Tags:


if you could filter mefi, how?
October 4, 2002 3:40 AM   RSS feed for this thread Subscribe

if you could filter mefi, how? more inside.

posted by andrew cooke to feature requests at 3:40 AM (113 comments total)

Advertise here: Contact FM.


(this isn't really a feature request - i would implement it, see below - but i couldn't find a more suitable category)

i'll be finishing work in a couple of days and i'm considering using the free time i'll have to write a filter for mefi. has anyone given this any thought? what would people like? points to ponder (i have no idea if matt will delete this - maybe it would be a good idea to copy posts to me by email):
finally, please note that this is no promise of an implementation, just a request for comments. and if i do do something, it will take time.

posted by andrew cooke at 3:43 AM on October 4, 2002


Thoughts have been given in the past, yes. Not to say this isn't an idea worth contemplating, though.

jedwards was working on something similar, if I recall. Not sure what happened with that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:53 AM on October 4, 2002


thanks.

i know filtering in general and moaning about this place has been flogged to death, but i was hoping for specific (tech-level) suggestions. it's a tricky technical problem - especially with no threading and limited server resources.

interestingly, your search turned up this by matt - it looks like he was considering dropping individual comments (and one of the first responses points out the problems inherent in this).

jedwards's site appears to be dead
posted by andrew cooke at 4:04 AM on October 4, 2002


That's an easy one: Anyone with a user # < 10000! ;{P
posted by mischief at 4:39 AM on October 4, 2002


Filtering by poster, please.

Please.
posted by Grangousier at 5:04 AM on October 4, 2002


I could point out that someone or ones could review submitted posts before being seen on the front page, (well, to be frank, Fark-style) That way the quality and integrity of posts could be maintained, as well as eliminating double-posts.

I am sure this has been suggested before, and the question remains: Who?

I keep feeling like MetaFilter has a kind of Meta-Jekyll and Filter-Hyde situation happening, in that the "It's all about the link" sentiment that is paramount seems to lead to almost no (or very little) discussion, or just the perfunctory "thanks jim!" or whatever. Whereas political posts and inflammatory controversial news seems to invite comments in the hundreds, or more.

The perfect situation would be if something about hamsters
were posted, the comments would be links about hamsters, supplementing the front page post.

A key to this dual personality for me was the MetaFilter tagline: "You're wrong, No you're wrong." Which implies a kind of debate forum which, in most cases, would not exist if the "it's all about the link" sentiment were to be observed.

It really is "all about the link" at memepool, and posts are screened by some overlord or another, but MetaFilter seems to be in a very interesting state of *limbo.

*Which is both interesting and frustrating at times.
posted by hama7 at 5:17 AM on October 4, 2002


Filtering by poster, please.

so would you be happy to have a page where some comments were simply missing - other comments might not make much sense? or you don't want to see fpp from certain people?

maybe you're thinking of some kind of front page ranking that can warn you when xxx is posting to a thread?

this is the kind of detail we need to think about.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:03 AM on October 4, 2002


maybe you're thinking of some kind of front page ranking that can warn you when xxx is posting to a thread?

That's the craziest thing I've ever heard. We all have a little censor living inside our heads. His name is "Bruce."


posted by ColdChef at 6:18 AM on October 4, 2002


i was thinking of some kind of ranking for discussions based on who's posting. you might have a list of people you want to listen to and others that, frankly, you're kind of tired of. by giving a thread a rating based on that, you could find what was interesting. this would all be optional, remember.
posted by andrew cooke at 6:22 AM on October 4, 2002


so would you be happy to have a page where some comments were simply missing
Yes

other comments might not make much sense?
I don't care

or you don't want to see fpp from certain people?
I can just not click on those, it's the interesting discussions constantly interrupted by comments that have no interest or value, either serial trolls like ParisParamus or Postroad or overexcited teens like Dark Messiah. I suspect that if the option was available those comments wouldn't be responded to, as anyone who might respond will have filtered those posters out.

Incidentally, yes, I would personally tend to filter out right-wing rather than left-wing posters, but I find that the left-wing ones tend to link to interesting stuff that I can at least disagree with at my leisure, whereas the right wing ones just snark and bellow and assume that that's as good as providing evidence.

maybe you're thinking of some kind of front page ranking that can warn you when xxx is posting to a thread?
That might be a bit OTT for me. But in this, as in all things YMMV.
posted by Grangousier at 6:28 AM on October 4, 2002


either serial trolls like ParisParamus or Postroad or overexcited teens like Dark Messiah.

Trolls, meaning someone those whose opinions you disagree with.

How's this: Tune your computer in to the New York Times, ingest CNN and B.S.MSNBC. Wallow in the Village Voice and all the other heaps of socialist trash. But for the love of wicca, please don't let anybody challenge your delicate sensibilities.

May Allah shield you from all opinions which run counter to your own.
posted by hama7 at 6:43 AM on October 4, 2002


Or if bad poster grows, and develops--begins making contributions, not just simply posts--and you'll be missing out, only to never know b/c they made mistakes in the past...?

So why not add an [X] link to every FPP, and every comment, and if Ms.JaneDoe's comment only consists of incoherent ramblings and say over 100 logged-in registered users click the little [X] it gets deleted or emailed to Matt to be deleted or Ms.JaneDoe gets publicly flogged or whatever.
posted by Ms.JaneDoe at 6:47 AM on October 4, 2002


I've thought about this off and on for quite some time, and have kept a kind of running notes file of what we've talked about in MeTa. Here are some suggestions, although I haven't the technical expertise to offer anything more than design ideas. It seems to me these would be less intrusive than some other solutions we've discussed, simply because they require only alternate views of existing information which I assume could be implemented by extending and parsing the RSS feed (i.e., there'd be no need to implement a rating system or categorization and go through the change trauma of getting people to use it consistently).

1. Model a killfile feature similar to those implemented for Usenet newsreaders. This is the obvious one and the one I think most people would use. Simply remove from view any post by any user who appears on the viewer's killfile list. Alternately, rather than deleting - and making invisible - thread posts by those you'd prefer not to see, remove the content of the post and tack a "[Snip]" or something onto above their username and posting timestamp. (Problem: There's no consistent quoting mechanism here, so cut-and-paste jobs from the people you're trying to avoid would still leak through. Still, getting rid of 75% of what some of those posters publish is better than nothing.) Judging from our discussion on the topic, this solution would satisfy a lot of people who want to screen out those who, to put it mildly, annoy them.

2. Implement a "FPP & subsequent links only" view. Information to include: entire FPP and then a listing of links from comments, with name of link poster and timestamp attached. For us non-NewsFilter types, this would be a metaMetaFilter equivalent in which the links regain primacy. Needless to say, this is the one that I want personally.

3. Implement a thread count view. Information to include: entire FPP, followed by a sorted count of who has posted comments. Viewers familiar with a given user's opinions and style could then decide whether the thread was one they wanted to read or not.

4. Filter by topic keyword. This one's problematic, but I know some people want it. Somehow (intelligently?) scan the FPP - and the thread? - and if a word on the user's kill list appears (or, appears enough times?), delete either the comments or the entire post. The potential for abuse of this is obvious, but self-policing could probably keep that under control. This is like categoratization, I suppose, but without changing MeFi itself.

