Does MetaFilter need to be a nurturing environment?

June 28, 2001 10:24 AM

"Of course not, dayvin, but thanks for ruining the excitement of posting my first link."

Link content aside, does this happen too often? Does MetaFilter need to be a nurturing environment? Could we maybe have "rookie" stripes that let the jaded know to cut the newbies some slack?
posted by machaus to Etiquette/Policy at 10:24 AM (15 comments total)

Just thinking that it might be nice to flag someone's first post in order to create a constructive environment. Yes, I know that you could look at the user profile, but that's an extra step that not all of us do when reading a thread.
posted by machaus at 10:26 AM on June 28, 2001

... but that's an extra step that not all of us do when reading a thread.

True. But given the comment that sparked MarkO's reply, I wonder if the time-honored (and -abused) tradition of "think before you post" would have helped.
posted by hijinx at 10:39 AM on June 28, 2001

Sorry to be hard on MarkO, but it wasn't an inspiring link. He waited a week to tell us about the Fool boards? C'mon. MarkO's not alone in this, but it's in the running for lame link o' the week. And if you're going to post something that half of us know exists and aren't interested in, you'd better have a good reason, and it was just "they're neat and helpful". Well, link to something specific and cool within them, then.

It's a public environment. You step into the street, well, you gotta expect that getting run down is a possibility.
posted by dhartung at 11:25 AM on June 28, 2001

If you're going to post something that half of us know exists and aren't interested in, you'd better have a good reason, [if its just] "they're neat and helpful" ... well, link to something specific and cool within them, then. is constructive criticism.

Is the Motely Fool so desperate for visitors that they paid you to post here?, however, is not.

I think that's the point.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 11:39 AM on June 28, 2001

Well, let's compare that to another very lame thread, the one about Giuliani's son going to high school in NJ

Nobody actually called NJGuy to task for it, but we all made it pretty clear that this was a worthless thread with the various irrelevant posts. Personally, I thought that got the message across, but is it really any newbie-friendlier? I don't know.

I don't think a "wading pool" for newbies is a good idea, but I do think there are better and worse ways to tell someone they could have done better.
posted by briank at 11:48 AM on June 28, 2001

Karma would settle this age old MeFi discussion.
posted by dangerman at 12:38 PM on June 28, 2001

Well yeah, but where is this Karma? Must be a newbie, I've never seen him/her.
posted by starvingartist at 1:18 PM on June 28, 2001

Well yeah, but where is this Karma? Must be a newbie, I've never seen him/her.

Not a newbie, as such. But you can see why you've never seen him/her.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:26 PM on June 28, 2001

Well okay, let's look that lame thread, briank. The first five or so posts are basically jokes at NJguy's expense, pointing out how irrelevant the thread is. But then NJguy himself explains why he thought the story was interesting, and what happens next? And actual discussion breaks out. But after a few thoughtful posts, some other people come along (yourself included, briank) and post more jokes, thereby aborting the discussion that was just getting off the ground.

Here's a story that was soundly criticized for being a double-post. And it was, and, sure, that's bad. But that fact didn't stop people from having a good conversation about the topic at hand.

My point: if you find a post that is, in your opinion, lame or irrelevant or redundant then just ignore it for Pete sakes -- if everyone else agrees it'll scroll off the front page in short order and you'll never have to see it again. I dunno about the rest of you, but I sort the home page by "Recent Comments", so every time someone posts to a thread saying "This thread is dumb and should have never been started", they have just put said thread to the top of my queue. On the other hand, if lots of people post to a thread that you feel is lame, and the posts are interesting and substantial and a good discussion gets going -- well, who cares what you think? Conversation is the point of Metafilter, no?

posted by Shadowkeeper at 1:41 PM on June 28, 2001

i actually dislike the idea of karma. i realize we have an implicit system of rank here (size of user #, etc.), but i'm afraid that if mefi had an explicit ranking system such as karma that people might want to post simply to raise their it. which imo is a bad idea to post to a topic.
posted by moz at 2:28 PM on June 28, 2001

Conversation is the point of Metafilter, no?

Well, not exactly... which is why it's a real shame, Shadowkeeper, that you (or anyone) would surf MeFi strictly by "Recent Comments". Some of the best threads here (in my opinion) have been links to sites that defied description, or discussion (I don't feel like doing a bunch of cutting an pasting of examples, sorry).

Sometimes a link is payment enough. No discussion needed.

That said... your other points seem valid.

(PS... Ew! Our spell checker has pop-back ads -- in addition to the banner ad already there!)
posted by silusGROK at 2:30 PM on June 28, 2001

Point taken, shadowkeeper, although I'll reserve my right to disagree with you that a "good discussion" got started in that particular thread.




posted by briank at 5:29 PM on June 28, 2001

But after a few thoughtful posts, some other people come along (yourself included, briank) and post more jokes, thereby aborting the discussion that was just getting off the ground.

I disagree. I think that, in general, a thread lives or dies on its own accord. Sometimes, threads are hijacked by hot-topic (but off-topic) conversations, but usually if a thread is worth discussing, the discussion survives.

I don't like a formal "karma" system, either, but I do think we could all be a little more conscious when an unfamiliar name posts a link. If a thread is really bad, let it be know, but let's not frighten people away.

[breaks into Whitney Houston]

"I believe that newbies are our future...treat them well and let them lead the way..."

Geez, gang, I'm sorry.
posted by jpoulos at 8:19 PM on June 28, 2001

i don't know if the 'karma' discussed here is done so with the correct definition in mind.

moz calls it a ranking system, which sounds more like the caste system of hinduism, denoting possible confusion.

karma isn't enforced by mortals; what goes around comes around.

alright, enough hippie shite.
posted by elle at 2:15 PM on July 3, 2001

Karma can only be apportioned by the cosmos.

Still...maybe just a teeny-tiny little system would help. Even just a 1 - 2 - 3 ranking, with a "3" being for Lord-God-King Posters that can handle it, and a "1" being for newbies who may not be able to handle criticism too well, or post inappropriately. "3" would have the most liberal posting rights , and "1" would mean, oh, say 2 posts per week.
posted by davidmsc at 11:37 AM on July 19, 2001