intentionally extending existing thread with new links

January 25, 2001 9:41 AM

Posting a new link to intentionally extend an existing day-old thread is inappopriate.
posted by rcade to etiquette/policy at 9:41 AM (73 comments total)

One of the reasons I participate in discussions on MetaFilter is that members generally respect each other's opinions. There are exceptions, of course, but the quality of the exchanges here is vastly better than discussions on Usenet, Free Republic, Slashdot, and many other forums.

It isn't respectful to play oneupsmanship games using new links. Others have done the same thing, but in this case the person has participated in discussions about this problem in MetaTalk, so I think it's particularly egregious.
posted by rcade at 9:51 AM on January 25, 2001

I concur. Also given the massive-link-and-comment state of MeFi lately, I really concur.
posted by hijinx at 10:13 AM on January 25, 2001

This is interesting: baylink just did the exact same thing. I think baylink's is a good topic to elevate out of the Jaguar thread, but like you said, a link would have made it a good post too.

Let's keep our cool, this (and aaron's re-post) is just MeFi evolving before our eyes. The fact that a couple of MeFi regulars both found it appropriate to start new threads for topics that are hardly a day old should tell us something... MeFi isn't working right now, so we're trying to find ways to make it work.

With so many posts each day, even today's threads are in danger of drowning in the deep blue MeFi sea. I have no idea what to do about it, (hoping my.mefi will be the solution) but I am happy to see stepping outside the norm in response to extraordinary circumstances.

posted by sudama at 10:15 AM on January 25, 2001

er, "to see people..."
posted by sudama at 10:16 AM on January 25, 2001

What Baylink did, however good in intent, is already against the stated guidelines. You're not supposed to post a new link to something within MetaFilter itself.
posted by rcade at 10:32 AM on January 25, 2001

Let's keep our cool, this (and aaron's re-post) is just MeFi evolving before our eyes.

I would argue that it's devolving. I don't think Aaron was attempting to make this place work better; I think it was intended as a so-there to people he disagrees with politically.
posted by rcade at 10:35 AM on January 25, 2001

aaron's move seems wrong to me. I'm sorry, aaron, but the additional link you posted wasn't anything new it was just more information in an ongoing discussion. It would certainly have added to the ongoing discussion though.

I agree with sudama that it's good to see people trying things to sort out where MeFi's hidden though.

I think the distinction between aaron's new thread post and baylink's is that baylink took something which was outside the scope of the original thread, and moved it to it's own thread. I support the intent behind baylink bringing the thread out, but quite honestly it was probably inappropriate.

The sub-conversation in the jaguar thread ended up becomming the conversation, and could've quite easily continued in that thread. Had baylink somehow been able to see the future and known that it would evolve into the discussion it turned into, a seperate thread for it would've been a good idea, so as the original intent of the jaguar thread - Ford == Corporate bastards :-) - could be maintained.

And, my last note is to rcade. MetaTalk is for talk about Metafilter. You were in direct violation of the guideline you quoted in MetaTalk, and that just seems slightly this side of silly to me.

If we're going to enforce guidelines, doesn't it make sense to follow the guidelines in doing so? If you're worried that people don't read MetaTalk, well, that's probably a MetaTalk discussion in itself.... It may be a good idea to raise MeTa awareness.
posted by cCranium at 10:39 AM on January 25, 2001

Let's keep our cool, this (and aaron's re-post) is just MeFi evolving before our eyes.

Boy, I dunno. Today has really been the day when I felt like something's spun out of control. Previous discussions of "What can we do about the direction Metafilter is going?" seemed like the low-level rumblings that accompany natural change, and it seemed like there was more than enough self-awareness floating around the community to Shape The Nature Of What Is To Come, but I must say that when I came to MeFi this morning, I was filled with a special sense of annoyance and distaste.

I mean, I'm a grad student on winter break, so basically I've had all the time in the world to lavish on MeFi -- I work at my computer all day, and there is no one who can possibly care how much time I spend entertaining myself on the Internet. As a side bonus, I read very quickly, and I very much enjoy having something new to read every time I want a little break. Thus, I'm pretty much in the best possible position as far as keeping up with posts goes; simple proliferation of links affects the pleasure of my reading experience minimally. The problem is not just that there are lots of posts. It's the nature of the posts and the general effect it's had on the level of discourse overall. I realize I don't have anything particularly constructive to add (except that the notion of posts handpicked by Matt sounds more and more attractive, though I'm sure it isn't a particularly appealing lifestyle choice from his point of view). It's just something I wanted to get off my chest, I guess.

