Linkless post proves irksome. July 9, 2001 6:42 AM Subscribe
This is getting tiresome. What baffles me is why people even respond in a thread without a link. If I wanted that type of discussion, I'd go to Salon.
I'm pretty much sick of it myself and, while I don't want to play MeFi cop, I think something needs to be done. This is exactly the kind of trend that could really change the character of MeFi in a negative way. Personally, I think these kinds of posts should be immediately deleted, like double-posts.
posted by jpoulos at 7:03 AM on July 9, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 7:03 AM on July 9, 2001
I shouldn't really talk, since I commented in the thread, but I agree.
I believe the easiest way is for Matt to just set a param that makes a link (and not http://www.metafilter.com ) mandatory when posting.
posted by chaz at 7:05 AM on July 9, 2001
I believe the easiest way is for Matt to just set a param that makes a link (and not http://www.metafilter.com ) mandatory when posting.
posted by chaz at 7:05 AM on July 9, 2001
chiming in to agree. there are many many places to swap stories. if you really feel like you need to make a "poll the audience" post, why not dig up a link, some link, any link, to humor us?
posted by jessamyn at 7:52 AM on July 9, 2001
posted by jessamyn at 7:52 AM on July 9, 2001
We are each opinionated folks... so if someone posts a thread, we're going to comment. Withholding a comment as some form of protest won't go very far in a community where so many choose not to comment for a variety of reasons, and where such un-comments are altogether un-noticed.
The problem, frankly, is not that some of us chose to comment on a thread of dubious quality, it's that such a thread was posted in the first place... late last week by an old-timer, and this time by someone of a more recent arrival.
I imagine that the only reason it's remained on the front page is that Matt is out of town. Of course, this is just one of many very good reasons for Matt to consider sharing the policing with a couple of trusted compatriots... (but I digress).
And I disagree with Chaz on the madatory link parameter... plenty of links are posted -- with good effect -- sans initial link (e.g. a link in the body of the post content). And such clever use of the medium shouldn't be outlawed just to prevent the occassional niussance post.
posted by silusGROK at 7:53 AM on July 9, 2001
The problem, frankly, is not that some of us chose to comment on a thread of dubious quality, it's that such a thread was posted in the first place... late last week by an old-timer, and this time by someone of a more recent arrival.
I imagine that the only reason it's remained on the front page is that Matt is out of town. Of course, this is just one of many very good reasons for Matt to consider sharing the policing with a couple of trusted compatriots... (but I digress).
And I disagree with Chaz on the madatory link parameter... plenty of links are posted -- with good effect -- sans initial link (e.g. a link in the body of the post content). And such clever use of the medium shouldn't be outlawed just to prevent the occassional niussance post.
posted by silusGROK at 7:53 AM on July 9, 2001
should linkless posts that generate interesting discussion be banned? i'm not going to make a judgement call, but i think it's worth a more than casual glance.
it seems to me that the point of metafilter is for us, the users, to share ideas. linking to websites is an excellent way to do that, but is it the only way? should we make a blanket statement that any post without a link has no merit? i guess in the end it's matt's call.
with that in mind, perhaps bytecode could have linked to some of the previous discussions he referred to in his post. i think that would have been acceptable for everyone.
posted by will at 7:56 AM on July 9, 2001
it seems to me that the point of metafilter is for us, the users, to share ideas. linking to websites is an excellent way to do that, but is it the only way? should we make a blanket statement that any post without a link has no merit? i guess in the end it's matt's call.
with that in mind, perhaps bytecode could have linked to some of the previous discussions he referred to in his post. i think that would have been acceptable for everyone.
posted by will at 7:56 AM on July 9, 2001
should we make a blanket statement that any post without a link has no merit?
It's not that such a discussion would be without merit; it's that Matt has specifically requested that any thread posted to the front page contain a link. It's the only hard and fast rule I can think of -- even self-linking is acceptable in certain situations.
with that in mind, perhaps bytecode could have linked to some of the previous discussions he referred to in his post. i think that would have been acceptable for everyone.
No. No. No. No. No. If you cannot do Matt the courtesy of granting his request to link to something other than MetaFilter, do not start a thread. Or take it to MetaTalk. I find it impossible to believe that ten minutes poking through Google wouldn't have found something that could have been used as a springboard for the exact same discussion.
posted by snarkout at 8:05 AM on July 9, 2001
It's not that such a discussion would be without merit; it's that Matt has specifically requested that any thread posted to the front page contain a link. It's the only hard and fast rule I can think of -- even self-linking is acceptable in certain situations.
with that in mind, perhaps bytecode could have linked to some of the previous discussions he referred to in his post. i think that would have been acceptable for everyone.
