell off my chair.

If this is doable then, hell, yes, do it; it would be great. Maybe once you're finished you'll have time to work on those ponies.
posted by timeistight at 8:35 AM on August 23, 2002

ah, that gives me an idea vacapinta.

Let users create, track, and categorize their own favorite posts.

Hey, that's what I was suggesting in #2!

Once everybody can post their own lists of the best threads, all we need is a function allowing us to point to the best of the best-of lists.

And that was #3.

Would be a lot of work to implement, though.
posted by rushmc at 9:01 AM on August 23, 2002

After seeing the shitstorm that is the front page today, I'm asking again for consideration to be given to onlyconnect's three-part suggestion:

(1) people must be here a month before posting to front page; (2) people must be here more than six months before posting more than once per week to front page; (3) no one can post more than twice per week.

Thinking about how to do "Best of MetaFilter" or "MetaFilter Squared" is all well and good, but right now we have too many people with the immediate ability to post, often, who don't have clue one about the place.

Yes, many of the new folks are long-time followers whose contributions have been wonderful, but not all. How could anyone who has really followed the site for any time at all not know that "Here's seven random news links" or "Here's five of my favorite music sites" are NOT good posts?!?!?
posted by yhbc at 9:08 AM on August 23, 2002

Not to mention the monkey shit-storm. Dammit, this is just the kind of thing that gives poo-flinging a bad name!
posted by yhbc at 9:10 AM on August 23, 2002

And to digress just a little, is there anyone in the world who finds it ironic that I am at the same time arguing for fewer front-page posts on MetaFilter and for more front-page posts over on 9622.net? Well, I do.
posted by yhbc at 9:12 AM on August 23, 2002

BREATHE, people. In and out. Deeply.

There is no such thing as perfection. We're still beating Sturgeon's Law by a wide margin.
posted by rushmc at 9:25 AM on August 23, 2002

Oops, wrong thread. Ah, well. Breath anyway.
posted by rushmc at 9:26 AM on August 23, 2002

+e
posted by rushmc at 9:26 AM on August 23, 2002

I think I'm confused about what the "shitstorm" is in the monkey thread. The fact that it's a bunch of random links, or that there was a brief hostile exchange in the comments? Or something that I'm not seeing altogether?

Just asking.
posted by readymade at 9:28 AM on August 23, 2002

No, it's primarily the random links thing, but also that most if not all of them are recycled from 9622. That which is silly and fun in the proper context becomes embarrassing on the blue.
posted by yhbc at 9:32 AM on August 23, 2002

Kudos to you, yhbc, for posting these objections to this thread of yours, even though it's off the page, rather than start a new one. Sign of a gentleman and no surprise but still, elegant and exemplary.

While I agree that today's posts aren't up to much, I still think they're quite good for first posts. The dj post I like -it's full of good links and was offered in what I take to be the spirit of MetaFilter - sharing links, not necessarily for discussion. There have been good radio threads in the past that started with much less, which are still used today.

My point, though, is: for someone to become a good poster he or she probably has to make some bad posts along the way, take the criticism, incorporate suggestions, learn to fit in.

Instead of just exploding, those of us presumptuous enough to offer advise should be a little more indulgent and remember our own first steps - which were, as I remember, a damn sight worse than the current newbies' efforts. Some still are... ;)

I wonder whether it's all part of the learning process and will go away with time. It just seems needlessly cruel and fruitless to jump on the monkey post (which is well put together and Friday Funnish) or, specially, on the DJ post, which brought together a nice group of music links.

Just wondering, not affirming.

About 9622, I think Matt has been very indulgent so far and though we've all been guilty in the past we should just shut up about it here (who here cares what you defend on 9622, Commish?), as Kafkaesque suggested from the start, before people start (with justification) accusing us of roundabout self-linking.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:39 AM on August 23, 2002

Was the monkey thread posted by a person who is even aware of 9622? As far as I can tell, it wasn't, and it was posted with no knowledge of the monkey love that lurks beneath the surface...and we all jumped in. Is that so wrong? I mean, if a regular 9622er posts a monkey thread, and it turns into another orgy, I can see your point...
posted by adampsyche at 9:43 AM on August 23, 2002

Miguel - I cannot link to that which I cannot reach! (sob!) But I really do think the problem now is worse then when there were a few newbies at a time struggling through their first posts. Now there's a lot of them, there's correspondingly more posts each day, and a higher percentage of the posts are stinkers, all of which leads inexorably to two things - more work for the 'owie, immediately followed by less fun for all of the rest of us.