[note: Of course, rcade has made a similar point much more pithily while I endlessly edited this comment. Now I'm too attached to it, though, so up it goes.]
posted by redfoxtail at 10:39 AM on January 25, 2001

And, my last note is to rcade. MetaTalk is for talk about Metafilter. You were in direct violation of the guideline you quoted in MetaTalk, and that just seems slightly this side of silly to me.

The Posting Guidelines apply to new posts to the main page. They don't apply to replies in a thread.
posted by rcade at 11:04 AM on January 25, 2001

funny rcade, i saw this metatalk post right after i saw baylink "thread bump" post, and thought you were talking about that one (until i clicked your link just now).

by the way, i didn't see anything wrong with aaron's when i first saw it, but i thought baylink's was wrong from the start.
posted by pnevares at 11:05 AM on January 25, 2001

It's interesting to note that Steven has posted just one comment in the past two days, while I have posted too many, by my own standards... darn "more addictive than crack."

I'll curb voluntarily (plus, it's arguable as to what I've contributed....) But I can see a definite change in tone and feeling over the past few days & it worries me. My suggestion: cold turkey. Maybe Matt throws a few posts up for the next few days, and that's it. Or maybe it all goes away until my.metafilter.com happens later this year. ::shrug::
posted by hijinx at 11:07 AM on January 25, 2001

Why is it that I've been enjoying MeTa more than MeFi recently?

Ok, here's a proposed solution -- requiring "seconds" to have a post stay up, a la "I second the motion." It would work in one of two ways as I see it;

1. Have a little radio box where people can click "stay up." Any post not getting a certain number of clicks in a certain amount of time gets the hook. (say, 10 in two hours. Pick something arbitrary.)

2. Have it work by comments. Posts that get a certain number of comments in a certain amount of time (say, five in three hours) stay up.

Either way keeps the community aspect alive instead of relying on one hard working, tired human.
posted by norm at 11:09 AM on January 25, 2001

(As re: Steven's relative absence, I hope he didn't take offense at the "Steven should get his own weblog" discussion elsewhere on MeTa.)

I don't post many stories, having been horribly embarassed when an early one I posted garnered no response, but I've held off from posting two very interesting (and disturbing) links to Washington Post stories because I don't want to contribute to the front page clutter. I can understand the desire to bump things up towards the top -- I've been frustrated when posts directed at Steven and Aaron in different threads over the last week or so have gone unanswered. While I'd like to think it's because of my devastatingly-researched and wickedly-compelling arguments, I strongly suspect it's because there's just too much to keep up with. (I'm going to reject the third possible answer -- that I'm so obnoxious that I killed the conversation -- until Steven or Aaron informs me otherwise.)

But relentlessly propogating a discussion by posting multiple threads, or simply viewing any minor development or new source for the same specific story as front page fodder, is aggrevating to everyone. And recently it's happened with three times W-key story, at least twice with the Califnornia power crisis, once with the FDA/GMO labelling, and with Ashcroft ad nauseum.

I've completely reversed my position on moderating. We're failing to police ourselves, and barring heroic effort on Matt's part, new code, or some combination of the two, I think the slide to Slashdot-dom has begun. If I were Matt, I don't know that I'd be inclined to save us from ourselves.
posted by snarkout at 11:36 AM on January 25, 2001

Ok, here's a proposed solution -- requiring "seconds" to have a post stay up, a la "I second the motion." It would work in one of two ways as I see it

That's a pretty nice idea, particularly in implementation version 1--sort of a streamlined version of the kuro5hin model. The only glitch I see offhand is the possibility of handicapping people posting from far-off-the-median time zones.
posted by redfoxtail at 11:36 AM on January 25, 2001

the quality of the exchanges here is vastly better than discussions on Usenet, Free Republic, Slashdot, and many other forums.

MeFi isn't working right now, so we're trying to find ways tomake it work.

It may be a good idea to raise MeTa awareness.

