Comments on: Posts with no context at all.

Posts with no context at all.

stonerose — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:48:49 -0800

a b c's, 1 2 3's. Here's a thread to critique these.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:53:33 -0800

I liked Crunch's thread. At least the links were interesting and related, plus there was an interesting subtext as to why he chose to post it in such a manner.

By: Nelson

Nelson — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:58:31 -0800

Reading MeFi shouldn't be so much work.

By: punishinglemur

punishinglemur — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 19:59:45 -0800

Crunch's thread, while confusing at first, revealed its purpose immediately upon visitng a few of the links. Ed's also confused me upon the first viewing, but unlike crunch's, it has not yet revealed to me its purpose. I'm very confused, and I don't like it.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:00:00 -0800

ed's is a puzzle wrapped in a mystery cloaked in an enigma hidden inside a maze sealed inside a labyrinth and decorated with a pretty little bow--i like it!

By: punishinglemur

punishinglemur — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:04:48 -0800

This is MetaFilter, not the puzzle barn, amberglow.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:08:30 -0800

Yeah. I opened this can of worms. Sorry about that.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:11:48 -0800

Is there actually a puzzle barn, pushinglemur? Or is it one of those newage things like Pottery Barn and its cousin Urban Barn? Because I went to Urban Barn once, with the full intention of buying a young asian child to learn the maths and sciences, but was dismayed to find over-priced furniture in the place of the goods I expected a fully urbanized barn to carry (what, after all, is a barn without livestock?).

By: punishinglemur

punishinglemur — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:14:31 -0800

Puzzle barn.

By: mischief

mischief — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:17:37 -0800

ed's fpp only occupies a single line. Easily skipped over. I know I did.

By: j

Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:40:47 -0800

At least he put more thought in the post than someone who cuts and pastes from Yahoo news.

(but it IS driving me nuts trying to figure it out!)

By: DaShiv

DaShiv — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:45:03 -0800

Skipped. But as mischief said, no biggie.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:53:28 -0800

it's quite brilliant actually. here are some hints:

1) polar bears
2) moist towelettes
3) federal express
4) profit!

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 20:56:34 -0800

Hey, quonsar, why don't you go invent a new form of mathematics yourself.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:11:52 -0800

Jesus Christ, is it now standard practice to Meta anything that deviates from the norm?

By: subgenius

subgenius — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:13:02 -0800

I like it. I don't understand it, but I like it.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:14:23 -0800

Hey, quonsar, why don't you go invent a new form of mathematics yourself.

because i'm very busy these days authenticating new seismic detection technology myself.

By: anathema

anathema — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:17:58 -0800

Jesus Christ, is it now standard practice to Meta anything that deviates from the norm?

Yeah, I don't get this crap. Why call this out? Just let it be and see what happens. Personally, I like the occassional disruptive post. Good for curing the vapors.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:24:55 -0800

Less chafing, I bet, but enough of this chaffing: what I want to know is why it's 'i' before 'e', except after 'c', unless you live in Arkansas.

I think the thread is contemptible, but I enjoy the concerted efforts of those within, especially the Chin & Q bloc metatalkois.

By: tss

tss — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:25:28 -0800

amberglow: don't forget, it's also smothered in secret sauce.

By: troutfishing

troutfishing — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:27:19 -0800

I don't have the time right now to solve Ed's puxzzle due to an ailment which makes me cough heavily and throw up after I eat. But I liked the post. Hidalgo X 2.

Ed's cryptic nonsequiturishness was a light refreshing squall which stirred up the Sargasso lazily drifting in circles on the seas of blue.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:36:39 -0800

"metatalkois" flows off the tongue in a way which "nonsequiturishness" can never hope to equal.

By: Hildago

Hildago — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:40:17 -0800

Less chafing, I bet, but enough of this chaffing: what I want to know is why it's 'i' before 'e', except after 'c', unless you live in Arkansas.

It's a weird society.

