Can we open signups? April 27, 2004 12:40 PM Subscribe
People on mefi are criticizing him and he can't respond here because he doesn't have an account.
While open season is closed, would an open-door policy for postees work?
[more inside]
While open season is closed, would an open-door policy for postees work?
[more inside]
It's a nice but impractical idea given the number of links posted each day. The person being linked to in the thread you quote is certainly answering the criticisms being made of him, even if it is "cross-site banter." And MeFi'ers are certainly capable of going over to his LJ site and using the comment feature, which is probably what those who wish to debate should do anyway. Seems to me it's working just fine, as-is.
posted by tommasz at 12:52 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by tommasz at 12:52 PM on April 27, 2004
Dear Mr Haughey,
I hear some users of your Web Site are criticizing me, and I can't respond because I don't have an account. I'd like to have an account, pronto.
Don't make me call these guys.
Sincerely Yours,
George W. Bush
________________
no, seriously, what tommasz said.
posted by matteo at 12:57 PM on April 27, 2004
I hear some users of your Web Site are criticizing me, and I can't respond because I don't have an account. I'd like to have an account, pronto.
Don't make me call these guys.
Sincerely Yours,
George W. Bush
________________
no, seriously, what tommasz said.
posted by matteo at 12:57 PM on April 27, 2004
we will need a back channel and the full support of the metafilter resolution council.
perhaps a non-member response page or a link, on the site somewhere, to a mefi who could post a response for said person.
posted by clavdivs at 12:59 PM on April 27, 2004
perhaps a non-member response page or a link, on the site somewhere, to a mefi who could post a response for said person.
posted by clavdivs at 12:59 PM on April 27, 2004
Um, so does that mean we have to give GWB an account. Really, how many people get criticized on a daily basis here? 5? 10? Bobst Boy has his LJ (which was linked to) and will (presumably) have his book. He can title a chapter 'The liars at metafilter and how matthowie is a jerk for not letting me respond.' That should be a real cliffhanger.
posted by jmgorman at 1:01 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by jmgorman at 1:01 PM on April 27, 2004
I've readily given accounts to a few people that were discussed in threads. I'm fine with the policy that if you're being discussed here, you can have an account, I just don't know how to communicate that to folks.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:05 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:05 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm reminded of Laurie "Execute a Dream" Garrett.
posted by eddydamascene at 1:09 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by eddydamascene at 1:09 PM on April 27, 2004
Seems like a policy ripe for abuse to me...seems like an account that expired when the thread in question was closed (or even better, one that only gave one posting privileges in said thread) would be a more equitable solution. It would, of course, require more management.
posted by rushmc at 1:19 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by rushmc at 1:19 PM on April 27, 2004
Ripe for abuse? I don't think this kind of issue comes up very often.
posted by PrinceValium at 1:29 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by PrinceValium at 1:29 PM on April 27, 2004
Why is it any more ripe for abuse than any other new membership? And why wouldn't the usual abuse management channels work if abuse did happen? You're sounding a little scroogey there, rush. If we can talk about someone, I think we can probably manage to talk to them.
Not every instance of this policy involves the postee getting roasted and needing a way to fire back. I once posted someone's QT movie of a big wheel race, and Matt gave the filmmaker an account so he could thank everyone for their compliments and respond to questions.
I think that's the more typical past scenario where a postee has gotten an account.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 PM on April 27, 2004
Not every instance of this policy involves the postee getting roasted and needing a way to fire back. I once posted someone's QT movie of a big wheel race, and Matt gave the filmmaker an account so he could thank everyone for their compliments and respond to questions.
I think that's the more typical past scenario where a postee has gotten an account.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 PM on April 27, 2004
When sign-ups were still open, I became a member because I was a postee. I made one comment on the thread that pertained to me, and have been a fairly well-behaved MeFi member ever since. Just because you're coming over to correct something someone said about you doesn't mean you're guaranteed to be a useless member.
(I think? I hope??)
posted by headspace at 1:44 PM on April 27, 2004
(I think? I hope??)
posted by headspace at 1:44 PM on April 27, 2004
Whatever happened to trackback, anyway? That seems like what it would be fore.
posted by Space Coyote at 1:48 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by Space Coyote at 1:48 PM on April 27, 2004
Why is it any more ripe for abuse than any other new membership? And why wouldn't the usual abuse management channels work if abuse did happen?
