Link redux: MeFi gets too common-linky?

July 31, 2003 8:24 AM

Without getting specific, I regularly see links on metafilter these days to items which not only have previously been posted to every site on the intarweb and my grandmothers mailing list, but which have usually appeared on my television set some twelve to twenty four hours before they show up here. I fully realise that the intentions of the participants re-shape the intentions of communities over time, and that if I don't like it here I'm free to leave.

However, I first got interested in this site because it was the best filter on the web, not the wittiest discussion forum, so I'll poke my head over the parapet one more time to ask the question: what is the purpose of this site any more as opposed to, say, blogdex? Do we still fulfill a useful function, or as Matt obliquely eludes elsewhere, are human filters wearing the orange safety reflectors of the web these days, compared to the robots? And if not, how can we raise the bar?
posted by walrus to MetaFilter-related at 8:24 AM (57 comments total)

1. Why not get specific? Isn't that half the point?

2. In regards to this: I regularly see links on metafilter these days to items which not only have previously been posted to every site on the intarweb and my grandmothers mailing list, but which have usually appeared on my television set some twelve to twenty four hours before they show up here, I have to ask whether or not it's been posted here before, which is hard to judge since you haven't linked to any specific examples. If it hasn't, then the user is simply filtering from a different media; that seems like a fair practice to me, since you can hardly expect people to watch the same television programs as you do. The idea of filtering falls under a pretty broad spectrum, in my mind.
posted by The God Complex at 8:33 AM on July 31, 2003

Why not get specific?

Because I don't want to bog the discussion (if one occurs) down in specific personalities.
posted by walrus at 8:36 AM on July 31, 2003

I think linking anything that Matt Drudge has linked to should be at least a misdemeanor.
posted by konolia at 8:42 AM on July 31, 2003

I have to ask whether or not it's been posted here before, which is hard to judge since you haven't linked to any specific examples. If it hasn't, then the user is simply filtering from a different media; that seems like a fair practice to me, since you can hardly expect people to watch the same television programs as you do. The idea of filtering falls under a pretty broad spectrum, in my mind.

I agree if we're talking about a non-mainstream non-news television show or channel. The latest story on CNN doesn't count, and that's what walrus is talking about. For what it's worth, I agree. I'm not against the so-called "newsfilter," but we shouldn't, in my opinion, be filtering CNN just for the sake of discussing contemporary political issues.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:03 AM on July 31, 2003

I'll get specific. Nothing against stonerose, but this new thread is based on a 3-day-old (widely seen, I thought) news story that I had already posted on yesterday's gay-marriage thread, and which stonerose also posted on that thread a day later as if it were a new development. And as I said on this one, I thought the link would've been more appropriate added to the 4-day-old thread; as an FPP, it seems kinda lightweight. Again, I'm not picking on either user, I like 'em both, but it seems that instead of a thread being a repository for great related links, now whenever a thread is 24 hours old, the related links become new threads, and my reaction is usually "didn't we just run this into the ground?" Anybody else react that way?
posted by soyjoy at 9:05 AM on July 31, 2003

soyjoy, no offense taken. I did indeed miss your link in that thread. It was splattered all over the news this morning, and the apparent novelty of it (again, my bad), right on the heels (I thought) of Bush's pronouncement, gave the story a twist that, IMHO, merited a new FPP.

On the subject of updates to old threads as a way to minimize the updatefilter phenomenon: I posted a related pony request earlier.
posted by stonerose at 9:18 AM on July 31, 2003

I think perhaps we need more options for thread management. Once a thread seems to be more than 24 or 48 hours old, the field is open for an update post, which is really not necessary. Why not continue discussion with additional links in the older thread? I think the answer is primarily that the old thread is hard to find. Any suggestions for improving thread management without burdening Matt too much?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:28 AM on July 31, 2003

Honestly, I would tend to agree with your assessment walrus, and I have a theory about this.

MetaFilter used to be a sort of center of blogging, a place where you could get a lot of exposure, and a place where you could dip your toe into blogging if you didn't have a site of your own. For one reason or another, it worked pretty well for I'd say the first two years or so. Everything seemed to show up here first because people would instinctively go here first to post.

