October 4, 2002

8:43 PM

Hi,

I'm new. Been here a month or so. I'm not even sure if it's appropriate for me to post this here, now, but damn the torpedoes, or whatever. I bought my account, because I had been reading metafilter for almost a year and wanted to join in the discussion.

I'm seeing a lot of discussion about too much news, too many links posted to the front page.

But, I thought MeFi was *about* the news. If it's not, what is it, then?

And it occurs to me that the whole point of having loose guidelines with anyone being able to post to the front page is so that the site can grow and change.

That's organic, and that's the point isn't it? That it's not plastic with karma whores and it's not a newsgroup with trolls and spammers.

Do you want the group to evolve over time or not? And if not, what do you want? I think I've read all the faqs and things I'm supposed to read, but apparently I still don't get it. Because I don't understand what the oldtimers are upset about.

And this isn't to stir up controversy, but I'm looking to be enlightened. Have the few things I posted to the main page been out of place? How about some new guidelines for us newbies?
posted by nyxxxx to etiquette/policy at 8:43 PM (74 comments total)

I'm no oldtimer either. But MeFi, as I understand it, is a big mind-opening machine. It takes a drillbit, punctures your medial cranium (several times if fold_and_mutilate happens to be posting), and jacks a plastic new-idea IV into your frontal lobe. Then you read the comments, and miguel hijacks your brain for a little bit.

News is, ironically, not new. Not by the standards of internet time. News is, ironically, not really discussion worthy, at least not the big stories, because if its big, you can see it coming. And so could anyone else with a modem an ego.

As I understand it, MeFi has always prided itself on the non-catastrophically-inept level of its discourse. I like to think of us as a successor to Ben Franklin's mutual-enlightenment societies, where people all exchanged books (on tons of topics) and discussed them. Or maybe I'm just a fuckwit.
posted by gsteff at 8:59 PM on October 4, 2002

Er, that mystic Ben-Franklin-idea-passed-through-history thing was supposed to be a clarification of what should/shouldn't change, vis a vis your question.
posted by gsteff at 9:01 PM on October 4, 2002

**puts on football helmet, begins digging bomb shelter**
posted by jonmc at 9:05 PM on October 4, 2002

It's not that news is evil, it's that CNN.com already HAS the news. People know about those sites.

*insert paraphrases of the last NewsFilter brawls that support my claim*

Essentially, people* want the obscurity-factor brought back to MeFi posts.

*shrug* I don't know what else to say.

* - many, not all.
posted by Dark Messiah at 9:08 PM on October 4, 2002

You've been "reading metafilter for almost a year" and you never once noticed people talking about how much they hated the advent of "Newsfilter", and why?

Crikey.

*hands nyxxxx a clue*

Just so I don't come off totally snarky, I do like the "non-catastrophically-inept level of discourse" thing, gsteff.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:18 PM on October 4, 2002

NEWS. BAD.
posted by geoff. at 9:20 PM on October 4, 2002

nyxxxx: Before somebody trys to verbally garrote you, I'll mention a couple things briefly.

1. If you're going to post something to MetaTalk, please (please!) try not to use a paragraph break every sentence and stretch it out for such length. The usual practice involves a small to moderately sized post and a [more inside] notation if necessary.

2. Click the "current archives" link at the bottom and do a quick scan of recents posts to MetaTalk. This has been discuss ad nauseum over the past few days, and even though the 100+ comments in the thread about news posts is daunting, read through it first and see if you find any answers.

As for your question, well, no, it's not about the news. The place is allowed to evolve without becoming a mass of thoughtless, poorly-researched links to yahoo or any other online media mogul that anybody and their mother would see if they spent ten minutes reading news during the day. I think mostly the people who have been here awhile would like people to think about something a little harder before they post it--not just rush in and post the latest "boy killed by lawnmower when neighbor finds trampled garden" story because they want to see "100 comments" by their name on the front page.
posted by The God Complex at 9:24 PM on October 4, 2002

nyxxxx, here is my take on it (including several spelling mistakes). Nobody has yet argued against it, so it might worth to think about it.
posted by MzB at 9:31 PM on October 4, 2002

I agree with DM and stav. This site, for the last year, since 9-11, has degenerated into a depository of news stories, which is the exact opposite of its intention. It was supposed to be a site about things new and cool. Not about the news headlines that plague every instance of modern communication media from radio to tv to the internet. Most of the members who have been around a while were attracted to the site because it has what CNN.com, Yahoo News and the like didn't have and that was well researched links by intelligent people who had something of interest that they wanted to share it with everyone else.

We don't need another FAQ. Right now, as it stands, it says, and if you've really read the site for a year you may have seen this brought up maybe once or twice:

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.

