Searching would be so much easier with more descriptions

September 12, 2002 7:10 PM

Su has a point here. Wouldn't it make searching a lot easier, as well as being fairer to the original authors and more descriptive in general if users could mention the name or title of a linked item in their lead post or, at least, in a follow-up ("more inside") comment.

As it is, I fail to see how Su could have detected tomplus2's May 2002 post, unless he arbitrarily searched for "graffiti" or some other term which isn't exactly apposite.
posted by MiguelCardoso to etiquette/policy at 7:10 PM (28 comments total)

I realize it makes for clunkier posts. It isn't easy to work in names and titles without being less than snappy and a bit of a list-o-maniac. But perhaps it's worth it.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:19 PM on September 12, 2002

What about using the Title attribute? I think (pls correct me if I am wrong) that the search algorithm scans all the HTML code and not just the visible text, so embedding the necessary info inside an anchor tag would do the trick.
posted by PrinceValium at 7:36 PM on September 12, 2002

It works!
posted by PrinceValium at 7:37 PM on September 12, 2002

The scary thing is that there were three matches for that phrase ;-)
posted by dg at 7:45 PM on September 12, 2002

That was very elegant PV, and is a great example of a really useful function for the title tag. Unfortunately, to make it work for this purpose (naming each link with an appropriate descriptive name that could be found by the search engine), wouldn't we all have to code in the title tag for each and every link? And what about the old links?
posted by yhbc at 7:47 PM on September 12, 2002

Wow, that's scary. The fact that there's more than one instance of "my cat's breath smells like cat food." appearing on metatalk, that is.

More on topic, I would guess that most Metafilter members these days wouldn't know what a title attribute on an anchor tag was if it bit them on the but. Kudos on figuring that one out, though!

posted by dchase at 7:53 PM on September 12, 2002

I reaffirm my opinion on this topic simply because I'm a smart ass.

Now that Mathowie has caused all threads to freeze after thirty days, the limit on any link previously used for a Front Page Post in a thread is just that. Thirty days. However, only if someone has something new to contribute to the now dated thread.

This is not a rule or even a guideline. It's the most logical reaction to how this place is now hardcoded.

Anyone complaining that a new Front Page Post is referring to any thread over a month old is whining. It's better to simply and politely link the older thread to the new one so people can see what has been mentioned before if they so choose. It should not be considered wrong behavior to repeat any link that's over a month old.

It would be wise for anyone to mention the title and description of a given link in their own Front Page Post, but it is not required. Matt's hardcoding of a freeze on all threads after one month has caused the argument to be a moot point.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:05 PM on September 12, 2002

Yhbc, it's not a bad habit to get into. Especially with the glut of front page posts nowadays, it might behoove us to adopt the use of the title attribute as part of the set of informal guidelines for posting to Metafilter's front page. We might as well make it more time-consuming for people to post here; it would make for better content, better-researched posts, and deeper insight into the issues presented by the post -- at the expense of maybe five or ten more minutes of the time of the person posting the link.

As for old posts, nobody can go back in and change them, but we can always start somewhere.

posted by PrinceValium at 8:08 PM on September 12, 2002

dchase, it's worse than you think (1, 2, and a bonus, non-Simpsons one.)
posted by PrinceValium at 8:16 PM on September 12, 2002

perhaps matt could add a new field to the "post a link" page, where someone could enter keywords, to help with searching.
posted by GeekAnimator at 8:22 PM on September 12, 2002

Typing in part (because sometimes less really is more) of the url works well for searching for specific sites, as opposed to searching for something like news stories. Just one more reason not to link to them. But I digress.

In this case, typing pipslab (part of the lumasol site url) would have revealed the original post. Also, typing in whatisthematrix shows that sections of that site have been linked to 3 times.
posted by iconomy at 8:24 PM on September 12, 2002

Zach: mathowie disagrees. Nuff said.
posted by frykitty at 8:29 PM on September 12, 2002

I agree that the title attribute would be useful here--it's what the attribute is for (identifying the linked page more clearly). Also, though, the URLs of the two links are the same, and I think that searching on the URL should be common practice. That won't always work, as URLs can change and there are little differences ("www.x.com/index.htm" or "www.x.com" or "www.x.com/" are all the same page in most cases) that can throw off a search, but it would help. Eventually it might be possible for Matt to add some code that can help clear up at least those little differences when searching for URLs.
posted by Nothing at 8:32 PM on September 12, 2002

Shite.
I actually haven't used the internal search engine for ages. Got used to it not being worth the try. The Google search didn't give me any matches.
I can't remember, but is there a limit on how far back the automatic dupe-check looks? My link's identical to the original one, so it should've set it off, no? Or does it only work if the address was put into the actual URL field of the submission form, as it seems Tomplus did?

