I posted this thread yesterday and someone hated it.... September 18, 2003 4:06 AM Subscribe
I posted this thread yesterday, in which every word was a link to a different site, something I find fun to do (I do provide alt text for each link). A user commented, however, that this practice should be banned, initially because it is 'lame' but later clarified her position. Is this linking style collectively annoying enough to be banned or flameworthy or is really just a matter of individual preference?
this is like going to the crips hood in blood colors to take a poll on favorite ice cream flavor. there's no way to get what you want. every answer will differ, and they'll all make good points. you done good. some will disagree. "kay sarah, sarah."
posted by quonsar at 4:51 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by quonsar at 4:51 AM on September 18, 2003
Both. Obviously.
I usually pass right by such posts (as I did this one) because I find them so annoying. Frankly, I think they suck. But others find them wonderful.
So, they should be banned, and they are wonderful. Welcome to MetaFilter.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:57 AM on September 18, 2003
I usually pass right by such posts (as I did this one) because I find them so annoying. Frankly, I think they suck. But others find them wonderful.
So, they should be banned, and they are wonderful. Welcome to MetaFilter.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:57 AM on September 18, 2003
I usually pass right by such posts (as I did this one) because I find them so annoying. Frankly, I think they suck. But others find them wonderful.
Ditto. I guess the question becomes, knowing that a substantial portion of your audience will avoid your post if you choose to use this style, why would you make such a choice, since the purpose of posting (I would presume) is to communicate to as many people as possible?
posted by rushmc at 5:15 AM on September 18, 2003
Ditto. I guess the question becomes, knowing that a substantial portion of your audience will avoid your post if you choose to use this style, why would you make such a choice, since the purpose of posting (I would presume) is to communicate to as many people as possible?
posted by rushmc at 5:15 AM on September 18, 2003
I thought the complaint was lame. The post clearly sets out what the subject matter is and it doesn't take a cell's worth of brain activity to realise that if you are to click on each link it will have relevance to
da da da ! .....
The Indian Rope Trick.
The real magic is the shitting over the post done by valerie. Truly mystical.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:24 AM on September 18, 2003
da da da ! .....
The Indian Rope Trick.
The real magic is the shitting over the post done by valerie. Truly mystical.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:24 AM on September 18, 2003
Personally, I find it annoying. It is a personal preference thing, and some people seem to like it. I'd just be aware that when you create a post in this style, you piss off some very vocal MeFites.
posted by seanyboy at 5:31 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by seanyboy at 5:31 AM on September 18, 2003
What Frasermoo said.
posted by monkey closet at 5:36 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by monkey closet at 5:36 AM on September 18, 2003
/monitors this thread to see if I can use this linking method as a way of pre-screening a post's potential audience.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:41 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by Space Coyote at 5:41 AM on September 18, 2003
My turn, my turn. I don't much care for those types of posts either. But you know what I hate even more? y2karl's personalized posting style of small-type for the body of the post and MeFi standard links, whether it's on the FP or in a comment. Somehow his small print is always really small and it disturbs the flow of the page... in my opinion of course.
AND, it's annoying to think that just typing out a comment and clicking post isn't good enough for some people.
posted by Witty at 5:41 AM on September 18, 2003
AND, it's annoying to think that just typing out a comment and clicking post isn't good enough for some people.
posted by Witty at 5:41 AM on September 18, 2003
it's all good.
posted by crunchland at 5:57 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by crunchland at 5:57 AM on September 18, 2003
I like them. And of course, I received the same complaint. Tough.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:12 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:12 AM on September 18, 2003
just a matter of individual preference?
just a matter of individual preference.
posted by Shane at 6:19 AM on September 18, 2003
just a matter of individual preference.
posted by Shane at 6:19 AM on September 18, 2003
I never bother to read the posts. They just get in the way of the sweetly furious insult-flinging arguments inside!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:25 AM on September 18, 2003
Like most things sophomoric, it is annoying. It's the linking equivalent of ASCII art. But that's just me; I wouldn't want to curtail anyone's creative outbursts.
Since we're at it, "do you guys think I'm wrong?" MeTa posts can be annoying, too.
posted by 111 at 6:32 AM on September 18, 2003
Since we're at it, "do you guys think I'm wrong?" MeTa posts can be annoying, too.
posted by 111 at 6:32 AM on September 18, 2003
Like most things sophomoric, it is annoying. . .
"do you guys think I'm wrong?" MeTa posts can be annoying, too.
Ya see, 111 is the expert at annoying.
posted by Shane at 6:36 AM on September 18, 2003
"do you guys think I'm wrong?" MeTa posts can be annoying, too.