Then what happened?

Everyone and their mother got a blog of their own. The weblog space is maturing, and sometimes I think of MetaFilter a bit like an old drive-in movie theater. Back in the 50's (2000), the place was abuzz with activity and jumping every night. People wanted to go here first to see new movies. Today (2003), drive-ins are hard to find and everyone's got their own DVD player at home and home theater system to enjoy movies on.

Ok, so maybe that analogy falls short, but I'll point out one example that came to mind recently. In early 2001, an earthquake hit Seattle and someone posted about it here. Others in the area posted other information, and it was even noticed by Slate. A couple weeks ago, a guy sped his car into a crowd of people in LA, killing a bunch of them. Andy Baio (waxy) worked right outside the scene and posted minute-by-minute updates to his personal site. It doesn't come up on MeFi until five days later. I don't mean to finger Andy for mutiny, I urged him to get his own blog and I enjoy reading it every day.

So, I guess what I'm trying to say is that MetaFilter's importance in the world of blogs is on a downward trend, due to the massive decentralization that is taking place. In a few years we won't need a metafilter to act as a hub, services like Technorati could possibly do the job better. This isn't a bad thing and isn't something I'm mourning or fighting against, it's the way communities, cities, and almost any sort of system matures.

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it points to the fact that new signups should really be open, since that's where the action is: getting people without blogs to post things they find here.

I still think the site does a lot of good, and I enjoy reading it everyday. I don't think it's on its deathbed because links show up somewhere else first, I wouldn't say it's in its twilight years, but I have no problem admiting MetaFilter has passed into middle age. But that's just in terms of links being here first before anywhere else. I don't expect that trend to reverse, only grow stronger as everyone and their grandmother gets a blog.
posted by mathowie at 9:30 AM on July 31, 2003

I've been thinking about this a lot lately, and it points to the fact that new signups should really be open, since that's where the action is: getting people without blogs to post things they find here.

Then you have the whole problem of scale--imagine waking up after eight or so hours and going back online, clicking on MetaFilter and reading There have been 486 new posts and 112,976 comments posted since your last visit. What happens to the MetaFilter community and culture then? Let alone the double post problem...
posted by y2karl at 9:42 AM on July 31, 2003

Well, not wide open, y2karl. Somewhat open. A controlled open. More open than it is now.
posted by mathowie at 9:46 AM on July 31, 2003

yeah, y2patbuchannon
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2003

Thanks Matt, and don't get me wrong: I ask because I too love metafilter and read it every day. I just wondered to what degree anyone else had noticed this trend, and whether we could or should be trying to do anything, on a personal and a community level, to try to reverse it. I still feel that we should be able to offer something collaboratively which adds value over a robot using brute search to effectively reverse-engineer the community part.
posted by walrus at 9:53 AM on July 31, 2003

I'm going out on a limb here, I try not to do that too much. But... What about membership nominations? Each member gets to nominate another, make a case and present it here.

New membership is important to keep a community alive and thriving. It's already generally regarded and established that mefi is an pack of elitists so, why break with tradition?

Finally, it's probably time to recognize that we are a discussion group that used to be a community weblog. "The weblog as conversation," remember? Perhaps it's time to start thinking like we are a discussion group from now on. That we aren't the first discussion group and that there are many old and successful models for what we are doing here.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 9:56 AM on July 31, 2003

but it seems that instead of a thread being a repository for great related links, now whenever a thread is 24 hours old, the related links become new threads, and my reaction is usually "didn't we just run this into the ground?"

This, to me, is the greatest (and perhaps only significant) flaw in Metafilter's operative design. IMO, the site is hobbled until some better means of keeping threads alive until their designated period expires. I have yet to see a good solution proposed, however, and cannot think of one myself. What a resource the site could become if follow-ups (both links and discussion) could be smoothly integrated into threads—and into posting culture!
posted by rushmc at 10:09 AM on July 31, 2003

Finally, it's probably time to recognize that we are a discussion group that used to be a community weblog.