No. No. No. No. No. If you cannot do Matt the courtesy of granting his request to link to something other than MetaFilter, do not start a thread. Or take it to MetaTalk. I find it impossible to believe that ten minutes poking through Google wouldn't have found something that could have been used as a springboard for the exact same discussion.
posted by snarkout at 8:05 AM on July 9, 2001
Ok, I'm guilty of posting on the thread. I really wanted to point something out about a previous comment and it seemed the only spot in which to do so. I do think the general sentiment expressed here is right though booting a user off is a little too harsh.
Furthermore, I think that the majority of those who use MeFi don't use or appreciate Metatalk. It does seem, to the uninitiated, a little like a hang out for "older" users to complain about "newer" ones. Just look on this here thread (up to this point I guess, though I can't claim to be that new anymore). There are now nearly 10 000 users but merely a handful post here causing a few to post here
I do like the idea of "lets take this to metafilter" being replaced with "I'm going to infer the pancake rule" though.
posted by davehat at 8:05 AM on July 9, 2001
Furthermore, I think that the majority of those who use MeFi don't use or appreciate Metatalk. It does seem, to the uninitiated, a little like a hang out for "older" users to complain about "newer" ones. Just look on this here thread (up to this point I guess, though I can't claim to be that new anymore). There are now nearly 10 000 users but merely a handful post here causing a few to post here
I do like the idea of "lets take this to metafilter" being replaced with "I'm going to infer the pancake rule" though.
posted by davehat at 8:05 AM on July 9, 2001
Of course, I should say, I appreciate a rule is a rule....
posted by davehat at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
posted by davehat at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
Links are what turn personal opinion into collective opinion, or opinion backed up by evidence. And posts with purely personal opinion belong on people's home pages.
posted by holgate at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
posted by holgate at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
will: linking to websites is an excellent way to [share ideas], but is it the only way?
Here, at MeFi, yes. If bytecode had linked to something on the web, as the guidelines say, I think we would have been fine. So should we then through the baby ("valuable" discussion) with the bathwater?
Vis10n: Withholding a comment as some form of protest won't go very far in a community where so many choose not to comment for a variety of reasons...
Ah, but it goes about itself very subversively. When some of the more prolific writers here aren't responding to threads, I think everyone's suffering. You might not see anything wrong with it, but I do.
posted by hijinx at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
Here, at MeFi, yes. If bytecode had linked to something on the web, as the guidelines say, I think we would have been fine. So should we then through the baby ("valuable" discussion) with the bathwater?
Vis10n: Withholding a comment as some form of protest won't go very far in a community where so many choose not to comment for a variety of reasons...
Ah, but it goes about itself very subversively. When some of the more prolific writers here aren't responding to threads, I think everyone's suffering. You might not see anything wrong with it, but I do.
posted by hijinx at 8:07 AM on July 9, 2001
I believe the easiest way is for Matt to just set a param that makes a link (and not http://www.metafilter.com ) mandatory when posting.
Here, hear. There's a reason this is called MetaFilter.
posted by jennak at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2001
Here, hear. There's a reason this is called MetaFilter.
posted by jennak at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2001
poor matt, he leaves us for five minutes and look what we get ourselves into. he ought to get a paycheck for this.
hijinx, thanks for the clarification.
contrary to what one may be led to believe from my bad habit of smart-ass comments, i don't try to be a troublemaker here.
posted by will at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2001
hijinx, thanks for the clarification.
contrary to what one may be led to believe from my bad habit of smart-ass comments, i don't try to be a troublemaker here.
posted by will at 8:18 AM on July 9, 2001
Yes, unfortunately, shunning a thread doesn't work unless everyone does it. I know what the likelihood is of that happening.
Without the link requirement, MeFi becomes just another discussion board. The constraint of needing a link stimulates creativity. The subjects posted here are a great deal more diverse and interesting than those on standard boards. That's why I come back.
posted by frykitty at 8:23 AM on July 9, 2001
Without the link requirement, MeFi becomes just another discussion board. The constraint of needing a link stimulates creativity. The subjects posted here are a great deal more diverse and interesting than those on standard boards. That's why I come back.
posted by frykitty at 8:23 AM on July 9, 2001
I hereby claim this MetaTalk thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my heirs.
