Comments on: More Inside

More Inside

yoga — Fri, 21 May 2004 04:57:35 -0800

[more inside] [mi], and all the variations thereof: is this not superfluous? If further initial content is needed from the poster (in order to avoid a long FPP), isn't simply adding the first comment sufficient? Looks like about 75% of posts in the green have that final embellishment.

There was a post in MeTa about dropping the [mi] habit I think within the last year, but over 2,000 results showed up when I searched. Stav possibly posted it?

By: Zonker

Zonker — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:12:22 -0800

What harm does it do?

By: quonsar

quonsar — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:13:29 -0800

don't search on it.

By: absquatulate

absquatulate — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:24:51 -0800

FWIW, being a lurker as I am, seeing [mi] prevents confusion when I start reading the thread. Often I don't look at poster's names, I just read the opinions and *then* look at names. [mi] prevents that 15 seconds of confusion when I'm trying to figure out why this first poster is adding on to the initial post, rather than discussing it.

So long as the initial post has some substance to it I don't mind the [mi]. YMMV.

By: the cuban

the cuban — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:26:30 -0800

Glass houses?

By: Mayor Curley

Mayor Curley — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:37:41 -0800

Retentives who want procedures about how to do everything here have become the most annoying users. Why do you want to make using Metafilter a fucking tea ceremony?

Here's my suggestion for etiquette: If you are thinking about suggesting a procedure that doesn't matter, get a dog or something and don't post your idea. You can make up all the rules that you want for it.

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 21 May 2004 05:57:32 -0800

Here.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 21 May 2004 06:08:18 -0800

yoga: yeah, it's superfluous, but who am I to tell others how to write their posts? ;-P

By: sleslie

sleslie — Fri, 21 May 2004 06:18:54 -0800

counterpoint

By: pardonyou?

pardonyou? — Fri, 21 May 2004 06:27:02 -0800

If you know this issue was already posted to MeTa, doesn't that make your post superfluous?

By: sleslie

sleslie — Fri, 21 May 2004 06:42:10 -0800

about COUNTERPOINT...

don't click if you have 'delicate sensibilities'.

That is all.

By: yoga

yoga — Fri, 21 May 2004 06:44:41 -0800

Gee Wally, tough crowd, as usual. Did I say I'd never used it? Let's move on to the next dissection, shall we? At least I know what to do with $14. BTW, thanks, Stav.

By: languagehat

languagehat — Fri, 21 May 2004 07:38:25 -0800

Tough crowd? Well, yeah, when you're basically saying "I'm making what I know is a double post about something that basically doesn't matter and isn't going to change anyway and that I do myself." Why are there so many pointless MeTa posts these days? A subliminal feeling that "Gee, I'd like to improve this fucked-up world, maybe bring peace to the Middle East, but I can't, so I'll ask for some mutant spavined pony on MetaTalk"?

By: johnnyboy

johnnyboy — Fri, 21 May 2004 07:41:27 -0800

Yeah fuck you yoga for daring to suggest something, damn yeah.

By: fvw

fvw — Fri, 21 May 2004 07:46:39 -0800

I'd like to use this post as a forum to once again whine about people not asking a question on the frontpage. As an extreme example I'd like to mention the post a few days back which only said "I want to learn", which is nearly as bad as "I have a question [more inside]".

Yes, you shouldn't use three pages of frontpage to ask your question, however there's nothing wrong with using a full paragraph to actually ask your question, instead of merely putting a placeholder on the frontpage forcing everyone to open every post if they want to read the questions.

By: milovoo

milovoo — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:07:46 -0800

Why do you want to make using Metafilter a fucking tea ceremony?

Through Metafilter, recognition is given that every human encounter is a singular occasion which can, and will, never recur again exactly. Thus every aspect of Metafilter must be savored for what it gives the participants.

By: callmejay

callmejay — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:09:07 -0800

Also, superfluous [mi]s waste bandwith.

By: gleuschk

gleuschk — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:19:56 -0800

spavined. Good one.

By: jbrjake

jbrjake — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:44:27 -0800

I figured it was a warning. If you don't draft your question in a text editor, it'll take a minute or two to write that first comment with the details. If there's no [more inside] warning, someone would jump the gun and start posting answers, or, more likely, start bitching that the Asker didn't give enough specifics.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Fri, 21 May 2004 08:45:39 -0800

Also, superfluous [mi]s waste bandwith.

Which, in this paradigm, negatively impacts the server.

By: cedar

cedar — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:03:51 -0800

"If you don't draft your question in a text editor, it'll take a minute or two to write that first comment with the details."

What I do is draft the entire question in the posting field, then copy the [more inside] to the clipboard and immediately paste it into the first comment.

It really isn't very hard.

As far as the use of [more inside] goes, I like it. I prefer the green compact and if the first part is properly crafted I can quickly determine whether it is something that interests me. I would go as far as to say I'd like to see it used more often.

By: Capn

Capn — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:36:38 -0800

I humbly suggest that every post to AxeMe have [mi] appended to it when the "Post" button is clicked but that a new button: "Post, and there is no more inside, this is the entirety of my question" be added that will suffix [There is no more inside, this is my whole question] to the post.

I mean, it's not rocket science people!

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:36:59 -0800

Thought "more inside" stopped a snarky remark before the poster was able to make their final statement. Because of my work, read "MI" as Michigan.