Adam - I just have a stinkin' suspicion the monkey post wasn't totally innocent, but your're right, I don't have solid proof. At any rate, it's a poor post for more reasons than being about monkeys (random links, unfocussed, what's the point?).
posted by yhbc at 9:50 AM on August 23, 2002

My point, though, is: for someone to become a good poster he or she probably has to make some bad posts along the way, take the criticism, incorporate suggestions, learn to fit in.

I agree with this. There has been a sense developing lately of some users wanting/expecting/trying to implement a zero tolerance policy on Metafilter that is very disturbing. Let me remind all that

We're all in this together.
posted by rushmc at 9:51 AM on August 23, 2002

Miguel, Matt has nuked the DJ post. (Thanks, Matt!) It was ridiculous; it was more than a screen full on my 1024 X 768 display.

What Rattmouth should have done, was post the list on his own site and then wait until someone linked to it. The way people are scouring the Web for links, I'm sure it wouldn't have taken long.
posted by timeistight at 9:57 AM on August 23, 2002

Good point, rushmc - thanks for the reminder.
posted by yhbc at 10:01 AM on August 23, 2002

Monkeys are never innocent. This much I should have guessed.

Ok, ok, I'll stop. I don't think it was the worst post, though. Certainly it was no different in subject from the post about the big fish last week.
posted by adampsyche at 10:07 AM on August 23, 2002

"Please to let me explain." I've been a MetaFilter lurker for a looong time now and when the opportunity to contribute to the site became available, I jumped at the chance. The "monkey" post was something I actually put time and research into. The links were found after chugging through several search engines for information on getting a pet monkey. Imagine a friend and I drinking beer and talking about pets and the kinds we always wanted as kids. The subject of monkeys as pets comes up and BOOM, here we are. I've read Metafilter for over a year now, always staying on the front page. Honestly, I did not know that there were subcategories where this post (whether you judge it to be good or bad) would have been more appropriate. Yes, I did carefully read the Posting Guidelines and the New member Message. It wasn't clear to me that the proper etiquette is to only post once a week to the front page nor that what I did spend time crafting into something meant to be "Friday Funnish" would cause controversy. This post was in no way an attempt to troll, self-promote (I've nothing to promote) or ask for feedback, so I thought I was A-OKAY. Maybe someone could come up with a MetaFilter New User Rules of Etiquette For Dummies Guide? I certainly have no problems waiting a month for the privilege of posting or following protocol, but many of the rules of engagement just weren't crystal clear to me and I venture to guess they aren't for other newbies. So thanks for the critiques and advice. I'm not quite sure how I feel about posting here again, but I'll give it another try as soon as I figure out what it is you're looking for. And on the subject of 9622.net (a fine monkey site I'll be sure to visit now), this is the first time I've taken notice of it. The site doesn't show-up in the top 50 Google listings for "monkey". I may not know how to post on MetaFilter, but I do indeed do my own work to find only the best monkey links the Internet has to offer. Another newbie suggestion: Make reading and posting to MetaTalk a requirement or offer new member mentors or even an area for new members to post practice links that can be reviewed by the veterans. Peace and ripe bananas to all.

posted by VelvetHellvis at 10:10 AM on August 23, 2002

yhbc, ease off the hair trigger.
posted by Dean King at 10:16 AM on August 23, 2002

Alright, VelvetHellvis - I stand corrected, and apologize for lumping your work in with the other things that met my wrath.

I'm going to go take my meds now, and repeat the sacred mantra -

"It's only a website, it's only a website, it's only a website ..."
posted by yhbc at 10:21 AM on August 23, 2002

Velvet, I thought it was a fine post.
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:23 AM on August 23, 2002

Thank you, Kafka, and no offense taken ,yhbc. MetaFilters babies have to crawl before they can walk, so just consider us neophytes in the crawling stage.


Could someone please link to what is considered a good and appropriate front page post?


I'm not a political person, so the idea that my link to a silly Salon article would spark a flame was a shock to me.

MORE QUESTIONS:

What is the proper line to walk?

Should all links in a post be to the same site?

Is the subject only hard news?

Is humor something that should be posted somewhere else?