I agree with all of these sentiments, and I think that the majority of MetaFilistines would too. And while Matt is working on my.meta, it seems that he also would want us to figure out ways to deal with the changes occurring in MeFi on our own (as evidenced by his "metafilter is filling up, post wisely" comment.

but... it seems that most MetaFilistines are not aware of this problem. And so I present...

A Modest Proposal

1. One of us should begin a front page thread, announcing a MeFi forum taking place in MetaTalk to discuss the changes in MeFi. In this thread, a plea should be made to ask folks not to post new threads for a full 24 hours, and instead contribute to the discussion in MetaTalk.

2. Have a few pre-prepared topics of discussion, such as guideline following, what constitutes a good post, etiquette in posting and in commenting, and when is it appropriate to start a new thread instead of commenting in existing threads.

3. At the end of the 24 hours, have someone sum-up what seems to be the general consensus for each topic, then post the results in a FAQ (probably springing from what the esteemed cCranium has been putting together).


Hopefully, the result will be awareness among the 3000 or so members of MeFi of what it is that makes MeFi great, and what needs to be done to keep it so, and perhaps it would form a foundation for future members.


I am open to criticism, amendments, agreements, discussion, or anything of the sort regarding my suggestion (realizing that this sort of thing may not have been done before, and that the growing pains of MetaFilter may just be a result of growing numbers).

Thanks, Chris
posted by Avogadro at 11:46 AM on January 25, 2001

pnavares: funny rcade, i saw this metatalk post right after i saw baylink "thread bump" post, and thought you were talking about that one

Me too. :-}

cCranium: The sub-conversation in the jaguar thread ended up becomming the conversation, and could've quite easily continued in that thread.

Indeed... but there were, I thought, more than likely people who might be interested in the sub thread who were *not* following the original (it was a rather sharp veer, after all), and that purpose didn't seem best served by a post in MetaTalk, which is (I believe) much less regularly followed.

Snarkout: But relentlessly propogating a discussion by posting multiple threads, or simply viewing any minor development or new source for the same specific story as front page fodder, is aggrevating to everyone.

I agree. Did you think my posting fit into either of those categories?

And, for the record, I think that's a *great* approach to the problem, Avo.


posted by baylink at 11:54 AM on January 25, 2001

No, Baylink, but you should have had some further linkage in there, imho. (Note for hypocrisy-watchers: I did a similar thing when I started this thread as a repurposing of this one.) People have already discussed whether your post was a guidelines no-no, but it wasn't the same kind of thing.

I'm more concerned about the machine-gun topic recycling where you get front-page stories about how Fox News thinks Al Gore is a liar. Then how Drudge thinks Al Gore is a liar. Then how the RNC thinks Al Gore is a liar. Or how Salon thinks John Ashcroft is a crumb. Then how Diane Feinstein (shudder) thinks John Ashcroft is a crumb. Then how Michael Moore thinks John Ashcroft is a crumb. All essentially the same topic but with different links (not even, in the case of one of those W-key stories). If one finds the topic uninteresting, one doesn't want too see any of them; if one finds the topic fascinating, one can't keep up with all the threads. It's a lose-lose situation.
posted by snarkout at 12:09 PM on January 25, 2001

Ok, and as I said, I don't disagree with you in the slightest. But you're starting to sound like the World's Oldest Man arguing that Jesus wasn't a Jew, and that I can't handle the truth.

"Well, ok, yeah, Jesus *was* a Jew"...

My point, and I wasn't annoyed before, but I'm getting a touch that way now, was precisely that the topic had changed bodily, and that I thought that exposing that completely different topic to the masses would be productive and welcomed.

So far, if my count's correct here, the votes are 3 to 2 in favor.
posted by baylink at 12:15 PM on January 25, 2001

Avogadro: A Modest Proposal

That does seem like a good idea. Would it be good to have a new category in Metatalk for the purpose, or do we just want to have the threads under metafilter-specific? Often, there seems to be overlap between that topic and the etiquette/policy topic, and I often find it damn hard to remember which thread went in which topic. Alternately, we could just try to stack all the MeTa topics with threads we anticipate would be useful for mass discussion...

Speaking of topicality, this really belongs in the bugs section, but am I alone in finding that the links/comments since last visit thing is entirely out of whack with reality in MeTa? If it's some function of how the counter considers the extra level of nesting, and I'm just too slow-witted to have caught on to the logic, no biggie, but if other people have the same problem, it might be something to change before we try to get the whole herd over here in grayscreen land.

