Middle East News

September 24, 2002 6:38 AM

Oi! I'm a sucker for middle-east threads (and regrettably get irrationally wound up in them) (especially Israel/palestine ones), but the sheer number of similar front page posts in recent days has been exhausting and exhaustive. The topic is covered on every major news site.

What happened to "posting something interesting I've found on the web"?


posted by hama7 to MetaFilter-related at 6:38 AM (37 comments total)

Just cuz you don't find the topic interesting...
posted by mischief at 6:46 AM on September 24, 2002

Maaaaaaaaan, you kicked a cult MetaTalk thread out of MetaTalk front page

We've discussed the "too many I/P fpp's" a lot, there won't be a moratorium because Matt won't do it, and we'll see more of those fpp's once Iraq attaq starts

Search MetaTalk, there's a few thousand comments about the topic



posted by matteo at 6:48 AM on September 24, 2002

What happened to "posting something interesting I've found on the web"?

Isn't that up to us? I've glanced at your blog: how 'bout a nice art post (hint: searching mefi for Stuckism turns up nothing).
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:49 AM on September 24, 2002

Given the time of your post, I'm going to assume that my most recent post was the immediate catalyst for this comment. I realize there's been something of a glut of news stories recently, but I personally had not seen the topic brought up elsewhere, and I wanted to see what the MeFities had to say about it. I found it on the web, and I thought it was interesting, so, you know.

I really don't mean to be rude, but ... couldn't you just, like, not read the threads that bore you? I happen to be a polisci geek, so the war-discussion threads are what I like the most about Metafilter. (I spent a few weeks trying to sneak into the free signups just so I could join in, and was all excited when I succeeded.) Not an attack, just a suggestion. I skip over about 70 percent of what gets posted here, but as long as somebody is enjoying that 70 percent, I see no reason to complain that it exists.
posted by textureslut at 6:51 AM on September 24, 2002

War-discussion threads are discussion threads. This is not a discussion board. This is not Usenet. The link takes precedent over the discussion. The discussion serves to amplify and enhance the link -- not the other way around.
posted by mcwetboy at 7:18 AM on September 24, 2002

mcwetboy:

According to the FAQ: 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.

Maybe I'm just being an annoying newbie, but it looks to me like discussion is an integral part of what makes a good link. Even putting that aside, though, I would be willing to bet that most people did not know the particulars of the story I linked to (I realize that your statement applied broadly to war-discussion threads and not just my particular post; I'm just trying to defend myself here.) I read a lot of war news, and hadn't seen this discussed anywhere.


posted by textureslut at 7:40 AM on September 24, 2002

textureslut, why don't you start a war discussion board? Then you can moderate the threads to your heart's delight, and we can get on with the business of checking out new and interesting things people have discovered.

mcwetboy is right. This is not a discussion board. Try finding links that are interesting in and of themselves, instead of posting because you want to hear "what MeFites have to say about it". It's a subtle distinction, but it's one I think makes MetaFilter the intelligent and eclectic place it is. Otherwise it's just a bunch of people yammering about the same thing over and over again, and I can find that sort of thing just about anywhere.
posted by stefanie at 8:39 AM on September 24, 2002

Same old story. The link should be the discussion; the link should not be the means towards starting a discussion about something that you want to talk about.

Like, you know, the funniest place you've had sex.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:10 AM on September 24, 2002

kafkaesque: Thank you; I was going to mention that, but worried I would look snarky.

textureslut, why don't you start a war discussion board? Then you can moderate the threads to your heart's delight, and we can get on with the business of checking out new and interesting things people have discovered.

Stefanie, you're not making any sense. I'm the one that doesn't want moderated threads. You are the one suggesting that there should be less of the stuff you don't like.

I am really not trying to be contrary, or to change this board to my tastes, or to draw out an argument. I'm simply stating that I don't see why my post didn't meet the three criteria for good posts that were laid out in the FAQ.

The post in question seems to have generated a decent discussion. I'm sorry that you and mcwetboy don't seem to find it very interesting, but clearly some people do. I still don't understand why you can't just scroll past the stuff you don't want to read.


posted by textureslut at 9:29 AM on September 24, 2002

Like, you know, the funniest place you've had sex.