Ya see, 111 is the expert at annoying.
posted by Shane at 6:36 AM on September 18, 2003
As I said in the thread, I thought it was very sleek and stylish. Even if you don't like the one-link-per-character type of post that, this is a different animal. A bunch of perspectives on the Indian Rope Trick, a concise post that doesn't take up undue room on the page (making it the exact opposite of ASCII art, of course), and quick but evocative one-word mouseover titles for the links. More than the trick itself, it boggles my mind that anyone is so turned off about this as to feel the need to crap all over the thread itself.
posted by soyjoy at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by soyjoy at 6:56 AM on September 18, 2003
It vaguely bugs me - but I like the sorts of posts where there's one main link, clearly identified, and other supporting links, also clearly identified, so I'm probably too square to have a valid opinion about more avant-garde styles. I'm more likely to ignore posts like this one, but I wouldn't characterize them as "lame", just not my preferred style. But crapping all over the thread because you don't like the posting style, now THAT'S lame.
posted by biscotti at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by biscotti at 7:05 AM on September 18, 2003
I thought it was a nice post. Like Frasermoo said, you could tell what was going on very quickly. I didn't read all of the links, but I rarely do in a post with that many links, because I'm lazy. Some mouseover text (not the novels that y2karl will put in there, just a little description) would have been useful, but not necessary.
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:07 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by UKnowForKids at 7:07 AM on September 18, 2003
i'm buying soyjoy a beer. well put, agreed, man. why crap on the thread?
posted by dabitch at 7:11 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by dabitch at 7:11 AM on September 18, 2003
seriously, I think that if your posting style is such that it draws attention to itself, away from the topic of the post, you're probably doing something wrong. If your thread gets derailed because people are complaining about the way you posted instead of the what, you're probably doing something wrong. When you're struggling to top your personal best of inserting 10,000 words into the alt tags, you're probably doing something wrong. When you spend more time formatting your post than finding the links you're posting about, you're probably doing something wrong.
But that's just my opinion.
posted by crunchland at 7:15 AM on September 18, 2003
But that's just my opinion.
posted by crunchland at 7:15 AM on September 18, 2003
I dislike posts like that, and I especially dislike your mouseover text and here's why:
There's about a 0% chance that I will have time to, or want to read more than 3-4 sites on a single subject. In a post that dedicates a sentence to each link, I get to know not only what the post is about, but what each link is likely to tell me, so I can choose carefully.
Cryptic? Not helpful.
Though, far more annoying than people who post in what I consider bad style are the people who whine in threads about people who post in bad style (whether or not I agree with them).
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on September 18, 2003
There's about a 0% chance that I will have time to, or want to read more than 3-4 sites on a single subject. In a post that dedicates a sentence to each link, I get to know not only what the post is about, but what each link is likely to tell me, so I can choose carefully.
Cryptic? Not helpful.
Though, far more annoying than people who post in what I consider bad style are the people who whine in threads about people who post in bad style (whether or not I agree with them).
posted by jacquilynne at 7:15 AM on September 18, 2003
Hey, different strokes for different folks.
If you're not a big fan of the posting style, then don't use it when you're posting.
Next, I'll bet we'll see people bitching that the letter n is overused in FPP's.....
posted by Stynxno at 7:22 AM on September 18, 2003
If you're not a big fan of the posting style, then don't use it when you're posting.
Next, I'll bet we'll see people bitching that the letter n is overused in FPP's.....
posted by Stynxno at 7:22 AM on September 18, 2003
I can never understand why people complain about this sort of thing. It seems so minor.
posted by Tarrama at 7:23 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by Tarrama at 7:23 AM on September 18, 2003
moonbird, I think its a great post, but then again I might be biased as I'm also prone to using large numbers of sources in my posts, in order to present a complete picture of the subject I'm discussing.
I'd also note that in the MeTa thread that valerie linked to about Tamim's Bollywood post the comments ran nearly 2-1 in favor of the posting style (although I'll agree that the whole 'one link per letter' thing is a little much).
I quote from this MeTa thread - please add to your future FPP's: trollish language, irrelevant polls, bad puns, references to your refrigerator's brand and your loved one's looks. also, remember to minimize the number of links and maximize the number of vague, pointless, navel-gazing or ad hominem MetaTalk threads
Don't worry about it. The only people who make everyone happy are those who lead bland, beige existences (or are Madamjujujive).
posted by anastasiav at 7:49 AM on September 18, 2003
I'd also note that in the MeTa thread that valerie linked to about Tamim's Bollywood post the comments ran nearly 2-1 in favor of the posting style (although I'll agree that the whole 'one link per letter' thing is a little much).
I quote from this MeTa thread - please add to your future FPP's: trollish language, irrelevant polls, bad puns, references to your refrigerator's brand and your loved one's looks. also, remember to minimize the number of links and maximize the number of vague, pointless, navel-gazing or ad hominem MetaTalk threads
Don't worry about it. The only people who make everyone happy are those who lead bland, beige existences (or are Madamjujujive).
posted by anastasiav at 7:49 AM on September 18, 2003
I'm reminded of a comment my sister made to me as we wandered through the Whitney- "There's a difference between being clever and being good."
And what crunchland said.
posted by mkultra at 8:22 AM on September 18, 2003
And what crunchland said.
posted by mkultra at 8:22 AM on September 18, 2003
If your thread gets derailed because people are complaining about the way you posted instead of the what, you're probably doing something wrong.