(BTW, hama7, this is a discussion about possible filtering techniques. Nobody's making you use anything andrew comes up with and last time I checked it was not your job to decide what any of us should and/or should not read, so let's try to stay with the topic, OK? We're not debating whether filtering is good or not; that's been done. We're talking about how to do it.)
posted by JollyWanker at 6:53 AM on October 4, 2002


good point msjanedow. on the other hand, though, if other people that the user did read were replying to the once-bad-now-better poster then i think it would become obvious that they were missing out on an interesting part of the conversation. so the user would "undelete" the poster to read their comments...

[it's not my intention to guide this thread and i feel i'm posting too much, so i'll bow out now, but will stay reading. thanks for all constructive comments]
posted by andrew cooke at 6:55 AM on October 4, 2002


metametafilterfilter.com is available!
posted by crunchland at 7:00 AM on October 4, 2002


Trolls, meaning someone those whose opinions you disagree with.

God, no. I disagree with a lot of people. I disagree with almost everybody. I'm a very disagreeable fellow. The Street Harrassment thread is filled with opinions that I disagree with, occasionally quite vehemently, and (oddly) on both sides, but I'm still reading it. I disagree with Fold and Mutilate, usually, but always read their posts. There is at least meat to those disagreements - in the process of disagreeing I have to address my own presumptions and (hopefully) come out richer, even if my opinion is unchanged I at least know why it's unchanged. In a sense, that's what happened initially with ParisParamus - I didn't really think about I/P until I saw his posts, and went off to do a bit of research. Now, of course, having done that research, I've come down on precisely the opposite side from him. My opinion may change again, but ParisParamus will not do the changing, since all he does is restate his rather narrow opinion over and over again.

I like my "delicate sensibilities" to be challenged, but if you think that storming in in your usual way wittering on about "leftists" and "socialists" is in any way challenging think again, I've seen all that over and over, there's no new data there, no evidence, nothing, just pronouncements from some high, holy place of divine Conservatism. Dull dull dull. I really wouldn't want to stop you, but neither would I want to carry on reading it if I can possibly help it. This seems like a solution.

I've had the dubious privilege of disagreeing with people of all political stripes in my time, and have learned from many of those disagreements. The people who I would prefer not to clutter my reading are not those with whom I simply disagree, because then I wouldn't have anything to read, but rather those who could quite easily turn their posting over to a rudimentary AI bot, affording them the opportunity to spend more time with their families.


On preview:
Ms.JaneDoe: That would be my loss, don't you think? Besides, I'm a very slothful person. It would take an awful lot to move me to block someone.


posted by Grangousier at 7:17 AM on October 4, 2002


The letter W and the number 2. Never liked either one.
posted by mss at 7:28 AM on October 4, 2002


andrew cooke, Grangousier, I think you both are right and should have the option to block someone should Matt (I feel weird addressing Matt like I know him...) create such an option. However, if the opportunity to block users present itself, I shall block no one and pinch myself when I get upset at an obvious troll by an obvious offender--but, when said offender makes me consider something in a new and interesting perspective/insight after my initial outrage (not likely, but possible), I'll smile.

On a side note, if you could have such a blocking system, it would be interesting to have an option on the main page reading: "There have been 5 links posted, 20 comments posted, and 12 users have blocked you since your last visit"
posted by Ms.JaneDoe at 7:29 AM on October 4, 2002


2. Implement a "FPP & subsequent links only" view. Information to include: entire FPP and then a listing of links from comments, with name of link poster and timestamp attached

If I am following you here, this means we would only get the poster's name and not the comment? Then I vote no. Just as I would vote no to the idea of threading inside discussions. The most attractive feature about Metafilter is how streamlined it is: no Sigs, no clicking on each comment, no deciding which thread to follow.

And sadly, I think we already have a ranking feature-- just check the number of comments, that signals pretty clearly how popular the posting is.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:30 AM on October 4, 2002


That's an easy one: Anyone with a user # &lt; 10000! ;{P

That's been suggested already -- and in more general form (though it's now been shut down, or taken private...).

I actually think a way of delimiting whose comments you see displayed would encourage many people whose participation has faded to post more. I'm not sure that, given MeFi's current size, everyone seeing everyone else's comments is ideal; for any given member, there are certain people whose comments he or she is most interested in, and as general membership increases those comments get harder and harder to find. Meanwhile, making comments becomes less and less rewarding, because they get lost in the noise and garner fewer responses.

If people could pick whose comments they see, it would create some (minor, I think) problems, but it might make for a better site overall, with greater numbers of active members making thoughtful contributions and listening to each other. Maybe.
posted by mattpfeff at 7:35 AM on October 4, 2002


Now that I have had some time to think about it here is what I do want. I simply want to be able to make unwanted Front Page Posts disappear from my screen. ~Poof~ And then my front page would be neat and tidy and all the interesting stuff left would not be so easily overlooked.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:10 AM on October 4, 2002


My $.02

Before implementing any kind of voting, it might be interesting to see the same mefi page but with more info. You can gather information about our habits here and build some thread statistics.
Possible measures:
- "temperature" of a thread based on Zipf's law: 1, 2 and 3.
- "temperature" metric based on links: links to news sites (yahoo, ny times ...) would have a higher domain name probability, thus decreasing the grade of that thread. Have a look here and here.
- any other (reasonable) metric based on probability distribution, where a low probability of occurrence might indicate uniqueness. Or, you could make use of the unofficial "cool" button: the number of "thanks" in a thread.

When you calculate the empirical pdf/cdf be sure that you account for "structural shifts": Sept 11, new users (14K+ ) date, etc.
posted by MzB at 8:24 AM on October 4, 2002


(long and very technical post discussing ideas to improve metafilter follows. sorry about the length!)

JollyW:

1. Model a killfile feature similar to those implemented for Usenet newsreaders. ... Judging from our discussion on the topic, this solution would satisfy a lot of people who want to screen out those who, to put it mildly, annoy them.

killfiles have been discussed on metatalk before, and generally been dismissed. there's a good reason why: server-side killfiles pummel the server. for every view of the front page, and for every thread of that page, a user's killfile must be consulted. given that the killfile algorithm is thus linear in nature, we are now therefore bounded only by the complexity of it. will we pattern match, and based on what criteria? the most difficult scenario, i think, would be killfiles based on patterns within a thread (certain phrases, such as "$$$ BUY NOW $$$"). the simplest would be to filter out by author, where an exact match would suffice. filtering by link would be somewhat more difficult, since you would likely have to match by pattern rather than exactly so.

2. Implement a "FPP & subsequent links only" view. Information to include: entire FPP and then a listing of links from comments, with name of link poster and timestamp attached. For us non-NewsFilter types, this would be a metaMetaFilter equivalent in which the links regain primacy. Needless to say, this is the one that I want personally.

this idea doesn't seem too hard. for every comment posted, in addition to the thread, a list of links could be maintained and added to. however, considering that links must be filtered out for every comment, and many comments are posted, this may still be hard on the server.