News links that appear on every single news outlet homepage automatically get cancelled out by this statement. How hard is that?

posted by eyeballkid at 9:32 PM on October 4, 2002

Well, The God Complex got there first. I'll just add that:

1) Your question has been asked and answered many times before. Matt has placed a paragraph explaining that news posts are frowned upon right in the page you use to post MeFi links. That paragraph includes links to three extensive recent discussions. Did you follow those links and read those threads before posting here? (Not snarking, just genuinely curious).

2) There was already a thread on this page about the news postings. Your post would have been better used as a comment within that thread. Putting up a new post wasn't just unnecessary, its presence pushed the other thread off the MeTa front page.

(Oh, and the [more inside] trick is most easily done if you write out what you want to say in Notepad or the equivalent and copy the first sentence or two as your post. Then add the rest as the first comment immediately after posting).
posted by maudlin at 9:34 PM on October 4, 2002

Taken directly from the posting guidelines:

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

As has been said over and over and over and over lately, most people have seen, or will see, all of the big breaking news stories.

posted by toddshot at 9:37 PM on October 4, 2002

most people have seen, or will see, all of the big breaking news stories

Those who haven't yet seen those stories often learn of them via MetaFilter. As examples, I first heard of the LA airport killings and the Maryland mass shootings here on MeFi. Why? Because I only read CNN once a day.
posted by mischief at 10:51 PM on October 4, 2002

I've discovered a way to learn about current events that's even better than MetaFilter. I have several gigabytes of info delivered to me early every morning in an easy-on-the-eyes, random access, portable format that I can read on the couch with my morning coffee. I find that it gives me at least half of the day's MetaFilter links before I even get to my desk.

It's called a newspaper.
posted by timeistight at 10:58 PM on October 4, 2002

Those who haven't yet seen those stories often learn of them via MetaFilter.

Which does not indicate that we should post more news stories to MeFi for your edification, mischief, but rather that you need check the news sites more often, if you're so inclined.

*hint*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:03 PM on October 4, 2002

Your logic works the other way as well, stav.

We should not post more obscure links to MeFi for your edification, but rather you need to check memepool, fark, and plastic more often.

Some argue that news links do not meet the guidelines, others argue that they do. The problem here is that the guidelines are too vague to be read either way.

What complicates this issue further is that many of Matt's own FPPs are news links, and as a long time administrator he should well know that the head man sets the tone of the board by his actions more so than by his rules.

posted by mischief at 11:12 PM on October 4, 2002

I don't come here for the links as much as I do for the discussion, the community, and the opportunity to learn something, mischief, so in fact it doesn't go both ways, for me, for what it's worth. And I do check Fark, Plastic and Memepool on a daily basis as well (my job puts...mild constraints on my time, shall we say), and a lot of weblogs as well. 'Obscure links' don't interest me much, really : they're a dime a dozen (to the penny-a-thousand news links) these days. It's the community that I care about, personally.

I note that a quick scan of his history shows Matt has put up links to news sites a couple of times out of his 20 most recent posts, but that a) they were offset with links to other stuff as well, not merely a link to Yahoo News or CNN or the like, unembroidered, and b) nobody is calling, I don't think, for a total moratorium on news links.

A good front post does not consist of

Hey, look at this!

and it's this kind of thing that people object to, I think. A lack of thought and care, which implies a lack of respect for everyone else here. With a little craft, care and research, a minute or five more, the 'hey look at this' can be a part of a great thought- and discussion-provoking post, even if it's built in part on a fleeting news item.

...I kinda get the feeling in the last couple of threads that you're just arguing to be contrarian, though, mischief, just for the sake of arguing, so I'm going to stop now.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:29 PM on October 4, 2002

I posted my share of crap, and then my friends, then I found the answer.

My solution to the problem of what should and shouldn't be posted (and here of course I wish more people were like me):

When I find something I think might be appropriate for MeFi, I wait 3 days. If, after 3 days, nobody else has posted it AND I still think it's interesting/remember it, then I post it.

Just waiting a few days cuts out SO MUCH CRAP you wouldn't even believe it. It's not like we're in a race or we have quotas. Think of your links like fine wines - let 'em breath for a while.
posted by willnot at 11:31 PM on October 4, 2002

I agree with willnot's observation. If I was god I'd implement a two day delay queue for posts, but that'd probably be really annoying and asinine to most people. Good rule-of-thumb though.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:38 PM on October 4, 2002

Has anyone ever posted using nothing but the words "Hey, look at this!" in the recent past? Beyond that, what does that guideline mean? Very little. Virtually every news link that I can recall gave a summary of the event or abstracted the event to fit into a larger issue.