There's a difference between doing something wrong and doing something people don't like. My government statistics post, for example, was not designed to be a conversation starter or generate any useful discussion. I simply noticed I had accumulated a lot of useful links with a ton of free information that people might not otherwise have access to. It was designed to be a helpful resouce. I couldn't care less that certain mefites didn't like the form.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:31 AM on September 18, 2003
There's a difference between doing something wrong and doing something people don't like. My government statistics post, for example, was not designed to be a conversation starter or generate any useful discussion. I simply noticed I had accumulated a lot of useful links with a ton of free information that people might not otherwise have access to. It was designed to be a helpful resouce. I couldn't care less that certain mefites didn't like the form.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:31 AM on September 18, 2003
crunchland's comment surprised me. The thread wasn't derailed, despite one user's attempt to do so. If I had gone into one of crunchland's threads, oh, I don't know, maybe this one, and started complaining that there was no useful information about the link, would that prove that the style was a mistake? Also, in this FPP, each alt tag only had one word, not 10,000, or 10, or 2. I found it to be a very appropriate way of presenting the link, which was about an unsolved mystery, to make it somewhat mysterious and multifaceted. It surprised me because crunchland usually (usually,that is) comes across as more thoughtful and tolerant about FPP style, and considering his own, I'd assumed he would also value concise posts that don't give everything away and don't take up half a screen on the front page. Live and learn.
anastasiav - I would agree, with the addition of "or iconomy."
posted by soyjoy at 8:32 AM on September 18, 2003
anastasiav - I would agree, with the addition of "or iconomy."
posted by soyjoy at 8:32 AM on September 18, 2003
All front page posts are elligible for ridicule. Don't like it? Stop posting to the front page. For the record, my last FPP was April of this year, and then October before that. I like to think MetaFilter is infinitely better by my restraint, not that anyone would notice. I mean sometimes even multiple links accompanied by commentary is just not sufficient.
If you have more than one link, try incorporating the rest of the links into a response INSIDE the actual thread itself. Find one link, the best link of those you want to spotlight, use that as the teaser into the thread. The goal is not to fill the front page, but to get people interested in the link and the thread.
Banning behavior? On the contrary. I've always been for encouraging a wide display of behavior in this 'virtual community.' However, it's never too late for the teeming masses to exercise a little common sense. Took me two or three years and a hundred or so FPPs before I realized I was just not wanted.
No one says you have to post to the front page. Being a faceless part of the peanut gallery can be just as fun. This isn't a competition. If you don't mind the sometimes juvenile reactions of those who categorize FPPs into pro-Bush or anti-Bush sentiment, or otherwise attempt to polarize or troll a discussion before it gets off the ground, by all means lob FPPs at the MeFi world to your heart's content. Complaining about it after the fact just causes the masses to throw cream pies at ya all the more.
Can't stand the flames? Don't make yourself a target.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2003
If you have more than one link, try incorporating the rest of the links into a response INSIDE the actual thread itself. Find one link, the best link of those you want to spotlight, use that as the teaser into the thread. The goal is not to fill the front page, but to get people interested in the link and the thread.
Banning behavior? On the contrary. I've always been for encouraging a wide display of behavior in this 'virtual community.' However, it's never too late for the teeming masses to exercise a little common sense. Took me two or three years and a hundred or so FPPs before I realized I was just not wanted.
No one says you have to post to the front page. Being a faceless part of the peanut gallery can be just as fun. This isn't a competition. If you don't mind the sometimes juvenile reactions of those who categorize FPPs into pro-Bush or anti-Bush sentiment, or otherwise attempt to polarize or troll a discussion before it gets off the ground, by all means lob FPPs at the MeFi world to your heart's content. Complaining about it after the fact just causes the masses to throw cream pies at ya all the more.
Can't stand the flames? Don't make yourself a target.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:34 AM on September 18, 2003
I like this concise and economical FPP style. I think the subject matter did not require supporting argumentation because the mouseovers and that each the the eight (or so) links each had a descriptively titled URL. moonbird also provided an informative (and lighthearted) FPP sentence. An ongoing matter for discussion (about Ashcroft, say) requires an argument to prove it is not newsfilter; a new matter for discussion (such as the Vancouver shooting gallery) needs an argument to distinguish an s.g. from a gun club; site URLs that are number-strings or that are a numbered references inside an easily identified site would require a description.
For the record I also like y2karl's thorough and informative mouseovers. I like that each of these posters put a lot of effort into their FPPs. Individualising FPPs is like trying to find an individual style in a five-note scale, there's not a room for play, but some can do it. And playing those five notes straight is fine, as well. My only style complaint is when an FPP has inflammatory, bombastic and/or derogatory language.
posted by philfromhavelock at 8:35 AM on September 18, 2003
For the record I also like y2karl's thorough and informative mouseovers. I like that each of these posters put a lot of effort into their FPPs. Individualising FPPs is like trying to find an individual style in a five-note scale, there's not a room for play, but some can do it. And playing those five notes straight is fine, as well. My only style complaint is when an FPP has inflammatory, bombastic and/or derogatory language.
posted by philfromhavelock at 8:35 AM on September 18, 2003
At first I didn't like them, but then i realised that the point is not that you have to read *every* link, it's better to just dip into the words you prefer (or even randomly) and take a more relaxed approach to such posts. and popups with short descriptions do help. long descriptions are BAD, because the popup only shows for a second or two (at least on ie).