3. Implement a thread count view. Information to include: entire FPP, followed by a sorted count of who has posted comments. Viewers familiar with a given user's opinions and style could then decide whether the thread was one they wanted to read or not.

this is probably the least difficult to do. the complexity would be no different than pasting everyone's comments on a screen. however, i wouldn't want to post this name list on the front page or anything (that would really be brutal for the server, unless a seperate list of usernames who posted were stored apart from the regular comment list).

4. Filter by topic keyword. This one's problematic, but I know some people want it. Somehow (intelligently?) scan the FPP - and the thread? - and if a word on the user's kill list appears (or, appears enough times?), delete either the comments or the entire post. The potential for abuse of this is obvious, but self-policing could probably keep that under control. This is like categoratization, I suppose, but without changing MeFi itself.

this ties into #1 pretty well, and what i'd written above for it. (my idea of a killfile goes beyond simply filtering by author.) this would be one of the most difficult ideas to implement, and i wouldn't be for it on the server-side.

depending on interest, it might be an idea to implement some of these solutions on the client-side. say you've got a website (with php enabled): you could upload a script that loads metafilter and does the filtering for you. no work for matt; no load on the server; everybody's happy. assuming changes don't happen on metafilter to improve the front page, that might be the most attractive solution.
posted by moz at 8:37 AM on October 4, 2002


I really wouldn't want to stop you, but neither would I want to carry on reading it if I can possibly help it.

The simplest suggestion I have then, is aside from censoring front page posts and comments from your *very progressive and discerning* eyes, is to not read those posts which may cause you indigestion. Or better yet; simply skip them.

I simply want to be able to make unwanted Front Page Posts disappear from my screen. ~Poof~

Here's a thought (again): Skip them. They are not forcing themselves into your corneas. Imagine yourself as the screening mechanism of MetaFilter. Read the non-news link-posts, and marvel at their scarcity.

Or, better yet, choose a topic and enter it into your favorite search engine, and revel in joyous bliss.
posted by hama7 at 8:39 AM on October 4, 2002


hama7:

The simplest suggestion I have then, is aside from censoring front page posts and comments from your *very progressive and discerning* eyes, is to not read those posts which may cause you indigestion.

i'd have thought that it would be clear, by now, that few are interested in simply skipping these threads. there would not be as much bellyaching over threads if people were content to do this. the question is whether matt has any interest in doing something, himself.
posted by moz at 8:49 AM on October 4, 2002


Actually I think Andrew is thinking of implementing his own Metafilter-filter, so it's not about forcing anything on Matt.

Perhaps if the name was at the top, like the letters page of The Times, one could spot tedium-merchants immediately. "Grangousier? Pah, no need to read that!"
posted by Grangousier at 8:59 AM on October 4, 2002


or overexcited teens like Dark Messiah

Dude, in all seriousness, baiting me isn't making matters any better. Were I a lesser human being, I probably would've responded with something nasty about your family lineage, and the like.

Just a hint...
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2002


"Grangousier? Pah, no need to read that!"

But why not? Even if I don't agree with some article or another, why should I shield myself from it?

I do not like to read the New York Times, yet reading it fills me me with an utterly diabolical glee.

That's me two cents.
posted by hama7 at 9:09 AM on October 4, 2002


You won't need Andrew's filterfilter then. Groovy.
posted by Grangousier at 9:12 AM on October 4, 2002


Just an observation: the fact we're trying to filter MetaFilter speaks volumes. Why not simply address the problem, instead of working on ways to filter it out. A filter saves headaches, but doesn't solve the problem; just masks it.

The new, improved, Dark Messiah 2.0! Now with 10% less "bad attitude".
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:38 AM on October 4, 2002


Stop it at once, Dark Messiah! Some of us are hooked on the 100% DM stuff and won't stand for this nampy-pampy, straightened-tie, middle-parting, well-behaved shit! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:45 AM on October 4, 2002


I, for one, welcome our new, improved Dark Messiah.
posted by timeistight at 9:46 AM on October 4, 2002


Isn't that just typical of MeFi, though? A guy like Dark Messiah makes an honest effort and straightaway the next two posters are at odds, offering him conflicting advice, each wrenching an arm from his right and left sockets? ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2002


nampy-pampy, straightened-tie, middle-parting, well-behaved shit!

Tell that to THE MAN. He's been trying to keep Darky down. :)
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:55 AM on October 4, 2002


Filtering out crap doesn't address the presence of said crap, nor does it discourage people from posting more of said crap. It certainly hasn't at Slashdot, where the filtering is the main feature.

Filtering also robs you of the ability to call people on their bad behavior -- if you don't like what someone is doing and complain, you'll simply be told to filter that person out, rather than address that person's behavior. I submit that filtering a certain poster, whose name I will not utter here, a few weeks ago would have backfired dramatically.

I think our tendency is to tackle bad behavior rather than encourage good behavior. Certainly it's easier and less challenging for us to do so, but there's only so much countershitting in newsfilter threads, killfiling and filtering that can be done until none of us are reading the same site -- we're each getting only the fraction of Metafilter we're willing to tolerate, and the community experience is destroyed, because my fraction isn't the same as your fraction and hardly anything is shared. In short, we become Usenet, which Matt has repeatedly said he wanted to avoid.

Encourage good behavior through new and ingenious methods. Turning Metafilter into Kuro5hin or Slashdot isn't original; I'd submit that it isn't even best practices. Let's come up with something new and amazing that inspires us to do better, rather than sets up post-facto obstacles to prevent us from doing worse, or, worse yet, simply prevents some of us from seeing it.
posted by mcwetboy at 10:08 AM on October 4, 2002


[sulk] I s'pose you're right.

Wouldn't use it all the time. Just sometimes.
posted by Grangousier at 10:18 AM on October 4, 2002


I played with filtering MeFi with the XMLHttp object client side and then parsing the HTML. If worked ok, I even got the forms working. It had quite a few bigs. It was like a proxy. It downloaded the MeFi page, filtered out all of the BS. It got way too complicated, though. Also, to add in all of these features to something like that seems like it wouldn't be technically do-able.

I seriously doubt that MeFi could handle, say, a double in traffic- if some app became popular and hence more users used it. Matt seems to have used a "throw more hardware at the problem as needed" approach (which is not bad at all) and I don't get the feeling that it is set up to scale so rapidly at such a rate.

Besides, what would this get Matt? Someone gleans the data from the site he worked so hard on? How are advertisers shown that their ad is viewed and not just served and filtered out. What happens when something here changes and breaks the app? Could reflect poorly on MeFi.


posted by internook at 10:19 AM on October 4, 2002


if you could filter mefi, how?

Turn off my damn computer once in a while. Noise drops to zero instantly. Amazing.
posted by ChrisTN at 10:26 AM on October 4, 2002


Oh, believe you me jedwards's site is dead.

I really don't have anything to add here, other thank I agree with JollyW's 2 and 3.