I'm coming around to that view. I have to admit that that's how I use the site now.
posted by timeistight at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2003

Everyone and their mother got a blog of their own.
While this is certainly true for the most prolific posters (past and present), I don't think this goes for all of us. I for one have no desire to have my own blog, and even though I've only posted a handful of links to MeFi I'd like to think that at least some of them have been worthwhile contributions. I think there's enough people out there who don't want to have their own blog, but will still post an interesting link once in a blue moon.

As for stuff not getting posted to MeFi first, is this really a problem? As some people are so eager to remind us, this isn't newsfilter. Interesting links will still trickle through blogspace and reach us in a few days. An interesting link is still an interesting link 3 days later.
posted by fvw at 10:23 AM on July 31, 2003

There are still people here who post to this weblog in artful and traditional ways. There's been several recently (no examples) that really are like "the good old days" of creative weblog postings. Which, I argue, isn't understood by many people anymore. Nor, is it applicable 100% of the time, either... particularly for news related/current events types of posts.

But, then there's that link at the bottom of each post that changes the construct of not just this but, every weblog and always has. "Comments." That enables and invites other people's remarks and thoughts that change the post into a conversation. Webloggers since day one, have wanted that "Comments" function in their weblogs and it's the de-facto standard now.

Without the "Comments" function, there is no dialog, no conversation and then you are left with what amounts to a diary. Which mefi is not.

(I forgot where I was going with this... ummmm... Oh, yeah...) Those people who still, faithfully, contribute to mefi in the way in which they used to in the past, seem to draw the least amounts of comments and even criticism in some cases. This forces them to keep the good stuff for their own weblogs, which has been happening since early 2000. Then, if the same link or, topic comes up here, fine... they'll jump into the comments. Bringing me back to that whole "discussion group" thing again.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 10:57 AM on July 31, 2003

Matt, I really admire your ability to separate your ego from the site, and keep it on track while letting it develop organically. I think, though, that some of us (okay, me me me!) want to try to pin you down a bit more as to how deep your laissez-faire streak runs. Are you at all open to introducing any thread-management features? Reluctant to do so? Dead-set against? Open in principle but at a loss about how it would best work? I think having a better sense of where you are "at" might help folks sense where we're going as a community.
posted by stonerose at 10:58 AM on July 31, 2003

Another "mefi aint what is used to be" post. Considering its a site dominated by its own users and not some authority its more or less out of control and self-organizing. I think mefi's main virtue is that anyone can post to the front page, no need for editors.

Also the usual counter to this argument is that not everyone reads slashdot, the NYTimes, blogroots, slate, salon, or is even able to keep up with some of the more important news stories.

>what is the purpose of this site any more as opposed to, say, blogdex?

There's still a lot here that is and will never be on blogdex or daypop. Also, I can't email the guy at blogdex and make him post something.
posted by skallas at 11:18 AM on July 31, 2003

stonerose, I generally frown up on massive changes to the site for a couple limiting factors.

Processing. Any community resource is going to be taxed by the sum total of people using it. The site is on a dual processor athlon 1900xp box with a gig of ram, and peaks the processor and memory in the daylight hours. Adding finer grain thread controls would tend to make loads worse on the site.

Ease-of-use. My design credo is simplicity. Comments are not threaded for a reason. They are not scored, filtered, flagged, or emailed to anyone for the same reason: because it complicates the interface and interaction on the site, making it more difficult to use. I know there are plenty of mefi powerusers here that could figure out how to navigate something as complex as kuro5hin's posting interfaces, but I'm not really interested in introducing that kind of complexity to the interface.

Without the "Comments" function, there is no dialog, no conversation and then you are left with what amounts to a diary. Which mefi is not.

I forgot to mention the comments thing in my first post here. I wanted to mention that with tools like Movable Type, people can essentially have their own personal metafilter, with regulars, readers, and rampant commentors. So in a way, ten thousand metafilters have bloomed since metafilter started.
posted by mathowie at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2003

Matt, I completely disagree with your analogy. I would actually say it's the other way around: MeFi is the amazon.com or the Microsoft of weblogs in the sense that it makes 99% of all individual blogs superfluous or boring. Most people do not spend hours and hours checking out weblogs; we choose some and stick to them.