Baylink: if my count's correct here, the votes are 3 to 2 in favor

It didn't bug me, though I'm with snarkout in thinking that an outside link would have made it even better.
posted by redfoxtail at 12:28 PM on January 25, 2001

I'm sorry your read my crankiness as a personal dig, Baylink -- I wasn't even thinking of your post when I whined about the amount of noise on MeFi. Since, you know, Aaron's post was ostensibly the one under discussion. (And sorry if I'm sounding snarky, but you asked for my opinion.)

In any case, it's not showing up on my front page any more, so I suppose that Matt has decided that it's a no go. I wasn't actually miffed by it anyway, just thought that some outside content would have made it more clearly within the guidelines.

posted by snarkout at 12:36 PM on January 25, 2001

I, for one, neither need nor want to be notified on the front page every time a thread takes a major turn, bodily or otherwise.


posted by luke at 12:37 PM on January 25, 2001

I, for one, neither need nor want to be notified on the front page every time a thread takes a major turn, bodily or otherwise.


posted by luke at 12:38 PM on January 25, 2001

the votes are 3 to 2 in favor.

MetaFilter is not a democracy.
posted by rcade at 12:40 PM on January 25, 2001

Would it be good to have a new category in Metatalk for the purpose, or do we just want to have the threads under metafilter-specific?

I think that the best way would be to put a link on the MeFi front page to the metafilter-specific topic category and have the agreed-upon topics (thread appropriateness, guidelines, etiquette, etc.) prepared for mass discussion. These topics could have bold headers so that they can be easily identified once members enter the metafilter-specific page, or they could even have individual links on the MeFi front page.
posted by Avogadro at 12:45 PM on January 25, 2001

Re: Avo's idea . . .

This sounds like a worthwhile endeavor. Might it be worthwhile to have somebody moderate each topic to make sure that the topic stays on topic? That way, "What Constitutes a Good Post" doesn't end up answering "What is Good Posting Etiquette".

Of course, that might mean that we'd need some respected citizen to volunteer their time . . .

I dunno. But this seems like a situation where topic drift could work against you. Of course, if we're responsible enough to try to work out problems as a group, maybe we can keep on topic too.
posted by iceberg273 at 12:58 PM on January 25, 2001

Avogadro: or they could even have individual links on the MeFi front page

You could link the topics under the 24 hour moratorium post on the front page - maybe even include a description paragraph for each topic (so each topic would be a comment in the moratorium request header)
posted by iceberg273 at 1:03 PM on January 25, 2001

MeFi is not a democracy. At best, it's a community, and at worse, it's Lord of the Flies.

I think Avogadro's plan sounds great. A voluntary moratorium, fascinating!

One thing we should do is decide how to handle the inevitable posts that day. It would probably be best to just post once in any thread with a canned response pointing to the MetaTalk discussion and then leave it alone.

Of course you all realize that we're forming some sort of ad hoc committee over here that's bound to draw a contrarian response from one or two of 3200 members. We need to be clear that all we're doing is starting a conversation.
posted by sudama at 1:16 PM on January 25, 2001

Oy vey. I'm in a time rush here and won't even be able to really read this thread for a few hours, but quickly: I made a new link because the old one had already fallen so far down the page that I figured it was already dead. That's it.
posted by aaron at 1:20 PM on January 25, 2001

Appointing moderators gets dangerous. It would probably be a good idea to at least prepare some (suggested) ground rules though, so things don't stray too far out of hand.

At the very least, we should phrase the discussion topics as questions, so that we have a direction in which to head. I can see this turning into a week-long rehash of the old news/no news/no political news debates that crop up everywhere. How can we avoid this? Or at least keep it productive?

One possible ground rule: no feature suggestions -- only things we can implement ourselves by modifying our behavior. Yes?
posted by sudama at 1:20 PM on January 25, 2001

A year ago tomorrow the problems of MeFi's growth were under discussion in this thread. It's worth a read. (Kottke's original comments can be found here)
posted by ericost at 1:40 PM on January 25, 2001

I don't know about the posting moratorium. I already am getting a feel for a split between old school/retread MeFilistines and new school MeFiers, and I suspect that not many new school types have the faintest idea that MeTa exists (hm, I'm user 1559, I guess I'm on the high end of cool or the low end of uncool; damn me for lurking for a month and a half). If MeFi gets cut off, it'll be predictable what will be said. If it's only a voluntary thing with snarky MeTa links for any who are oblivious, then it will appear to be the old schoolers attempting to regain control (or is that true?). I don't think it addresses the long term issue either way.
posted by norm at 1:43 PM on January 25, 2001

About that thread from a year ago: intersting that no one in this thread so far was a member at that point (Jason's comments and link were how I discovered MeFi).