My failed attempt was to make a page and distribute a connected bookmarklet, so if you found a thread you particularly liked, you'd click your bookmarklet, type in your description of why you thought it was good, and it would pull the link and the FPP author and post them (the prototype is at http://metaneta.pitas.com, but it doesn't work and is hideous). Unfortunately, I don't have the time to implement it right now, but I would gladly give up www.metametafilter.com to one who does. My two cents.
posted by j.edwards at 10:30 AM on October 4, 2002


i wouldn't list any links going to *.cnn.com, *.washingtonpost.com, *.foxnews.com, etc....
posted by mkelley at 10:35 AM on October 4, 2002


Screw the rules! Humungous, ginormous shout-out to j.edwards!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:38 AM on October 4, 2002


On the server-side side of things, imagine this scenario:

Rumsfeld says Iraq is gonna get it! Different people agree and disagree. What do you think?
posted by Marquis at 13:01 PST on October 32 [topic pull-down menu]

Users could choose from the pull-down menu the 'topic' this post fell under (politics, breaking news, celebs, a&e, tech, net grooviness, games, etc.); depending on which topic the majority ascribed, metadata would be attached correspondingly. Users could then set preferences to filter MetaFilter for the sorts of posts they were interested in. Those who are anti-NewsFilter could have it so. Those who don't care less about Sports could not be bothered with the MLB lack-of-strike.

This would be lovely.
posted by Marquis at 10:44 AM on October 4, 2002


I like ChrisTN's idea. I'm sure Matt does too. *grin*
posted by ginz at 10:58 AM on October 4, 2002


killfiles have been discussed on metatalk before, and generally been dismissed. there's a good reason why: server-side killfiles pummel the server.

As has been suggested before, custom stylesheets plus <span> tags with the user's ID would make for a simple killfile feature without putting a strain on the server. I still think it's a good idea.
posted by webmutant at 11:00 AM on October 4, 2002


I'd filter Mischief's posts out.
posted by SpecialK at 11:11 AM on October 4, 2002


webmutant, that is one sweet idea. how about a client side doodah that inserts the span tags for you and adds a link to your own (file://) stylesheet? wouldn't be that difficult...
posted by andrew cooke at 11:15 AM on October 4, 2002


I would like the ability to filter out all demands to reinvent Metafilter.
posted by rushmc at 11:16 AM on October 4, 2002


"Why not simply address the problem, instead of working on ways to filter it out."

Because (IMHO) most people don't think there is a problem and like Metafilter to operate just the way it is.

You know? The way that has made us all like it enough to become members? The way that has put it on several "best website in the universe" lists? The way that has worked?

I think the filter idea is ass. You people don't want Metafilter, you want some other thing that is more like usenet or Slashdot. Please excuse me if my fucking head is up my ass, but what is the f'ing point of turning Metafilter into usenet? Metafilter is successful because it's different. Right? Don't we hate usenet? Don't we find discussions on Slashdot to be too awkward to use?

"What I think we need is a Metafilter that works more like something I don't like."

Wow. Check out the big brain on you guys. Just more evidence that if any of you yahoos were in charge of Metafilter it would have swirled down the shitter long ago.

You're bored? Great. Go build something new rather than screwing with something successful. Innovation? Is that a "bad word" in your world?

[sigh] I'm turning into a grumpy old man. And I'm not happy about it. "Get out of my yard you damn kids!!!"
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:17 AM on October 4, 2002


My hero!
posted by inpHilltr8r at 11:31 AM on October 4, 2002


Metafilter: Check out the big brain on you guys. (Sorry, i always wanted to do that). Anyway, chuck my non-counting vote on the 'I heart Mefi sans extra fi' t-shirt pile.
posted by robself at 11:40 AM on October 4, 2002


if any of you yahoos were in charge of Metafilter

If any of you googles were in charge of Fark...
If any of you altavistas were in charge of Slashdot...

I'm confused...
posted by Tin Man at 11:42 AM on October 4, 2002


While I'm inclined to think that y63 and I are on the same wavelength (I think that if you run his comment through the degrumpifier it translates as "what mcwetboy said", at least regarding filtering, except that I think there is a problem here but want a positive, made-in-Metafilter solution), I think that for sanity's sake it's worth treating these recent Metatalk posts as brainstorming sessions wherein a lot of shitty ideas are brought forward in hopes that one or two gems come out. (Of course, my ideas are the gems -- worship me, fuckwits.)
posted by mcwetboy at 11:50 AM on October 4, 2002


MKelly's got the right idea. "i wouldn't list any links going to *.cnn.com, *.washingtonpost.com, *.foxnews.com, etc...." I don't think killfiling by user is a good idea. No one would read any of my stuff. Instead I'd recommend filtering by domain. Any domain that's overlinked and offers little more than news would be filtered out if'n I were a MeFi god. And any site that had popups. And New York Times. Just cuz. My list would include MKelly's plus *.yahoo, geocities, tripod, and pretty much any well known URL, opting instead for people to go out and dig for newer or more obscure stuff.

And RushMC's idea: "I would like the ability to filter out all demands to reinvent Metafilter" has equal validity.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:02 PM on October 4, 2002


Tin Man - In Jon's world, "yahoo" = "fuckwit", but in a nice way.

mcwetboy - Oh. Ya. "what mcwetboy said"
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:04 PM on October 4, 2002


Encourage good behavior through new and ingenious methods. Turning Metafilter into Kuro5hin or Slashdot isn't original; I'd submit that it isn't even best practices. Let's come up with something new and amazing that inspires us to do better, rather than sets up post-facto obstacles to prevent us from doing worse, or, worse yet, simply prevents some of us from seeing it.

Best idea yet. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?
posted by mathowie at 12:22 PM on October 4, 2002


This isn't a new idea, but a "recommend this post" button would encourage the better posters and inspire others to try harder. At the very least, it would give us all a better idea what the community likes.
posted by timeistight at 12:44 PM on October 4, 2002


Don't know if they're original enough or positive enough to meet my own standards, but here are some proposals. I thought about posting in the newsfilter thread but I'll do them here instead. On the assumption that too much change is suboptimal, and that a few smaller changes that maintain the flavor of the site are ideal, I submit, for your consideration:
  1. 500-character maximum (for example) on posts, with no line or paragraph breaks. (Examples: this one is 560 characters; this one is 485 characters.
    2. ) This is to keep an individual post's front-page footprint down, which might make the front page easier to navigate. (And help posters find double posts a little better, maybe.)

  2. Voting on posts. Positive votes only, one vote per person per thread, with no limit on the number of positive votes a person can give (i.e., you could vote every post as good if you wished) or a thread can receive (until it's closed). Place it beside Trackback. (I suggested this earlier; I really like this idea because it maintains the democratic flavor of the site with minimal intrusion, and gives us a metric besides the number of comments with which to evaluate posts. It's also feedback that encourages the poster to do more of the same.)


  3. Deputies answerable to Matt to remove double posts and other abuses when Matt is unavailable (i.e., weekends, when he's sleeping or when he just needs a bloody break). Matt would have the option of overruling any deputy's decision. Deputies can suspend members in a dire situation (I can think of one situation) but not ban them permanently. The idea here is to remove examples of bad posts (or behavior) quickly, before they're internalized by new members as something you can -- or are supposed to -- do around here. The whack-a-mole aspect is an unfortunate but necessary side effect.