I wouldn't trade that thread, silly as it may be, for a hundred middle-east threads.

For me it comes down to this: MetaFilter is able to produce an interesting discussion about funny sex or about the dot com meltdown and aftermath or about Web design standards because many members are able to bring unique personal perspective and knowledge to the discussion. I've yet to see a middle eastern discussion here that couldn't have occurred in a thousand other places. Until Dick Cheney and Saddam Hussein start posting here, I don't see how this will change.
posted by timeistight at 9:35 AM on September 24, 2002

I've yet to see a middle eastern discussion here that couldn't have occurred in a thousand other places.

dingdingdingding!

just have to chime in and mention that i agree with all the folks who feel metafilter shouldn't be a simple discussion board.

while i enjoy hearing about the special knowledge and talents of other mefites -- which often serves to make for an interesting thread -- most of the time i'm fairly uninterested on their opinions.

i want facts: for example, if you know of a really cool website to check out new widgets, etc -- well, damn! i want to hear about it. if you think all the widgets suck on said website and want to argue about it ad nauseum, well, i couldn't give a damn.

so, now, if you are PRIVY to some information on the ME that no-one else really can explain; like -- you wrote your dissertation on it after an extensive archaelogical survey, and you know for a FACT -- a FACT -- that aliens landed there in 1923, well, hey, i might be interested in what you've got to say. but if you're some kind of armchair commentator, well ...


wasn't there some massive tagline mandate? "Metafilter -- it's all about the link"?


posted by fishfucker at 9:47 AM on September 24, 2002

oh, ps: if someone is having to ignore approx. 50% of the threads, it's questionable whether metafilter is continuing to function well as a filter. i've missed threads that I would be interested in because there's just so darn many on the front page.

we can pretend it's possible to just "ignore" things, but ... well, have you ever listened to a bootleg of a US beatles concert? signal vs. noise, yeah?

ok: my streak of poorly thought-out (yet cute) analogies is over.

posted by fishfucker at 9:53 AM on September 24, 2002

I wouldn't trade that thread, silly as it may be, for a hundred middle-east threads.

Neither would I, but the two are bad for different reasons. CNN headlines don't really make the grade, but Miguel posting a solicitous question (on what is an interesting link) and then hosting the thread like he was some demented Merv Griffin isn't really cricket either.
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:53 AM on September 24, 2002

Thanks fishfucker. You said it better than I did.
posted by timeistight at 9:54 AM on September 24, 2002

Has anything ever been banned from FPPs? (Vibrating brooms aside - I mean general subjects.)

If not, maybe that's the whole point...
posted by gottabefunky at 9:58 AM on September 24, 2002

It's a well researched post, Kafkaesque - with several sources - and the question springs directly from one of the links, which attributes several instances of sex in public places in Manhattan.

You can click your way through the post and enjoy yourself without contributing or you can just respond to the ancillary question. I'd say that brought together the "link" and the "discussion" aspects quite well. But what do I know?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:00 AM on September 24, 2002

Has anything ever been banned from FPPs?

I asked that very question about the same subject two months ago.
posted by timeistight at 10:04 AM on September 24, 2002

Miguel, it's not even your post per se, but the idea that you need to bring in the "Discussion" aspect. It's just like a "what's your favorite unnecessary surgical procedure?" at the end of a perfectly good post about accidental amputations.

In other words, wasn't the link fine without the solicitous question?
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:07 AM on September 24, 2002

Ooh! I know! That would be "frontal lobotomies"!
posted by yhbc at 10:12 AM on September 24, 2002

I try to think of MeFi, news and culture stuff included, as being less about the world, than about how the web reflects the world. As such the Sex Museum post, which is interesting, would have led to a discussion about those kind of sites. If I want to know where people have fucked, I can then go to those sites.
posted by liam at 10:14 AM on September 24, 2002

In other words, wasn't the link fine without the solicitous question?t

Yes it was. But the "Sex in Manhattan" Flash presentation clearly asked for a question. Perhaps I should have let it arise naturally, instead of turning my post into a "what's your favourite X?" thread. But I don't think so. Sex is a funny thing and the thread is full of amusing comments. I only participated because I couldn't resist - I'm generally absent from my own threads since I realized how annoying cheer-leading posts are. But this was too good to miss!