Entertaining snippets:

From Matt:
if you want to post a reply, you'll have to scroll down pretty far, this gets kind of long - not necessarily a bad thing because there may be many replies in the future, and each page might become this long

From Jason:
How many stories a day are posted? 2 is too few, 50 is too many. If the growth of the site continues as it has been, 50 stories posted in one day is not outside the realm of possibility....far too many for a site like this. People would be overwhelmed and stop visiting.


posted by ericost at 2:21 PM on January 25, 2001

Why is it that I've been enjoying MeTa more than MeFi recently?
Because this is where the real discussion, with a few exceptions, takes place these days. This is where the the threads stay visible, sane and thought provoking.
It's the kitchen at a party where the music got too loud for any decent conversation.
It's where those of us who care about this community hang out.
It's the first place I come to, instead of the main page.
I read this the other day because I was looking for Matt's thoughts around the time I started lurking here (scroll to Jan 27th), mainly due to the recent deterioration in post quality.
I'm sure we need to give the MeFi network a shot in the arm, I just can't figure what it should be. Sad.

posted by Markb at 2:53 PM on January 25, 2001

I keep waiting for Matt to show up and pat us on the head and tell us it's all going to be okay, because he figured out the perfect fix, and it's right here . . .

Sigh. Okay, not likely, which seems ominous and further bums me out. I'm probably going to get nailed for suggesting this, but what if Matt capped new members for a while? Easy for me to say, as I'm already here (with an ignoble number of 1927 . . . I too lurked for ages), but as we talk about it, the problem spreads. I already find myself thinking (no doubt as many continue to think of me), "Who the hell is this guy?" Keep it capped until we come to some sort of (hotly debated) resolution?
posted by Skot at 3:06 PM on January 25, 2001

Hmm, no new posts in 3 hours? Is the moratorium already in effect?
posted by sudama at 3:15 PM on January 25, 2001

It's gone, Snark, because I said "Hey, Matt? I won't get awfully bent if you kill this"... and he did.

Rogers, what *is* up your butt today?
posted by baylink at 3:32 PM on January 25, 2001

Up whose butt? (And now I pause to be amazed that the preceding sentence is actually a question I want to ask.)
posted by redfoxtail at 3:37 PM on January 25, 2001

If the problem is too many links, and my.metafilter.com is going to help matters, "old schoolers" could take some pressure off by halting our own link contributions until it arrives.
posted by rcade at 3:38 PM on January 25, 2001

Do people still "lurk for ages?" I've been reading MeFi for over a year, even though I didn't join 'til the end of April . . . knowing what the tone of the community was before I ever got close to posting really helped (course I don't post much anyways).

Sudama: You're right . . . moderators would be dangerous - especially if the moderators are seen as trying to impose their will on the thread.

Nevertheless, I think that we do need to come to some conclusion about this. From the level of dialogue in this community, it's pretty clear that there are a lot of level heads here. We should be able to figure out a way to control our own (collective) behavior.

I guess what we're running into is the problem of 3200 people who have different ideas about where the level of "important" lies . . .
posted by iceberg273 at 3:49 PM on January 25, 2001

what *is* up your butt today?

Do you have any idea how difficult it is to answer that question without looking foolish?

I knew by objecting to Aaron's post I was going to look like a hardass (hyuk hyuk), but we've talked several times in MetaTalk about the problem of oneupsmanship in new links, especially political ones, and he was part of those discussions. Seeing him do it {intentionally|thoughtlessly} was the freaking icing on the cake.
posted by rcade at 4:29 PM on January 25, 2001

Does this help?
posted by mathowie at 5:13 PM on January 25, 2001

Good stuff, Matt. The bubble-up thing looks very nifty, and I bet it will help prevent new posts made for the sake of keeping a topic active. Three cheers for social engineering through technical magic.