The level of engagement and discussion here is much more focused and intense. MeFi is middle of the road in the sense that it's not geeky like /. or dumb like fark; it's like an Agora where people talk and discuss.

MeFi is collective (as it doesn't reflect the personal views of anyone) and therefore always alive and consistent as far as interest level goes; sometimes boingboing or even Attu look really boring, while every single day something captivating or challenging is posted or said here.

Finally, I think new blood and new features are a good thing , but not too much of either.
posted by 111 at 11:23 AM on July 31, 2003

Good analysis matt, and it's difficult to figure out where any of this new media is going to end up. But I think it's a mistake to assume individual blogs will replace metafilter.

Firstly, because many people have neither the time nor the inclination to follow a lot of blogs, and aren't 'on the inside' enough to know which ones to focus on.

Secondly, the fact is that with all it's trials and tribulations, metafilter has developed as a community, with its own set of rules and protocols and memes, and that's of real value.

Hmm. Interesting: I guess what I'm saying is Matt's analysis totally covers things from the Posters' side, but doesn't address the reasons on the Readers' side why metafilter continues to be important and fun.
posted by freebird at 11:33 AM on July 31, 2003

People change, hairstyles change, interest rates fluctuate. MetaFilter has changed as the web has changed. The unique, unusual, quirky websites that appeared on MetaFilter in the early days are fewer and farther between, and MetaFilter's not as unique at finding them as it used to be. So what if it's a discussion site now? It's a great site.

And every time we have this discussion, someone points out that there was never a Golden Age, and that there have always been NewsFilter-type posts, so I might as well be the one this time.
posted by kirkaracha at 11:48 AM on July 31, 2003

"Whither MetaFilter?" needs to be a new MeTa category. Some days, it seems like every other thread is one-third discussion about whether it's really appropriate, if it meets all the tests in the guidelines, etc.

People seem largely to protest:

Pointers to news items, including obituaries. (newsfilter, bobhopefilter)
Pointers to major media products. (matrixfilter)
Anything concerning high-profile public issues (iraqfilter)

...and other stuff too. But what the above three have in common is existing media exposure. Everybody's generally already aware of huge movies that have come out, celebrities who have died, CNN front page stories, etc.

What the discontents seem to want, largely, is less attention to stuff they're already aware of, and more focus on discovering new things they haven't heard of.

When I recently complained that people wanted to hear more about Flash virtual bubble wrap than top news stories, the response was more or less: "That's right. We do."

So basically, what I'm hearing is that people want novelty, even obscurity. One of the usual complaints is "Link X isn't appropriate. That will be posted elsewhere."

But complicating matters is the generally high quality of the participants here, and the fact that many of them have come to call it a home. they don't want to post/discuss it elsewhere. They want to do it here. When they do, the novel-link-hungry folks complain "Hey, you're bogging down my rare gems with your news stories." Memepool is a better example of pure links. No discussion. It's also much less active overall.

Some don't see the community/discussion aspect as very important. They never post, and they get no value whatever out of a reiteration of a major news headline. Eventually, they lose interest in MeFi because it doesn't provide those diamonds in the rough anymore, and they're not interested in the other people, themselves. Meanwhile, the active posters become more and more invested over time, as they participate more. The more invested they are, the more likely they are to post gem links here, not at Memepool, etc. And thus the conflict.

I don't know how this will play out in the end. But I see the current schism as a conflict between:

1) more discussion-oriented participants who want to enjoy a rounded and robust online community, one that takes on a broad range of topics

2) more link-oriented folks who want the finest distillation of web gems and nothing else

It's hard to do both, and MeFi has the potential to do either (perhaps even both) well. It could also wind up doing neither.
posted by scarabic at 12:08 PM on July 31, 2003

Finally, it's probably time to recognize that we are a discussion group that used to be a community weblog.

Exactly.

Metafilter has simply become one large discussion group. The time to steer it in a different direction has long past. Matt decided to let it run its course, and all things considered, I can't blame him.