The simple mechanics of the MeFi application allow the tool to be used in a myriad of ways, and human nature will push the uses of that tool to the limits. Expecting people not to post news links for discussion on a site whose process, if not its guidelines, encourages posting links for discussion is like expecting a gas not to expand to fill an evacuated bottle.

For a more literal analogy, discouraging people from posting news links here is like discouraging people from using spreadsheets to prepare relational databases.

posted by mischief at 11:48 PM on October 4, 2002

nyxxxx, did you actually read the posts in the previous thread? Did you actually read the guidelines where it said "Things that haven't been seen before"? And the current note from Matt about news stories?

I'd post yet another description of why newsfilter sucks, but I don't think you're actually reading anything, sorry.

A little peak at the future, floods of posts, everyone sounding off about the latest horrible crime or zapping to their poles for the same repeat political debate. Have fun with that.
posted by malphigian at 11:48 PM on October 4, 2002

mischief:

Those who haven't yet seen those stories often learn of them via MetaFilter. As examples, I first heard of the LA airport killings and the Maryland mass shootings here on MeFi. Why? Because I only read CNN once a day.

(and to everyone)

why are we still arguing about this? why? yes: the guidelines are open enough to allow news articles. yes: matt has posted many news articles in the past. news articles are not the problem: the volume at which they are posted is (for me).

what else is there left to jaw about? what battle do you think you're fighting, mischief?

the guidelines state: "A good thread values uniqueness over novelty." that may apply to the content of the thread, but i'd like to change things so that it applies to the type of content as well. it should refer to its nature as current events, or obscure news, or technical news, or flash. we need diversity, and different kinds of current events don't represent the diversity i'd like to see.
posted by moz at 12:06 AM on October 5, 2002

why are we still arguing about this? why?

'cause mischief won't shut the hell up? ;-)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:07 AM on October 5, 2002

Ok, this is the problem. All this above me.

I ask a question and no one can agree on the answer.

See, like I said, I've been reading this site for a year. It now being October, that means I've been reading it after Sept
11, 2001. In other words, it's been lots of news links with the occasional eccentric link to something else, and Friday flash. I didn't bother reading the discussion on the inside pages because I wasn't a registered user, couldn't become a registered user, therefore couldn't participate, so what was the point?

And honestly, I like the stuff other than the news more. But the first time I saw the weird posts...weeks after I had been reading the site, I was wondering what the hell they were doing on something I thought was a news site. I first came here because both plastic and kuro5hin were down for several weeks, and discovered I liked it better than those.

And I'm sorry about making the post that began this thread too lengthy, but I didn't see anything that told me that wasn't ok. Most of the sites that use this kind of format, including my own, have a block of stuff that will be posted on the front page and then a "read more" block below it. I assumed that if it wasn't ok then there would be some sort of faq saying how to make a proper front page post.

And, yeah, originally it started out as a post to another thread. But I felt that I brought up a couple of points that I didn't see in that thread.

Also, expecting me or anyone to read years worth of archives to learn how things are done isn't a good plan. It would be like a newsgroup saying they don't need a faq, that you should instead read the entire history of the place from archived google groups.

I just feel confused about what's going on here and it seems like it's forbidden to ask. Everytime I ask a question it seems like someone hates it. And I haven't been here long enough to tell the trolls and jerks from the people actually trying to help.

I feel like all the rules are unwritten and asking is frowned upon. I think the "about" part of metafilter doesn't tell me enough. It's like being in a store where there are no price tags and if you ask what something is or how much it costs the staff and other customers roll their eyes and start arguing amongst themselves.

A lot of the people who made sarky comments to me in this thread don't seem to realize that I made the post because I *want* to learn how to be a good citizen of the place.

Now someone will probably tell me that something is wrong with this post.

posted by nyxxxx at 12:12 AM on October 5, 2002

Before posting a news link, add other non-newsy links for context that the news link doesn't contain. If you can't find any good, non-newsy context links to add to a news story, then don't post the news story and start hanging out at malphigian's Yahoo! News link more often.

Ta. Da.
posted by mediareport at 12:19 AM on October 5, 2002

Short answer : bite the bullet, read a selection of promising Metatalk threads from the past. I applaud your desire to be a good member of the community, and it's more than many of our new members do, but this isn't a place where your hand gets held all that much, nyxxxx.

'I ask a question and no one can agree on the answer' - this is the very nature of Metafilter, grasshopper, and once you understand that, your Third MeFi Eye will open up.

Asking is not frowned upon, at all, but asking without having made what would seem to be at least a cursory attempt to figure things out on your own, now that is frowned on. Do your homework, and dive in. If you screw up, as you've learned from this thread already (heh), there'll be plenty of 'corrective feedback'.