I can just imagine all our uptight mefites religiously opening each link from start to end of sentence, muttering to themselves, "godammit, they're all the same".
A more chilled approach is recommended.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:38 AM on September 18, 2003
I can just imagine all our uptight mefites religiously opening each link from start to end of sentence, muttering to themselves, "godammit, they're all the same".
A more chilled approach is recommended.
posted by carfilhiot at 8:38 AM on September 18, 2003
I have no problem with the occasional post like that, but yours is not a particularly good example; two of the links are the same and one is broken.
posted by timeistight at 8:55 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by timeistight at 8:55 AM on September 18, 2003
I can't say I'm a fan of the style, and I normally don't have the time or the inclination to read all the links on a multi-link post. However, I wouldn't ban it. Diff'rent strokes and all that bollocks.
posted by squealy at 9:10 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by squealy at 9:10 AM on September 18, 2003
I'll second (or third) whomever it was that remarked above, If your posting style is drawing comments instead of the content of your post, you've missed the target. Posts formatted simply to demonstrate the cleverness (if you do say so yourself) of the poster point the reader inappropriately to the poster and not the link(s). Bad communication design, annoying reading, in general, just say no... Count me among those who skip those threads entirely, mostly because my experience has been that the set of links seems to be collected not for any real interest in the set of links but rather for no reason other than supporting a preconceived posting conceit...
There are several, well-known MeFites who post this way; I'm sure any real attempt to ban that sort of thing would cause a storm of indignation from the leading proponents. Then again, while I'm sure they have interesting things to say, there's more than enough content on MetaFilter and I'm very comfortable that I'm not missing anything important by simply skipping anything those people post.
posted by JollyWanker at 9:17 AM on September 18, 2003
There are several, well-known MeFites who post this way; I'm sure any real attempt to ban that sort of thing would cause a storm of indignation from the leading proponents. Then again, while I'm sure they have interesting things to say, there's more than enough content on MetaFilter and I'm very comfortable that I'm not missing anything important by simply skipping anything those people post.
posted by JollyWanker at 9:17 AM on September 18, 2003
Some mouseover text (not the novels that y2karl will put in there, just a little description) would have been useful, but not necessary.
Ya mean like this?
Also, what monju_bosatsu said.
posted by y2karl at 10:02 AM on September 18, 2003
Ya mean like this?
Also, what monju_bosatsu said.
posted by y2karl at 10:02 AM on September 18, 2003
My government statistics post, for example, was not designed to be a conversation starter or generate any useful discussion. I simply noticed I had accumulated a lot of useful links with a ton of free information that people might not otherwise have access to. It was designed to be a helpful resouce. I couldn't care less that certain mefites didn't like the form.
This isn't totally related, but I think that makes a terrible post, and you've been here long enough that you should know why, monju_bosatsu. MeFi isn't a dumping ground for bookmarks- put them on your own site, or on your profile page, if you must. But the whole point of MeFi is to generate discussion.
posted by mkultra at 10:04 AM on September 18, 2003
This isn't totally related, but I think that makes a terrible post, and you've been here long enough that you should know why, monju_bosatsu. MeFi isn't a dumping ground for bookmarks- put them on your own site, or on your profile page, if you must. But the whole point of MeFi is to generate discussion.
posted by mkultra at 10:04 AM on September 18, 2003
I'm a fool. I was using Opera to view the post, which doesn't handle mouseover text very well. Viewing the thread in Firebird, I see that it was already there. Sorry.
posted by UKnowForKids at 10:23 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by UKnowForKids at 10:23 AM on September 18, 2003
Actually, it's easy to get defiant, as the Kino's post link demonstrates. And I think that everyone listens, despite what they say in heat. I know I do. I do find the embedded personal attack of comments like formatted simply to demonstrate the cleverness (if you do say so yourself) of the poster tiresome. Maybe it's not intended as insult, just a demonstration of telepathy or online psychoanalysis. I can't tell-- I'm not one of the telepathic members.
Not everyone wants to discuss any given topic. If the topic interests them, they do. If someone chooses to scorn a thread because of the format, that's a choice. Or are we to strive for the widest appeal? Then bring on the flash and the NSFW. For a fact, we are all narrowcasting here.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 AM on September 18, 2003
Not everyone wants to discuss any given topic. If the topic interests them, they do. If someone chooses to scorn a thread because of the format, that's a choice. Or are we to strive for the widest appeal? Then bring on the flash and the NSFW. For a fact, we are all narrowcasting here.
posted by y2karl at 10:28 AM on September 18, 2003
It's the linking equivalent of ASCII art.
A snickers bar to the first person to post a link about ASCII art *in the form of* ASCII art!