But different it is. Either love it for what it has become or leave it and remember the good old days.
posted by justgary at 12:18 PM on July 31, 2003

What a resource the site could become if follow-ups (both links and discussion) could be smoothly integrated into threads—and into posting culture!

How about this: Updates to old threads are emailed to Matt (or posted via a designated sub-submission form on the posting page) with the new information and the URL of the previous post. Matt (or an automated system) then appends the update to the original thread, gives it a new number and posts it as a new FPP, and the comment day-count is reset (or reactivated in the case of archived posts).

Separately, as a way of allowing people to avoid the links that aggrevate them (newsfilter, I/P, whatever) categories could be introduced, ala MeTa, to divide up posts into groupings such as News, Politics, Cool Stuff, Flash, etc., which could then be filtered out selectively based on user preferences.

Whaddyathink?
posted by me3dia at 12:33 PM on July 31, 2003

Metafilter will always have a niche for those of us who enjoy Blogdex, Daypop, etc., but prefer blue backgrounds.

Sure, limited market, but it's steady work.
posted by Hildago at 12:53 PM on July 31, 2003

MeFi is the amazon.com or the Microsoft of weblogs

Not even close. Amazon and Microsoft have almost no equivalent in their field. Whereas MeFi has Fark, Slashdot, K5, Plastic, and I'm sure many others with different leanings and specialisations. Both Slashdot and Fark must have an order of magnitude more users and comments (although in the case of Slashdot, most of those were created by scripts).
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:11 PM on July 31, 2003

I just wondered to what degree anyone else had noticed this trend
Been noticing for some time the: see it on tv find it here the next day. But, I do like/unlike them posted just depends how well it was covered by the media. When it comes to local TV or newspaper news rarley listen/read it entirely. Come here instead since it's filtered through broader minds.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:19 PM on July 31, 2003

Whaddyathink?

I think it sounds like a lot of work for a guy who just recently said he's so busy that MetaFilter is "running on fumes".
posted by timeistight at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2003

How about this: Updates to old threads are emailed to Matt (or posted via a designated sub-submission form on the posting page) with the new information and the URL of the previous post..
What about having them posted to "the" or "a" side bar which would take you to the link having the updated info.
posted by thomcatspike at 1:26 PM on July 31, 2003

It's hard to do both

No it's not; MeFi does both right now. For some reason, some people seem constitutionally unable to simply ignore those posts that don't attract them and click on the ones that do, but it works for me. (And sometimes I'm attracted to the shiny gems and sometimes to the news posts. I wouldn't want either to go away.)

How about this: Updates to old threads are emailed to Matt

Yes! More work for Matt! We want our ponies and we want them NOW!
posted by languagehat at 1:34 PM on July 31, 2003

Hey now, I did say it could be handled through automation.

But yes, this would mean more work for Matt, at least temporarily. Or he could have someone else code it. It can wait till he gets around to it someday.

Or it could just be another pony put out to pasture.
posted by me3dia at 1:40 PM on July 31, 2003

Hey now, I did say it could be handled through automation.

Oh! You mean magic.
posted by timeistight at 1:47 PM on July 31, 2003

some people seem constitutionally unable to simply ignore those posts that don't attract them and click on the ones that do

Would you say this process of discrimination constitutes "filtering?" This is what people believe the posters should be doing. But in order for it to happen pre-posts, there would need to be a single standard of what's interesting.

I'm also happy to skip over the stuff that doesn't interest me. Right now, the gold-to-goop ratio is pretty good for me. To paraphrase walrus: that ratio is falling.
posted by scarabic at 1:56 PM on July 31, 2003

I wonder if efforts like this will produce any useful new tools to be adapted by bloggers? Threading is a kludge, as is every other approach I've seen. There's got to be a better way of structuring a functional textual community.
posted by rushmc at 2:39 PM on July 31, 2003

Going off of me3dia's idea, how about giving posters the ability to resubmit or repost an older but active post (of their own)? It counts towards their daily post limit and gets a fresh new time stamp. Once the ability to do this was set up it wouldn't require any effort on Matt's part.
posted by modofo at 4:01 PM on July 31, 2003

I don't own a TV. That's why I come here.