And if you do well, of course, we'll stay completely silent, or at best mock you just a little less. [/joke]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:30 AM on October 5, 2002

what battle do you think you're fighting

moz: If you will look closely at the original posts, you will discover that I am not the one who posted them. I am responding to someone else. I am not fighting a battle but defending a position. If you or others don't want to read my comments, then don't start the battle.

Basically, the Me-Talk cabal is trying to force an issue and I am pointing out why this agenda will not work. You all sound like Ashcroft trying to shove laws down our throats that take away liberties that were previously acceptable and commonly enjoyed by the community at large, but abhorrent to a very small, yet vocal, few fundamentalists.

You all know very well how long I have been defending this position. Chances are very good that Matt is well aware of my position as well. He hasn't barred me from the site nor emailed me a warning, which can only be construed as meaning that I am free to continue to espouse my views. Sorry guys and gals, but I refuse to roll over and play dead so that you can run roughshod over practices that the community continues to perform daily. I don't need fellow defenders to comment here to back my positon. The fact that they continue to post news links daily despite your attempts to shout them down is all the backing I need.

nyxxx: The reason you will not get a clean-cut answer to your question is because this issue is on-going. You are correct, the guidelines are vague and open to virtually any interpretation. The only person with enforcement powers is the one site administrator. He works at a job and spends only a few hours a day here, relying on 'self-policing' to keep order. 'Self-policing' involves interpreting the vague guidelines. As you can see, the is a viciously recursive cycle.

posted by mischief at 12:33 AM on October 5, 2002

Heh. That's the first time I've seen somebody talk about the Cabal™ in a long while.

The worrisome thing is I think mischief is saying I'm one of 'em. Eeek!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:37 AM on October 5, 2002

Almost forgot : There is no Cabal™
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:37 AM on October 5, 2002

nyxxxx, Matt, the kind sort that he is, put a link to a few recent MetaTalk discussion on this very issue into the posting guidelines only a few weeks ago. Nobody suggested you read everything, only that you read something.

Of course, I'm a strange bird, seeing that I lurked for about eighteen months, read Metatalk as much as Metafilter, and often times felt more compelled to post here than in Metafilter. As I've stated before, and as can probably be gleened from the fact that I actually have more posts in MT than MF, I take a great interest in the concept of a self-policing community and try to do my part to contribute to it.

But if you're looking for everybody to agree on what makes a good post, well, you're fucked about nine ways from Sunday ;)

(ps - pay attention to stavros. I've always noted him to be a level-headed lad--with a funky name, to boot!)
posted by The God Complex at 12:38 AM on October 5, 2002

The first rule of the Cabal ...
posted by mischief at 12:40 AM on October 5, 2002

Fine, I'll just do whatever the hell I want and devil take the hindmost.

I've been around usenet long enough that I know how to shout down anyone and use all kinds of verbal and emotional tricks.

I was just hoping this place wasn't like that, but oh well.

That was me being sarky, but actually I'm very disappointed in this place, now.
posted by nyxxxx at 1:00 AM on October 5, 2002

What exactly are you on about, nyxxxx? This place most assuredly isn't like that, and it's becoming clear that despite the fact that you claim to have lurked here for a year, you still haven't got much of a clue what it is like. You've been treated extremely gently in this thread, despite your determination to be thick-headed.

What do you want, a ten thousand word essay on "What Metafilter Means To Me" from everyone in this thread? Do your homework, and get back to us, OK? I'm out of patience with you.

actually I'm very disappointed in this place, now.

Here - have a cookie.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:12 AM on October 5, 2002

It's just like usenet without a killfile, no threading, and no faq.

So I'm sort of starting to wonder what the point is and if I can ask for a refund for my membership.
posted by nyxxxx at 1:25 AM on October 5, 2002

It's just like usenet without a killfile, no threading, and no faq.

So I'm sort of starting to wonder what the point is and if I can ask for a refund for my membership.

My last-ditch effort: There's no faq because nobody here can concretely agree on what is good and what is bad. There are guidelines (loose rules, so to speak) that allow for leniency and your own interpretation of what should be posted.

Just think before you post and you should be fine. I don't understand why you're getting your panties in a bunch--anyone suggested was for you to read a few threads and try and get an idea of what this place is about.

And dammit, you went and made Stavros impatient after I told you he was level headed and you should listen to him. Why I oughta!
posted by The God Complex at 1:28 AM on October 5, 2002

It's been my observation that stavros is anything but patient and level headed in the other threads I've seen him in.

He seems to be a sort of institutional troll.
posted by nyxxxx at 1:30 AM on October 5, 2002

Maybe it's my doing-it-under-the-bridge fetish then.

For somebody who started a thread asking for advice on how to behave, you certainly don't seem all that interested in heeding any of it.