By: Capn

Capn — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:37:41 -0800

Yeah, that's right, I verbed "suffix", you wanna fight about it?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:39:52 -0800

My god. Some of you pedants must be hell on your kids, spouses, co-workers, PTA, and the paperboy. You should consider doing an IPO: I'd invest in you, because sure as hell you're producing unlimited diamonds what with being such tightasses.

Here's an idea: if someone's behaviour isn't going to lead to the wholesale destruction of MeFi/AskMe, don't bother posting to MeTa about it.

It'd be so nice if MeTa could go a week without MetaWhinging about sweet-fuck-all.

By: stupidsexyFlanders

stupidsexyFlanders — Fri, 21 May 2004 09:59:39 -0800

Whingeing! Whining! What's the difference? [more inside]

By: The God Complex

The God Complex — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:23:53 -0800

You're all a bunch of gits.

By: trondant

trondant — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:29:28 -0800

fff, you forgot the important part: someone has to get close enough to them to stick a lump of coal up there in the first place. No coal, no diamond.

By: rocketman

rocketman — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:33:29 -0800

I got yer lump of coal right here.

By: thomcatspike

thomcatspike — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:34:14 -0800

Yeah, that's right, I verbed "suffix", you wanna fight about it?
Sure, as long as you don't "suffixate" me.

By: Ethereal Bligh

Ethereal Bligh — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:34:59 -0800

So, you guys are probably not interested in a game of Nomic, are you?

By: yoga

yoga — Fri, 21 May 2004 10:48:46 -0800

Ok, so I should've emailed Stav instead of posting to MeTa. Of course, it's possible he wouldn't know the answer (if he wasn't the original poster, as I now know for sure) and would say why didn't I ask MeTa. Yes, I've used 'more inside' a couple of times. It wasn't until it showed up on almost every post that it seemed more like noise. Ah, Metafilter. There's always more inside. The electron microscope is free to use now.

By: drezdn

drezdn — Fri, 21 May 2004 11:45:40 -0800

I like [more inside], just as long as [more below]

By: drezdn

drezdn — Fri, 21 May 2004 11:46:51 -0800

that doesn't catch on.

More inside is great for making the page stream-lined, saves a tiny wee-bit on bandwidth (assuming the main post is well written), and just looks cool.

By: fvw

fvw — Fri, 21 May 2004 15:19:51 -0800

five fresh fish: If you don't like a MeTa post nobody's forcing you to read it.

I've wanted to do that on the grey for such a long time

By: mathowie

mathowie — Fri, 21 May 2004 16:10:58 -0800

I *am* going to code in a way to add more inside programatically, so at least they will be standardized.

By: yerfatma

yerfatma — Fri, 21 May 2004 16:24:54 -0800

I'm looking forward to the first MeTa callout for a double [MI]. I'm looking forward to the first MeTa callout for a double [MI].

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 21 May 2004 16:51:14 -0800

#1 reason for keeping [more inside]:

What's a good way to get shards of glass out of my underwear? (Yes, there is more inside)
- Katemonkey

;-P

By: elphTeq

elphTeq — Fri, 21 May 2004 17:26:35 -0800

I like all the [MI] variants and their little touches of creative brilliance, please don't standardise them!

By: stavrosthewonderchicken

stavrosthewonderchicken — Fri, 21 May 2004 17:35:07 -0800

No, they're wanky, sophomoric attention-getters, and serve no purpose other than to show everyone else that the poster is less clever than they think they are.

Just to put a counterpoint out there. You know.

By: quonsar

quonsar — Sat, 22 May 2004 02:52:49 -0800

Which, in this paradigm, negatively impacts the server.

paradigm?

oh hell yeah, the maddeningly resource-wasting 13 extra bytes per post per page request is making the server keel over. your superflous 55 byte comment (plus the quoted text, username, and timestamp) musta been what killed it dead last night, huh?

and how about that copyright notice and those redundant menus? under this paradigm, those simply have to go.

hey, lets forget about the hordes of high-traffic, one-server db-driven sites out there that don't keel over predictably once or twice every 24 hours, why address the implementation gaffes of the past when we can just blame [more inside]?

there was a time when i had to struggle to pull even with the technical commenters here. i guess that paradigm has shifted, eh?

[the preceding was gratuitous snarkfest just in case yerfatma's comment was not intended to be facetious. apologies if this negatively impacts the server]

By: i_cola

i_cola — Sat, 22 May 2004 12:38:57 -0800

I *am* going to code in a way to add more inside...

Yeah, yeah, yeah. 'I am going to code this', 'I am going to London then' yadda, yadda. Things is we don't beleive you any more Matt. Personally I think this whole 'Having your own life' thing is going a bit far & no good will come of it.

By: mr_crash_davis

mr_crash_davis — Sat, 22 May 2004 16:25:04 -0800

Exactly. Who the fuck let mathowie out of the cage, anyway?

By: five fresh fish

five fresh fish — Sat, 22 May 2004 18:04:11 -0800

We hates him we do, don't we our precious?

By: signal

signal — Mon, 24 May 2004 15:47:16 -0800

You know what's a real bandwidth killer punctuation that's what just imagine the bandwidth we could save if we got rid of all the punctuation plus it's superfluous I mean who has trouble parsing a paragraph without punctuation right I'm sure mathowie will get around to stripping all puntuation from posts eventually but in the meantime we should start by doing it the old fashioned way
youknowwhatelsebugsmespaceshowmuchfrigginbandwidthdotheyflushdownthedrainit'stimeweputastoptoit