Self-links in comments.

June 17, 2001 8:05 PM

has bonzo gone too far? three of four posts have been self-links, and now this comment....
posted by rebeccablood to Etiquette/Policy at 8:05 PM (22 comments total)

Well, I don't think we should count the Kaycee FAQ against him--he was doing a community service there, using his own space. And he usually at least points out that rootnode is his own site, though he didn't this time.

As always--it would be nice if he had an email in his profile, so we didn't have to discuss it this way.
posted by rodii at 8:53 PM on June 17, 2001

Especially crazy untrue comments! Rootnode is the closest thing I'll get to a "real underground music mag online"?

Apparently a review of the REM album and a write up of a Kenny Wayne Shepherd concert are the "real underground" of online music magazines.

Also in comments he posted under subjects like the new Belle and Sebastian single or Wall of Sound shutting down he links to rootnode.

Amazingly on his very first comment to mefi he mentions that rootnode has "the right approach" and "they" also have a guitar section.
posted by jbeaumont at 8:58 PM on June 17, 2001

There has never been a guideline against linking to your own work in comment. However, it's pretty pathetic to post endorsements of your own sites as if you weren't the publisher.
posted by rcade at 6:07 AM on June 18, 2001

Has the time come when we should ask Matt to enforce giving an email in one's profile? It seems to be less and less common for new users to give one, which cuts off the possibility of emailing someone with a comment about their posts (or even a simple question that's offtopic to the MeFi discussion).
posted by snarkout at 8:16 AM on June 18, 2001

I've suggested that in the past, but Matt had some arguments against it. I still think it's a good idea.
posted by rodii at 10:00 AM on June 18, 2001

rcade: There has never been a guideline against linking to your own work in comment.

true. but when a significant percentage of your posts end up being links to your own site, are you abusing the intent of the rule? (I haven't examined his comments to see what percentage of them link to his site; but he certainly seems to have been flying under the radar with his front page posts.)

I usually don't care about this kind of thing, but it seems like this guy is using metafilter primarily as a way to drive traffic to his site, and that bothers me a little. ironically, I wouldn't have noticed this if it weren't for matt's post a few days ago about self-linking.

maybe the best way to handle it is what happened this time; someone point out in the next post that he's self-linking and pretending not to.

I thought I'd get some community input and bring it to matt's attention. as always, it's his call. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 10:02 AM on June 18, 2001

Is bonzo even aware that this is a problem? he certainly didn't show up in this thread.
posted by Avogadro at 10:03 AM on June 18, 2001

I have no idea. in any case, it's up to matt to tell him that he's violating the rules, isn't it? if, in fact, he decides that this is a problem. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 10:10 AM on June 18, 2001

I flagged this thread in the MeFi thread. Who knows if he'll read it? You can always contact him at rootnode.org.
posted by rodii at 11:59 AM on June 18, 2001

I'm not sure that Matt needs to enforce giving a real email address; I just think it should be put to new users (strongly) that it's considered polite to have an email address available and make them put something in. Appropos of UncleFes' concern that people would mailbomb him, point them to free email providers if they want to set up a MeFi only account . If that means we get a lot of [e-mail]-type addresses, so be it -- it'll be a sign of whether user X is willing to make that minimal effort.
posted by snarkout at 7:07 PM on June 18, 2001

well, you don't have to be afraid of anyone mailbombing you if you intend to play nice. I don't buy that argument a bit.

if you're doing something worthy of being mailbombed, I don't want you around in the first place. - rcb (lawful snippy)
posted by rebeccablood at 7:37 PM on June 18, 2001

you don't have to be afraid of anyone mailbombing you if you intend to play nice.

Hmph. I know a-holes that mailbomb random people because they think it's funny. And I don't know any of you people other than to talk to on here. Any one of you could be a frigging maniac for all I know - you think I'm going to slap up my home account emailer? And hell, I could be a maniac as well, as far as you all know. And who knows, "playing nice" might equal "agree with what I think," and I have a feeling that ain't going to happen between you and I :)

BUT, I took snarkout's advice and got myself a free emailer to put in my profile, simply because he asked. You got a personal beef with me, you think I don't play "nice," go ahead and use it. I'd be happy to address any concerns you might have.
posted by UncleFes at 9:12 PM on June 18, 2001

well, unclefes, I've been astounded at the turnaround since you joined us in metatalk. you've turned into a thoughtful and interesting member, and I'm always interested in what you have to say.