I've given you plenty of fair advice; take whatever you want from it.
posted by The God Complex at 1:35 AM on October 5, 2002

I was just hoping this place wasn't like that

Sheesh, what did you expect? MeFi is a community like any other with a wide-ranging diversity of members. If we all agreed on everything, this place would be boring as hell.

That we continue to argue about this issue is what establishes the equilibrium on the blue pages. If the anti-newslinks guys didn't take their stand, MeFi would be overrun by newslinks, an extreme I would find intolerable. Me-Talk makes some difference: certainly more than to which I commonly allude, and certainly less than the Cabal would like.

Life ain't safe nowhere. You just gotta jump in and hope you don't hit a submerged concrete slab. ;{P
posted by mischief at 1:35 AM on October 5, 2002

nyxxxx, just follow this trail, and I think you'll have a clearer idea:

the name "Metafilter" suggests that content here is "filtered", and the fact that it is a "community weblog" means that it is the poster who is responsible for filtering the information that he or she posts. The first pointer in the posting guidelines states that a good post contains information that most people haven't seen before, and the posting page mentions that news stories often make poor posts. Therefore, it is expected that a user posting a news-related link would have checked to make sure that the information wasn't widely available at other sites and that the content was significant or valuable in some way, as well as, ideally, judging it for bias and verity (the 'filtering'), and tried to be sure that it introduces a new or different angle or information that has not been brought forward elsewhere ('most people haven't seen it before').

All these things would preclude straight news stories as Metafilter posts, and would certainly suggest that Metafilter is not a "news site" at all, but rather a site for what is new (in the sense of "undiscovered" or unusual). The arguments here against "news posts" are complaints about the very many contributions that don't meet the Metafilter criteria. If the front page were to be inundated with posts about products that everyone already knew about, you would be reading discussions talking about too many product posts.
posted by taz at 1:36 AM on October 5, 2002

institutional troll

Heh. I like the sounds of that.

Maybe it's my doing-it-under-the-bridge fetish then.

That was you, TGC? Man, I gotta stop mixing my drinks...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:50 AM on October 5, 2002

If there are any Anthropolgoy majors out there, please do a study on metafilter. This is an ethnography waiting to happen.
posted by Samsonov14 at 2:18 AM on October 5, 2002

*stabs pitchfork in own eyes*
*repeats*

I understand that you were asking advice. You got the advice you asked for. That the advice wasn't what you expected is not anyone's fault for giving it to you. People are trying to be kind, and everyone has been expending an awful lot of energy and blood writing all sorts of ideas about what MetaFilter is all about for days. And days.

I think many people are weary of explicating what they hope MetaFilter will be under the best of circumstances; if their frustration is beginning to bleed through a little you can understand, right? I hope that this thread isn't going to send you back to some other site. You do seem to have your back up a bit, but if you read the other MeTa threads that have unfolded over the last couple of days you'll notice that there's a lot of soul-searching going on here, asking the very questions you are positing here. Don't get frustrated this early....there's fun to be had!
posted by readymade at 2:18 AM on October 5, 2002

That we continue to argue about this issue is what establishes the equilibrium on the blue pages. If the anti-newslinks guys didn't take their stand, MeFi would be overrun by newslinks, an extreme I would find intolerable. Me-Talk makes some difference: certainly more than to which I commonly allude, and certainly less than the Cabal would like.

Thanks for that mischief. I had you figured for a troll. There isn't a cabal, nor a lot of Ashcrofts (what the fuck is an Ashcroft? I'm English ...) There are just a number of people who feel that news posts are sub-optimal and who are trying to make the "self-policing" aspect of the site work.
posted by walrus at 2:28 AM on October 5, 2002

For. The. Love. Of. God.
It's a fucking website.
posted by owillis at 2:37 AM on October 5, 2002

I can't tell if this thread is going to get ugly or not. But anyway...

News is, ironically, not really discussion worthy

I'd take issue with that for a start. Admittedly, there's a lot of crappy 'Here is a link to dull news' still going on the front page, but there's still 'newsfilter' generating lovely metafilter heat, i reckon. What really gets my goat is the growing trend of both crappy-news posts and lovely-news posts both getting a one-word 'NewsFilter' comment, as if that was any help to anyone. And number 2:

I didn't bother reading the discussion on the inside pages because I...couldn't participate, so what was the point?

I don't think that's an ideal way to 'get' what's happening or what should be happening here. Like The God Complex, i'm weird, and was reading MeFi and MeTa for a long time before i got my shiny username, and still trying to get into my groove. So.....boy, you got to prove your love to me. Or not. Oh dear.
posted by robself at 2:40 AM on October 5, 2002

For a more literal analogy, discouraging people from posting news links here is like discouraging people from using spreadsheets to prepare relational databases.