Aaron, I think part of the reason people got worked up over the White House staffer thing was the appearance of yet another post about it today (which was taken off the front page, I assume for its blazing redundancy). Or was I hallucinating?

I know that I, at least, am entirely sick of the eight-gazillion Ashcroft posts, and believe me, I'm a left-wing kid. I suspect that those of us who are getting worked up about this stuff have just been getting more and more cranky about it, so new things that rub the wrong way provoke increasingly vigorous reactions. But I do sympathize entirely with your dislike of seeing your actions torn apart in MetaTalk. I know that if I were in your place, I'd feel horrible about it.
posted by redfoxtail at 5:32 PM on January 25, 2001

FWIW, I thought aaron's post was fine. It was full of new info that really changed the nature of the topic being discussed.
posted by sudama at 5:48 PM on January 25, 2001

aaron, in response to what you said to me in the other thread, it doesn't seem like I'm the one that needs to "stuff it." On the contrary, your double post sparked this thread. I'm not the one in need of stuffing.

About comments: From my understanding, there are two purposes for this site. One is links, the other is "comments." While your "hellomrpresident" had a strange headline ("Hey Teen Activists"?) it was a fine link, and I followed that. It doesn't necessarily warrant comment, just as the "Porto Alegre" link didn't. Both those links, however, were quality. I just (and apparently no one else) had anything constructive to say about them at the time. It doesn't necessarily make it a bad link; it's just not a conversation starter.

I find it strange people "rate" their links by the conversation it sparks. That is a bad yardstick, for reasons that have been discussed previously.
posted by capt.crackpipe at 5:53 PM on January 25, 2001

You see anti-conservative bias in everything, Aaron.

We've talked about the problem of dueling political links before. The overabundance of Ashcroft links has also been noted by a few people in links on MetaFilter.

If you weren't trying to piss off liberals, who is "you" referring to in your link?

You thought it was just 'shenanigans,' but it turns out to have been a lot more ...
posted by rcade at 6:10 PM on January 25, 2001

A good conversation can justify a mediocre link to my mind. capt., can you point to where this has been discussed? I don't recall.
posted by sudama at 6:15 PM on January 25, 2001

To clarify my inquiry, rcade: "what's up your butt" that you're still shooting at *me*, even after you've made it fairly clear that even you don't think *I* was really doing what you're annoyed at?

Or did I misunderstand you on the latter point?
posted by baylink at 7:00 PM on January 25, 2001

Weighing in kinda late, but I hope you're not totally spent.

I think this discussion had two threads, one valuable, one not. The not one is the Aaron-did-this, Rogers-said-that one, which I think is silly and harmful. If you can't trust your fellow posters' motives, you might as well go to Slashdot and have all the cutting contests you want.

The valuable one is the how-to-fix-MF one. I think Avogadro's idea of a moratorium plus a pointer to MetaTalk is worth exploring, but the main virtue of it is that it tries to get the mass of MF posters to actually participate in "governing" the community. Right now they don't, except on the micro-level of yelling at/giving love to each other. In the long run that's the kind of self-organizing activity that helps create norms, but when the community is growing as fast as it is now, that process doesn't have time to take effect before another 500 new-chums get off the boat.

What else do we have that helps create norms now? (1) The posting guidelines, which are pretty narrow and intentionally not very directive. (2) MeTa, which most of the population doesn't read much (I'm guessing). (3) Occasional interventions by Matt, which are usually very low-key to the point of being invisible if they happen quickly enough. That's about it. I think the community needs to have a big long, probably contentious, discussion about what MF is, where it's going, what makes us happy.

Avogadro's suggestion is to try to make that discussion happen in MeTa. I guess I can go with that. I especially like the idea of slowing down or even shutting down new links for a day or so, perhaps with an appropriately paternal explanation by Matt (or some shadowy MetaTalk cabal) about it. (Except that someone would post about it on Slashdot or Plastic or Kuro5hin, and then the process would become the object of people's scrutiny. "TURMOIL AT METAFILTER!")

This would preserve the distinction between MF and MT that some of you are so keen on. I confess I've never understood why discussion of MF can't be useful in MF. The thread mentioned above is a good example. The last time I suggested just broaching the subject of the current state of MF *in* MF it was not received enthusiastically--and I wasn't that enthusiastic about it myself, so I didn't follow up. But is it such a bad idea?