As for solutions, something similar to GeekAnimator's idea is what I've been thinking about since the call-out. A metadata field would be a neat thing, as it allows people to remain cryptic if they want, and then put the more "obvious" info there so that searches will still find it.
And since I'm often among the first to point out problems in other people's ideas, I'll go right on to say that this requires a lot of trust on the part of Matt and the community as a whole, since reviewing that information would get really unmanageable very very quickly. It wouldn't take much to make the field useless.
posted by Su at 8:36 PM on September 12, 2002

That won't always work, as URLs can change and there are little differences ...

That was my point, which was why I suggested using just the word pipslab, instead of the whole url.
posted by iconomy at 8:41 PM on September 12, 2002

frykitty: Matt can declare whatever he wants, but if it's not hardcoded and he's not sitting on the delete button 24 hours a day to make up for the code's shortcomings, his declarations mean little, his site or not.

"Matt says it, I support it, that settles it" carries as little weight as the phrase I paraphrased once we start dealing with reality.

posted by mischief at 9:11 PM on September 12, 2002

I think Zach's point is a good one, but only if something has changed with whatever the topic relates to from the first time it was posted. Otherwise, it's just a rerun.
posted by crunchland at 9:21 PM on September 12, 2002

My understanding of the 30 day freeze was that it prevents cult threads and is not in any way related to some sort of double posting statute of limitations.

Personally, I come down on the side of double post = bad, but this is mainly because if something has been around long enough to get reposted, I've likely seen it before. Including items from before I was a member, or before I was a lurker. I'm jaded and have seen it all, so a statute of limitations is completely contrary to how I use MetaFilter: to find new stuff. Something 30 days old is not new. Something 2 or 3 years old is definitely not new.

While these are entirely personal preferences and hardly justification for a policy, it's reasonable to suspect that most MetaFilter readers and members would agree that new stuff is good, and reposting old stuff is less good.
posted by majick at 10:43 PM on September 12, 2002

ZachsMind, the threads don't disappear after 30 days. You can still check them out and read all the comments. Sticking something back on the front page after 30 days so all the new kids from the last month can beat the dead horse in comments seems like too much maintenance.

I'm sorry, but I want to see new stuff, not last month's stuff, and I don't really care if someone wants to put his two cents in on the exciting update to Get Your War On, or whatever.

But more importantly... stopping with the cryptic, oh-so-mysterioso link descriptions would go along way toward cutting down on double posts. One nice little sentence is enough for me.
posted by stefanie at 10:46 PM on September 12, 2002

At last! Zach supports my plan for reposting the Harry Potter vibrating broom story every single month! In fact, with a 5-day slip period, every six years I can post the story thirteen times!

This is also my plan for getting Matt to quit and shut the place down. Don't tell anyone!
posted by dhartung at 11:47 PM on September 12, 2002

My understanding of the 30 day freeze was that it prevents cult threads and is not in any way related to some sort of double posting statute of limitations.

Posting on very old threads, combined with new members, was putting tremendous strain on the ol' server, as I understand. Especially since a couple were really long.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 12:50 AM on September 13, 2002

That was my point, which was why I suggested using just the word pipslab, instead of the whole url.


Sorry about that, you posted after I loaded the page and I didn't check the new comments on preview. You're exactly right, of course, and searching on partial URLs will work nearly every time unless the URL has actually changed.
posted by Nothing at 1:16 AM on September 13, 2002

*searches for hamstersdancing.com*
posted by dangerman at 6:24 AM on September 13, 2002

I'm just going to stick my neck out and admit that I don't know what you guys are talking about. Could someone please spell out for me a bit more clearly exactly what feature is being suggested?
posted by bingo at 9:29 AM on September 13, 2002

I can't remember, but is there a limit on how far back the automatic dupe-check looks?

Su, my understanding was that the dupe-check only looked for dupes in the URL box of the submission form; since you put the link in the body of the post, it didn't register.