By: mkn

mkn — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:55:16 -0800

Reminds me of http://metatalk.metafilter.com/mefi/1515.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 21:57:17 -0800

"...an ailment which makes me cough heavily and throw up after I eat."

Pneumolimia?

By: plep

plep — Mon, 27 Oct 2003 23:13:56 -0800

I like it.
I don't have time to solve it right now, but I'll give it a go soon.

By: dg

dg — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 00:19:07 -0800

Very cool thread. I am not even going to try and crack it, but the work to create this is impressive. If it was a requirement that all threads need this much effort, imagine the quality we would see.

By: dhartung

dhartung — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 01:46:44 -0800

I am building a metatalkoi pond.

Naturally, it will drain into itself.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 02:19:28 -0800

Haha!

I was going for more of a Bloc Quebecois (a "kwah" sound) feel, but your flipping of the aquatic switch was an excellent variation that I didn't even consider.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 05:36:40 -0800

One more voice in the Jesus, You Angry Miserable Curmudgeons chorus. I can't believe the amount of flak this thread has gotten. Those who skipped it, cool. Those who like it, cool.

Those who have been complete jackholes because they don't like A BENIGN FUCKING PUZZLE should lay right the fuck off.

By: ashbury

ashbury — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 06:24:37 -0800

what cortex said, altho maybe not so vehemently.

By: straight

straight — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:08:59 -0800

is it now standard practice to Meta anything that deviates from the norm?

Does metatalking a post necessarily imply attacking it? Maybe stonerose just wanted to have a discussion about this style of post without derailing either thread.

Heck, maybe every thread should automatically have an associated metatalk thread so that *all* discussion of the merits of the link could happen in metatalk and leave the thread itself entirely for discussion of the subject of the link. (Sorry to derail this thread, should we take it to MetaMetaTalk?)

By: stonerose

stonerose — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:16:56 -0800

straight is right - as I stated in ed's MeFi thread, I started this discussion to avoid a derailment in the blue. On the whole, I'm pleased that ed and crunch crafted these posts - while I don't have time to sort through such cleverness (and while I would hate to see people make a practice of attempting similar meta-acrobatics), I'm glad to see other people enjoying themselves.

By: riffola

riffola — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:19:37 -0800

From the guidelines: A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

I, personally don't think ed's post meets all the criteria.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:37:30 -0800

I came up with the puzzle idea while on the bus last night. Given the love of wordplay among the MeFi community (particularly as seen in the acronym spellout and Tom Swifty threads), and given the previous accomplishments of the MeFi Scooby Doo Squad, I thought they'd appreciate it. It also struck me as a nice litmus test for community intelligence. (Figured that it would be something nice to draw the community together. And it's nice to see people getting closer to the soution within mere hours of the puzzle's appearance. You folks are pretty sharp cookies indeed! Clues I didn't expect to be solved immediately have been solved, and clues I expected an immediate solution to have kept people perplexed.)

If you don't like it (and apparently some of you REALLY hate it), then ignore it. For those of you solving, I intend to live up to my olive branch about the gift certificate.

For now, I'll only ask this: why can't reading and interpreting a MeFi post involve a little bit of work?

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:45:55 -0800

well, that's been my theory behind some of my notoriously obscure front page posts. I usally try to avoid any interpretation of the link(s), and let the clicker do the digesting instead of me doing it for them. But people are sometimes lazy, and want their world spoonfed to them.

By: soyjoy

soyjoy — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 07:58:20 -0800

Cripes. I wouldn't bother saying anything, cause it's not gonna surprise anybody that I fully support ed's post (even though I'm completely uninterested in solving it myself), but I felt compelled to just to balance (or, hopefully, swamp) the comments hating this. I can't believe that anyone would get so worked up about a couple lines of screen space. If nothing else, it generates laugh-out-loud comments like this one.

So, riffola, exactly which criterion do you think ed's post doesn't meet?