I expected the aforementioned thread to be deleted, and continue to support that, since the ensuing discussion is ground we've been over and over again, and contributes nothing to the historical whole that is MetaFilter. There are 83 other threads in the archives on this subject, more or less.
Only six hours until 4:20. ;-)
posted by bradlands at 8:27 AM on July 9, 2001
I expected the aforementioned thread to be deleted, and continue to support that, since the ensuing discussion is ground we've been over and over again, and contributes nothing to the historical whole that is MetaFilter. There are 83 other threads in the archives on this subject, more or less.
Only six hours until 4:20. ;-)
posted by bradlands at 8:27 AM on July 9, 2001
Crap. This is what I get when I go to sleep early after a long day of air travel.
And today, for sure I'll program the small check to make linkless entries impossible. I don't see the point in groundless conversation either.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:42 AM on July 9, 2001
And today, for sure I'll program the small check to make linkless entries impossible. I don't see the point in groundless conversation either.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:42 AM on July 9, 2001
I have a pet peeve with people who say "I know this is wrong, but I'm doing it anyway." People say this as if the fact that they've considered the rule and then gone ahead and broken it anyway excuses the transgression.
To me, knowing that you're doing something wrong only makes it worse. It's kind of like the difference between manslaughter and murder one.
It further bugs me that these people use their admission as an attempt to forestall criticism. If someone complains that the poster has broken the rule, the poster points out that he's already acknowledged that, so you should really just stop criticizing and get back to commenting on his bogus post.
Requiring a link is good, but it's easy to get around by posting a link that isn't really meant for discussion. Ignoring works if everyone does it. Otherwise, the pancake approach is effective. I wouldn't do the pancake thing myself, but I find it amusing when someone who's posted a linkless post ends up bemoaning the fact that no one's following his topic.
posted by anapestic at 8:51 AM on July 9, 2001
To me, knowing that you're doing something wrong only makes it worse. It's kind of like the difference between manslaughter and murder one.
It further bugs me that these people use their admission as an attempt to forestall criticism. If someone complains that the poster has broken the rule, the poster points out that he's already acknowledged that, so you should really just stop criticizing and get back to commenting on his bogus post.
Requiring a link is good, but it's easy to get around by posting a link that isn't really meant for discussion. Ignoring works if everyone does it. Otherwise, the pancake approach is effective. I wouldn't do the pancake thing myself, but I find it amusing when someone who's posted a linkless post ends up bemoaning the fact that no one's following his topic.
posted by anapestic at 8:51 AM on July 9, 2001
I wrote a few long pieces on this thread, but I don't mind if it goes.
Just in case anybody thought, you know, "Gee, we should kill this thread, but let's ask JBushnell first."
posted by jbushnell at 9:03 AM on July 9, 2001
Has anyone else noticed MeFi is developing a secret language? Zippity Bop!™, Ice Cream Day, Pancakes...
...we need a glossary.
posted by frykitty at 9:05 AM on July 9, 2001
...we need a glossary.
posted by frykitty at 9:05 AM on July 9, 2001
Secret language goooood.
Shouldn't that be in Metatalk, frykitty?
posted by daveadams at 9:14 AM on July 9, 2001
Shouldn't that be in Metatalk, frykitty?
posted by daveadams at 9:14 AM on July 9, 2001
I'm working on a show/hide functionality right now, and things like this will be hidden from the index page view, but accessible from a URL, or from the archives.
That way it can continue for all prosperity, but people don't have to see it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:22 AM on July 9, 2001
That way it can continue for all prosperity, but people don't have to see it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:22 AM on July 9, 2001
I had a pithy comment, but then I got way baked.
Zippity . . . what now?
posted by Skot at 9:37 AM on July 9, 2001
Zippity . . . what now?
posted by Skot at 9:37 AM on July 9, 2001
Here ya go.
While I'm glancingly familiar with many of the terms, the pancake rule is the one I know best. Everyone else feel free to jump in with defs.
posted by frykitty at 9:50 AM on July 9, 2001
While I'm glancingly familiar with many of the terms, the pancake rule is the one I know best. Everyone else feel free to jump in with defs.
posted by frykitty at 9:50 AM on July 9, 2001
I hereby claim this MetaTalk thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my heirs.
Shouldn't we that line be for the exclusive use by the breeders?
That way it can continue for all prosperity, but people don't have to see it.