  4. Aggressive policy against posts made to support a point of view -- i.e., this link proves why I'm right -- and instant-reaction breaking-news posts. Posting in support of a cause in which you're invested should have the same social stigma as a self-post. How posts are constructed could make the difference between keeping and deleting a thread. Carefully constructed, thoughtful posts get the nod. Vigorous deletion when substandard posts pop up repeatedly -- unfortunately, vibrating brooms will always be with us.


  5. No user-defined filters, killfiles or the like. Keep Metafilter Metafilter -- i.e., a community -- and not Slashdot.
Thoughts? Better ideas? (There must be better ideas than these.)
posted by mcwetboy at 12:47 PM on October 4, 2002


matt:

Best idea yet. Any thoughts on this? Anyone?

really discuss those obscure links. if you like them, thank the people who post them. bring up something interesting about it. make the discussion on those obscure links better than the drivel in the politico threads. let people know where they ought to be turning their attention.
posted by moz at 12:47 PM on October 4, 2002


by the way: i'm down for positive voting. you wouldn't necessarily need to see who voted, i guess; just a number. (but either is cool.)
posted by moz at 12:55 PM on October 4, 2002


Just realized a problem with my proposed #1 above: the counts for the two links given as an example do not include HTML. I think we might want to encourage lots of HTML, i.e., multiple links. I'm enough of a know-nothing not to know if that can be worked around.
posted by mcwetboy at 12:58 PM on October 4, 2002


Deputies answerable to Matt

No! No Mini-Matts. As soon as you elevate some members to a status of power, it's going to divide the community. It's bad enough with people commenting on member numbers, adding actual power to the equation = disaster, in my mind.

Furthermore, everyone will have the fallback of "(deputy) is just abusing their power to get back at me". At least with Matt flying solo, and him being owner / maintainer, his decisions are absolute. Meaning, there's no second-guessing.

What happens if a post gets deleted, and Matt over-rules. Only, since the deputies are for use when Matt is away, by the time Matt overrules the decision, the post is locked away in the archives...

A novel idea, but too many flaws, IMO.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:29 PM on October 4, 2002


What if the Mini-Matts are anonymous?
posted by yhbc at 1:32 PM on October 4, 2002


I like the positive-feedback counter. No karma crap, just a way for people to encourage what they like without having to actually type in "great post" (which seems to bother some). Of course, it will be even more depressing if the great posts that currently get three comments get three +s as well...
posted by languagehat at 1:35 PM on October 4, 2002


I could see it working if the Mini-Matts™ weren't allowed to actually participate. Meaning, they'd have no real involvement other-than as watch dogs.

But then, why would they stick around, or moderate the site...

I don't think the Mini-Matts™ could be kept anonymous forever. Someone would spill the beans, or be found-out.

Then again, cynicism is a hobby of mine.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:38 PM on October 4, 2002


Well, okay.

1) Most fixes won't happen because they require Matt to do something "new and amazing" rather than the userbase as a whole.

2) We like self policing, but it doesn't have teeth, and there's little accountability for being a bully with it.

3) We'd try to follow the rules if we only knew what they were.

So......

Have the userbase elect people with delete rights, and have Matt keep an eye on that small group, rather than him keeping an eye on 1000 comments.

So maybe......

Assume 12 people will have delete authority. Selected by:

Choose 5 people at random who have logged in at least 8 times in the last month, and have been members for at least two months. Keep the identity of these people secret (Mr. Orange, Mr. Blue, etc). Allow a thread where those 5 people can make a case for why they should have delete rights and everyone can discuss. After five days let everyone vote from those 5. The winner gets delete authority.

Do this 12 times so that we have 12 "elected moderators".

Every month toss out a random moderator and hold a new vote.

Handle deletes by making the moderator pick from a drop down for the reason for the deletion so that it has to be something other than just "I hate the post". Things like "Double post", "Troll", "News not Meta", "Doesn't meet guidelines" could be reasons for deletion.

Keep track of who deleted what and why.

A post or comment doesn't get pulled for real until two people mark it for deletion. And until the second mark the status is secret, so two people have to independently find the item inappropriate.

Matt could remove delete authority at any time (triggering a new vote) but the rest of us would have to wait for a vote to change things. Matt counts as a moderator (so we really have 13), but his marks for deletion don't need a second.

1) This would be a buttload to code at first, but should run itself after the kinks got worked out.

2) Since people can get booted but not "re-elected", there is no motivation to do something stupid or create factions.

The tricky bit would be making sure elected moderators spend enough time reading the site to be effective. I read every day, but even then I doubt I read more than 20% of what gets posted. But maybe that's enough.

We'd also need a way to let the people originally chosen for the vote bow out if they didn't want the responsibility. An email confirmation could do that.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:45 PM on October 4, 2002


Why not a scripted preview? That is, one which would show your post with automated annotations:

Sample tcxt of post, with hypothetical URL and a previously mentioned topic...
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
FOUND: [spelling error? - text]; [replace: too-common link - see guidelines]; [pancakes: this topic/link has been discussed __ times on MetaFilter and __ times on MetaTalk within the past __ days.]

It would be a pain to code, and may cause a bandwidth lag on the servers, but it would eliminate the need for point value systems, or Mini-Matts.

Add to that the extra measure of not providing a "post" button until all the corrections have been made.

Best of all, the feature could be known as a MetaFilter™.
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:46 PM on October 4, 2002


Sorry, that was supposed to be a TM...
posted by Smart Dalek at 1:47 PM on October 4, 2002


I would like the ability to filter out any FPPs that contain the words "When will people", case-insensitive. Possibly anything containing "flash friday" as well. I don't consider keyword filtering to be terribly likely, but it's nice to dream.
Killfiles are deeply, deeply tempting. But ultimately, I think they're a crutch. On any given day, I have the urge to killfile a dozen or so of you, and soon there would be nobody left except mathowie and the baby jesus.
posted by tingley at 1:49 PM on October 4, 2002


"As soon as you elevate some members to a status of power, it's going to divide the community."

Not if you keep the identity secret and swap the authority out on a regular basis.

The only person we all trust is Matt. Everyone else just gets a turn. Which will make us all think more about what we do here. "When I'm able to delete things, would I delete this babble I'm about to post?"
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:51 PM on October 4, 2002


Folks, the mandate here was "Encourage good behavior through new and ingenious methods... Let's come up with something new and amazing that inspires us to do better...".

Behavior theory tells us that rewarding behavior you want to encourage is more effective than suppressing or punishing the behavior you want to discourage. Behavior that produces rewards will naturally supplant behavior that doesn't.
posted by timeistight at 1:56 PM on October 4, 2002


Voting on posts. Positive votes only, one vote per person per thread, with no limit on the number of positive votes a person can give

I used to not like the idea of rating posts. I've seen the light. I like very much the idea of a "Recommend this post" button. My first thought would be to limit votes per user, but keeping track of that might be tough.
posted by mediareport at 1:57 PM on October 4, 2002


if you run his comment through the degrumpifier it translates as "what [Secret Life of Gravy] said",

Heh! I have to get me one of them filters.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 1:58 PM on October 4, 2002


I think we may be getting lost in the details regarding the "Mini-Matts". (Why do I suddenly have the image of Haughey with an upturned pinky, complaining about being surrounded by fricking idiots?) More to the point, we may be overcomplicating it -- burying it in technical and logistical detail.