By: stonerose

stonerose — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 08:18:42 -0800

Maybe we (or some of us) are using the wrong internalized metaphor for MeFi if we want to provide space for a wide variety of interesting discussions related to things found on the web. If you think of a blog as someone's book collection - and a community blog as a public library - then of course, you'll be frustrated if the material is arranged and presented in an obscure way. But is that really what blogs are, or should be limited to? To move the book analogy to another level - there are some people who wouldn't have the patience for books like "Pale Fire," "Ulysses," or "Gravity's Rainbow." Do those people insist that these books be removed from libraries because they're frustrating? No... they just move on. (Sorry to mix metaphors, but it's early for me.)

By: me3dia

me3dia — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:34:18 -0800

MetaFilter: Meta anything that deviates from the norm.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 09:36:17 -0800

One more voice in the Jesus, You Angry Miserable Curmudgeons chorus.

I can't believe the amount of flak...

Those who have been complete jackholes because they don't like A BENIGN FUCKING PUZZLE should lay right the fuck off.

and from ed:

and apparently some of you REALLY hate it

i'm sorry. i just reread this entire thread. could someone please point out to me where someone is "being a complete jackhole"? please show me the "hate". where is all this "flak"???

it's fucking nowhere, cortex. i submit that the only complete jackhole in this thread so far is you! apparently the simple EXISTENCE is a metatalk thread is now assumed by many to be proof of bad behavior.

i'm not seeing it ed. show me the hate! all i see is a lot of people having some fun, some hilarious comments, a few "i don't approve", some gentle "doesn't meet the guidelines" and a vehement objection early on the the existence of a metatalk thread.

where are you people getting all this negativity from?

*holds up mirror*

By: Hildago

Hildago — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:01:08 -0800

Does metatalking a post necessarily imply attacking it?

Yes, almost always, unless explicitly stated otherwise, and even then sometimes.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:09:14 -0800

quonsar: "apparently" being the key adverb. If I was wrong about some people blatantly despising the thread because, as some expressed, it annoyed them, then, hey, I was wrong. Got the tomfoolery and laughed my ass off over it last night. Great. Throws another cant to the communal whole. But since discussion popped up here, I only figured I should explain my own motives behind the post and ask why a "challenging" or baroque post had to be questioned here. Best to exchange information and have a reasonable discussion. Know what I mean, choleric bean?

Or perhaps you're hot and heavy because you're part of a clue. In which case, I assure you, there's nothing negative about your involvement in the puzzle.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:18:18 -0800

speaking of puzzles, did anyone ever solve that google thing where the states were listed and we had to figure out what the order was?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:19:43 -0800

Or perhaps you're hot and heavy because you're part of a clue. In which case, I assure you, there's nothing negative about your involvement in the puzzle

no no no, i just really didn't understand where cortex was coming from. what he's hollering about simply isn't present. i have no interest in actually WORKING the puzzle, but i'm enjoying the post's commentary immensely, both here and over there. i included you because you mentioned hate, and hate is a pretty strong word for anything i've seen here.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:28:46 -0800

also, i am DYING to see how "my" clue plays out in this thing.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:31:03 -0800

and hate is a pretty strong word for anything i've seen here.

Well, at least no one's calling it libel. :)

By: scarabic

scarabic — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:53:23 -0800

Remember, the ultimate goal is: 0 MetaTalk Posts. MeTa is not for parlor conversation. It's for making MeFi better.

However, I think this thread is open to postive and negative commentary. These two FPPs represent an innovation of form, quite unconventional, and perhaps this demands some articulate reaction on our part.

Then again, perhaps not.

By: starvingartist

starvingartist — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 10:57:15 -0800

amberglow - apparently not.

Google Answers thread #2

WWW home of the states puzzle

By: xmutex

xmutex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:08:35 -0800

What's a jackhole?

By: freebird

freebird — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:25:33 -0800

What's a jackhole?