Either way, here or MF, I think some big-time reflection would be a good thing for the MF community. I keep thinking it's just me, but the comments above would indicate a lot of us feel that things are bad--but not much of this really comes across in MF proper, except in some snarky, almost sotto voce asides here and there.
posted by rodii at 8:33 PM on January 25, 2001

(Oh, by the way (me again). I just realized, following up on the link to Jason's entry above, that that very link was how I found Metafilter, one year ago today. Cool! I'm trying to remember why I lurked for six months. I coulda had a sub-300 number. Sigh.

Thanks you for indulging my moment of MF nostalgia.)
posted by rodii at 8:53 PM on January 25, 2001

for the record, conservatives showed up one day & never left. this whole place used to be pleasingly liberal...
posted by palegirl at 9:12 PM on January 25, 2001

Another ground rule: the only user # that means squat is #1. (Unless Matt decides to arrange a metric that rewards people according to some measure of their investment in the community,) we are all just shmucks who signed up. If anyone is really the wiser for having been a member "a long time", their wisdom should be apparent and stand on its own merit.
posted by sudama at 9:26 PM on January 25, 2001

Sudama, that hardly needs saying. User-number jujitsu is just fun, not fascism.
posted by rodii at 9:54 PM on January 25, 2001

rodii, I wasn't responding to your comment at all (believe it or not) but indirectly to a comment elsewhere on MetaTalk. I thought it would be rude and unecessary to point to it directly so I posted the way I did. I'm just trying to anticipate all the ways things could get ugly if we do have a MeFi-wide discussion about this stuff.
posted by sudama at 6:29 AM on January 26, 2001

sudama, my point about member numbers was that we all have different versions of what the halcyon days of mefi were depending on when we were attracted to the site & joined up. i wasn't attempting any sort of low-number supremacy.
posted by palegirl at 6:39 AM on January 26, 2001

Hey everyone.

Looking at the comments, I can see a few ground rules for a voluntary moratorium for discussiondeveloping

1. make sure that the topic stays on topic though there is still debate on whether moderation is necessary.. I personally think that we should self-moderate, as is custom.

2. on handling other posts: It would probably be best to just post once in any thread with a canned response pointing to the MetaTalk discussion and then leave it alone.

3. no feature suggestions -- only things we can implement ourselves by modifying our behavior. I don't think that we want to add to Matt's labors.

4. Ask folks to read the previous thread on the problems of MeFi's growth before making comments so that the community can see that this isn't a old member/new member fight, but that this issue has been present for a while.


5. Have...an appropriately paternal explanation by Matt (or some shadowy MetaTalk cabal) about it. This of course presumes that Matt is good with this discussion taking place. I'm not sure if I am the person to make this plea to the community, given my relatively recent involvement.

6. the only user # that means squat is #1. In other words, "we're in this together".

7. and the most important ground rule, NO PERSONAL ATTACKS This should have nothing to do with ideology, length of membership, frequency of posting, etc. I think that it is okay for folks to cite examples of things that they see right or wrong with discourse in MeFi, but that each person, when presenting an example, has the responsibility of saying "this is not personal, but just an example," and that each person has the responsibility of not taking the example personally. I think that we can see within this thread what happens when we feel slighted. I also think that the disagreements within this thread do not have a basis in personal animosity, but are the result of strong feelings and some frustration on the parts of membership.

Keep in mind that with the recent changes made by Matt (good show!), this moratorium/discussion may be somewhat moot. However, I think that structural changes can only go so far, and in the end, it is us human beings that make the difference in MetaFilter. Also, I am only making a suggestion, but will be working more on how this would work this weekend. I think that we should talk about this further on this thread, and if any of you have any private suggestions, please e-mail me.

-Chris
posted by Avogadro at 7:12 AM on January 26, 2001

did I misunderstand you on the latter point?

I would not have started this thread about what you did, Baylink. I knew that (a) your intentions were good, and (b) Matt would almost certainly delete the thread.

The reason I mentioned that MetaFilter isn't a democracy is because I think arguments against the small number of existing guidelines are counterproductive.

If I had been intentionally trying to piss you off, I could have written something much more in-your-face.

Fair enough. But I do think that if the tables were turned, and I had posted this as a MetaFilter link ...

Try to defend this, conservatives -- even one of your own says John Ashcroft is a perjurer. He asked a job applicant, "do you have the same sexual preference as most men?"