Actually, I have found that with the time I spend between MeFi and Plastic, I am more up-to-date now with what is happening on television than when I did own a TV. ;-P
posted by mischief at 4:34 PM on July 31, 2003

I don't own a TV

But if you did it would vibrate.

(sorry, couldn't resist.)
posted by konolia at 9:27 PM on July 31, 2003

I think the answer is primarily that the old thread is hard to find. Any suggestions for improving thread management without burdening Matt too much?

Doesn't the [sort by: recent comments] pretty much allow a user to find old threads that have recently been blessed with additional information?

Or are we talking about threads that have passed the 30-day mark?

For some reason, some people seem constitutionally unable to simply ignore those posts that don't attract them and click on the ones that do...

Would you say this process of discrimination constitutes "filtering?" This is what people believe the posters should be doing.

I've been accused of said behavior recently... and probably rightly so. I apologize to the group for what seems like excessive "policing" (using soyjoy's same examples). I assure you that my conscious intentions are nothing of the sort. I'm a sucker for the hot topic as much as anyone else. But I often find that I'm in the minority view in most of them... which is fine. But the latest gay marriage/government-sanctioned unions (directly on the heels of the previous day's gay marriage/government-sanctioned unions thread) is a perfect example of how lop-sided most of these discussions can be, as far as viewpoint representation is concerned. 111 is attacked at almost every turn. Political threads are hardly any different.

So I admit to getting frustrated when 5 Bush-bashing threads show up before noon, one after another - some of them being nothing more than a post based on a picture of Bush falling off his friggin' Segway. "Alright already"!

Anyway, this isn't meant to be a complaint. I'm just trying to point out where I'm coming from sometimes. Liberal/lefty (whatever) topics do well here... and it must be nice. I just think we could do a better job at showing a little restraint sometimes. The "Sharpie reaction" to the outrage over the Bush-autographs-flag outrage didn't deserve a new FPP... in my opinion - PERFECT for adding to the end of the original thread.
posted by Witty at 3:44 AM on August 1, 2003

{sigh}
posted by Witty at 7:18 AM on August 1, 2003

I actually noticed this trend all of a sudden a couple of days ago. I came to MetaFilter just over a year ago, initially attracted by the cool links I found when I searched the archives. Even before I managed to snatch a user id and join in however, I had been hooked on the community aspect of the site and have ever since considered this to be the most important reason to come here every day. I stand right beside those who decry the sometimes poor quality of links provided, but not because I am solely concerned about diluting the quality of the links themselves (although that is a consideration), but because the initial post usually sets the tone of the discussion that follows.

In my humble and worthless opinion, mathowie is absolutely correct in letting the site go along its own path without trying to steer it according to his own agenda. While carrying some inherent risk that MetaFilter would turn into some monster that he wished he had never put his name to, it is the only way it could ever have developed into the vital community that it has. Fiddling with the dynamics at this stage would put that at risk, which would be a tragedy.

I can see where allowing another trickle of fresh meat in would keep things alive and help to counteract the more jaded of us, but anything more carries too much risk for my liking.
posted by dg at 8:06 AM on August 1, 2003

Get bent, Witty, as I explained I completely missed the previous story. Mistakes happen.
Go sigh your ass (or something insulting and coherent.)
posted by Blue Stone at 8:35 AM on August 1, 2003

Mistakes do happen... and that's why we bring them to MeTa. I could have posted a new thread about your double (debatebly triple) post. But figured it would be just as well to make note of it here. It's a perfect example of everything we're talking about. IF IT'S NEWS, either don't post it or take a moment to thoroughly check the last couple days worth of threads to be sure that someone else hasn't already posted it ('cause more than likely it has already happened). This, you didn't do. I didn't chastise you. I simply pointed it out. It's a double post. Back off.
posted by Witty at 8:50 AM on August 1, 2003

Well I consider it bad form to single someone out over such a mistake, in such a manner, Witty.
If you considered I would be happy to be "sighed" about like that, you were mistaken; or maybe you didn't imagine I would read your "simple" comment.
Chastisement, no. Arrogantly pointing out my foolish mistake, yes. Fuck off.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:27 AM on August 1, 2003

If you say so.
posted by Witty at 9:32 AM on August 1, 2003

Well I consider it bad form to single someone out over such a mistake, in such a manner, Witty.