And posterity, even. Damn, where's my stylesheet for Pedantry...?
posted by anildash at 9:54 AM on July 9, 2001
Shouldn't we that line be for the exclusive use by the breeders?
That way it can continue for all prosperity, but people don't have to see it.
And posterity, even. Damn, where's my stylesheet for Pedantry...?
posted by anildash at 9:54 AM on July 9, 2001
Not to mention "do you smoke pot?" is hardly a worthy MeFi topic for general discussion. If I didn't know better, I would think someone was playing on the "do you like pancakes?" riff. The fact that they're not makes me shake my head.
posted by jpoulos at 10:22 AM on July 9, 2001
posted by jpoulos at 10:22 AM on July 9, 2001
I hereby claim this MetaTalk thread and all its riches for the honor and glory of myself and my heirs.
Shouldn't we that line be for the exclusive use by the breeders?
"Heirs" is not equivalent to "descendants."
But I like to see you talk about the breeders as if you're not one of them, Anil. Come over to the dark side. We have a secret decoder ring with your name on it.
posted by anapestic at 10:42 AM on July 9, 2001
Shouldn't we that line be for the exclusive use by the breeders?
"Heirs" is not equivalent to "descendants."
But I like to see you talk about the breeders as if you're not one of them, Anil. Come over to the dark side. We have a secret decoder ring with your name on it.
posted by anapestic at 10:42 AM on July 9, 2001
Yay, I'm the last person to post without a link on Metafilter. Woo! I knew that posting what I did would stir up some trouble and possibly get my account deleted, but it did generate a good discussion. I've gotten no less then 12 e-mail telling me to f*** off and not post things like that to the front page. I'm sorry to create more work for you Mat, because I respect you and what you do highly, but I was just dying to ask that question to metafilter users. I would have posted it to metatalk, but honestly it wouldn't have generated that responses that a main page post did. I also could have included a crappy link, but I wanted to spare you that and just outright ask my question. I would have posted this sooner, but I just woke up.
-Rock on
posted by bytecode at 11:16 AM on July 9, 2001
-Rock on
posted by bytecode at 11:16 AM on July 9, 2001
For:
I'm sorry to create more work for you Mat, because I respect you and what you do highly, but I was just dying to ask that question to metafilter users. I would have posted it to metatalk, but honestly it wouldn't have generated that responses that a main page post did. I also could have included a crappy link, but I wanted to spare you that and just outright ask my question.
please substitute:
I'm sorry to create more work for you, Matt, but I'm not willing to put in the effort to create a good post that follows the easiest of the handful of rules that keep MetaFilter's front page from descending into a gigantic mess that nobody wants to read. My disregard for your request is okay, though, because I was really, really interested in people's answers.
BTW, I'm stealing someone else's words in that last paragraph, but I agree completely with the sentiment.
posted by anapestic at 11:43 AM on July 9, 2001
I'm sorry to create more work for you Mat, because I respect you and what you do highly, but I was just dying to ask that question to metafilter users. I would have posted it to metatalk, but honestly it wouldn't have generated that responses that a main page post did. I also could have included a crappy link, but I wanted to spare you that and just outright ask my question.
please substitute:
I'm sorry to create more work for you, Matt, but I'm not willing to put in the effort to create a good post that follows the easiest of the handful of rules that keep MetaFilter's front page from descending into a gigantic mess that nobody wants to read. My disregard for your request is okay, though, because I was really, really interested in people's answers.
BTW, I'm stealing someone else's words in that last paragraph, but I agree completely with the sentiment.
posted by anapestic at 11:43 AM on July 9, 2001
Some people seem to be really quite upset here. Maybe it would be useful to take a moment, step back from this, and ask:
If the poster had spent 30s on Google looking for a vaguely relevant link and included it, would that have made so much difference?
Is that really the critical distinction between MetaFilter and other boards?
What kind of emotional response is appropriate if someone omits a link?
Also, a concrete suggestion: make a list of crimes and the punishment they will be met with (losing account, thread being deleted, etc).
posted by andrew cooke at 2:33 PM on July 9, 2001
If the poster had spent 30s on Google looking for a vaguely relevant link and included it, would that have made so much difference?
Is that really the critical distinction between MetaFilter and other boards?
What kind of emotional response is appropriate if someone omits a link?