I would say it's more like discouraging puppies from pooping on the carpet by showing them the newspaper. Newspaper, people.
posted by adampsyche at 3:21 AM on October 5, 2002

These conversations remind me of the descriptivist vs. prescriptivist debates grammarians have. I suppose it makes sense, as language is the ultimate community creation, that some of the same ideologies would apply, in a similar way, to a community like metafilter. Ultimately neither side can ever "win." The system relies on the tension between the two: the descriptivists providing the flexibility and the prescriptivists keeping the spirit of the site alive. Me, well I guess I'm a descriptivist/prescriptivist descriptionist.
posted by Nothing at 3:21 AM on October 5, 2002

Nothing wins. Well spotted, sir.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:27 AM on October 5, 2002

but actually I'm very disappointed in this place, now

Leave, then. Please.


posted by matteo at 3:50 AM on October 5, 2002

Metafilter's transformation into "NewsFilter" was inevitable, because it's too good at breaking big news stories.

Every big story is going to show up here as quickly as it does anywhere on the Web, often with more detail as our Web-savvy members scour Google, the Web, TV, and radio looking for information. When a site is that good at breaking news, people are going to come to it first when something happens.

This could be cured by automatically holding all new posts for a set amount of time, such as four hours. But a queue like that would be a pretty drastic change.
posted by rcade at 5:24 AM on October 5, 2002

And it occurs to me that the whole point of having loose guidelines with anyone being able to post to the front page is so that the site can grow and change.

If that was true, this would have become a free-for-all discussion board, because people have been trying to pull it in that direction for years.

You don't have to read old MetaTalk postings to figure out the place. Just keep doing what you are doing -- post strident things in MetaTalk about how the place should be run, draw more people out with angry comments like your talk of a refund¹, and take your lumps.

In no time at all, you'll know the norms and be able to dispense beatings on the next new arrival who wanders into MetaTalk with a strong conviction that we're running the place poorly. It's like being jumped in to a gang.

1: Unless I am mistaken, you are the first person to make noise about getting a refund. On principle alone we should thrash you for talking like that, as a lesson to anyone else with an exaggerated sense of what you bought with your $5.
posted by rcade at 5:40 AM on October 5, 2002

this would have become a free-for-all discussion board

this thread _proves_ that we have become a free-for-all discussion board.

Imagine every newbie posting a thread like this on MetaTalk

posted by matteo at 6:15 AM on October 5, 2002

You all sound like Ashcroft trying to shove laws down our throats that take away liberties that were previously acceptable and commonly enjoyed by the community at large, but abhorrent to a very small, yet vocal, few fundamentalists.

I'm glad I'm not the only one who noticed this rather disturbing trend.

Newspaper, people.

Newspaper is dead. There is no community to newspaper. Sheesh.

posted by rushmc at 6:35 AM on October 5, 2002

On a slight sidenote (since there are so many news sites as links): can someone list the metafilter logins/passwords for some or all of the news sites?
Or if you're posting a news link, make sure to put a login in like people used to do? (It's an enormous pain to have to register at new sites all the time)
posted by amberglow at 6:46 AM on October 5, 2002

hahhahahahhahahahahahahahahahha
posted by clavdivs at 7:25 AM on October 5, 2002

thanks! i'm here all week! ; >
posted by amberglow at 8:03 AM on October 5, 2002

not you AG. just this whole convoluted thread.

posted by clavdivs at 8:07 AM on October 5, 2002

"this would have become a free-for-all discussion board

this thread _proves_ that we have become a free-for-all discussion board.

Imagine every newbie posting a thread like this on MetaTalk"

this should be etched in stone.



posted by clavdivs at 8:12 AM on October 5, 2002

It seems there is a seething underground News-related-post hating group of MeFi's........ where do I sign up?

I made my first post the other day and was worried it would get slagged, but it wasnt News based, was interesting and provoked comments. So thats probably why.

nyxxxx, im a newbie here too and I find the best way to get "accepted" into a web communty is to watch and learn what others post and try and put your own spin on it.
Not make idle threats and demand refunds, that will just get you a selection of sarky comments and a bad reputation.......

posted by bhell13 at 10:11 AM on October 5, 2002

to contribute something to this thread...bhell13=good advice. and don't be snarky fool like me. The 'Hi' long intro was a bit unnerving but people can be fair here.
posted by clavdivs at 12:17 PM on October 5, 2002

nyxxxx, I'm really glad you stepped up and asked your questions. I hope that you can understand that part of what's going on in this discussion is that you're asking questions about things that have no real answers - because they are questions about the nature of the community which has and is being formed in this place even as we speak. There are divergent opinions. Bear in mind that the only opinion that counts is Mathowie's - all the rest of us here are only his guests here.