With regard to all-link posts, I'm fine with them, though I'd prefer it if the poster would take advantage of the title= option.
posted by me3dia at 11:00 AM on September 18, 2003
A snickers bar to the first person to post a link about ASCII art *in the form of* ASCII art!
With regard to all-link posts, I'm fine with them, though I'd prefer it if the poster would take advantage of the title= option.
posted by me3dia at 11:00 AM on September 18, 2003
For a fact, we are all narrowcasting here.
I do not believe this is true at all. In discussing the style of a post there is plenty of room to be discussing usability. A question was posed and answers were given. Most of those answers expressed interest in the broadcast appeal of posts formatted to a easy to use standard. Some people are narrowcasting, but it certainly is not all of us.
Nobody mentioned topic at all, and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
posted by thirteen at 11:00 AM on September 18, 2003
I do not believe this is true at all. In discussing the style of a post there is plenty of room to be discussing usability. A question was posed and answers were given. Most of those answers expressed interest in the broadcast appeal of posts formatted to a easy to use standard. Some people are narrowcasting, but it certainly is not all of us.
Nobody mentioned topic at all, and it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand.
posted by thirteen at 11:00 AM on September 18, 2003
But the whole point of MeFi is to generate discussion.
No. The discussion might be fun, and even useful at times, but it is not the point. Metafilter is a weblog, and it's central purpose, to the extent that it has one, is the posts. That's why so many of us are concerned about double posts, so-called mefi polls, and repetitious posting of the same old editorials. Metafilter is about finding new and interesting things on the web, and sharing them here with other members. The discussion exists only because of the links, not the other way around. If you're only here for the discussion, might I suggest IRC.
...and you've been here long enough that you should know why...
So I should have learned my lesson by now? Whatever. I post what I think is interesting or useful, and if I'm wrong, Matt deletes it. I don't need you to critique the form or content of my posts. Plenty of other mefites found that post worthwhile.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:10 AM on September 18, 2003
No. The discussion might be fun, and even useful at times, but it is not the point. Metafilter is a weblog, and it's central purpose, to the extent that it has one, is the posts. That's why so many of us are concerned about double posts, so-called mefi polls, and repetitious posting of the same old editorials. Metafilter is about finding new and interesting things on the web, and sharing them here with other members. The discussion exists only because of the links, not the other way around. If you're only here for the discussion, might I suggest IRC.
...and you've been here long enough that you should know why...
So I should have learned my lesson by now? Whatever. I post what I think is interesting or useful, and if I'm wrong, Matt deletes it. I don't need you to critique the form or content of my posts. Plenty of other mefites found that post worthwhile.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:10 AM on September 18, 2003
I should clarify. I was speaking in generalities before, not to the specific post in question here. In fact, when I did take a look at moonbirds rope climbing post, I wasn't particularly put off by the way it was posted.
posted by crunchland at 11:12 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by crunchland at 11:12 AM on September 18, 2003
Can not usability be discussed without gratuitous character assessments? If one wants to get a usabilty argument across, talk about usability, not personality. Only an [insert pejorative here] would post like this is not about usability. After all, it's about communication, isn't it?
posted by y2karl at 11:19 AM on September 18, 2003
posted by y2karl at 11:19 AM on September 18, 2003
We've been down this path before, and the consensus seems to be that usability and good communication design are very important - except when they're not. It is individual posters that make the decision to void the concepts of general usability, and it's their perogative, since after going 'round this topic several times, there's no MeFi law that says you can't, which means posters do it no matter how many readers such a poster would lose by using that approach. Those who are inclined to prefer a clearer, less look-at-me-Ma-I'm-a-linkin'! approach simply skim the FPPs and determine whether it's worth the extra effort to decode someone else's purported cleverness. Everyone else is free to do as they please.
There are only a few people who post this way regularly; we haven't seen a lemming rush to this style of posting no matter how many times it gets called out in MeTa, so the net effect doesn't appear to be doing the community at large great harm. As I said earlier, I'm content taking my chances on missing something by skipping posts that require a secret decoder ring, and I see from this thread I'm not alone.
posted by JollyWanker at 11:58 AM on September 18, 2003
There are only a few people who post this way regularly; we haven't seen a lemming rush to this style of posting no matter how many times it gets called out in MeTa, so the net effect doesn't appear to be doing the community at large great harm. As I said earlier, I'm content taking my chances on missing something by skipping posts that require a secret decoder ring, and I see from this thread I'm not alone.
posted by JollyWanker at 11:58 AM on September 18, 2003
I don't like it, and posted an earlier MetaTalk thread on it, but the fact that I don't like it isn't as important as what I don't like about it.
Hyperlinks need a certain amount of context in order to remain meaningful. Usually the topic of the page is related to the text inside the anchor tags. When you make every word a different link, you lose that, and get a vague topic field instead. I understand some people like the effect, but anyone posting this style should realize exactly what you're doing, and that some people may not click on any of your links, because suddenly, we don't know what they are.
posted by weston at 12:15 PM on September 18, 2003
Hyperlinks need a certain amount of context in order to remain meaningful. Usually the topic of the page is related to the text inside the anchor tags. When you make every word a different link, you lose that, and get a vague topic field instead. I understand some people like the effect, but anyone posting this style should realize exactly what you're doing, and that some people may not click on any of your links, because suddenly, we don't know what they are.
posted by weston at 12:15 PM on September 18, 2003
It's a title attribute, not a secret decoder ring. It's standard HTML.