Links plus discussion - isn't this what MetaFilter's all about?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2002

"In other words, wasn't the link fine without the solicitous question?"


posted by mr_crash_davis at 10:20 AM on September 24, 2002

textureslut, by "moderate", I meant "post every third comment in response to something said in the thread"

It's a practice that is generally frowned upon. Kafkaesque's comments in this thread explain it quite well, I think.
posted by stefanie at 10:27 AM on September 24, 2002

Liam is absolutely right; I must retract. He was also the only member to actually comment on one of the links, so that gives him double authority. It was silly of me to tack on a "Penthouse Forum"-style question.

But this thread isn't about me - sorry for the detour, hama7. People here have been all too ready to condemn you for speaking your mind but your participation here indicates you're not only as interested in the good of MetaFilter as the best of 'em, but that you're actually adapting to its main concerns, which is the true proof of loyalty and (forgive the monarchist bias) blue blood. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:38 AM on September 24, 2002

Ooh! I know! That would be "frontal lobotomies"!

I'd rather have a bottle in front o' me than a frontal lobotomy. (*rimshot*)
posted by timeistight at 10:48 AM on September 24, 2002

Anybody whose followed/seen/even glanced at any of my comments about news on this site knows that I enjoy the aspect and the discussion and insight it provides (if the participants decide not to act like holier-than-thou jackasses, which isn't always what happens).

I think what people get sick of is a thread like this, which, and I quote (note the quotes, even), says "In light of an earlier thread." The problem? That earlier thread was from... uhhh, eleven threads down the page? You know, post your new link in that thread, which still has a viable discussion taking place. It's like people have some masturbatory need to post something to the front page in order to see what happens and push up the count in their profile.
posted by The God Complex at 11:11 AM on September 24, 2002

Has anything ever been banned from FPPs?

I asked that very question about the same subject two months ago.

Bueller?

(I take the silence as a resounding "no - and that's the point, ya idjit.")


posted by gottabefunky at 11:17 AM on September 24, 2002

by the way, I updated the new posting page on metafilter, to point at threads such as this one, until I can collect all the best posts from them and present them as annotated guidelines.
posted by mathowie at 11:33 AM on September 24, 2002

Has anything ever been banned from FPPs?
only the use of the term FPP on the FP itself.
posted by quonsar at 11:35 AM on September 24, 2002

posted by eyeballkid at 11:39 AM on September 24, 2002

Very cool, Matt.
posted by timeistight at 11:43 AM on September 24, 2002

textureslut, would you mind doing a bit of research and adding a link or two to deepen your front page news story posts? I'm not being snarky; I'm honestly wondering if you'd mind.
posted by mediareport at 2:04 PM on September 24, 2002

Geez, let's not start that "no single link posts" misunderstanding again.
posted by timeistight at 2:13 PM on September 24, 2002

What a hoot, timeistight. You've now encouraged the misunderstanding. Nice work. For everyone else, there's never been a problem with "single link posts." I simply asked textureslut if he'd mind taking a few more minutes to deepen news story posts with another link or two.

Btw, love the new temporary posting guidelines, Matt. If I may, have you considered a similar version here?
posted by mediareport at 2:28 PM on September 24, 2002

You're right, mediareport; my carelessly phrased remark could be misconstrued.

Let me clarify; mediareport is right: there's nothing wrong with single link posts.
posted by timeistight at 2:42 PM on September 24, 2002

thanks, matt -- very useful.


posted by matteo at 3:01 PM on September 24, 2002

there's nothing wrong with single link posts

Right. But we all know that daily papers operate under very tight deadline and space restrictions (gotta fit in all those underwear ads, after all). Those restrictions mean there's often room for only the barest context in a daily news story. Thus, taking the time to make up for what is, to me, an inherent limitation in newspaper links at MeFi by providing the community the context that daily reporters *wish* they could include, just plain makes sense.

Thanks for helping clear that up, timeistight. ;)
posted by mediareport at 3:13 PM on September 24, 2002