(y63: that reminds me too much of the way that Slashdot selects its moderators.)

It may be enough, for example, to have someone cover the site from 6 to 10 am Eastern each morning, to cover the carnage wrought by errant Europeans and east-coasters while sluggardly west-coasters sleep. It can be as ad hoc and as informal as it can be complicated.

It's also one of the more negative proposals (speaking as the one who proposed it -- not that I own it any more, having proposed it) so I'm not super-keen on emphasizing this. I note that there is support for the voting system. Are there any other positive ways of reinforcing good Mefi citizenship? (Besides ponies.) I'm with timeistight on this.
posted by mcwetboy at 2:05 PM on October 4, 2002


My first thought would be to limit votes per user, but keeping track of that might be tough.

That doesn't sound as difficult as some of the other stuff suggested (though I'm no expert). I'm assuming only members could recommend and that each member could only recommend a particular post once.
posted by timeistight at 2:06 PM on October 4, 2002


I like the reccomend-this-post idea too, but would prefer that only the original poster see how reccomendation results for it. Community-visible reccomendations could be divisive, I feel. Jealousy, a ton of "why are you assholes reccomending this?" comments within the thread, etc.

Problem- this would take exponentially more time to code than the simple version.
posted by gsteff at 2:08 PM on October 4, 2002


A personalized version of metafilter is against the "community" idea, I will not refer to it below.

Facts:
- as the community grows (assuming that users have the same characteristics) it will use more resources, hardware and human time. Thus, it might seem that matt has three options: code the rules/rating system, dedicates more of this time, or gets deputies.
- user's habits can be changed (to lower the resource burden) throughout education, hence,
- feedback is needed

Negative feedback, aka "the stick", responsible for punishing "bad" posters:
- you are not allowed to post since the code detected "yahoo" in your post. (disadvantages: it might make you look for a hack, and, in the end, it is censorship);
- your post is deleted - requires human work;
- your post is rated (best or bad) - it creates "stars" and people will concentrate on votes instead on quality of posting. (also discussed here);
- you are called on MeTa - it does not seem to work very well;
- your post is pancaked - "these kids can be so mean" - one step closer to fark;
- other users do some better research and "show" you how your post should have been like - it takes a lot of human work, proposed but never implemented (I hope I'm wrong).

Positive feedback, aka "the carrot", needed to show what the community likes:
- human/computer rating - (see above). IMHO, any ranking system would generate a "google bomb" problem;
- "best.post.ever." comments - requires human work, and thus, might seem inefficient;

If we do not want to have the same system as /. & co., human resources (time) should be considered. My suggestions:
- select deputies at random, as for jury duty. If you are called for duty, you might decline it, but you might loose some posting rights (since you do not have time for mefi duty, how come you put effort in that "well researched" post?). The same if you do a lousy job as a deputy.
- modify "da rulez" to include: you may post on a news topic only if you know personally about that topic. More here.

on preview:
ok, random mini-matts, what you guys said, but make it simple. A new team each week, but no anonymity, I want to know who does a good job!
posted by MzB at 2:15 PM on October 4, 2002


I'm a member of a site that does not have any behaviour problems at the moment. The group is close-knit, weird, and we have great discussions on a broad variety of topics. One thing that is different between MeFi and that site is the number of moderators -- about a good 1/5 to 1/4 of active users are moderators.

Sound like a high amount? Not really. It's only about 20 people. But it's enough to discuss things.

I have ideas about how we could do the "Mini-Matt" thing, but I think we first need to find out if he will trust the community that he's built enough to police itself rather than go running to Matt and cling to his apron-strings whenever we've got a problem. Moderation creates or kills communities, and I think we finally have the need to start policing ourselves in a more active way.
posted by SpecialK at 2:48 PM on October 4, 2002


"that reminds me too much of the way that Slashdot selects its moderators."

Well, it pretty much *is* the way Slashdot does their moderation. And having done plenty of Slashdot moderation myself I'd say it's a good system for choosing moderators.

My response would be that it's not how Slashdot chooses moderators that's a problem, but rather the nature of their moderation system.
posted by y6y6y6 at 3:09 PM on October 4, 2002


I want to be a mini Matt.........
We would call it Meta-King where you can have it your way for a day. The site of FPP's of interest. No labeling and stone throwing just sharing of knowledge. But hey, I guess when your king there not many other dictators to have as allies just members.
posted by thomcatspike at 3:11 PM on October 4, 2002


I'm a member of a site that does not have any behaviour problems at the moment.

I'm green with envy.

I'm so down with anonymous "love this post" button-clicking. I think some sort of publick [sic] feedback is the next step.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 3:19 PM on October 4, 2002


Now that we've seen this,

I think Matt should shut down the site for a few days, with a notice:

REMEMBER THE FUCKING GUIDELINES BEFORE YOU POST OR COMMENT

FUCKWITS


Then try to put it back online and see what happens.

With the option of closing it again if necessary. This way, we either put our collective act together, or we can all go Fark ourselves


posted by matteo at 3:39 PM on October 4, 2002


Rather than create an oligarchy, why not establish en editorial staff?
It would go a lot farther in setting the tone of the community standards than alloting temporary/indefinate priviledges to a few random MeFis.

Our current model is to have everone attempt regulate themselves, and failing that, call for Matt's final decision. Mini-Matts or tallied votes would only serve for arguments resulting in Matt (again) stepping in to decide upon what's to be done about X's/Mini-Matt's/final tally's initiated turmoil.

A group of editors could streamline the site, by acting as "guinea pigs". Once a regular Mefi decides to FPP, the editors could handle the initial work - is the feature up to par, was it mentioned previously - before it's officially "posted". The rest of the MeFi/Meta can then add their comments, while enjoying the same autonomy they've come to expect of the site.
The editors would step in add a comment or two, but would not handle conflicts in unison. The trouble with judiciary peer moderation is that all the individuals with authority would be facing the same issue at the same time, while things would fall apart in a seperate discussion thread, etc. The editorial group, all of whom knowing the guidelines and having authority, would dive in, but only one would stay, while the others handle other tasks without the redundancy of peering over their associate's shoulder.

To an extent, I think that's what Joey Anuff was trying to sell (Your Pal) Carl on, in place of meta-moderation. From what I've seen of Gabe & Tycho's site, Lowtax & cohorts, and a number of other places on the web, maybe it's not a bad idea.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:49 PM on October 4, 2002


I think Matt should shut down the site for a few days, with a notice:

REMEMBER THE FUCKING GUIDELINES BEFORE YOU POST OR COMMENT

FUCKWITS

By all means. And let's put the entire population of the U.S. in prison to punish the bankrobbers among us.
posted by rushmc at 4:01 PM on October 4, 2002


rush,

there's only one cop/judge on MeFi -- Matt can't be omnipresent and spend his entire day cleaning up all the shit that is being dropped in the site. I'm for Draconian solutions, at this point

Maybe there are too many new users who don't understand what MeFi is all about ( I mean, what about those "Why did the administrators delete my nice FPP?" MetaTalk threads?)

also, rush, it's interesting how you compare a day without MeFi with prison...

posted by matteo at 4:15 PM on October 4, 2002


> if you could filter mefi, how? more inside.