Someone wants a membership at metafilter and can't get one. This someone knows someone that currently has an account at metafilter and asks them to link to something they've created in order to get a membership. It seems like a lot of work to get a membership, but I believe this is what rush is getting at.
My suggestion is these people pay the $5 like anyone else who gets in after memberships close. I mean, really, what's the point of having someone join just so they can argue about their site? They can send e-mails to someone participating in the threat and have it posted that way, or they can respond on their own website. If you allow people to join solely for the purpose of defending themselves, you're probably going to end up with a number of members who know nothing about metafilter and care very little for its purpose (depending on whether they ever read metafilter before they had the site hits sent their way).
posted by The God Complex at 1:54 PM on April 27, 2004
Someone wants a membership at metafilter and can't get one. This someone knows someone that currently has an account at metafilter and asks them to link to something they've created in order to get a membership. It seems like a lot of work to get a membership, but I believe this is what rush is getting at.
My suggestion is these people pay the $5 like anyone else who gets in after memberships close. I mean, really, what's the point of having someone join just so they can argue about their site? They can send e-mails to someone participating in the threat and have it posted that way, or they can respond on their own website. If you allow people to join solely for the purpose of defending themselves, you're probably going to end up with a number of members who know nothing about metafilter and care very little for its purpose (depending on whether they ever read metafilter before they had the site hits sent their way).
posted by The God Complex at 1:54 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm reminded of Laurie "Execute a Dream" Garrett.
Except that holding a MetaFilter membership would have contradicted her entire argument. Besides, we weren't around in 1979, which is when she was writing from.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 1:59 PM on April 27, 2004
Except that holding a MetaFilter membership would have contradicted her entire argument. Besides, we weren't around in 1979, which is when she was writing from.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 1:59 PM on April 27, 2004
errr, "thread".
Whatever happened to trackback, anyway? That seems like what it would be fore.
It was abused by Rod Stewart.
posted by The God Complex at 1:59 PM on April 27, 2004
Whatever happened to trackback, anyway? That seems like what it would be fore.
It was abused by Rod Stewart.
posted by The God Complex at 1:59 PM on April 27, 2004
What isn't, nowadays?
posted by DrJohnEvans at 2:00 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by DrJohnEvans at 2:00 PM on April 27, 2004
My suggestion is these people pay the $5 like anyone else who gets in after memberships close.
There's no "pay five bucks for a membership" option, and hasn't been for about a year. It was a short term thing that I decided not to do long term. Whenever someone mentions it I get a string of donations expecting accounts and I have to deny them all. So please refrain from repeating this in future threads.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:13 PM on April 27, 2004
There's no "pay five bucks for a membership" option, and hasn't been for about a year. It was a short term thing that I decided not to do long term. Whenever someone mentions it I get a string of donations expecting accounts and I have to deny them all. So please refrain from repeating this in future threads.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:13 PM on April 27, 2004
Oh man...if that's the new policy, i can't wait to make a FPP of my grandma's website so she can be a member, too! So cool! Who likes kittens? And knitting?
posted by naxosaxur at 2:19 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by naxosaxur at 2:19 PM on April 27, 2004
I've readily given accounts to a few people that were discussed in threads. I'm fine with the policy that if you're being discussed here, you can have an account, I just don't know how to communicate that to folks.
I remembered you doing this in the past, and posted a comment on his journal (which seems to have disappeared from the face of the web) suggesting he email you and ask for one. So, hopefully, he, at least, is aware of the possibility.
As for the more general case, why not a note on the 'user sign ups are closed' page that directs people who are being discussed to email you? Or does that generate loads of 'I'm not being discussed, but I think you should let me join anyway' crap?
posted by jacquilynne at 2:20 PM on April 27, 2004
I remembered you doing this in the past, and posted a comment on his journal (which seems to have disappeared from the face of the web) suggesting he email you and ask for one. So, hopefully, he, at least, is aware of the possibility.