Although I could be wrong. If I'm right, however, I'd like to suggest changing it so the dupe-checker looks at all the links in a post. I also like the idea of putting in keywords -- that would allow more functionality in datamining on the site.
posted by me3dia at 10:12 AM on September 13, 2002

Er, that first sentence should be italicized.
posted by me3dia at 10:12 AM on September 13, 2002

bingo, if you're asking about the title attribute, what they're suggesting is that you enter the links in the fpp as html directly (ie avoid the url and link title boxes) and, for each link, include a title attribute like:

<a href="http://www.acooke.org" title="andrew cooke's home page">self link</a> is just wonderful...

and if that fails to post correctly, check out the html specs.

the idea is that title text can contain a simple literal description of the link that will show up when other people search for it later (ie before posting it again). that way, you are still free to choose exactly what appears in the actual text of the post (because the information in the title attribute is not displayed directly - it's what appears if you "mouse over" the link).

that's what princevalium did above - the first link uses a title and the second link shows that the search works.
posted by andrew cooke at 12:43 PM on September 15, 2002

Frykitty: "Zach: mathowie disagrees. Nuff said."

Then Matt should reconsider the thirty day archival block. Ya cain't have it both ways. If someone has something new to say, they should be able to contribute, either to the old thread or by making a brand new one. I don't care how many days have gone by.

When you hit preview while composing a Front Page Post, the site's already hardcoded to search on the URL & find other similarities. I've seen that happen. If that fails for some reason, the hardcoding search function can be improved. It should not fall to the poster to do multiple searches of his URL & keywords in various ways actively seeking for a doublepost.

There's nothing new under the sun.

Su: "My link's identical to the original one, so it should've set it off, no? Or does it only work if the address was put into the actual URL field of the submission form, as it seems Tomplus did?"

I often find it mildly annoying that so many purposefully skip the idea of putting their link at the start of their Front Page Post, because they want it to stand out by starting with text. This is one of those things that's so unimportant it's never really warranted a FPP in Meta, and had I done so I'd be accused of nitpicking.

But then there's people (including Matt) who hate the use of FPP, which I happen to find nitpicky. So maybe I should make a MeTa FPP about this: to be blunt, USE the darn URL & title fields as they are coded, instead of putting everything in the details field. THAT'd help fix this a lot better than the other reactions I've read in this thread. If people actually used MeFi as Matt's built it, we'd all be a lot happier.

"My understanding of the 30 day freeze was that it prevents cult threads and is not in any way related to some sort of double posting statute of limitations."

I've never been fully convinced that there's something evil about cult threads. I think they're fun. Whether the freeze is meant to affect the double posting affectation, it does. As a metaphorical comparison, recent fraudulent business practices in the U.S. corporate world may not have been intended purposefully to adversely affect the country's economy - it was just greedy people trying to get away with questionable behavior - but it's affected our economy nonetheless. Another comparison; I may not intend to be an A-hole sometimes, but that doesn't change the fact that I am. *smirk*

Stephanie: "ZachsMind, the threads don't disappear after 30 days..."

I don't recall saying the word 'disappear.' If I did I was in error and that wasn't my intent (sic). I meant to say FREEZE. The thread is still there in a read-only state for archival purposes so if someone wants to add to it, they can't.

On more than one occasion, when someone else cries out doublepost, it's been a first post for me, because I missed it the last time for any number of reasons. Contrary to popular belief, I don't hover over MeFi like Snoopy playing vulture, and I don't read every single thread, so I occasionally miss stuff. So I see no reason why people get upset at there being occasional repeats or even at there being an overabundance of posts. I scan the front page descriptions and if something catches my eye I dive deeper into the blue.

I don't keep a scorecard, or go out of my way to catch someone else in some absurd MeFi faux pas, and have often been of the opinion those who do cause more trouble than they claim to help resolve. It goes back to my beating the dead horse of how people criticize HOW others post in here rather than discuss WHAT is posted. Some enjoy the game of demeaning fellow MeFi posters by questioning their behavior, as its an easy way to demean the content of a person's posts without having to actually touch the content itself.

In politics it's called mudslinging. Here in MeFi it's called policing. I call it annoying.

Dhartung: "At last! Zach supports my plan for reposting the Harry Potter vibrating broom story every single month!"

Hey, let's not jump to any conclusions there, D. *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 10:18 AM on September 16, 2002