Speaking of bad form, may I ask you to reconsider your use of small tags to emphasize user names, Blue Stone? It reads kind of weird, because I thing of small text as "quiet" text. Sorry to bring it up.

/Utterly utterly anal nitpick
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 10:07 AM on August 1, 2003

Now that this discussion has degenerated to specific people telling one another to fuck off over specific threads, can we all see why Walrus did not offer specific examples from the beginning? Good call brother. But alas.
posted by scarabic at 11:12 AM on August 1, 2003

freebird and scarabic bring up interesting points. For me, the reader's perspective is the most important part of MeFi. I have been reading it almost every day since 2000. I still see plenty of pithy links being posted.

I have participated in usenet before, but never really got very interested in the discussions. Too many flame wars, although sometimes they are fun to read. I got a user name a year ago and have found the discussions here quite stimulating even though I am relatively quiet. There are now more news stories being posted, but mostly to elicit discussion. This is the most intelligent discussion forum I have seen for politics and other news.

As for posting, I see MeFi as a wonderful resource. I do not have the time to start my own blog, but still like to post a few fun things now and then. MeFi is perfect for that.

Yes, MeFi has changed, and perhaps lost a small bit of its specialness due to other blogs hitting the scene. It is still the coolest blog around and somehow manages to offer something for everybody. It may have entered mid-life, but those are life's richest years.
posted by caddis at 11:15 AM on August 1, 2003

It may have entered mid-life, but those are life's richest years.

Tell me about it.
posted by timeistight at 11:40 AM on August 1, 2003

Well, I'm sorry for degenerating the thread. I was just using IT, the thread (read: NOT him), as an example. Blue Stone took it personally and got all bunged up over it. What can you do?
posted by Witty at 3:12 PM on August 1, 2003

The more things change, the more they stay the same. In retrospect, I'm sorry I said anything at all.
posted by Dean_Paxton at 4:23 PM on August 1, 2003

...oh come now Watson the point must be raised, the facts brought to bare. (Goes to gasogene). The solution is to be seen in the facts...like my fear of airguns...
posted by clavdivs at 7:09 PM on August 1, 2003

The community is what brought me here and what keeps me coming back. When I first found the site I read through pages and pages of discussion non-stop. I've pretty much always seen this as a discussion site (though that could be due to the fact that I'm a relatively new user and wasn't around when it wasn't one). I rarely click links. The descriptions and your comments are usually more than enough for me. That's just how I operate.

As such, news posts don't bother me too much because I like reading what you guys think. Though iraqfilter, etc gets to me as well.
posted by ODiV at 7:43 AM on August 2, 2003

Here's how I see the pony that will solve our trials. Of course, it is a pony, and would probably be a lot of work. But dammit, I WANT A PONY.

I think there are two seperate uses for MeFi - the first is as a pointer to the best of the web, which is best served by the current chronological frontpage, the second as a discussion home. To accomodate both uses, I see not a change to the front page, but a change to each user's page.

When viewing your user page, you should be able to open a list of all the threads you've posted in, with a "new" mark if there have been posts there since you last checked them. The "new" code already exists, it would just need tied into the code that lists your previous posts.

Then, you'd still get the new posts by visiting the frontpage, but could keep up with ones you'd previously been interested in by visiting your user page.

The other old posts you didn't post in you don't deserve to see updates to. But perhaps there could be a checkbox added to them (update me on this) that would create an invisible post to that thread, adding it to your home list.

No?
posted by bonaldi at 10:32 AM on August 2, 2003

I think it's time to get rid of this. Or at least get rid of the '.
posted by donth at 9:42 PM on August 2, 2003

bonaldi, apart from the invisible comment thingy, the features you ask for are already here. You can sort threads by your recent comments from the main page, which shows any new comments beside the comment count.
posted by dg at 3:38 PM on August 3, 2003