I'd like to be able to go to an url like /mefi/2666/30- and get all the comments from the 30th onward, because I reload a lot and I've already read the early comments. There's my filter.
posted by holloway at 4:27 PM on October 4, 2002


REMEMBER THE FUCKING GUIDELINES BEFORE YOU POST OR COMMENT

FUCKWITS

And I got yelled at for ... "that word"....
posted by Dark Messiah at 4:39 PM on October 4, 2002


I like the reccomend-this-post idea too, but would prefer that only the original poster see how reccomendation results for it. Community-visible reccomendations could be divisive, I feel.

I thought the whole point of a "recommend this" button would be to show us all, not just the poster, examples of what most folks at MeFi think are good posts. Hopefully, what gets recommended most won't be posts Matt considers bad ones.
posted by mediareport at 4:40 PM on October 4, 2002


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you holloway, but if you click on the link that says (x new) it takes you down to your unread posts.
posted by timeistight at 4:40 PM on October 4, 2002


Summing up, the best ideas so far are:

1) Do nothing;
2) Leave things as they are;
3) Keep those suggestions coming;
4) Forget about them in the morning;
5) Because MetaFilter is fine as it is.

I vote for them all, no particular order.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:52 PM on October 4, 2002


What if the Mini-Matts are anonymous?

from Borges Book of Imaginary Beings:

"There are those on earth, and always were, 36 righteous men whose mission is to justify the world before God. They are the Lamed Wufniks. They do not know each other and are very poor. If a man comes to the knowledge that he is a Lamed Wufnik, he immediately dies, and someone else takes his place. Lamed Wufniks are, without knowing it, the secret pillars of the universe. Were it not for them, God would annihilate the whole of mankind. Unawares, they are our saviours."

how about 36 metawufniks whose mefi-habits are secretly noted unawares to them (which links visted, how long spent on each link, comments made etc.) and the front page automatically tailored accordingly, and if anyone ever finds out they are a metawufnik we fry their hard disk.
posted by gravelshoes at 5:08 PM on October 4, 2002


Maybe I'm misunderstanding you holloway, but if you click on the link that says (x new) it takes you down to your unread posts.
Um. kind of... at home I'm on dialup so in a thread with 140 comments (100 of which I've already read) takes a while to load. This thread has about 90 comments and it weighs 90k, so, minus the header/footer, the average comment would be around 0.95K. With 100 average-sized comments there's about 95K of unnecessary downloading and another 20 second wait for me (and there's the db/bandwidth for Matt, too). In the original 9/11 thread I was reloading constantly.
posted by holloway at 5:22 PM on October 4, 2002


holloway, move to a real country with real bandwidth already. I can't be concerned about this stuff, supporting the socialists like you on their dialups.
posted by mathowie at 5:24 PM on October 4, 2002


I would love a MetatalkFilter. But that's just me.
posted by owillis at 5:25 PM on October 4, 2002


I'm for Draconian solutions, at this point

Then I'm sorry, but you are part of the problem, IMO.
posted by rushmc at 6:15 PM on October 4, 2002


Careful Matt, we've got flying birds and everything down here now. Consider yourself warned.
posted by holloway at 6:24 PM on October 4, 2002


of unnecessary downloading and another 20 second wait for me

i have a suggestion for your waiting period, but I fear the sheep may be hurt.
you could try an apple.
posted by clavdivs at 7:00 PM on October 4, 2002


"Mommy! Those mean people are scaring me! Make them go away!"

You people are frightening the children. Stop it.

Let's see, a socialist oligarchy on one hand, or a chaotic anarchy on the other. Personally? I'll take the anarchy. But that's just me.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:05 PM on October 4, 2002


i thought we were an autonomous collective.
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:23 PM on October 4, 2002


* volunteeers for metawufnik, hard disk be damned *

And you're fooling yourself, macadamiaranch - we're living in a dictatorship, a self-perpetuating autocracy in which the working classes ...

* skips a bit, brother *

Look, strange women lying on their backs in ponds handing over swords is no basis for a system of government! Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical aquatic ceremony!


posted by yhbc at 8:23 PM on October 4, 2002


I would ask for one thing: a simple positive feedback link for each post. No voting, no personal karma scores for people, etc. Just one optional positive feedback registered per post, per person; feedback that equates to saying "I appreciated this post," because there are many times when I don't have a comment to add to a thread, but I did appreciate the post, and I don't want to write "thanks for the post," cuz if everyone did that, threads would be bloody boring to read.

And hopefully, receiving no positive feedback for posts might make some prolific posters think twice about inundating the mefi with their words.

Eventually, a top 100 list of posts with the highest positive feedback could be generated, acting as an example of good posts for new people.
posted by kv at 9:32 PM on October 4, 2002


Tis a pleasure to say, "What Miguel said!" In triplicate!
posted by Lynsey at 10:54 PM on October 4, 2002


this is long. and i apologize in advance if i am bringing up stuff that's been brought up already. i just really need to say this.

ok... here's my 2 cents.. rather late in the thread i suppose(and possibly in the wrong thread - but hopefully relevant), but it has taken me awhile to really nail down my thoughts on this subject.

first off. i'm a lurker. i've been a member for some time now, but i never really post. i have never posted a front page post, and most likely never will..

metafilter for me was a place i could go to find cool sites and great commentary. it was never about finding the latest news. news isn't really super important to me. if i want to find out what is going on the world i listen to NPR(or the BBC overnight when i can't sleep).

metafilter has always been a great place for collecting obscure websites, but lately, the news post has taken over. now some people obviously don't mind this or it wouldn't get posted/commented on. and for awhile, i didn't mind it either. after 9.11, metafilter seemed like such a great place to share with others the outrage felt when crazy shit happened in the world, but it was only the craziest stuff that got posted. your average news post never saw the light of day here, but recently every bit of news gets posted as soon as it hits the web. this has made it hard to read on a daily basis.

for the last month or so, all i can bring myself to do is scan the front page and hope something interesting catches my eye. 9 out of 10 days, this doesn't happen. all i see are "bush does something stupid" or "time to goto war" or a few months ago it was all I/P threads with the same old arguments.

now i'm not one to announce the demise of metafilter, because i think that's the stupidest thing to say. but i for one find metafilter losing the qualities that made me want to join. metafilter will go on as long as matt feels like keeping it around, i doubt anyone but matt will be able to predict when metafilter will cease to be.

i think(and this is my observation) the problem is the new influx of members. now i don't think new members are a bad thing, in fact, i was glad to see some new blood around here. but i think the new members have been seeing "newsy" posts for quite awhile now(even though it was never as bad as it has been lately) and because of the sheer volume of new users there have been a lot of "newsy" posts. most likely because a news post is the easiest post to make. just find a breaking news link and say "what do you think?" or "how does this happen?" and pow, you have 30+ comments before the thread is an hour old.

the solution to all this?(if everyone really wants one) well that's probably the hardest question to ponder.

