Single-link op ed?

November 2, 2003 9:46 AM

Why is this on the front page? For those too lazy to click, "this" is a post that consists of a link to the latest Thomas Friedman column, and a statement that's basically "I agree with what Tom said." One link. No questions.

I went and reread "what makes a good post" and, I noticed, there's nothing about this scenario. If you want to post something with next to no content, that's Newsfilter, and that doesn't seem to be asking any questions to the community, and that only has one link--go ahead. I think there should be some kind of guideline, since this happens at least 2 times a day (or at least, that's my made up statistic and I'm sticking to it). I mean, this seems way more content-less than the fried chicken thread from yesterday.
posted by jbrjake to etiquette/policy at 9:46 AM (31 comments total)

No, it's not a good post. After re-reading the posting guidelines for my contribution to yesterday's MeTa thread, I noted that Matt asks us to post the "best and most interesting of the web," and I suggested that "as with any medium, the web does certain things better than others. If MeFi is not to become the universal discussion board on any topic (can we at least agree that this limitation is desirable?), it seems clear that it needs to concentrate more on what the web makes possible, and does well, that other media do not."

That having been said... if what we are looking for is interesting discussion of everything under the sun, as least the Friedman piece invites more reaction than: "Yes! I, too, enjoy fried chicken!"
/snark
posted by stonerose at 10:04 AM on November 2, 2003

jake: Not every FPP is going to be your favorite cake. It's a buffet; eat what you like and skip the rest.
posted by mischief at 10:10 AM on November 2, 2003

stonerose, the only reason I said the chicken thread had more content is because there were first-person anecdotes involved. People saying things like "I saw a huge line at one yesterday" or whatever, which adds a tiny bit of info and some 'color' as TheNote would put it.

on preview: mischief, well, yeah, not every FPP is going to be my favorite cake, but if MeFi posts are cake, than I haven't had anything to eat since yesterday and I'm hungry and I want something tastier than a Friedman column;P I judiciously pick and choose the MeFi threads I read, but this one seems really weak. I've never posted to the front page before, because when I do, I want to be certain it won't be a post like this one. It won't only have one link to an editorial. Editorials are fluff. If you link to an editorial, it should only be as a starting-out point, followed by further research and detail.
posted by jbrjake at 10:25 AM on November 2, 2003

If posters feel like they don't have to present a convincing, credible argument, why must I waste my time debating the topic?
posted by y2karl at 10:27 AM on November 2, 2003

if MeFi posts are cake, than I haven't had anything to eat since yesterday and I'm hungry and I want something tastier than a Friedman column... I've never posted to the front page before, because when I do, I want to be certain it won't be a post like this one.

Poor baby. You can't find something of quality standard that suits you but the rest of us better step up and do it or else... or else you'll stick out your tongue and shake your finger! This MeTa post of yours surely doesn't meet my quality standards and so I want you to go sit in the corner for an hour and think about your shortcomings.
posted by billsaysthis at 10:32 AM on November 2, 2003

Oh, thank god. Another thread for stonerose to pontificate in.
posted by crunchland at 10:59 AM on November 2, 2003

"Yes! I, too, enjoy fried chicken!"

does y2karl's post meet your standards then stonerose?
posted by poopy at 11:07 AM on November 2, 2003

does y2karl's post meet your standards then stonerose?

No, but that doesn't mean I didn't enjoy it. I'm not trying to impose my own standards here - I'm trying to point to things Matt has said, since he's the host. I've enjoyed (and posted) lots of things in the past that probably weren't MeFi-worthy according to that standard.

Oh, thank god. Another thread for stonerose to pontificate in.

I'm a fan of your MeFi posts, crunchland - sorry to hear you don't attach value to my MeTa blatherings.
posted by stonerose at 11:17 AM on November 2, 2003

I want something tastier than a Friedman column

You could learn to cook for yourself. heheh
posted by mischief at 12:07 PM on November 2, 2003

i swear, the discussions about whether or not FPPs are warranted take away more from MeFi/MeTa more than the actual posts themselves.
posted by Hackworth at 12:11 PM on November 2, 2003

Now this is a terrible FPP - links to front page of a major new outlet with nothing to back it up. Could it please be deleted?
posted by Item at 12:25 PM on November 2, 2003

er, *news
posted by Item at 12:26 PM on November 2, 2003

apologies for the crankiness, stonerose. It's not your message I object to... it's the repetitive nature of it.
posted by crunchland at 1:35 PM on November 2, 2003

No problem, crunchland.
No problem, crunchland.
:-)
posted by stonerose at 1:42 PM on November 2, 2003

I thought that it was generally accepted that links to editorials were bad form.
posted by adampsyche at 1:55 PM on November 2, 2003

Define 'generally accepted'.
posted by mischief at 1:58 PM on November 2, 2003

but Friedman is dreamy! c'mon! ; >
posted by amberglow at 2:07 PM on November 2, 2003

I think it should stay. As a Brit/European I find the discussion hilarious reading.
posted by i_cola at 2:22 PM on November 2, 2003

jbrjake: I agree with you entirely.
posted by trharlan at 3:29 PM on November 2, 2003

One link. No questions.
I looked and looked in the guidelines, but could not find where it says that either multiple links or questions were required. Maybe I am not looking hard enough?
posted by dg at 3:48 PM on November 2, 2003

trharlan and jbrdrake, sittin' in a tree...
posted by quonsar at 3:56 PM on November 2, 2003

could not find where it says that either multiple links or questions were required

This is Miguel's fault.
posted by gleuschk at 5:42 PM on November 2, 2003

this is like that wintertime you're sinking to the bottom of an unmetafiltered pool and your lungs burning with a concrete birdbath tied to your ankle and all you want is some goddamned AIR why god why my eyeballs swollen and so cold . . .
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 6:38 PM on November 2, 2003

aw, sirmiss
posted by amberglow at 6:50 PM on November 2, 2003

it's okay, i'm alright
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 7:09 PM on November 2, 2003

ok : >
posted by amberglow at 7:47 PM on November 2, 2003

nOt another fucking meta thread, I thought us poms are supposed to be the whingers.
posted by johnnyboy at 3:49 AM on November 3, 2003

I can't find the thread (heaven forbid!), but I seem to recall within the last year a MeTa thread in which editorials being posted was frowned upon.
posted by adampsyche at 8:57 AM on November 3, 2003

Is it time to call a moratorium on posts linking to typical op-ed pieces? Special ones, outlandish ones, or provacative ones are fine, but one columnist's opinion (often of the "I think he/she/it/foo is bad!" type) doesn't offer much for discussion, they rarely have much in the way of supporting evidence or links, and their appeal is wearing thin.
posted by mathowie to etiquette/policy August 22, 2002 at 2:41 PM PST
posted by timeistight at 10:35 AM on November 3, 2003

So, by Matt's own words, the Friedman article is appropriate for posting in the blue. Thanks, time.
posted by mischief at 3:36 PM on November 3, 2003

You could look at it that way.
posted by adampsyche at 6:39 PM on November 3, 2003