Dunno exactly, but I hear it's really bad to put one in a Bag of Holding. Or vice versa.

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:29:20 -0800

I'm still laughing about the guy "creating a new form of mathematics." Next time I get caught with the boss's wife I'll have to give that a whirl.

By: amberglow

amberglow — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:30:01 -0800

thanks, starving...I wasted hours and hours on that one

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 12:57:27 -0800

But people are sometimes lazy, and want their world spoonfed to them. That'll be me then. I come to metafilter to find links to groovy things. And I like to know roughly what the groovy things are before I click on them. If you want people to spend time on a puzzle you made, then why not just make the puzzle, host it on some webspace, and then link to that puzzle via a metaFilter link?

By: stonerose

stonerose — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:20:50 -0800

why not just make the puzzle, host it on some webspace, and then link to that puzzle via a metaFilter link?

Because that is called self-linking, and it is a Very Bad Thing.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 13:31:37 -0800

So, if we can host it on metafilter, it's a good thing, but if we host it on our own sites and point to it, it's a bad thing. Everything's so much clearer now. Thankyou.

By: dg

dg — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 14:20:05 -0800

seanyboy, it was never unclear in the first place.

For those who moan about having to actually use your brain a tiny bit to work out what links are all about, do you really and honestly prefer to know exactly what it is you are going to the huge effort of clicking your mouse once for? Have you no sense of mystery? Personally, I like to see links that allow me to view them without any pre-judgement on my part.

By: kindall

kindall — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:19:23 -0800

One has certain expectations set by the medium. I'd be annoyed if I was watching "60 Minutes" and I had to solve some stupid puzzle to watch the show.

In conclusion, this is MetaFilter:

* Clicky on links
* Talk about links

This is some other site:

* Clicky on links
* Talk about how confused everyone is

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:29:38 -0800

I was going to write a 5000 word essay on why ed's post is inappropriate self-wankery, but fuck it, I'll just ignore it instead.

By: crunchland

crunchland — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:37:39 -0800

Actually, by the way Ed is moderating his puzzle thread, I'd say the thread is more about Ed than anything else.

By: eyeballkid

eyeballkid — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 15:38:44 -0800

What's a jackhole?

It's a word invented by Jimmy Kimmel and Adam Carolla during their period on KROQ radio in Los Angeles. It was an attempt to create a new curse word and a tv/radio meme.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:10:03 -0800

I was going to write a 5000 word essay on why ed's post is inappropriate self-wankery.

I'd say the thread is more about Ed than anything else.

So by that token, anyone who dares to create something outside the "link plus commentary" paradigm is pretentious or self-indulgent. Fine, I'll wear that cross, even though these kinds of labels ultimately mean nothing. Will you, crunchland? Because while both threads were attempts to try something different, when you do something along those lines, there's the risk of coming across as a wanker. You could equally make the same case against your own alphabet thread. Personally, I'd rather see the occasional nutty or offbeat threads that fail completely or dare to take a risk (including your thread, crunchland), rather than the same old Newsfilter or Iraqfilter nonsense that's become de rigeur.

I'll put the matter very simply: if the puzzle thread or the alphabet thread weren't MeFi, then why weren't either of them deleted? Were they tolerated by Matt as one-off experiments? Or did they somehow work out? I wouldn't have had a problem if Matt killed the puzzle thread. Because he's the guy who determines what's appropriate and what's inappropriate around here. And we respect his decision accordingly. But sometimes that level of moderation involves making the hard choice (often for something that the initial FPPer put a lot of time and craft into).

So let's determine the definitions right now: when a thread goes into rococo territory, does it fall into a category that is unacceptable? If so, then this needs to be established in the guidelines. If not, then experiment away.

And I fail to see how providing progress reports automatically makes the thread about me. But if that's a problem, I'll be happy to pass along the key to Mr. Haughey or someone similarly trusted to continue "moderating" the thread.