As for the more general case, why not a note on the 'user sign ups are closed' page that directs people who are being discussed to email you? Or does that generate loads of 'I'm not being discussed, but I think you should let me join anyway' crap?
posted by jacquilynne at 2:20 PM on April 27, 2004
They can send e-mails to someone participating in the threa(d) and have it posted that way
IIRC, people who aren't logged in can't see e-mail addresses in profiles.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:30 PM on April 27, 2004
IIRC, people who aren't logged in can't see e-mail addresses in profiles.
posted by Ufez Jones at 2:30 PM on April 27, 2004
Ok. The rest of what I said about people joining to argue (possibly quite emotionally) about their website/project still stands. Given that what's in question is a website, it's not like these people don't have a place to voice their opinion when they read something disagreeable (on top of firing off an e-mail, polite or otherwise). I didn't see anyone clamouring to give that "million e-mails for christ" guy an account before he was sussed out as a self-promoter who already had an account, since he was already responding to everything through e-mail and by changing his website.
Then again, I don't really care that much if these people get accounts, since I can't see it making a huge difference in the site. I just think the possibility for abuse may exist and the need for these people to respond in the thread itself isn't that great.
posted by The God Complex at 2:35 PM on April 27, 2004
Then again, I don't really care that much if these people get accounts, since I can't see it making a huge difference in the site. I just think the possibility for abuse may exist and the need for these people to respond in the thread itself isn't that great.
posted by The God Complex at 2:35 PM on April 27, 2004
IIRC, people who aren't logged in can't see e-mail addresses in profiles.
Right. I always forget about that. I give up: let 'em in!
posted by The God Complex at 2:38 PM on April 27, 2004
Right. I always forget about that. I give up: let 'em in!
posted by The God Complex at 2:38 PM on April 27, 2004
I just don't know how to communicate that to folks.
Why not slip something onto the 'about' page? I'd like to think that if people haven't been aware of this place before they might go there for an explaination anyway.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2004
Why not slip something onto the 'about' page? I'd like to think that if people haven't been aware of this place before they might go there for an explaination anyway.
posted by feelinglistless at 2:53 PM on April 27, 2004
If someone X is being discussed at site Y, seems common to contact the site admin or owner; generally speaking doing this wouldn't be difficult for someone who has the minimum knowledge of setting up a webpage. If it's infrequent enough, deciding to ignore the email or set up an account should be smaller than the effort of a new pony. Matt's posted an email from a temp banned before, so I think things are fine as they are.
On preview: The About Page (even when logged out) provides a way to contact the owner.
posted by Feisty at 2:56 PM on April 27, 2004
On preview: The About Page (even when logged out) provides a way to contact the owner.
posted by Feisty at 2:56 PM on April 27, 2004
The rest of what I said about people joining to argue (possibly quite emotionally) about their website/project still stands
Yes it does, and that's why I don't write in big bold letters all over "you can have an account if your site is being mentioned here" since I know that will open it up for abuse.
I will take these on a case-by-case basis, as I have in the past. Generally they're from people that want to have an honest rebuttal and don't seem interested in self-promotion. The jesus spammer guy from a few weeks ago really wanted an account "to defend himself from attacks" but it turned out that he already had one secretly. I didn't feel right giving him an account since I had a feeling it was only for promotional purposes.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:05 PM on April 27, 2004
Yes it does, and that's why I don't write in big bold letters all over "you can have an account if your site is being mentioned here" since I know that will open it up for abuse.
I will take these on a case-by-case basis, as I have in the past. Generally they're from people that want to have an honest rebuttal and don't seem interested in self-promotion. The jesus spammer guy from a few weeks ago really wanted an account "to defend himself from attacks" but it turned out that he already had one secretly. I didn't feel right giving him an account since I had a feeling it was only for promotional purposes.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:05 PM on April 27, 2004
There's no "pay five bucks for a membership" option
then who sent me the request for $ 24.95?
I'm still waiting for my MetaFilterPro package (40 MB @mefi.com e-mail account, administrator rights on subscriber's birthday, naked photos of ColdChef)!!!!!
memo to lurkers:
all of the above is a joke.
you're free to send me donations tho.
posted by matteo at 3:23 PM on April 27, 2004
then who sent me the request for $ 24.95?
I'm still waiting for my MetaFilterPro package (40 MB @mefi.com e-mail account, administrator rights on subscriber's birthday, naked photos of ColdChef)!!!!!
memo to lurkers:
all of the above is a joke.
you're free to send me donations tho.
posted by matteo at 3:23 PM on April 27, 2004
all of the above is a joke.
