Why was this deleted?

November 6, 2002 11:40 AM

Uh... why was this deleted? I can only assume, thanks to Grangousier's sarcastic comment, that it was deemed to be a dupe of this, but if that is the reason, someone needs to look again. While the original post was commenting on the removal of Ellen's ad from Apple's site (it's since come back), there have been no other posts about Ellen's ad and Ellen herself.

Apart from anything else, ripping articles from the front page without informing the poster and telling them why is not a good way to encourage new users to post good links. It's just demoralizing.
posted by Mwongozi to Etiquette/Policy at 11:40 AM (21 comments total)

ripping articles from the front page without informing the poster and telling them why is not a good way to encourage new users to post good links.

Does leaving them up encourage people to post good links?
posted by PrinceValium at 11:47 AM on November 6, 2002

You picked exactly the wrong time to post this.
posted by websavvy at 11:51 AM on November 6, 2002

Mwongozi, you've been a member here nearly a year, which hardly qualifies you as a "new user". Surely you've been around long enough to realize that there have been a lot of posts to MetaTalk that ask why a post was deleted? To which the answer is invariably that it was either a double post, or Matt thought it was lame for some reason. Both might apply in this case.

But it might also have something to do with the fact that it was the third Apple-related post today, and the second dealing with the switch-campaign meme, which might have struck Matt as being a bit much. (And since Apple upgraded its laptops today, there might be more still to come -- brace yourselves!)

I would say that ripping posts from the front page is a good way to encourage users not to post bad posts.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:52 AM on November 6, 2002

You miss the point. I'm fine with taking bad posts down, as long as the poster is at the very least told so, and preferably told why too.

I'm not claiming to be a new user, I'm speaking in the interests of them.
posted by Mwongozi at 11:55 AM on November 6, 2002

As websavvy said, you picked exactly the wrong time to post this.
posted by mcwetboy at 11:59 AM on November 6, 2002

Wish I could add more to support mcwetboy and websavvy, but all I can say is ditto. You wanna have this site around? Might not be good idea to rip on its moderator/creator when he's thinking about shutting it down.
posted by lackutrol at 12:02 PM on November 6, 2002

I'm fine with taking bad posts down, as long as the poster is at the very least told so, and preferably told why too.
...and a pony

Matt does not have the time to reply to every deleted post. (search MeTa for examples, I don't want to)

I'm scared

on preview, what mcwetboy said
posted by pfuller at 12:04 PM on November 6, 2002

Apart from anything else, ripping articles from the front page without informing the poster and telling them why is not a good way to encourage new users to post good links. It's just demoralizing.

Camembert, stilton, or perhaps a simple edam?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:07 PM on November 6, 2002

"You miss the point. I'm fine with taking bad posts down, as long as the poster is at the very least told so, and preferably told why too."

Matt doesn't owe you or anyone an explanation. If you don't like his moderation, that's unfortunate. But you are not entitled to demand justification for the comings and goings of submitted content on this site.
posted by websavvy at 12:08 PM on November 6, 2002

I can't stop this site being taken down. I can suggest improvements and air my thoughts about the site, that is what Meta is supposed to be for. And I'm not psychic, I can't go through reading every comment ever posted to Meta before posting one of my own, not that I'm sure that would have stopped me anyway.
posted by Mwongozi at 12:08 PM on November 6, 2002

By Meta, I mean, "MetaTalk", just to clarify.
posted by Mwongozi at 12:10 PM on November 6, 2002

All the links you listed except for the Foxtrot one, were old and discussed previously on MetaFilter. A quick joke in a comic strip isn't really that interesting.

I'm tempted to quote from the latest IKEA commercial and say "this is just a post being deleted, it has no feelings"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:18 PM on November 6, 2002

Oi! That's my line!
posted by mcwetboy at 12:33 PM on November 6, 2002

Oi! Meta-Talk: The Meta place to step into Matt's shoes ; )
posted by thomcatspike at 1:10 PM on November 6, 2002

Mwongozi: you don't need to read EVERY MetaTalk thread to know that no one gets a reason for their post being deleted.

Deal with it. Move on. Matt has spoken. He is the law.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:30 PM on November 6, 2002

I know this is probably the pot calling the kettle black but aren't people getting really precious about their posts nowadays? My last post but one was deleted and when I looked back it was pretty dull. I mean I didn't post it on my own weblog. I can see why He deleted it.
posted by feelinglistless at 1:50 PM on November 6, 2002

Mwongozi, meet feelinglistless. Admire him. Imitate him.

(I took one look at your post and knew it would be gone soon. When you can do the same, you'll have achieved MeFi enlightenment.)
posted by languagehat at 2:10 PM on November 6, 2002

I can see why He deleted it.

I think your capitalization is quite apropos.
posted by dirtylittlemonkey at 2:14 PM on November 6, 2002

It's just demoralizing.

Are the site's administrator and the community supposed to care about your feelings?

posted by matteo at 3:30 PM on November 6, 2002

My third radical suggestion of the day (and two of them were at MetaFilter, imagine that):

Automatically replace any instance of the phrase "Why was (.*) deleted?" with "Who wants pancakes?!"

Save us all a lot of time.
posted by ook at 5:36 PM on November 6, 2002

Dammit, dirtylittlemonkey, you stole my line.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 9:21 AM on November 7, 2002