In other words, it's been lots of news links with the occasional eccentric link to something else, and Friday flash.

I can see your problem. Have you ever taken a look at the "one - two - three years ago today" links in the sidebar? Its a wonderful way to look back at the history and evolution of this site. As you get into the two and three year old stuff, you'll find more and more of the "eccentric links" and virtually no news of any type. When this site started (as I understand it) what Matt wanted it to be was (more or less) a place to share great sites you found on the internet with other people who might be interested in great sites. It wasn't a place for topical, news-oriented stuff - there were already other sites out there doing that, and doing it well. It was a place where you could give exposure to some of the best/most innovative/most interesting/weirdest websites out there. It was kind of a tech-head place, were if a news story did turn up it was likely to be about ICANN or about the debut of some new tech toy - something the mainstream press wouldn't give much exposure too.

There were far fewer posts per day in those days, and we could actually take the time to look at all the links, and discuss them in depth. Also, most of the posts didn't touch on the core values of the membership (i.e. politics and religion) so the nature of the discussion was far less ... well, less adversarial.

As more and more members joined, there were more posts, and it became more difficult to read them all in a single day - never mind actually participating in discussions about all the posts. Then more members joined. We began to see posts that were to "breaking" news stories, or posts that were simply links to Yahoo News or New York Times stories, links that were no longer pointing out obscure-but-interesting corners of the web. Rather, these links ("The so-called "Hey, look at this links") were things that literally hundred of millions of people a day were already looking at. They often took no research to find and had no thought put to the comments in the post that accompanied them. People would argue about these links - both about their content and about their very existence. Members began to form up public positions on certain topics, and we began to see Metafilter as argument rather than Metafilter as conversation.

Some of us miss the old days, when Metafilter was a place you could discover the best of the web, and talk with other people in a civilized and detailed way about those sites and what they might indicate about the state of the internet, the state of the world, or the state of the evolution (no, not that kind) of the human condition.

I understand the urge to post "generic" news links - its rare in our day to day lives that we can have any kind of conversation or discussion about politics or religion, because most people just don't want to go there. MeFi is full of intelligent, articulate people, and sometimes talking about the "events of the day" with other MeFi-ites can be a joy. No one is saying there should be no news on Metafilter - I've never yet seen anyone object to a good link to a well-researched story about some "news" topic - especially if that link comes from a less mainstream publication or a special-interest journal of some kind. What we do object to is the proliferation of ten, twenty, fifty or more simple links to short soundbites of easily accessible news (Yahoo news links are kind of a poster child for this kind of news story).

Metafilter, flat out, was never designed to be "about the news". Period. It was designed to be a weblog about one single huge topic - the Internet. The length and breadth and width of the Internet. When the balance of MeFi tips too far over onto one aspect of the Internet (be it news, or new products, or flash, or whatever) then people start to complain - as well they should, because news and new products and flash are not what Metafilter is about.

You ask the question "Do you want the group to evolve over time or not? - I, for one, mostly enjoy seeing Metafilter grow, but only up to a point. Metafilter (for me) is a respite on the web where I can talk (or listen to others talk) with intelligent, thoughtful people about ... things. All kinds of things. I love seeing the community evolve as more intelligent, thoughtful people with all kinds of worldviews bring their viewpoints, passionate beliefs, and experiences into the mix. But that doesn't mean that we should move away from Matt's original (fairly revolutionary) idea. If the balance of posts shifts from being about all things (or any things, if you prefer) to being mostly about one thing (news) with occasional other stuff tossed in, well then I think that Metafilter will topple over and eventually smash (or be smashed).

I apologize to Metatalk in general for the long post. I just couldn't say it in 50 words or less.
posted by anastasiav at 2:29 PM on October 5, 2002 [1 favorite]

Before I became a member, I loooooved Meta-- I always saved it last for dessert.

I got to know the "characters" and the policies and -- as an added bonus-- the inside jokes. It's quite a bit like a soap opera only better written and nobody gets amnesia.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:28 PM on October 5, 2002

Of course I meant I loved MeTa. Oh well, here is a chance to practice my HTML: Cabal&trade
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:30 PM on October 5, 2002

Hell!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:31 PM on October 5, 2002

Been here a month or so nyxxxx

Get a refund, you have 30days. I read that somewhere, now to remember where? O' yea my rule book was lost in the mail.

It's quite a bit like a soap opera only better written and nobody gets amnesia. Secret Life of Gravy

Great, now to see ourselves on The Simpsons, dope!