Also, did I miss the memo about getting prizes for the post which gets the most click-throughs? For my part, as long as one other member find my posts worthwhile, I'm satisfied.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:19 PM on September 18, 2003
Also, did I miss the memo about getting prizes for the post which gets the most click-throughs? For my part, as long as one other member find my posts worthwhile, I'm satisfied.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:19 PM on September 18, 2003
The title attribute makes things easier to investigate than clicking through, but moving your mouse over text is harder than reading, and whether or not it's keeping some semantic value with the title text, it's still losing its hypertext context.
posted by weston at 12:46 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by weston at 12:46 PM on September 18, 2003
When you make every word a different link, you lose that, and get a vague topic field instead.
I think that's what some people are going for sometimes.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:02 PM on September 18, 2003
I think that's what some people are going for sometimes.
posted by Ignatius J. Reilly at 1:02 PM on September 18, 2003
For my part, as long as one other member find my posts worthwhile, I'm satisfied.
Really? It seems to me that you're setting the bar pretty low. And if you care so little about MeFite opinion, why do you keep justifying yourself?
More generally, you have to look at a specific post to see whether the one link per word technique is being abused. In the particular post that started this misguided MeTa thread, there wasn't really a problem because you were talking about fewer than ten words and links, and the structure kind of emphasizes the whole "huh; who'da thunk there'd be that many sites dealing with something as obscure as the Indian rope trick?" thing. One link per word, when there are so few words, is hardly difficult to navigate. One link per letter is very difficult and evidence that someone's trying to be cute.
Finally, one person complaining isn't a very good reason to start a MeTa thread on a topic that's been discussed before. Just roll your eyes and move on.
posted by anapestic at 1:09 PM on September 18, 2003
Really? It seems to me that you're setting the bar pretty low. And if you care so little about MeFite opinion, why do you keep justifying yourself?
More generally, you have to look at a specific post to see whether the one link per word technique is being abused. In the particular post that started this misguided MeTa thread, there wasn't really a problem because you were talking about fewer than ten words and links, and the structure kind of emphasizes the whole "huh; who'da thunk there'd be that many sites dealing with something as obscure as the Indian rope trick?" thing. One link per word, when there are so few words, is hardly difficult to navigate. One link per letter is very difficult and evidence that someone's trying to be cute.
Finally, one person complaining isn't a very good reason to start a MeTa thread on a topic that's been discussed before. Just roll your eyes and move on.
posted by anapestic at 1:09 PM on September 18, 2003
Thanks all for your input. Y'know, I wasn't offended by the 'lame' comment, since virtually anything posted to the wild-n-wacky internet can become kindling for the opinionated. Just curious as to what other MeFites think, and whether consensus would shoo me into the MeFi doghouse.
I see the point of those who dislike the format, though we're all different and what lures a mouseclick depends on who's clicking. Personally, I don't like a whole paragraph that's hyperlinked to the same site, but, depending on the content, I'm just as likely to click it as anything else.
Alas, it could always be much worse [we've seen that recently, right johnnydark?]. Thanks all, free drinks on the house!
posted by moonbird at 1:10 PM on September 18, 2003
I see the point of those who dislike the format, though we're all different and what lures a mouseclick depends on who's clicking. Personally, I don't like a whole paragraph that's hyperlinked to the same site, but, depending on the content, I'm just as likely to click it as anything else.
Alas, it could always be much worse [we've seen that recently, right johnnydark?]. Thanks all, free drinks on the house!
posted by moonbird at 1:10 PM on September 18, 2003
Ugh, hopefully Matt will also make a rule against offering free drinks when it's obvious you can't deliver. Lame.
posted by dness2 at 2:11 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by dness2 at 2:11 PM on September 18, 2003
Right, I've got nothing to do today, and *cough**hmrph*mumble*, North Carolina is only on the other side of the continent. So, martinis[*] at seven, Moonbird?
[*] attention Miguel: I need a new drink to be obsessed with.
posted by arto at 2:35 PM on September 18, 2003
[*] attention Miguel: I need a new drink to be obsessed with.
posted by arto at 2:35 PM on September 18, 2003
Just thought I would add my two cents ...
>> $0.02 >>posted by mischief at 2:38 PM on September 18, 2003
Hey all you 'too lazy to click on more than one link'-types! Next time you have a meal, just throw all the food down the toilet & save yourselves all that tiresome chewing, digesting & crapping!
posted by i_cola at 3:06 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by i_cola at 3:06 PM on September 18, 2003
Hey all you 'too lazy to click on more than one link'-types! Next time you have a meal, just throw all the food down the toilet & save yourselves all that tiresome chewing, digesting & crapping!