What constitutes an A+++ front page link?
posted by VelvetHellvis at 10:35 AM on August 23, 2002

Velvet: it's a wonderful post. It's well researched; has link- rhythm; alternates jazzily between serious and light-hearted notes; is succintly and elegantly worded; in fact it moves (obligatory Leonard Cohen ref.) like they do in Babylon. And, of course, it had a lot of monkeys, which is very important if you're aiming for the very best and most appropriate of Friday posts. ;)

Don't be a patsy and fall in the "what constitutes a good post" trap. Just follow your heart and keep up the hard work. Don't make me go all Billy Joel on you, boy!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:52 AM on August 23, 2002

I'll be interested to see any new features Matt comes up with, because he's given this subject a lot of thought. But I can't help thinking that maybe he could just make life simple for himself, figure that more new users means more pruning, and hit delete on the front page as needed until the new crew catches on.
posted by sheauga at 10:55 AM on August 23, 2002

And just for the record, VelvetHellvis is a girl.
posted by VelvetHellvis at 10:59 AM on August 23, 2002

Sorry, Velvet. I hate it when that happens. It's the Elvis anniversary getting to my brain. I'm sorry if I was too matey. I'll go deep crimson now and retire as gracefully as I possibly can...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:06 AM on August 23, 2002

Regarding the idea of a rating feature, I tend to use the no. of comments as an indication of a post's merit. I often read the comments first to see if I even wanna check out the link.
posted by drew_alley at 11:26 AM on August 23, 2002

That's probably the least reliable indicator, drew. The best indicator, in my experience, is the way the front page post is written.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:30 AM on August 23, 2002

I think that girl-Hellvis' post was good. I also think that she took the heat for other issues coming up these days.

It seems that we're all going through an adjustment period, oldies, newbies, and that curious brand of member, the perma-lurker come out of their shell (me). I think it's akin to a new marriage: people from two families are eyeing each other uneasily over the bad champagne and horrible canapes, wondering if they are really related to these other people now. The truth is yes, we are all related now, and after a while we'll all be quite comfortable with each others' whims and peculiarities, but for now things are a little strained.

Things were awkward after the article in Brill's Content came out about MeFi and blogs, and then again after Sept. 11. But it will all shake out.
posted by readymade at 11:39 AM on August 23, 2002

Please lads, do not ask to discriminate the members just based on their ID number. It is no different from a black vs. white racial dispute. Why don't we ban the new members from ever posting on the front page? Most likely they will never learn! If you want to punish something, punish the FPP abuse or that action that is against the "common sense of the community".

I agree with Miguel, it's a learning process that takes place, learning that has to receive feedback. That is, both positive (best. post. ever.) and negative (worst of) feedback.

And if you do not like a certain post, instead of complaining on MeTa, do a little research and show to that newbie how his/her FPP should look like! What about vacapinta's mentorship service?

Do not get me wrong, I am not happy with the new posts either (I've been lurking around for about one year), but do not change the community for the sake of a few, better mend the ways of the new members! This is one of the differences between MeFi and Fark, /. , Yahoo...


posted by MzB at 11:51 AM on August 23, 2002

(Just a suggestion in regards to the double-post issue)
If mefi-site thread search fields/functionality was integrated into the focus of the posting section itself, that might keep people like me out of trouble in the future.
Right now to search you must use the link in the header, and I think that most people, myself included, usually forget to do this, or just skip it, before making a post.




posted by lilboo at 12:27 PM on August 23, 2002

[feint]

yhbc's just been a little cranky lately. I think someone's asked for a zoning variance and isn't willing to apply a little palm-grease, if you know what I mean.

[jab]

[hook]

"Oooh! That's gonna leave a mark on the Commish, Frank!"

/silliness
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:44 PM on August 23, 2002

lilboo, the posting function does warn you if your link has been used before. However, artificial intelligence hasn't progressed to the point of discerning whether the subject has been posted before. I doubt if it even tests links in the description. All you can really do is search the site (use both the MetaFilter and the Google searches) and hope for the best.

Recently there were three or four links about making diamonds out of your cremated remains on the same day until Matt pruned the duplicates. Those people couldn't have even read the front page before they posted.
posted by timeistight at 1:01 PM on August 23, 2002

an area for new members to post practice links that can be reviewed

Hmm. Or maybe they can just email a sample post to a member they like on their own?

Btw, timeistight, I disagree that the content of Rattmouth's post didn't belong here. The line breaks and length were delete-worthy, and the tone invoked a personal blog too much, but offering a collection of related "nu jazz" links (maybe with an interview or article link or two) would have been a perfect use of MeFi, as rory points out in the thread's last comment. Just because Rattmouth actually wrote the red flag words "Just sharing the things I love" or "Some links to my favorite X" doesn't mean that's not exactly what a lot of us are doing here every day.
posted by mediareport at 1:10 PM on August 23, 2002

I still think if you can't say it in three or four lines, it shouldn't be a MeFi post.
posted by timeistight at 1:16 PM on August 23, 2002

*flings poo at timeistight*
posted by mediareport at 1:20 PM on August 23, 2002

Er, I meant to say if you can't say it in eight lines and seven links, it shouldn't be a MeFi post.