Have the few things I posted to the main page been out of place?nyxxxx

Welcome, it can only get better. \!!!/hang loose As in my opinion the cycle will turn back around. Think of it as gong on a journey, yet this wheel goes no where, so it's always here. Now for us to hop on and make it better. Wheeeeeeeeee

Your question above 1st post maybe too many questions, then becomes too personal, the info fine or it would have been panacaked by matthowie.
Second post, great info, it is all right there, very suffice. I open or, What you are worried about.

PS, you may remember folks with tougher skin.....
posted by thomcatspike at 5:28 PM on October 5, 2002

I have several gigabytes of info delivered to me early every morning ... - snip - ... It's called a newspaper.

Your newspaper has 'gigabytes of info' in it? Since the entire Library of Congress can fit on a CD, your newspaper must be at least a few million pages thick or have a hulluva lot of 600dpi images.
posted by wackybrit at 1:43 PM on October 6, 2002

The best way to learn the personality of the community you'd like to participate in? Shut up and listen (or read, in this case). Instead of just reading the FAQ, try reading the front page, the comments, and MetaTalk. Make a note of what people are complaining about, and then don't do those things.

One week, even one day, of doing the above, and you'd have figured out that news posts don't go over well, and that this post was not going to make you look very good. And don't bitch that you don't like the community when you seem to have made no effort to find out what it was really like before you signed up.

And take willnot's advice, because you'll never get in trouble for exercising a little restraint.
posted by stefanie at 1:45 PM on October 6, 2002

way OT:
Your newspaper has 'gigabytes of info' in it? Since the entire Library of Congress can fit on a CD, your newspaper must be at least a few million pages thick or have a hulluva lot of 600dpi images.

depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? i mean if you just scan the whole thing in at some ludicrous dpi then it's all big images, neh?

stupid, yes, but having a scan of a painting on a cd isn't quite the same as having a painting either.
posted by juv3nal at 11:57 PM on October 6, 2002

.
posted by *cries pitifully* at 11:59 PM on October 6, 2002

Now see what you've done?
posted by iceberg273 at 7:06 AM on October 7, 2002

I think I know what the difference is from yesterday to today.

The main participants in the past were in tune to the web.. for better or worse, the earlier users were pioneers of a sort.. the ones that actually defined the online journal, personal narrative, and what was the non-commercial sector of the web. And they were the ones that led the charge in creating tools and sites like blogger, diaryland, online zines, collaborative sites, drove design and everything else.

Sure, there were alot of people doing the same things that weren't at metafilter, but your critical mass was here.

Now, today, everyone's got a piece of the web. Everyone knows how to toss a web-site online.. it's not a novel thing anymore. It's harder and harder to create something unique in the space, let alone find it. But that's not the point.

The point is that 'back then,' there was more to talk about concerning the web. The non-commercial parts of the web *were* news, and companies were just coming online (and there were quite a few threads that were about trashing many a company's early web sites).

It's always been water-cooler talk.. it's just that the water cooler was in a hall where all the kids were web-heads, and it was the new new. The luster has waned a bit so talk has gone back to what usually hits the water cooler - news, politics, and the shocking story of the day.

People want to talk about what's relevant to *them*.. and the majority of you folks today weren't part of what we were doing back in 1996 (my first *real* year), and before. (post usenet, when mosaic came out).

I mean, if you were part of the creation of something, you have a different perspective, and I think you take things less for granted. Not that taking the web and how everything on it is presented for granted is bad.. but it's just one of things I see as a difference when people start this 'it used to be this, it should eb this' discussion.
posted by rich at 8:39 AM on October 7, 2002

Let me tell you about Delphi back in 1985 ...
posted by mischief at 8:52 AM on October 7, 2002

I apologize to Metatalk in general for the long post. I just couldn't say it in 50 words or less.

Don't apologize, anastasiav; that was beautiful. Matt should cut that out and post is on the about page.
posted by timeistight at 9:15 AM on October 7, 2002

Your newspaper has 'gigabytes of info' in it? Since the entire Library of Congress can fit on a CD, your newspaper must be at least a few million pages thick or have a hulluva lot of 600dpi images.

Yes, wackybrit, I scanned the whole thing as bitmaps to check my facts before I posted (not). I think it's the ads that take up all the room.

depends on how you look at it, doesn't it? i mean if you just scan the whole thing in at some ludicrous dpi then it's all big images, neh?

stupid, yes...

Uhh, thanks juv3nal, I think.
posted by timeistight at 9:21 AM on October 7, 2002

mischief.. I purposely ignored anything 'pre-web'. You have the same kind of dynamic back in the BBS days and so forth, but the barriers to entry were still a bit higher than they are today, which just makes the process of 'evolution' that much faster.
posted by rich at 10:17 AM on October 7, 2002