I would, it is just that I am so lazy I cannot even do that! I sure am lazy! I am worn out just from posting exclaimation points!
posted by thirteen at 3:38 PM on September 18, 2003
I guess the question becomes, knowing that a substantial portion of your audience will avoid your post if you choose to use this style, why would you make such a choice, since the purpose of posting (I would presume) is to communicate to as many people as possible?
which will happen anyway. people read what interests them. and, as has been pointed out, people avoid that which annoys them. is it your intention to
1) communicate with as many people as possible, or
2) with whatever number of people are interested, knowledgeable and have the time? i would assert that if you claim the first, you haven't really thought about it.
and is it actually my loss as a poster if someone passes up my link? i don't think so. turn it around: by being annoyed with trivialities, how much great stuff am i just passing by?
posted by quonsar at 5:09 PM on September 18, 2003
which will happen anyway. people read what interests them. and, as has been pointed out, people avoid that which annoys them. is it your intention to
1) communicate with as many people as possible, or
2) with whatever number of people are interested, knowledgeable and have the time? i would assert that if you claim the first, you haven't really thought about it.
and is it actually my loss as a poster if someone passes up my link? i don't think so. turn it around: by being annoyed with trivialities, how much great stuff am i just passing by?
posted by quonsar at 5:09 PM on September 18, 2003
I couldn't care less that certain mefites didn't like the form.
Great! And I could care less that MeFite's (for some strange reason) don't like when I post threads about Isreal/Palestine and those dumbasses in the Bush administration and that really cool amazingly funny website that has all those fake news articles! PARTY ON!!!!!!!
Seriously, I just don't get why anyone would want to post something that they know will make other people in their same community unhappy. Is that really the sort of contribution you want to make? If you don't care about other members of this site, why are you here? And if you do care, and if you can easily accomodate other people's concerns (I mean, how hard is it to write a post that just says what you're talking about in plain text, instead of stuffing it into title attrubutes that you know (because it's been pointed out here more than once) some of your fellow MeFites can't read the whole of?), why in the world wouldn't you? It's everyone's site, isn't it?
[That said, this isn't meant as a critique of the post in question (or its poster), which one would understand after clicking any one of the links, I believe (I didn't check them all out). Little if anything was lost by the use of the link-per-word style, and it seemed like a perfectly reasonable post to me. (And in any case it's the attitude I object to above, not that I don't adore every single post on MeFi.)]
posted by mattpfeff at 5:59 PM on September 18, 2003
Great! And I could care less that MeFite's (for some strange reason) don't like when I post threads about Isreal/Palestine and those dumbasses in the Bush administration and that really cool amazingly funny website that has all those fake news articles! PARTY ON!!!!!!!
Seriously, I just don't get why anyone would want to post something that they know will make other people in their same community unhappy. Is that really the sort of contribution you want to make? If you don't care about other members of this site, why are you here? And if you do care, and if you can easily accomodate other people's concerns (I mean, how hard is it to write a post that just says what you're talking about in plain text, instead of stuffing it into title attrubutes that you know (because it's been pointed out here more than once) some of your fellow MeFites can't read the whole of?), why in the world wouldn't you? It's everyone's site, isn't it?
[That said, this isn't meant as a critique of the post in question (or its poster), which one would understand after clicking any one of the links, I believe (I didn't check them all out). Little if anything was lost by the use of the link-per-word style, and it seemed like a perfectly reasonable post to me. (And in any case it's the attitude I object to above, not that I don't adore every single post on MeFi.)]
posted by mattpfeff at 5:59 PM on September 18, 2003
With threads that have each word as a link, i tend to read the discussion first to see if i want to start going through the links...it really is a time issue mixed with interest in the subject.
Also, when it's about one subject, did the subject come first or the link? I get the feeling that sometimes too many links means: "what a cool subject! lemme find a ton of links about it, and post em all!" which for me, goes against Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? (from the posting page). I don't think it's wrong--it just reads to me as web-enhanced, instead of web-driven.
posted by amberglow at 6:12 PM on September 18, 2003
Also, when it's about one subject, did the subject come first or the link? I get the feeling that sometimes too many links means: "what a cool subject! lemme find a ton of links about it, and post em all!" which for me, goes against Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? (from the posting page). I don't think it's wrong--it just reads to me as web-enhanced, instead of web-driven.
posted by amberglow at 6:12 PM on September 18, 2003
Hey all you 'too lazy to click on more than one link'-types! Next time you have a meal, just throw all the food down the toilet & save yourselves all that tiresome chewing, digesting & crapping!