(and surely you've been here long enough to know that playing nice has nothing to do with agreeing - it has to do with being thoughtful and respectful.)

my point was that you would have to make yourself pretty obnoxious in order to be mailbombed by metafilter (and even then you wouldn't be.) so I don't think that requiring an email address is any kind of stretch or risk.

fwiw, I've slapped up *my* home accont emailer, and never had a problem. maybe it's just a matter of time, but I'm not really worried about it. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 10:21 PM on June 18, 2001

Yes, I abused the system. I'm sorry that I violated the community standards. But what really amazes me is why more people don't do this. Metafilter has little protection from abuse except for deleting posts after the fact, right? How does Metafilter keep it's incredible signal to noise ratio? I never would have found Metafilter except for the fact that an article on my site was linked without my knowledge. I noticed about 1000 referrer lines from metafilter and took a look. At first, I was only mildly interested. But I soon got hooked on the site. Being more familiar with "communities" such as slashdot where shameless self promotion and trolling are the norm, I really didn't feel bad about self linking once or twice. Maybe it ended up being more like 5 or 6 times, but I just wasn't familiar with the rules of blogger society. No, I won't continue with such shameless self-promotion anywhere near this site, but don't think that I was doing it out of anger or some evil scheme.

Back to my quesiton though, how does Metafilter maintain it's incredible signal-to-noise ratio? I really amazes me that basically anyone can post a link that shows up instantly but I've never seen people really abuse it.
posted by bonzo at 10:46 PM on June 18, 2001

how does Metafilter maintain it's incredible signal-to-noise ratio?
Three factors: technology (you can't post links until you've contributed somewhat), human filtering (mathowie), and good old fashioned mob justice.
posted by darukaru at 10:56 PM on June 18, 2001

I guess I'd better don my tar and feather resistent shoes. But what about people who don't respond to mass flames? I go to a college where every student is required to have a computer and the majority are much more familiar with computers than the average student at a liberal arts school. I know more than a few people who just treat the internet as a place to unwind. In other words, it's not real life and it doesn't matter what identity you assume or what you post (with some limit). Sure, it's an immature view, but not neccessarily incorrect. There is no law against acting like an idiot on the web. So would metafilter do if it had an influx of users who were just out to troll? Has this already happened? (I saw the link about the Freedom guy, but I don't know what the deal is with that). That is what killed slashdot's community.
posted by bonzo at 11:12 PM on June 18, 2001

>what about people who don't respond to mass flames?<'

I don't think that's happened. most people are quite willing to follow the posted guidelines in the first place. the rest value the community enough to respond positively when they're called on their blatant disregard.

presumably, if they egregiously disregarded community standards they'd get kicked off. why all the questions about this? what's so hard to understand? I think the guidelines are pretty self-explanatory. - rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 10:37 AM on June 19, 2001

Calm down. I am no longer misunderstanding any guidelines. I was just suggesting that if metafilter continues to become more and more popular, it would eventually face the same growing pains that places like slashdot have faced.
posted by bonzo at 11:12 AM on June 19, 2001

the rest value the community enough to respond positively when they're called on their blatant disregard.

I think that's exactly what happened here, right? He's just saying he's surprised at how well it works. I am too.
posted by rodii at 4:54 PM on June 19, 2001

As pissed as I have been at Bonzo for abusing the system, he may have redeemed himself here. He's got a very valid point, and he may have taught us a valuable lesson. ("This week, on a very special Metafilter")
posted by jpoulos at 8:18 PM on June 19, 2001

And hell, I could be a maniac as well, as far as you all know.

Fes: could be a maniac? :-)
posted by jpoulos at 8:22 PM on June 19, 2001

("This week, on a very special Metafilter")

I call shark-jump!

Fes: could be a maniac? :-)

Not according to the plea agreement :)
posted by UncleFes at 7:57 AM on June 20, 2001