... you would have objected.
posted by rcade at 7:33 AM on January 26, 2001

Redux?
posted by pnevares at 10:31 AM on January 26, 2001

redux?

...just another reason why we need to talk about what belongs as a front-page link, and what belongs within an existing thread (including the interminable Ashcroft threads). And perhaps a result of the ensuing discussion would be the decision that this kind of posting is warranted for whatever reason...
posted by Avogadro at 10:43 AM on January 26, 2001

I laughed when I saw Dreama's link today. It has almost everything Aaron's link did yesterday -- it was contributed by an outspoken person with strong political beliefs, linked to a preceding discussion, dismissed the slant of a previous link (calling it "iffy"), and could easily have been posted inside an old thread.

Auugh.

posted by rcade at 11:00 AM on January 26, 2001

Quadruple post. Must be going for a record.

If you're so against it, rcade, why did you post in the thread?
posted by capt.crackpipe at 11:17 AM on January 26, 2001

Good point. I've stayed out of a few Ashcroft threads because I thought posting them was a cheap rhetorical trick, but I jumped into this thread whole hog.
posted by rcade at 11:56 AM on January 26, 2001

I think the idea of raising the general populace's awareness that there are people who are concerned with how MeFi will grow is a good idea, and who are talking about it. I think there's an awfully good chance that a number of people who aren't aware of MetaTalk share many of our concerns.

And the Moratorium idea is brilliant.

What's brilliant about it is that it's us, the community, "policing" ourselves. Most Internet communities require either a super-strict administrative staff or they descend into chaos, and if this works, we'll be one of the few to pull it off.

I'm almost annoyed that I'm going to be gone for a week. Stupid vacation. :-) If you guys decide to do it in the coming week, it'll be damn impressive.
posted by cCranium at 12:23 PM on January 26, 2001

It shows people want to talk about it, if nothing else.

I'm still confused as to why they do not want to talk about it on the pre-existing threads. (And, yes, I am just as confused when it comes to the Ashcroft "developments.")
posted by luke at 1:59 PM on January 26, 2001

I too believe the sheer number Ashcroft links are getting out of hand. (and I think most people would consider me pretty liberal)

And the number of out-going Clinton staff Hijinx/criminal links are also getting to be a bit much, although not to the same lengths. (Mainly because it seems like the same thing is going on from the other camp)

TJ
posted by tj at 6:56 PM on January 26, 2001

Who's this Ashcroft fellow again?
posted by lagado at 4:24 AM on January 27, 2001

So is the consensus to wait and see if Matt's new changes are making a difference?
posted by rodii at 5:39 PM on January 27, 2001

Just to speak to the original issue, I actually appreciate posts that reference a past mefi thread. It preserves the site's context, and shows that community members are paying attention to the editorial ebb and flow of the site.

Besides, yaknow, some of us can't read everything that gets posted here every day. Referencing a past discussion when adding a link to new material on the same topic is a great way to retain community context.

posted by fraying at 6:11 PM on January 27, 2001

So is the consensus to wait and see if Matt's new changes are making a difference?

I'm down with that. The new sidebar thingy should be raising awareness about MetaTalk, while the option to sort by recent comments should be decreasing the collective urge to start new threads about old topics. The grand intervention discussed above may therefore be pre-empted. Wait a week (or whatever) and see how it goes?
posted by redfoxtail at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2001

I really disagree with you fraying. I mean if a significant amount of time has passed (like a week?) since the original post, and your new link provides truly new material on the topic, then I think posting to the front page might be appropriate. But the temptation to post to the home page a new link that concerns a topic discussed in a thread from a few day ago must be resisted if we are to keep MeFi from becoming unmanageable. Post it in the thread! People like to post it to the home page to make sure their links get appropriate attention, which is understandable. But the new "sort by recent comments" feature brings old threads to the surface when new comments are posted, and if we all start using it, perhaps the temptation will be less.

rodii: I say wait.
posted by ericost at 8:05 PM on January 27, 2001

Eric --

I was assuming that the new link does provide "truly new material" ... but maybe the problem is defining exactly what that is. (Not a conversation I want to have.)

Anyway, I agree that the new sorting on the homepage is a welcome addition, and should solve some of these issues.

-- Derek
posted by fraying at 12:33 PM on January 29, 2001