No more poo, please. I'll behave.
posted by timeistight at 1:30 PM on August 23, 2002

timeistight - So many people double-posted that issue because it was widely reported on many different news sites. What looked like an esoteric news story (to some) was actually all over the place. In these cases, the link search hurdle just isn't enough to prevent a double post.

I don't think any AI is needed, I'm just suggesting Matt insert a search field & button (directed at threads only), on the post page itself, you know, just like the one found here.

You could (in order)
- place the main link,
- create the title,
- compose the post and sub-links,
- then select a descriptive word or phrase from either the title or the description that you wrote and do a pre-emptive search on the subject before you actually post.

Right now you must go up to the header, then to a different page to execute such a search. (This option isn't really in the line of sight when you are posting.) If that functionality were more tightly integrated with the page itself, he might not have to do so much double-post maintenance.

posted by lilboo at 2:09 PM on August 23, 2002

timeistight - So many people double-posted that issue because it was widely reported on many different news sites. What looked like an esoteric news story (to some) was actually all over the place. In these cases, the link search hurdle just isn't enough to prevent a double post.


Obviously not, because all those little searches they might have done never carried a disclaimer that read "Have you read the front page lately, like today?". lilboo what you propose is a) more programming work for Matt, which might be fine if there was any assurance that it *would* cut down on double posts, b) doesn't provide any assurance that people would use them in the willy-nilly haste to get their names in the lights, and c) defeats the idea that we are responsible for our actions here. Is this place about posting cool stuff and actually bothering to read it, or about scooping the potential competition? I agree that the search feature is a hindrance for posting stuff that was originally posted a year ago (though it has saved my butt a time or two), but come on, triple posts on the same day?

posted by Wulfgar! at 2:28 PM on August 23, 2002

Wulfgar, I disagree that it's more programming work. He already has the proposed functionality in place on another page. Just migrate it over to the post page.

That being said, I'll compromise the initial proposal, just build a more visable link to the search screen at the point of post creation, instead of burying it in the header.


posted by lilboo at 2:41 PM on August 23, 2002

I'm just trying to be helpful here. Yes, we are responsible for our actions here, I'm just trying to explore an idea that may or may not make executing that responsibility a little easier.
posted by lilboo at 2:50 PM on August 23, 2002

I'm not trying to be snarky here. I just think that this place ought to be about reading as much as anything else. I don't tend to comment much anymore because I believe A) someone who knows a lot more about the topic than I do will weigh in sooner or later, B) whatever I would have said will be said first by someone more eager, and C) I think most comments aren't read well enough to be given due weight. Many times we see essentially the same comment over and over again, each time fresh and original to whoever throws it up (whether somebody said it before or not). This is even more apparent on the front page. Most links I have sought to post A) have been posted better by those more well researched, B) have been posted quicker by those more eager, or C) if its really juicy, its been multiple posted before I can even type an intro (I'm a poor typist).

I try and at least skim every topic for a given day, because I believe this is about exploration more than seeing your name in the bright blue lights, (actually, the names come up in gold, don't they?). My only suggestion for newer members is: just because you can post now, doesn't mean you can stop reading. No one is gonna keep score, and there aren't any prizes for posting first or most or even the most links (well Tamim maybe, but none of you are gonna beat him on that score). Just read the posts, click the links, and I guarentee that the number of front page posts will decrease, as will the number of double-posts, and quality will improve.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:14 PM on August 23, 2002

The best indicator, in my experience, is the way the front page post is written.

The very best indicator is the link that the post provides. Except in cases when people seek to be deliberately obscure, one can usually get a pretty good idea of what the link is about and gauge whether one is interested enough to click and explore it further. A post can have 100 comments--all people slamming it as a crappy link. It can be a divinely written post--clever, funny, erudite--about a tedious and unrewarding link. So while there are many hints that one can use to predict how good a link may be, there's no substitute for going to find out for oneself.
posted by rushmc at 4:04 PM on August 23, 2002

* hits the canvas hard, spits out mouthpiece *

Okay, you got me, Crash - at this rate, I'll never be able to afford that second home in the Berkshires.
posted by yhbc at 6:37 PM on August 23, 2002