I didn't realize you considered clicking on every link in a post a biological imperative.
posted by nath at 6:19 PM on September 18, 2003
I didn't realize you considered clicking on every link in a post a biological imperative.
posted by nath at 6:19 PM on September 18, 2003
Goddamn Utilitarians.
posted by The God Complex at 6:25 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by The God Complex at 6:25 PM on September 18, 2003
Metafilter. Meta*filter*. The idea being you don't link to every last thing you can find on a subject. Have a good look yourself and give us the good'ns. The result of a high-concentration of links, beyond inevitably linking to guff, is that the link descrpitions are poor so the reader can't even tell the good from the bad. The end result: people pass. I reckon it's a very sloppy practice indeed.
posted by nthdegx at 6:36 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by nthdegx at 6:36 PM on September 18, 2003
And, what's more, the word "economical" in no way applies to this sort of post. Having said all of this, it's not that big a deal. I'm quite happy to continue skipping these FPPs.
posted by nthdegx at 6:44 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by nthdegx at 6:44 PM on September 18, 2003
[*] attention Miguel: I need a new drink to be obsessed with.
Arto: what say you to the dry, delicious Aviation cocktail? It was wildly popular in the 30s and deserves to be more well known.
All the best!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:09 PM on September 18, 2003
Arto: what say you to the dry, delicious Aviation cocktail? It was wildly popular in the 30s and deserves to be more well known.
All the best!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:09 PM on September 18, 2003
P.S. That was the recipe; here's the reason. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:11 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:11 PM on September 18, 2003
You know, I suspect there is some sort of optimal amount of links per post, but that amount probably varies from reader to reader. I kind of appreciate, for example in those uber-comprehensive artsfilter posts, having a couple of pointers to the good stuff. However, the variety of posting styles is one of the many charms of this place--y2karl's obsessive catalogs of the past and crunchland's one word enigmas, to mention but a couple, can both be effective in their own ways. Think how much worse this place would be if everyone stuck to some arbitrary One True Posting Style?
The rareness of a good Aviation can be linked to the disappearance of maraschino, which is fundamental to the drink. Once a fairly common spirit, maraschino is a clear cherry liqueur that is sweet, but not too sweet.
Great, it's a drink *and* a quest! Smithers, fire up the autocar and the electrical telephone. We have work to do.
posted by arto at 7:29 PM on September 18, 2003
The rareness of a good Aviation can be linked to the disappearance of maraschino, which is fundamental to the drink. Once a fairly common spirit, maraschino is a clear cherry liqueur that is sweet, but not too sweet.
Great, it's a drink *and* a quest! Smithers, fire up the autocar and the electrical telephone. We have work to do.
posted by arto at 7:29 PM on September 18, 2003
arto: I was there at 7... anyway, the barkeep is looking out for ya. I asked her to double the olives.
posted by moonbird at 7:43 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by moonbird at 7:43 PM on September 18, 2003
Arto: for quest-purposes Luxardo is the thing, but ordinary Bols or De Kuyper Maraschino are almost as good.
An important part of the fun to be had with Maraschino is that you can use it to soak your own cherries - killer for old-fashioneds, Manhattans and the like. Just soak them for two weeks minimum - add a little kirsch if you have it.
Much better than the atrocious "cocktail cherries" commercially available!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:55 PM on September 18, 2003
An important part of the fun to be had with Maraschino is that you can use it to soak your own cherries - killer for old-fashioneds, Manhattans and the like. Just soak them for two weeks minimum - add a little kirsch if you have it.
Much better than the atrocious "cocktail cherries" commercially available!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:55 PM on September 18, 2003
A Cardoso travels on its stomach. Resides there, too.
posted by y2karl at 8:50 PM on September 18, 2003
posted by y2karl at 8:50 PM on September 18, 2003
Are those cocktail cherries even, biologically speaking, cherries? I confess to a bit of a fondness for them, what with the old sweet tooth and all, but they always seemed pretty artificial-tasting to me.
Thread's over. y2karl wins.
posted by arto at 10:11 PM on September 18, 2003
Thread's over. y2karl wins.
posted by arto at 10:11 PM on September 18, 2003
Think how much worse this place would be if everyone stuck to some arbitrary One True Posting Style?
F'ing word. arto wins. I'm off to hoik me breakfast down the loo.
posted by i_cola at 12:39 AM on September 19, 2003
F'ing word. arto wins. I'm off to hoik me breakfast down the loo.
posted by i_cola at 12:39 AM on September 19, 2003
Woohoo! Time to rest on my laurels. Mmmmm, comfy.
(obLikeAPirate: Yarrr, 'tis luxury like this 'twould make a man almost forsake the sea. Almost.)
posted by arto at 2:06 AM on September 19, 2003
(obLikeAPirate: Yarrr, 'tis luxury like this 'twould make a man almost forsake the sea. Almost.)
posted by arto at 2:06 AM on September 19, 2003
q: what kind of self respecting cola hoiks a perfectly good breakfast down the loo?
q2: eye cola.
posted by quonsar at 4:35 AM on September 19, 2003
q2: eye cola.
posted by quonsar at 4:35 AM on September 19, 2003
Yep, arto wins. Some links may call for a different style of FPP. And the decision on what's called for is up to the person posting it. If you don't like it, don't click. Others will like it even more than if it was done in One True Posting Style, and will click. Vive la difference, ye scurvy dogs.
posted by soyjoy at 10:08 AM on September 19, 2003
posted by soyjoy at 10:08 AM on September 19, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by chill at 4:25 AM on September 18, 2003