Also, a concrete suggestion: make a list of crimes and the punishment they will be met with (losing account, thread being deleted, etc).
posted by andrew cooke at 2:33 PM on July 9, 2001
andrew: matt has few rules. I think it's respectful for everyone to follow them. for me, it's that simple.
posted by rebeccablood at 2:38 PM on July 9, 2001
posted by rebeccablood at 2:38 PM on July 9, 2001
I think a linkless post should be automatically deleted; as Andrew noted, it takes about 30 seconds to find a vaguely relevant link.
On the other hand, I think a lot of the joy of MeFi comes from the interplay between the links and the comments; I'd like to see less current-events type posts and more pointers to interesting things on the web.
If Bytecode was really interested in polling people about their attitudes toward marijuana, why didn't he spend some time finding a few links? Here's one. It's not particularly good, and I wouldn't expect to be lauded for it, but it took me less than 45 seconds to find. A link designed to spark general discussion about a serious should probably have more thought put into it than that. If you want to use MeFi, follow Matt's rules. If you want to use MeFi as your personal bulletin board, at least bring something to the table that's worth discussing.
posted by snarkout at 2:44 PM on July 9, 2001
On the other hand, I think a lot of the joy of MeFi comes from the interplay between the links and the comments; I'd like to see less current-events type posts and more pointers to interesting things on the web.
If Bytecode was really interested in polling people about their attitudes toward marijuana, why didn't he spend some time finding a few links? Here's one. It's not particularly good, and I wouldn't expect to be lauded for it, but it took me less than 45 seconds to find. A link designed to spark general discussion about a serious should probably have more thought put into it than that. If you want to use MeFi, follow Matt's rules. If you want to use MeFi as your personal bulletin board, at least bring something to the table that's worth discussing.
posted by snarkout at 2:44 PM on July 9, 2001
I guess my point boils down to this: If Bytecode wanted to "spare [us a crappy link] and just outright ask my question" -- which is a dandy sentiment -- the best solution is not to ignore the stated rule but to find a link that's not crappy. I don't think this is rocket science.
posted by snarkout at 2:52 PM on July 9, 2001
posted by snarkout at 2:52 PM on July 9, 2001
Is that really the critical distinction between MetaFilter and other boards?
Completely. There are hundreds of discussion boards where people can post general questions. There's only one community weblog. What's the benefit of turning this place into another UBB?
posted by rcade at 4:35 PM on July 9, 2001
Completely. There are hundreds of discussion boards where people can post general questions. There's only one community weblog. What's the benefit of turning this place into another UBB?
posted by rcade at 4:35 PM on July 9, 2001
Hmmm. Just, thinking, as a coder - and this probably belongs in feature requests, but it seems on topic - could linkless posts be automatically posted to metatalk? I mean, metatalk is a proper place for link deficient posts. Maybe a whole new category of "Lancelot Linkless" or something in metatalk? So far, it appears that linkless posts are bad only because they a) break a rule and b) make people think of pancakes.
posted by dchase at 8:20 PM on July 9, 2001
posted by dchase at 8:20 PM on July 9, 2001
What we need is Ask Metafilter, specifically my implementation of the idea. I think it'd be a great resource, but with questions only posted every week or so and a moderator (Matt or someone he trusts or several people he trusts on a rotating basis) selecting the appropriate stuff.
posted by daveadams at 8:34 PM on July 9, 2001
posted by daveadams at 8:34 PM on July 9, 2001
So far, it appears that linkless posts are bad only because they a) break a rule and b) make people think of pancakes.
I think they make for lousy discussions. The rule serves a purpose.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 AM on July 10, 2001
I think they make for lousy discussions. The rule serves a purpose.
posted by jpoulos at 10:01 AM on July 10, 2001
I don't see how MeTa is a proper place for pancake posts at all. It's not MeFi's garbage can. It's mainly a place to discuss MeFi, with a few extra categories thrown in--mainly historical relics (I think). Diluting it with non-meta talk makes it less useful and doesn't address the underlying problem, which is, as jpoulos suggests, that linkless posts suck.
posted by rodii at 2:04 PM on July 10, 2001
posted by rodii at 2:04 PM on July 10, 2001
« Older Scholarship competition: followup needed | Can't change the number of days displayed on front... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I was ready to tear my hair out when I saw Yet Another Linkless MeFi Thread. While there's nothing wrong with wanting a discussion without a link, there is something wrong with doing it at MeFi.
It's very clearly stated in the guidelines and just about everywhere else. If people can't understand that, I say boot 'em. I'm harsh, I know.
posted by hijinx at 6:52 AM on July 9, 2001