all the ideas presented in this thread are quite good. the best in my opinion is the "recommend this thread" button. but i would add one other. i think new users should have to wait longer before they can post, and possibly make this retro-active to users who have joined since the re-opening of signups. the time period shouldn't be too long, maybe 3 weeks, just enough time to actually observe some of the older posters and to get a feel for the way metafilter works. now this should only apply to front page posts so that the new user still feels like a part of the site, and hopefully this may encourage users to think a bit more about their posts.

now we, as older users, would have to step up as well. we should all know what makes a good front page post, and during this 3 week new user moratorium, we should attempt to make front page posts that bring metafilter back to it's original idea(or what *you* think the original idea of metafilter is). posts that are obscure or interesting, posts that haven't been seen before, posts chock full of linky goodness. this way, when those new users get the chance to post, they'll have seen how posts other than "newsy" posts look. maybe they will feel the same way you or i did when we first stumbled onto metafilter. and maybe, just maybe, they will see what makes a great front page post, and the overall "feel" of metafilter will return(whatever that is).

now i'm not advocating a total removal of all "news" links. that would be insane. i think certain news stories belong here, because of their outrageousness. but when people are just reloading news.google.com or news.yahoo.com or cnn.com waiting for that one headline they haven't seen on metafilter yet, it breaks the site down. slowly but surely.

so.. that's my long-ass take on this. i could go on i suppose, but i've said quite a lot. i would just like to see metafilter be something special again, something great. not just a run of the mill news discussion site.

but that's just me.
posted by PugAchev at 11:12 PM on October 4, 2002


I would ask for one thing: a simple positive feedback link for each post. No voting, no personal karma scores for people, etc. Just one optional positive feedback registered per post

If I were writing a "metamoderation" system for MeFi, I'd track both positive and negative votes. If your last thread got more positive votes than negative, you can post again 24 hours later. If your last thread got more negative votes than positive, you're locked out of posting to the front page for say a week. (Or maybe make it based on repeat offenses, so you're blocked for two days at first, then four, then eight, etc. for successive lousy posts.) This could be partly implemented at a third-party site without Matt's involvement, although you'd be blocking people's posts from appearing rather than preventing them from posting in the first place.
posted by kindall at 1:16 AM on October 5, 2002


Perhaps it might be a good idea to try reinforcing the guidelines (and posting page directives) with stronger wording before making any fundamental changes to the site? Maybe something along the lines of:

Remember to FILTER the information you include in your post:

DO NOT post news links (for example, links from CNN, New York Times, Yahoo News, etc.) unless you are including supporting links that provide new or additional information that hasn't been presented elsewhere.

For all posts, MAKE SURE that the information isn't widely available at other sites and that the content is significant or valuable in some way.

etc. I'd sort of like to see the efforts of the combined brain power here to craft and hone a posting page notice that could very, very firmly guide posters away from the most common mistakes, while managing to preserve the original intent of the site as a flexible space.
posted by taz at 3:48 AM on October 5, 2002


There is a system for adding positive feedback already in place. I would wager that in almost all cases, if you really like a post you can come up with something relevant to say about it in a comment. I don't mean "great link!," this would take a little more work, actually encouraging discussion of the good links by starting a relevant conversation, because with non-news links there is not always an obvious discussion, so often no one starts one. Or, if you don't feel up to that, add related links of your own. There is almost nothing cooler than a thread that ends up being an encyclopedia of links by people interested in a subject.

Obviously it is not a perfect system, but I think it works okay, and the abuses and problems that other voting systems would introduce (voting for political views, voting for popularity, and reading and voting only on posts that are already voted good, which would exacerbate the previous two problems)

I think most people realize that posting is not about getting comments, but rather about sharing interesting things. I have posted threads that only got ten comments but were very satisfying because I could tell the people commenting enjoyed the link, and I don't think I am unique. Just take a moment to say something, and make it something relevant, and people will want to share more when they find it. If people started to post to get good votes, it could end up worse than it is now.

As for getting rid of the news links, I still think the best way to deal with that is by modifying our own behavior. Post interesting stuff, and pass on posting news, even when it would make a good post.

All that aside, there are some filter features I would love. Chief among them would be annotation, on the client side--it can be impossible to find and keep track of things here sometimes.
posted by Nothing at 4:07 AM on October 5, 2002


"You've got two halves of coconuts and you're banging them together!"

Negative voting options would create a popularity contest. People would vote not just on the criteria of quality, but whether or not they liked the name of the poster, or whether or not he said nice things about Cleveland, or whether or not his views in general met with the standards of the voter. People would be judged not on what they said but how they said it and who said it in general.

Don't turn this place into SlashDot or Everything2.com, PLEASE!
posted by ZachsMind at 7:30 AM on October 5, 2002


Negative voting options would create a popularity contest. People would vote not just on the criteria of quality, but whether or not they liked the name of the poster, or whether or not he said nice things about Cleveland, or whether or not his views in general met with the standards of the voter. People would be judged not on what they said but how they said it and who said it in general.

You can get around this by giving all registered MeFi users a vote per thread, as opposed to the Slashdot system where mod points are distributed only to a selected few by some system I still don't entirely understand. Yes, there will be some people who vote for things on a spurious basis, but the majority will not.
posted by kindall at 10:47 AM on October 5, 2002


moz: depending on interest, it might be an idea to implement some of these solutions on the client-side. say you've got a website (with php enabled): you could upload a script that loads metafilter and does the filtering for you. no work for matt; no load on the server; everybody's happy. assuming changes don't happen on metafilter to improve the front page, that might be the most attractive solution.

Actually, that's along the lines of what I was actually suggesting - not that killfiles be implemented at Matt's end, dragging down performance, but rather that filtering would occur once the entire stream had reached me (my server? my browser?). I've seen the developers who work for me doing this with RSS streams to demonstrated customized interfaces, etc., so I figured that would be a quick and easy way to implement rudimentary filtering (since Matt already publishes an RSS stream).
posted by JollyWanker at 10:56 AM on October 5, 2002


Damn. Been a long time since I did *that*...
posted by JollyWanker at 10:58 AM on October 5, 2002


Joint communique from the Departments of "And A Pony" and "My Two Cents".

1. Pop-up "are you really really sure this is a good idea?" if and only if a post links to exactly one common news-source.

2. Positive feedback from members. A place where this seems to work well is lugnet.com. There we experimented with a 1-10 scale and that got messy. Now that members can highlight or spotlight great posts it's a really useful gauge of what the community finds interesting.
posted by stinglessbee at 12:12 PM on October 5, 2002


positive feedback,
because there are many times when I don't have a comment to add to a thread, but I did appreciate the post

Yes, everyone saying thanks can get old, that is why sometimes I find a positive quote from the link to cut and paste as my show of thanks.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:45 PM on October 9, 2002


If you could filter mefi, why? more outside.

ps sometimes I find a positive quote from the link to cut and paste as my show of thanks ... thanks TCS ... nice idea
posted by walrus at 7:52 AM on October 10, 2002


Very good idea, Thom!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:22 AM on October 10, 2002


« Older Reality Check Time: Is it real...  |  This was apparently a double-p... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments