Metafilter is too good at breaking news not to be used for that

October 21, 2002 7:50 AM

Metafilter is too good at breaking news not to be used for that purpose. If there really is a consensus here that the number of news links is a bad thing, one solution would be to hold all new posts for a few hours after submission so people are forced to look elsewhere when big stories break.
posted by rcade to etiquette/policy at 7:50 AM (108 comments total)

I'm not arguing in favor of posting linkless stories like this sniper link. But it seems inevitable to me that an unmoderated general-interest weblog visited by hundreds of people would become a portal for breaking stories.

We find more details more quickly than the networks and news sites, along with lots of interesting speculation and some personal reporting unavailable elsewhere (such as Stavros' friend, harmed in the Bali bombing).

Beating up the people who use Metafilter for breaking news, when it's clearly so good at it, seems like a lost cause.
posted by rcade at 7:53 AM on October 21, 2002

I agree...there is a distinction between linking to a single news item and adding your opinion (ie Newsfilter), and this.
posted by Orange Goblin at 8:02 AM on October 21, 2002

Beating up the people who use Metafilter for breaking news, when it's clearly so good at it, seems like a lost cause.

So *good* at it? Really? Seems to me that breathless breaking news posts are routinely lame. Here's what's being overlooked in that thread: even if the original post had linked to a breaking TV news story, it would still have been a font of what we know an hour and a half later was speculative misinformation.

Someone needs to do for news aggregators what danelope did for annoyance prevention technology.
posted by mediareport at 8:04 AM on October 21, 2002

I'm sorry; I seem to have double-posted. As my thread will soon be deleted, may I leave it here? Thanks.

It was about the latest expression of the ever-present "I rely on MetaFilter for my news" attitude. The comment was made on a linkless front page post. I don't want to pick on MrMoonPie - it's just his comment was the most recent and, even though it seems to refer to so-called breaking news, is fairly representative. Neither do I want to be snarky - but would it be too much to ask that users not rely on MetaFilter as their only (or main) news source? It's not exactly as if there's a lack of proper news sources, is it?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:05 AM on October 21, 2002

I saw the news here first, then went to my regular sites for the details. I'm sure I would have found out about it eventually.

I guess what I'm saying is, while I personally appreciate the link, I can understand why those outside the DC area would be annoyed.
posted by JoanArkham at 8:08 AM on October 21, 2002

These posts are going to happen despite all your efforts. You have a choice.

1.Attempt to make the thread better.
2.Bitch about it within the thread.
3.Ignore it.
4.Wait for Matt to delete it if he so chooses.


posted by machaus at 8:10 AM on October 21, 2002

I usually hear about things like this on the radio and MeFi at about the same time, but MeFi rapidly outpaces the radio in terms of detail and alternative sources (for US stories, anyway; I'm in Aus). My vote, if we're looking for a consensus, is to allow "breaking news" posts for big stories. (Alternative can-o-worms: what constitutes a big story? I think the rapid accumulation of links and comments in the thread would point out the "keepers".)
posted by sennoma at 8:19 AM on October 21, 2002

Seems to me that breathless breaking news posts are routinely lame.

The link itself is usually lame, but the subsequent commentary more than makes up for it because people find good news links and details faster than the electronic media. The first links on 9/11 were lame too. I posted one, thankfully deleted, which said a plane struck the World Trade Center in Chicago.

Take a look at the first Bali bombing link. I found out more here quickly than anywhere else.
posted by rcade at 8:21 AM on October 21, 2002

Miguel: The same I come to MeFi for news was expressed here.

I got called intolerant and a nazi for pointing out they might try a news site (I chose #3 in machaus' list above, go figure).

I guess I need to accept it, there are a bunch of people who are seriously clueless about the 1000s of news sites (even with discussion!) on the web and must come to MeFi for "breaking" news. I'll keep quiet about it from now on, then.
posted by malphigian at 8:27 AM on October 21, 2002

MeFi isn't a great resource for ALL breaking news. Just the things that seem pretty urgent. On a diverse intellectual site such as MeFi, it would seeem strange to me if there weren't links to the more immediate of the breaking news stories...

Is there any such thing as an "absolute," exceptionless law?


posted by Shane at 8:27 AM on October 21, 2002

people find good news links

While such threads do include a lot of speculation, they also serve to aggregate useful links to factual details as they become available. I believe that is the function of a so-called metafilter (with a small m).

posted by mischief at 8:29 AM on October 21, 2002

There's breaking news and then there's breaking news. Despite the fact that 9/11 happened on American soil, it directly affected the entire world. It was an international event. So too with the Bali blast. Both of these events have international scope and interest and therefore I feel they do have a place on MetaFilter.

Unless things take a very dramatic turn, I feel that this linkless post, despite the fact that it's about a horrible and senseless set of occurences, simply doesn't match the scale and international importance of some of the other breaking news events we've seen around here and therefore doesn't belong here. Yet. Maybe in a couple of hours this sort of post would be more acceptable, with links.

While I feel for those of you who live or have friends and family in the area, there are simply too many cases where breaking news of this sort could overwhelm and change what metafilter is all about.
posted by ashbury at 8:37 AM on October 21, 2002

Miguel - MrMoonPie's comment struck me the same as it appears to have struck you. I look to MeFi for links to things beyond and above the news.

Ironically, I turn to fark for my breaking news...
posted by jazon at 8:43 AM on October 21, 2002

I'd like for all comments to go to the thread Miguel started. Imagine, my own MeTa thread!
posted by MrMoonPie at 8:44 AM on October 21, 2002

NewsFilter is bad enough, now we have to have RumorFilter? Is there really an urgent need for people to be first in line to say "Gosh, how horrible. Do you think it's true?"
posted by stefanie at 8:46 AM on October 21, 2002

...simply doesn't match the scale and international importance of some of the other breaking news events...

This could turn out to be a crazed killer. I don't know--the guy's damn good at what he's doing. I'm fascinated. Not to mention I think this may have implications beyond that of just another serial killer...
posted by Shane at 8:48 AM on October 21, 2002

MetaFilter is not Usenet. If you don't have a link, don't post. Why is that so incredibly hard to comprehend?
posted by jjg at 8:51 AM on October 21, 2002

Not to mention I think this may have implications beyond that of just another serial killer...

It might be the first wave of an extraterrestrial invasion, but I doubt it. Why don't we just wait until we find out what it is?
posted by timeistight at 8:57 AM on October 21, 2002

Good to see that the post nazis are out in force.

The post is here and people are interested in it.

Deal with it.

Ah yes, malphigian ("I got called intolerant and a nazi for pointing out they might try a news site"): 'tis indeed the charming tone of populism, as voiced by eas98.

Machaus's #3 it is! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:00 AM on October 21, 2002

Metafilter is too good at breaking news not to be used for that purpose.

My pen would be a pretty good tool for taking someone's eye out. Doesn't mean I'm going to use it for that.
posted by jalexei at 9:01 AM on October 21, 2002

Beating up the people who use Metafilter for breaking news, when it's clearly so good at it, seems like a lost cause.

rcade's right. mefi is really good at this sort of thing, and that was quite evident during 9/11. but i think people, especially in the linkless thread, have wrongly elevated the bar of requirement for linkless posts to something on the scale of 9/11; it was not originally. (am i mistaken, or were there not one or several linkless posts made during an earthquake on the west coast?) the sniper thread seems fine to me.

mefi is good at breaking news, yet so what? there aren't a lot of large, breaking news stories. newsfilter posts suck not because they're news, but because there's too many of them. i think the subject of breaking news, as in this case, is orthogonal to anything newsfilter.
posted by moz at 9:06 AM on October 21, 2002

9/11 news seemed to be in the public interest, as pretty much everyone was either directly affected (i.e. in NYC) or had a friend/relative/coworker to worry about.

This really isn't like that. I think there's a problem with perspective here.
posted by PrinceValium at 9:19 AM on October 21, 2002

jalexai: ah, but isn't it so tempting now and again?

Maybe that's just me.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:20 AM on October 21, 2002

I come to Mefi for discussion about the news, not for the news -- I'll let the journalists do that.

The question is, if 'breaking news' is OK, then where do we draw the line? What constitutes good breaking news and bad breaking news? Does it have to be national? US Centric? If I post about the arrest of a killer in a decade old unsolved crime in Toronto, is it appropriate? It might be of interest to people locally. Where's the line?
posted by mkn at 9:28 AM on October 21, 2002

Mefi's good at breaking news when members have something to contribute. If it's just a matter of posting something fast and people just add the latest blip they get on CNN as the situation develops, that, I would submit, sucks. But what made the good linkless threads (earthquake, 9/11, Bali) good was the fact that people were adding information themselves -- I just saw, my friend was caught up in that, etc. It's not a question of the gravity of the breaking story, it's a question of what Mefi members can contribute to a breaking story. And the proof of that only comes out in the comments.

A linkless post about someone climbing the outside of an office tower, or about a sniper striking again or suspects being taken into custody, is useless because it's not breaking news that develops, or that people can contribute to from their own experiences; it's useless because the poster couldn't find a link fast enough, or didn't want to wait long enough, for the inevitable news story (and mediocre newsfilter link). It's useless because we're all spectators rather than witnesses. When we're witnessing a breaking event rather than just watching it on the news, then -- and only then -- are linkless posts even worth contemplating.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:31 AM on October 21, 2002

Where's the line?

Oh, that's easy! Is it something that will cause productivity in the US to slam to a stop?

This story certainly has done that.

posted by mischief at 9:33 AM on October 21, 2002

But mischief, while I realize that most Americans think of themselves as the center of the world, this is simply not on par with many other breaking news items. Once again, I am not belittling what is happening, I'm just saying that it doesn't necessarily belong on metafilter as of yet.
posted by ashbury at 9:42 AM on October 21, 2002

simply not on par with many other breaking news items

Tell that to every American who will spend the afternoon speculating on what is happening instead of working. While this may not be a huge story to you and a few others, the 'what if it happened in our city' potential of this story makes it very important to many people ...

... on par with the latest "white girl kidnapped" story or the final episode of "American Idol".

posted by mischief at 9:51 AM on October 21, 2002

while I realize that most Americans think of themselves as the center of the world

Dems feudin' words. We'll annex you if you aren't careful.
posted by machaus at 9:52 AM on October 21, 2002

Where's the line?

It has recently been proven that 5,387,732 angels can indeed dance on the head of a standard-size pin.

There. Can we move on now?
Yes, those angels where all within an average "normal" weight range. I knew you'd ask that.
posted by Shane at 9:54 AM on October 21, 2002

... on par with the latest "white girl kidnapped" story or the final episode of "American Idol".

So, what about those Mets Angels?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 9:58 AM on October 21, 2002

I am saddened to think that even rcade sees no choice but to give in to the continual news-ification of MetaFilter... It's almost 9 SFO time and the thread's still there, so I'll assume Matt's decided it's OK, which I'm personally disappointed by. We can argue about the depth or number of news posts, but when a linkless FPP to a regional American issue is OK, I fear that the floodgates are opened to all-news-chat, all-the-time.

(With all due respect to MeFites from the DC area, this really is a regional story; while there's coverage of these shootings in the media in Chicago, no one I know seems overly concered. I fail to see how anyone outside the US would be particularly moved by this sort of blow-by-blow coverage).
posted by JollyWanker at 9:59 AM on October 21, 2002

With all due respect to MeFites from the DC area, this really is a regional story

I'm in the thick of it, and I agree.
posted by JoanArkham at 10:03 AM on October 21, 2002

Anyone who doesn't understand why this post is inappropriate should (once again) readthefucking.metafilter.com/guidelines.mefi. It doesn't matter if it's something a lot of people are talking about. It doesn't matter if it's regionally or nationally or internationally relevant. IF IT DOESN'T HAVE A LINK, IT IS AGAINST THE RULES AND, ULTIMATELY BARRING MATT'S PERSONAL OPINION, IT DOES NOT BELONG ON METAFILTER.

Make sure you're linking to something on the web. If you're posting a generalized question to the audience, or posting a comment as a main thread, either find an appropriate mailing list, or use MetaTalk.

See? It's right there, white-on-blue, in clear and undebatable language. No link == shite post. This is NOT a news board. This is NOT a discussion board. Links are a requirement for posting, and if you feel differently, you should find another site to frequent.
posted by Danelope at 10:09 AM on October 21, 2002

What mcwetboy said. These aren't breaking news posts, these are "I just saw on CNN that they say the sniper is wearing shoes. I just saw on MSNBC that he's wearing a hat! Wait, CNN just reported that..."

What news is being broken by Metafilter on this one?
posted by Stan Chin at 10:12 AM on October 21, 2002

This is NOT a news board. This is NOT a discussion board.

... and interstate speed limits are 65 in rural areas.

posted by mischief at 10:13 AM on October 21, 2002

I am saddened to think that even rcade sees no choice but to give in to the continual news-ification of MetaFilter...

I'd love to take the other side, but most people seem to be engaging in a little "do as I say, not as I do" here. Two of the links most celebrated on Metafilter were the first 9/11 link and the no-link Seattle earthquake post.

While the former is an exceptional situation -- probably the biggest news story in the U.S. since the Kennedy assassination -- the latter is comparable to the sniper manhunt. It was a regional story that didn't have huge national or international significance, but Metafilter did a good job of bringing information and people together. This site did a great job on the Bali bombing while the U.S. media was still taking the weekend off, and any new person who saw that is likely to come back here for our news coverage and analysis.

Though we can continue to dispense beatings whenever a no-link news story is posted here, I think it's time to consider a software solution. If this really isn't a new site, let's cripple its ability to break news. If we aren't willing to do that, because we want the benefits of immediacy, then we ought to cut new members more slack for breaking news here.
posted by rcade at 10:25 AM on October 21, 2002

Another Newbie Question (hmm, how long can I get away with this?): so should I have not posted a link to help out the linkless post? Should I have just let it die?
posted by JoanArkham at 10:30 AM on October 21, 2002

The thread would have continued had you not posted it, JA. The answer to your question depends on whether or not you are pro-news or anti-information.

posted by mischief at 10:36 AM on October 21, 2002

...or whether you are pro-discussion or anti-speculation.
posted by mkn at 10:38 AM on October 21, 2002

rcade: Though we can continue to dispense beatings whenever a no-link news story is posted here, I think it's time to consider a software solution. If this really isn't a new site, let's cripple its ability to break news. If we aren't willing to do that, because we want the benefits of immediacy, then we ought to cut new members more slack for breaking news here.

I agree in principle with what you're proposing, but it would appear Matt does not (it's been discussed at length here before, and while I have no idea what goes on in the Mind of the Haughey, it would seem if he agreed, he'd have implemented it...). Therefore, we poor few who like and admire MetaFilter as a refuge from the alarmingly sensationalist "news media" will have to exert what influence we may to stem the tide.

And so I say, Let the Beatings Continue!
posted by JollyWanker at 10:52 AM on October 21, 2002

Let the Beatings Continue!
posted by aptly named JollyWanker ;-P

posted by mischief at 10:54 AM on October 21, 2002

MetaFilter is not Usenet

That's a fucking brilliant new tagline, jjg

I'm totally with you on the "no link, no FPP" rule
posted by matteo at 11:08 AM on October 21, 2002

Link, schmink. The bigger problem with that thread is the number of users who slipped into meta talk. Shame! I should have been able to quickly scan that thread and learn far more than reading even the latest AP and Washington Post stories would tell me -- that's a unique strength of this community. That was disappointing.

Of course a little bit of meta was going to happen due to a linkless post, but easily 3/4 of you knew better. That sets a worse example than an admittedly uncommon (and obviously discouraged) linkless summary of a breaking story.

posted by sudama at 11:23 AM on October 21, 2002

Where's the line?

Oh, that's easy! Is it something that will cause productivity in the US to slam to a stop?

This is not an US site. It is hosted in the US.

I totally agree with mcwetboy too.
posted by ginz at 11:25 AM on October 21, 2002

I should have been able to quickly scan that thread and learn far more than reading even the latest AP and Washington Post stories would tell me

Is that because we're all getting up from our desks and running out to DC with our little note pads and copying down facts? Or is it because the 99.9% of us that aren't in DC getting our updates from the same websites and the same cable news networks that everyone else is?
posted by eyeballkid at 11:25 AM on October 21, 2002

snark snark snark snark snark

Metafilter: "It looks like we've solved yet another mystery with our collective investigating and remote reporting! Good work reading news.google.com everybody."

Sniper Suspect's Twin Brother: "Arrr, and I woulda gotten away with it too!"
posted by Stan Chin at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2002

This is not an US site. It is hosted in the US.

... and it is frequented by an overwhelming number of US residents relative to all other nations combined, particularly at this time of day.

So, what is your point?

Is that because we're all getting up from our desks and running out to DC

Immaterial. The point is the thread is collecting the more detailed stories from all those news sites, saving everyone who is interested the time of searching all those sites. The definition of a metafilter.

The Me-Talkers should have brought their comments here to Me-Talk instead of derailing an otherwise innocuous thread that they could have easily bypassed.

posted by mischief at 11:32 AM on October 21, 2002

The lack of link seems like a secondary flaw, to me. I mean, if it's a question of keeping informed, Yahoo, Google and CNN.com are perfectly sufficient; and even if this post had included a link, to CNN, say, we'd still be having this debate. I think the question is, is it appropriate to post news to the front page just so people can discuss it?

But I can see two reasons the answer isn't a definitive No. First, some news affects all of us, as has been pointed out above; that's a fair exception (there being a near-universal desire to talk about such things). Second, there's a MetaFilter-esque value to discussing even breaking news, in that some people will post links to new stories that might otherwise be hard to find out about. I think this is a real value, but I don't know if it's a great enough value to greenlight posts like this in general.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:33 AM on October 21, 2002

Is that because we're all getting up from our desks and running out to DC with our little note pads and copying down facts? Or is it because the 99.9% of us that aren't in DC getting our updates from the same websites and the same cable news networks that everyone else is?

My point which mischief understood is that if one doesn't have anything valuable to add to the thread, why is one hitting "post"?

It continues as we speak. User after user who knows exactly where metatalk is and what it's for is posting out of line in that thread. It's obnoxious.
posted by sudama at 11:37 AM on October 21, 2002

The point is the thread is collecting the more detailed stories from all those news sites, saving everyone who is interested the time of searching all those sites

That is the definition of a news aggregator. The term MetaFilter has no real definition beyond the guidelines of this site.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:43 AM on October 21, 2002

So, what is your point? What I said, but more importantly what mcwetboy said. (Bis) Please read his comment again and try to absorb it.

I'm just as much a news junkie as any other news junkie, and can really wallow in this serial killer stuff, but that is not what this site is about. There are others though. Somewhere.
posted by ginz at 11:48 AM on October 21, 2002

snark snark snark snark snark



(Actually, this thread isn't even that snarky yet...)
posted by Shane at 11:49 AM on October 21, 2002

I agree in principle with what you're proposing, but it would appear Matt does not.

(Obligatory reminder that Matt's a busy boy and doesn't necessarily have the time to act as hall monitor -- certainly not 24/7 -- or to provide software solutions to behavioural problems, and that his silence doesn't necessarily indicate acceptance, but rather maybe that he's just off earning a living or eating a muffin or taking a poo at the moment.)
posted by mcwetboy at 12:01 PM on October 21, 2002

I didn't use MetaFilter with capital letters, I used metafilter with small letters and it has meaning in that it is one word expressing a distinct concept conjoined with a well-understood prefix.

what mcwetboy said, like many others who agree with him, has no basis in the reality of what is actually posted to MetaFilter.

News happens. People post it. Other people discuss it. A few fundamentalists get all upset because everyone else ignores their guideline-thumping.

This is the same discussion we had a few weekends ago that resulted in Matt asking the anti-newsies to Cool it with the "NewsFilter" shit, ok?. The only difference here is instead of bleating "NewsFilter", the same small outspoken posse is using alternative yet equivalent phrases.
posted by mischief at 12:04 PM on October 21, 2002

the same small outspoken posse is using alternative yet equivalent phrases.

Anytime you want to stop distorting reality, mischief, that would be fine. The link issue is what first derailed the thread, not "Newsfilter-itis." Few things cause MeTa-like comments to appear in a thread more than a linkless post. Although I will say that the rather silly "get it first!" mentality that sparked the linkless post is also a factor that makes so many news posts so thin.
posted by mediareport at 12:12 PM on October 21, 2002

1. I do not like to be called a fundamentalist.
2. News happens. People post it. Other people discuss it. Fine, that still doesn't make this post an appropriate one.
3. Matt's just off earning a living
4. Eating a muffin
5. Taking a poo at the moment

After all, Miguel's double post is still here. (sorry Miguel, for dragging you in here)
posted by ginz at 12:13 PM on October 21, 2002

I hope mathowie is just too busy to delete things right now. Either that, or he's turned the site over to mischief.
posted by timeistight at 12:14 PM on October 21, 2002

what mcwetboy said, like many others who agree with him, has no basis in the reality of what is actually posted to MetaFilter.

All I said was that linkless breaking-news posts were good only under a specific set of circumstances. It was an argument about what was good, not an exegesis on current practice here.

... and interstate speed limits are 65 in rural areas.

What do you do when you get a ticket, then?

A few fundamentalists
the same small outspoken posse

(1) You're making a Silent Majority argument: those who disagree with you are outnumbered by those who agree with you, even though you don't have the data to back up that assertion. (2) You're also begging the question: current practice is inherently correct because everyone is currently practicing it. (3) And you're being excessively pragmatic: in your books, the current state of affairs obviates any discussion of how things ought to be. (4) And you're dodging any discussion of the merits of the arguments by simply dismissing those making the arguments as the typical bunch of Mefi cops and whiners -- i.e., you're going ad hominem (which isn't the same as getting personal or nasty).

So: pffffftt!
posted by mcwetboy at 12:22 PM on October 21, 2002

Politically, the most fascinating aspect of the computerized information network is that it can give a powerful boast to centralization of authority- or to the decentralization. Like a new road that can bring fresh life to a remote area or merely make it easier for the local population to leave, the information network is a two-way system. For example, it can either encourage offices to congregate in the metropolis, because they can keep in touch so easily with what is going on at the periphery: or it can encourage them to disperse because any place that can tap a comprehensive system is as good as another...we can envisage systems in which instructions from the centre and opinion from the periphery have equal potency.

-Calder
written in 1970
rcade raises a good question and a call for consensus. I wish more people would give this post some more serious thinking.
(puts on harold Lloyd glasses)

last halloween, i put up a linkless, non-metatalk related post. It was not deleted for what ever reason. I plan to do it this year and am actually concerned that matt might take it down. The concern is the key. The linkless post should be rare for the blue, this one today would stand IMO.
the key, i feel, is to use it when necessary or, in my case, once in a great while.
posted by clavdivs at 12:27 PM on October 21, 2002

opps, forgot to put quote marks on the Calder.
posted by clavdivs at 12:30 PM on October 21, 2002

I didn't really get the first part of your post, but that's just me being under-educated.

However:
The linkless post should be rare for the blue, this one today would stand IMO.
I can't agree on this.

The whole Washington Sniper story is, I think, an interesting one, but it seems to be a local story. There are quite enough of these (= sensational) stories every week on this little planet.

I think this is the 3rd post about this story this week. (could be more or less) There is nothing in this post that I wouldn't know about, after reading the newspaper or surfing the net. No (live) personal accounts either to justify the post.

posted by ginz at 12:46 PM on October 21, 2002

However, the exact number of angels that can dance on a pinhead is as yet undiscovered.
posted by Shane at 12:48 PM on October 21, 2002

The link issue is what first derailed the thread

So, because of one minor technicality (the instance of which is not without accepted precedent), a small disenfranchised group is expending all this energy over a post with widespread, national interest which they could have easily skipped after reading the first dozen or so words, much like the many other posts they do skip.

Matt hasn't turned the site over to any one person, but to the community at large, and as communities usually do, they are ignoring the hardline conservative extremists and doing whatever they please so long as no one gets hurt in the process.

Well, have fun all. I'm going to bed.

posted by mischief at 12:52 PM on October 21, 2002

I used metafilter with small letters and it has meaning in that it is one word expressing a distinct concept conjoined with a well-understood prefix.

Much like "hamburger."

This site is capital "M," capital "F" as in MetaFilter. The site has a set of guidelines. Those guidelines are the loose definition of what constitutes a front page post. I use the word "loose" because the Hand That Smotes the Threads has the final say and that hand has burned at least one DC sniper post to a crisp every single day this week. So, not only does that post, linkless as it is, violate the guidelines for this site, but mathowie has already dumped a whole boatload of sniper threads from the front page.

This site is, and has always been, a site to find what is new cool and interesting on the web. If you want news, go to a news site.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:54 PM on October 21, 2002

whoops, forgot italics in the first line.
posted by eyeballkid at 12:54 PM on October 21, 2002

Stats so far:

MeFi thread: 89 comments.

MeTa thread: 64 comments discussing the MeFi thread.
posted by Shane at 12:56 PM on October 21, 2002

"All I'm asking is that people cool out, and if they have to say something negative about a thread, would it kill someone to be nice about it?" - mathowie

Hamburger was named for the town of Hamburg. (I believe, but then, I've been wrong before. Once. ;-P )

Shane: You gotta love it!

G'night. (for real this time)

posted by mischief at 1:02 PM on October 21, 2002

Hamburger was named for the town of Hamburg.

Thanks for making my point.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:05 PM on October 21, 2002

What's your point, Shane? That a linkless post hyping an incorrect news story might actually draw fewer comments than a MeTa thread focusing on issues at the core of the site guidelines? Wow, that's sure a shocker.
posted by mediareport at 1:05 PM on October 21, 2002

Think it's time to strike this one: Taking a poo at the moment

The other arguments still stand though.


posted by ginz at 1:06 PM on October 21, 2002

"rubble-rubble"

that mayor McCheese...

"I didn't really get the first part of your post, but that's just me being under-educated."

This is what schools are for. If you comprehended the Calder, you would see that your second point is what Calder is trying to address.

posted by clavdivs at 1:10 PM on October 21, 2002

We don't have Calder in our schools, but I'll google for it.

I'll google for mayor McCheese too.
posted by ginz at 1:16 PM on October 21, 2002

These posts are going to happen despite all your efforts.

I sure hope that's wrong. There aren't many rules that have been enforced here, but the one against linkless posts has been one of them. There have been very few exceptions, and each one seems to create and reinforce an impression that it's OK. I hope that Matt simply hasn't gotten around to making it impossible yet.

Or, what jjg said.
posted by languagehat at 1:23 PM on October 21, 2002

What's your point, Shane? That a linkless post hyping an incorrect news story might actually draw fewer comments than a MeTa thread focusing on issues at the core of the site guidelines?

No. Just talking. Talk about talking. Talking about talk.

-Talk, it's only talk
Babble, burble, banter, bicker bicker bicker
Brouhaha, boulderdash, ballyhoo
It's only TALK-

Enough talktalk for me. G'night, too. Sleep tight.
(I'll have odd dreams now, fer sure.)
posted by Shane at 1:45 PM on October 21, 2002

I think that Matt looked at Metatalk today and ran away screaming. It's like letting a wildfire burn out.
posted by Stan Chin at 1:46 PM on October 21, 2002

Nigel Calder, author of 'Technopolis'
(got a fiver that oissbukes' long blue post is gonna get into MeTa)
posted by clavdivs at 1:47 PM on October 21, 2002

MetaFilter: Great at breaking news.

(clavdivs- i won't take that bet)
posted by eyeballkid at 1:49 PM on October 21, 2002

We don't have Calder in our schools
us either, ours is right downtown in the public square.
posted by quonsar at 1:51 PM on October 21, 2002

*poof*

Not in vain however since it did elicit the beautiful irony of clavdivs lecturing about reading comprehension.
posted by machaus at 2:11 PM on October 21, 2002

In mischief's estimation (which is merely a continuation of his harping from the previous NewsFilter thread), the rules and traditions of MetaFilter are invalidated when some members of the community act in violation of them.

He suggests, and has suggested in the past, that because some people post linkless threads (or mindless news threads, etc.), it is clearly the will of the people, and anyone who believes otherwise (including the site's owner) should deal with it.

Tell me: when in the history of civilization has an organized group with a basic set of rules completely abandoned those rules because a few refused to adhere to them? Should we repeal speed limit laws? People break the speed limit all the time! Should we repeal laws against homicide? Why, murder takes place every day in every country around the world! Why have these laws at all if they're being broken so frequently?

The truth of the matter is that this site has rules, and they aren't going to change because of the select few who break them. Posts will continue to be deleted and/or called out by those members who care about the standards by which this community is being and has always been run.

Of course, mischief willingly distorts reality by referring to the people who violate these guidelines as the "vast majority", and even attempts to polarize members with patently idiotic "pro-news or anti-information" descriptors. Clearly, everyone who adheres to the rules when contributing to MetaFilter is "anti-information". The issue here is NOT abiding by the founding principles upon which the site was created; the issue is that everyone who wishes its members would abide by said principles are against the spread of information.

The thousands of worthwhile, non-linkless, non-NewsFilter posts that have been made in the past 3+ years should be immediately stricken from the database, and the front page rendered blank. This is the will of the people, after all.
posted by Danelope at 2:13 PM on October 21, 2002

Oh, is THAT what a snark looks like?
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 2:32 PM on October 21, 2002

thanks Machaus, care to add anything worth while to the topic at hand?
posted by clavdivs at 2:40 PM on October 21, 2002

A post that clearly violated the rules still got about 85 comments when last I checked, so one might argue that there is a majority interest in these types of posts (majority being majority of people who posted a comment at all.) I understand that 'this isn't a democracy' but, at the same time, the site isn't here solely for mathowie's amusement - clearly there is intent to create a community built by the members of that community.

My question: why delete *any* posts - why not let the people who read the site self-select links - if something's clearly a news link, and you don't like it, don't click or comment on it! Would the front page be cluttered with so much junk that it would be unreadable? It seems there are lots of rather arbitrary deletions - things that mathowie thinks are uninteresting, unfunny, etc., and lots of posts that I think are crap up there that don't get deleted - why rely on the editorial opinion of one person at all? Wouldn't that make a lot less work?
posted by drobot at 2:44 PM on October 21, 2002

Oh, is THAT what a snark looks like?

Some are boojums.
posted by mcwetboy at 2:51 PM on October 21, 2002

My question: why delete *any* posts

The reasoning is that the worst are removed, in order to prevent them from setting a precedent and happening again. When I was way more lax on deletions, the monkey-see, monkey-do effect quickly kicked in as people said "oh we can do that now?" and would post similar things to the substandard links they had seen on the site.

why not let the people who read the site self-select links

That's the way the site has been functioning for over three years, and continues on to this day. Only the most egregious offenses are removed. Look at today's page. Are you interested in everything you see? Speaking for myself, I read only 2 or 3 of the threads.

Would the front page be cluttered with so much junk that it would be unreadable?

Yes.

It seems there are lots of rather arbitrary deletions - things that mathowie thinks are uninteresting, unfunny, etc., and lots of posts that I think are crap up there that don't get deleted - why rely on the editorial opinion of one person at all? Wouldn't that make a lot less work?

Just because my editorial process isn't perfect doesn't mean it should be abandoned altogether. I do what I can, and can't get to everything substandard, but I feel the site is better for losing the posts that get the ax. Community tools can fill the gap here, and haven't been implemented yet, but will be sometime soon (things like voting posts as good, reporting errors directly to me, etc)

Also keep in mind that anyone is free to check out (or start one) of the many other online communities that better meet their needs. I'm far from perfect, and willingly admit so. There are thousands of other websites out there worth reading.
posted by mathowie at 2:53 PM on October 21, 2002

There are thousands of other websites out there worth reading.

Blasphemy!
posted by timeistight at 3:03 PM on October 21, 2002

...why rely on the editorial opinion of one person at all? Wouldn't that make a lot less work? --drobot

The reason is simple: this is Matt's site and he doesn't want it that way. You forget that you are a guest here, and as such, I feel that it's unbecoming of you to suggest to your host that the way he runs his house is wrong. Besides, this has been asked a million times--perhaps you should look before you speak.

It has also been said many times that Metafilter is about linking, then discussing. Just because there are many people who are commenting does not mean that they should be. While I don't always agree with this policy, I feel that it certainly applies in this case.
posted by ashbury at 3:04 PM on October 21, 2002

er...or what matt said.
posted by ashbury at 3:06 PM on October 21, 2002

Thanks Mathowie for the thoughtful response, even if what I'd suggested had been suggested before. For the record, I agree that linkless posts are uninteresting, I was just pointing out that even though the post today about the sniper was awful, it did drum up lots of interest, and that maybe there was something to that.

Ashbury - Your sycophantic post was probably unnecessary. I really didn't mean to sound ungrateful - I understand that we're 'guests' here, but if you invite 16,000 guests into your house (some of whom donated money to be there because they recognize the value of the 'house'), and provide a forum for them to talk about the house, then they should have the option to intelligently debate issues related to the house. If what I said had been said before, I'm sorry, but my post was completely valid given the topic of the thread, and warranted a thoughtful, non-snarky response from Matt.
posted by drobot at 3:26 PM on October 21, 2002

some of whom donated money to be there

Which entitles them to nothing more than those who didn't donate money. It's right there in the How signups work section: Folks who donate do so to skip ahead in line when registrations are closed for the day. They've already gotten their reward, and suggesting that they deserve more is ridiculous.

Should there be something on the pay-to-play page, Matt, to nip this "you owe me" stuff in the bud?
posted by mediareport at 4:05 PM on October 21, 2002

Should there be something on the pay-to-play page, Matt, to nip this "you owe me" stuff in the bud?

The results page has stated thusly from the day I programmed it:

Keep in mind that this is a donation towards maintaining the server, and not a direct payment for privelages on the site. You will be asked to abide by the same guidelines as everyone else and your membership is subject to suspension at any time if those guidelines are broken.

Though it might be time to put it in a more prominent place.
posted by mathowie at 4:07 PM on October 21, 2002

privileges
posted by crunchland at 4:22 PM on October 21, 2002

Also keep in mind that anyone is free to check out (or start one) of the many other online communities that better meet their needs.

*standing ovation, wild applause*

posted by matteo at 4:26 PM on October 21, 2002

Oh, is THAT what a snark looks like?

IMO, but Thomcatspike says he's actually the Butcher...
posted by Shane at 4:30 PM on October 21, 2002

drobot, please don't call me "sycophantic" or my post "unnecessary". If you thought I was being "snarky", then please say so--the other unkind words weren't really needed.
posted by ashbury at 6:16 PM on October 21, 2002

There are thousands of other websites out there worth reading.

There are other web sites?
posted by dg at 6:17 PM on October 21, 2002

"Keep in mind that this is a donation towards maintaining the server, and not a direct payment for privelages on the site. You will be asked to abide by the same guidelines as everyone else and your membership is subject to suspension at any time if those guidelines are broken.

Don't be a dick, because your deep pockets won't help.
posted by websavvy at 6:18 PM on October 21, 2002

please folks, I parenthetically said:

some of whom donated money to be there because they recognize the value of the 'house'

not

some of whom donated money to be there

This doesn't say 'you owe me' and wasn't meant as such. I meant this to mean just what it says - that there are 16000 members here, and some of them like the site enough to donate money to it. My point is that despite this being 'Matt's house', Matt gives members a forum (whether they pay or not was an aside, in parentheses even), and responds to them. I posted an opinion, was responded to by Matt in what I took as a cordial and thoughtful way, then got jumped on for offering my opinion in the proper forum, and was/am defending myself. I offer my apology.
posted by drobot at 6:22 PM on October 21, 2002

drobot = 'dangerous robot'? I assumed it meant Dr Robot, or maybe Dr Robot (or even Dr and the Robot ). Oh well...
posted by Shane at 8:23 PM on October 21, 2002

(drobot = dangerous robot)
posted by Shane at 8:25 PM on October 21, 2002

You know what I miss?

`FPPs with really cool web art links.
`FPPs about new sites that are in some way paradigmatic.
`FPPs discussing some new aspect of web development or software or hardware or gadget or geegaw.
`FPPs that debated the relative merits of yours and my favorite beer/wine/book/band/movie/game/etc.
`FPPs about the way things are outside the US, with myriad posts by non-Americans, and collegial discussion between Americans and non-Americans

I could go on. But we're all so serious, and segmented, and vested in being right and in scoring points.

*leans back in chair, lights up a smoke*

OK, you win. You're right.

What'd you get?
posted by UncleFes at 10:35 PM on October 21, 2002

Oh, is THAT what a snark looks like?

IMO, but Thomcatspike says he's actually the Butcher...

...of Taylors.
posted by thomcatspike at 7:24 AM on October 22, 2002

Metafilter is too good at breaking news not to be used for that purpose

Well, too good at breaking rumour at least. It's 24 hours later and the arrest had nothing to do with the sniper afterall. There's a reason news sites are news, rumour sites are rumour, and Metafilter is a third way.
posted by Nelson at 12:42 PM on October 22, 2002

Thank you Uncle Fes. I'm in total agreement, er, that is, except for the smoking thing. But to each his own- I miss all those posts you mentioned too. Back in the day when MetaFilter was fun!
posted by Lynsey at 3:53 PM on October 22, 2002

UnkaFes, Lynsey:
I miss all those posts you mentioned too. Back in the day when MetaFilter was fun!

Well, then, like Picard says...

Wait, no, that's what Gigantor says. I'm all goofed up on robots. . . Here:

Like Picard says...

(...and I suppose I could also use a bath...)


posted by Shane at 4:27 PM on October 22, 2002

One of my favorite things about MeFi is the diversity of perspective it brings together into one place, and a sense of being indirectly connected to events going on around the world. The 9/11 thread has been already referenced, but in my mind that was a great example of the reach of this site, and the idea that my experience and perspective can be broadened by listening to others firsthand experience.

This doesn't seem to have been the intent of Metafilter as a site, but I think it is worth recognizing as an unexpected benefit in the growth of the site. The Internet is about connectedness, and when I posted the link about the arrests in Richmond, it was based from the fact that I was here in Richmond, seeing something happen that could be potentially significant, and wanted to plug the community into what was going on. I tried to stick to what was known at the time, that suspects had been taken into custody, under a heavy police presence, and there was a suspected link to the sniper case.

Some of the complaints centered around the "regional" nature of the story. It's true that we who live in the area feel a more immediate sense of risk/alarm, but this is largely unprecedented in the scope and potency of this person's actions, and shocking in the same way that Columbine exceeded people's expections of the escalation point for school violence. While it's true this story directly affects a rather small area of space, I think it has larger psychological significance.

For the sake of interconnectivity, I thought the post was defensible. It was being covered by television media which made it a legitimate news item, not just a rumour passed down the hall and blurted onto a post. Something was clearly happening, and national online media were slow to pick it up. I saw this as an opportunity to accelerate the process of sharing the information, much in the same way prairie dogs will sound an alarm that alerts an entire group.

I've read MeFi closely for over a year, and prefer it as an unedited source of news, and see it as more flexible, and really more effective than traditional sources in terms of broad range information gathering.
posted by bullitt 5 at 9:20 PM on October 22, 2002

bullit, it might have been all the excitement over this post and rcade's post here to MeTa that ultimately quashed your post. This issue of a breaking-news linkless post became so high-profile that it kind of forced a policy decision. Allowing the post to exist may have encouraged a wave of linkless or breaking-news posts. Also, by the time Matt deleted your post, it had already kept us all updated on the situation anyway...
posted by Shane at 9:11 AM on October 23, 2002