You mean these aren't pictures of ColdChef?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:28 PM on April 27, 2004
You mean these aren't pictures of ColdChef?
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 3:28 PM on April 27, 2004
Ok. The rest of what I said about people joining to argue (possibly quite emotionally) about their website/project still stands.
I dunno. It sounds circular to me. We shouldn't grant accounts to people who've been posted about, because they might seek to be posted about in order to respond to the post. And that response will be bad.
What makes you think there's an imminent danger of people scheming (with the help of an existing member, too) to sign up just so they can be raked over the coals and then fight back?
I think anyone who wants a link to their stuff, who knows someone here willing to do it, has probably done it. People do that kind of thing to get traffic, not MeFi accounts.
posted by scarabic at 3:36 PM on April 27, 2004
I dunno. It sounds circular to me. We shouldn't grant accounts to people who've been posted about, because they might seek to be posted about in order to respond to the post. And that response will be bad.
What makes you think there's an imminent danger of people scheming (with the help of an existing member, too) to sign up just so they can be raked over the coals and then fight back?
I think anyone who wants a link to their stuff, who knows someone here willing to do it, has probably done it. People do that kind of thing to get traffic, not MeFi accounts.
posted by scarabic at 3:36 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm reminded of Laurie "Execute a Dream" Garrett.
Except that holding a MetaFilter membership would have contradicted her entire argument.
I was just reminiscing. But you're right.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:37 PM on April 27, 2004
Except that holding a MetaFilter membership would have contradicted her entire argument.
I was just reminiscing. But you're right.
posted by eddydamascene at 3:37 PM on April 27, 2004
headspace: Thanks for sending me to that Kaycee thread, which always gives me a good laugh: "Can everybody please stop doubting her existence? I've talked to her on the phone!!" [Not an Actual Quote: meant solely to give an idea of the sort of comment that gives me a good laugh.] And I really like this comment by jpoulos. "I'm always amazed--not just here, but everywhere--how many people feel the truth is what you believe it to be, or that it doesn't matter if it turns out to be a hoax." Amen, brother.
I don't think the membership-for-talkees idea is a good one, but since it's going to be implemented sometime between the implementation of GPS coordinates and the time hell freezes over, I'm not going to bother thinking up arguments.
posted by languagehat at 4:07 PM on April 27, 2004
I don't think the membership-for-talkees idea is a good one, but since it's going to be implemented sometime between the implementation of GPS coordinates and the time hell freezes over, I'm not going to bother thinking up arguments.
posted by languagehat at 4:07 PM on April 27, 2004
I do it on case-by-case basis already and will continue to do so languagehat, using all the wits of my better judgement.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:24 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:24 PM on April 27, 2004
The guy made the cover of the NYT. He has bigger fish to fry.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:32 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:32 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm fine with the policy that if you're being discussed here, you can have an account, I just don't know how to communicate that to folks.
I thought as much and said so when I wrote Jerry Lembcke in regards to the discussion over spittled soldiers in swerdloff's The Truth Is Out There thread, but he was content with replying via an email for me to post. It's nice to know my supposition was correct, however.
posted by y2karl at 4:34 PM on April 27, 2004
I thought as much and said so when I wrote Jerry Lembcke in regards to the discussion over spittled soldiers in swerdloff's The Truth Is Out There thread, but he was content with replying via an email for me to post. It's nice to know my supposition was correct, however.
posted by y2karl at 4:34 PM on April 27, 2004
/derail
I'm always amazed--not just here, but everywhere--how many people feel the truth is what you believe it to be
That's a few thousand years of religion in a nutshell.
posted by matteo at 4:36 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm always amazed--not just here, but everywhere--how many people feel the truth is what you believe it to be
That's a few thousand years of religion in a nutshell.
posted by matteo at 4:36 PM on April 27, 2004
mathowie: Didn't mean to imply you shouldn't do it on that basis, just that I don't think it should be state policy. As it were. I'm a case-by-case kind of guy.
posted by languagehat at 4:50 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by languagehat at 4:50 PM on April 27, 2004
mathowie> I'm fine with the policy that if you're being discussed here, you can have an account, I just don't know how to communicate that to folks.
That could backfire...
mathowie> I do it on case-by-case basis already and will continue to do so languagehat, using all the wits of my better judgement.