By: monju_bosatsu

monju_bosatsu — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:12:59 -0800

[ed: I was being sarcastic--no offense intended, sorry for the confusion]

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:19:37 -0800

so, are we having a crucifixion or not? i brung nails.

By: seanyboy

seanyboy — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:24:02 -0800

eyeballkid: Naff Off.

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:27:14 -0800

quonsar: Talk to the guy at the door. I've comped you for a front row seat.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:44:19 -0800

q: please show me the "hate". where is all this "flak"???

it's fucking nowhere, cortex.

I shouldn't have dared to say "this thread". Pronouns are fuckers that way. I was referring to ed's thread in the blue, the ostensible subject of the meta thread in which I am now commenting.

In ed's thread:

<title="consider getting life">
posted by quonsar

as comment the first; Meta[1] callout a few comments later. So you are right: there is no "hate." Flak, yes, although even that should probably be taken in good humor. I didn't.

In retrospect, that clearly skewed my interpretation of the following, relatively laid-back "I don't get it" and "wtf" comments. My hat is off to you, and I should refrain from posting that early in the morning.

I am still sort bothered by the general willingness to be negative about things that don't seem like they ought to be attacked, such as, from THIS HERE THREAD:

This is MetaFilter, not the puzzle barn, amberglow.
posted by punishinglemur

But then, I can recognize the contradictions when I start yelling fuck in a crowded thread because people weren't being nice, and it's probably partly a knee-jerk throwback to the anti-geek reactionist jocks of high school, all that polarizing, formative bullshit that has made me the mostly cheerful, sometimes misguided creature I am.

So, yeah. Should not have been, as has been alluded to, so goddam vehement.

[1] And, yeah, a meta thread pretty much functions as an attack in most cases, and when it's tossed into a thread that is brewing strangely, with no commentary, I tend to take it that way more so than, say, "We're starting a discussion of unusual threads in Meta." Which is a pretty sad commentary on the recent climate in the grey. And, yes, this one didn't actually declare itself to be negative, and so, again, mea culpa.

By: riffola

riffola — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 16:53:21 -0800

soyjoy: So, riffola, exactly which criterion do you think ed's post doesn't meet?

most people haven't seen it before - I guess this is met for most of the links

there is something interesting about the content on the page - The pages aren't linked because they might be interesting, they are only linked to provide words for the puzzle.

it might warrant discussion from others - It's not a discussion about the content of the pages linked, it's more of a communal puzzle solving.

I am not saying the thread should be deleted, but at the same time it doesn't really adhere to the guidelines. As you'll note that I even tried solving it last night.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 17:38:43 -0800

hey cortex, i obviously climbed my high horse in my response to your post as well. sorry for that.

By: cortex

cortex — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 18:07:02 -0800

No sweat. Just a website, forever and ever, et cetera.

Blort!

By: ashbury

ashbury — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 21:26:59 -0800

Jesus christ, get a fucking room, guys.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:07:31 -0800

*removes ten-gallon hat and whops ashbury about the ears with it*

By: dg

dg — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:23:13 -0800

*Recoils in horror as he realises that quonsar's head is the same shape without the hat*

By: ed

ed — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 22:27:19 -0800

Now imagine all that as quonsar saunters around without pants!

By: quonsar

quonsar — Tue, 28 Oct 2003 23:41:03 -0800

with BBQ sauce...

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:36:26 -0800

I started drooling, fidgeting, and pawing distractedly at my crotch as soon as I saw that thread, which in my books means it's a good 'un!

But I'm not even going to attempt to figure it out.

By: taz

taz — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 03:57:05 -0800

funny; I was drooling, fidgeting, and pawing distractedly at stavros' crotch even before I saw that thread.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:04:15 -0800

*thunderous applause*

Thank you folks, we'll be here all week!

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 04:05:02 -0800

Tip your waitperson.

By: cortex

cortex — Wed, 29 Oct 2003 05:23:30 -0800

Garcon means boy.