... unless you do that.
posted by snarfodox at 4:54 PM on April 27, 2004
That could backfire...
mathowie> I do it on case-by-case basis already and will continue to do so languagehat, using all the wits of my better judgement.
... unless you do that.
posted by snarfodox at 4:54 PM on April 27, 2004
Yes it does, and that's why I don't write in big bold letters all over "you can have an account if your site is being mentioned here" since I know that will open it up for abuse.
I will take these on a case-by-case basis, as I have in the past.
Ok, that seems like the best idea. I was just voicing some opposition to the idea that this should be instituted as "the norm" for anyone with a site linked by metafilter.
posted by The God Complex at 4:58 PM on April 27, 2004
I will take these on a case-by-case basis, as I have in the past.
Ok, that seems like the best idea. I was just voicing some opposition to the idea that this should be instituted as "the norm" for anyone with a site linked by metafilter.
posted by The God Complex at 4:58 PM on April 27, 2004
The jesus spammer guy from a few weeks ago really wanted an account "to defend himself from attacks" but it turned out that he already had one secretly.
By the way, his privacy policy has changed again.
posted by eddydamascene at 5:05 PM on April 27, 2004
By the way, his privacy policy has changed again.
posted by eddydamascene at 5:05 PM on April 27, 2004
Didn't mean to imply you shouldn't do it on that basis, just that I don't think it should be state policy.
Well, for that matter, every admin matter around here is handled on a case-by-case basis, and there is no fast policy on anything. Fear not, we're still entirely in the hands of the smartest, nicest man in the world. Until he starts complaining about the admin load, I don't think we need to start debating what policy should be. Theres no need to standardize what will never be taken out of human hands and committed to process.
posted by scarabic at 6:55 PM on April 27, 2004
Well, for that matter, every admin matter around here is handled on a case-by-case basis, and there is no fast policy on anything. Fear not, we're still entirely in the hands of the smartest, nicest man in the world. Until he starts complaining about the admin load, I don't think we need to start debating what policy should be. Theres no need to standardize what will never be taken out of human hands and committed to process.
posted by scarabic at 6:55 PM on April 27, 2004
By the way, his privacy policy has changed again.
Yes ... it is destined to become almost a classic too ... I particularly love the line "Realistically, would someone invite the wrath of God to sell an inkjet cartridge?" ...
It made me pause for a moment to wonder exactly what this fellow's conception of "God" actually is ... I mean, "realistically", what kind of "God" would actually experience "wrath" over the sales of injet cartridges in the first place?
I mean, really. Our planet is full of gods that are portrayed as being rather petty and vindictive ... but a god that would actually visit wrath on the head of the follower for selling inkjet cartridges has got to be some sort of extreme.
That fellow appears to be dancing a wee bit close to the edge of the cliff of insanity ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:18 PM on April 27, 2004
Yes ... it is destined to become almost a classic too ... I particularly love the line "Realistically, would someone invite the wrath of God to sell an inkjet cartridge?" ...
It made me pause for a moment to wonder exactly what this fellow's conception of "God" actually is ... I mean, "realistically", what kind of "God" would actually experience "wrath" over the sales of injet cartridges in the first place?
I mean, really. Our planet is full of gods that are portrayed as being rather petty and vindictive ... but a god that would actually visit wrath on the head of the follower for selling inkjet cartridges has got to be some sort of extreme.
That fellow appears to be dancing a wee bit close to the edge of the cliff of insanity ...
posted by MidasMulligan at 7:18 PM on April 27, 2004
eddydamascene: I did get a laugh out of the "execute a dream" memory, too (thanks for reminding me!). I just thought it was an ironic reference given this thread's context.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:04 PM on April 27, 2004
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:04 PM on April 27, 2004
I'm a case-by-case kind of guy.
Well, answer this: are you and davehat related?
posted by y2karl at 9:09 PM on April 27, 2004
Well, answer this: are you and davehat related?
posted by y2karl at 9:09 PM on April 27, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Matt seems a reasonable enough guy and I'm sure he'd consider special-case requests, but the New User page offers little clues about either.
Offering linked-to users accounts certainly could turn into a can of worms labeled "flamebait", but I think in both of these cases it would have been nicer to discourse as a community with the author than having some sort of cross-site banter going on.
Though it does not need to be said: thoughts?
posted by Ogre Lawless at 12:45 PM on April 27, 2004