Only a double if linked on MeFi

May 26, 2004 10:51 AM

Can we please agree not to insinuate that something's a double post if it's been on another community site?

Posting a link isn't some journalism competition, it's sharing something neat. The "foo-site scooped it first" thing is irrelevant. If I cared that I waited three whole days to see some flash game, I would read other sites like this.

Please, can we comment on the link provided and only provide other takes if the commentary somewhere else is particularly insightful?
posted by Mayor Curley to etiquette/policy at 10:51 AM (30 comments total)

Sincerely,
Old Man Grumpus
posted by Mayor Curley at 10:52 AM on May 26, 2004

I agree
posted by matteo at 11:10 AM on May 26, 2004

Um...his linking to another site brings more insight to the post. He even admitted that he didn't see it on MeFi. I fail to see the problem here.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:11 AM on May 26, 2004

Sorry, I posted before fully reading your post. Suffice it to say, I disagree, but my comment above is worthless. Please ignore.
posted by BlueTrain at 11:13 AM on May 26, 2004

Many of us will agree. Others will not, or will be silent, until the "agreement" is invoked some weeks hence, in exasperation at continued violations. At that point those who were not party to the "agreement" will object loudly to the premise that an agreement ever existed, even if they have not violated it. That's my prediction. But then, nobody axed me.

More on point, I think a post that's been around 'a lot' is fair game for some knuckle-rapping. When I have a definition for 'a lot' I'll get back to you. In this case, commenting that you've seen it before seems pointless but inoffensive. My ruling therefore is: No harm, no foul.
posted by luser at 11:18 AM on May 26, 2004

Already discussed here.
posted by bingo at 11:38 AM on May 26, 2004

I don't have a problem with:

"This was on foo.com a few days ago and there was some interesting discussion there that I will link becuase more links are more better."

People who post:

"So we're just recycling Slashdot/bOINGbOing/foo.com now?"

give off a strong aroma of eau-de-2-kool-4-skool.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 11:39 AM on May 26, 2004

looks more like linkwhoring to monkeyfilter than anything else.
posted by angry modem at 12:21 PM on May 26, 2004

looks more like getting way too nit-pick fixated than anything else.
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:30 PM on May 26, 2004

Excellent, bingo.
posted by soyjoy at 12:39 PM on May 26, 2004

Meanwhile, the actual doublepost about Phish remains. Sigh.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:39 PM on May 26, 2004

Overreaction, Mayor. I don't read that insinuation into what was said. Seanyboy said he was mistaken, basically admitting a brain fart, and then shared a link with some more material on the subject. MoFi routinely posts [via MeFi] links and no one there seems to have an issue with it. So chill.

If you're in the "I only read MeFi so shut up" camp, then fine. I've made my peace with you sticks-in-the-mud before and I no longer complain about how day-old MeFi has gotten (except on my own blog perhaps). But this is hardly an egregious slap in your face, and totally undeserving of a callout.

Decaf.
posted by scarabic at 12:56 PM on May 26, 2004

But this is hardly an egregious slap in your face, and totally undeserving of a callout.

Oh, I recognize that it's nothing major. I just thought that if it annoyed others as much as me that it was worth discussing as etiquette.

If something was a slap in the face, I certainly wouldn't start a Metatalk thread about it. I'd either give it back to the instigator in the thread or disappear for a few days. Everyone should do that, but that's a whole new discussion for another day.

To reiterate: I'm not livid or even terribly annoyed. Just annoyed enough to say "can we not do this?"
posted by Mayor Curley at 1:08 PM on May 26, 2004

"Can we not do this" is a fine question. But I don't think we agree on what was done. You may not be offended, but you seem a little sensitive, reading in some kind of disapproval to Seanyboy's comment that I just don't get from it. Do you still think the comment implied double-post? I mean, I agree with you that those comments are a bummer and not that helpful, I just don't think he made one.
posted by scarabic at 1:16 PM on May 26, 2004

That particular example seems fairly non-egregious. I agree with PinkStainlessTall in his assessment that 'saw this on X already' comments fit into those two categories. One is good, the other is annoying and should go away.
posted by jacquilynne at 1:30 PM on May 26, 2004

Seanyboy's comment was polite and informative. His history here is of honest and forthright expression. There was clearly no insinuation. He's one of my very favourite posters because he manages to be original and, at the same time, show uncommon common sense.

Besides - and this is far more important and I hope Mayor Curley is big enough to recognize it, FC Porto have just won the European Champions' League, thrashing tax exiles Monaco 3-0! Anything else is, for the moment, irrelevant! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:56 PM on May 26, 2004

Congrats Miguel, but will they be able to do it again next year when there manager is in England?
posted by biffa at 2:35 PM on May 26, 2004

Posting a link to a like-minded site where the same thing was discussed seems like a good thing to me, assuming it is done with a minimum of snark, which this was. Actually, posting a link to a differently-minded site where the same thing was discussed would be an even better idea, providing some counterpoint. Umm, except where it is a link to a certain site that sees a link as a declaration of war, of course.
posted by dg at 3:03 PM on May 26, 2004

Fellas...hey fellas...I heard monkeyfilter said your momma wears army boots!

Hell, it's got to be better picking fights with them than LGF...

Really, I don't think that little MoFi link could have been done in any better way. It's possible to read snark / "ha, they beat you to it" into it, but only if you try.
posted by Jimbob at 4:12 PM on May 26, 2004

Mayor Curley, you are taking your distain for all references to Monkeyfilter to the extreme now. (Note, too, that if you had listened to mojohand a month ago, there would have been no need for this.)
posted by onlyconnect at 4:21 PM on May 26, 2004

Wow. My first Metatalk callout.
I wasn't meant as a snark, and I don't really care who scooped the story first either. I did initially think it was a double post, and as soon as I realised the error I thought I'd post the link from MonkeyFilter.

This was for two reasons. Firstly, I thought people might be interested in what MonkeyFilter had to say about it, and secondly I wanted to link to MoFi itself. (Which rather fascinatingly, is developing a personality completely distinct to MeFi)

Not Nit-Picking.
Maybe Link-Whoring.
posted by seanyboy at 4:51 PM on May 26, 2004

I play in the big leagues, so I don't have time to follow Triple-A teams.

Gag. Has this callout officially backfired yet?
posted by scarabic at 5:13 PM on May 26, 2004

It wasn't a callout. It was an example of a practice that I don't care for. I didn't mean to call out seanyboy, but looking for other examples would have been time-consuming, and it honestly didn't seem like such a big deal when I posted it.

I've tried to be civil about it. I originally didn't see a reason not to. But that's not the way things seem to work so:

Mayor Curley, you are taking your disdain for all references to Monkeyfilter to the extreme now.

I honestly don't care about Monkeyfilter one way or the other. I've read exactly one thread there. Of course it was a thread about how awful I was. However it was, because of the chess club-style vitrol, worth a laugh and that's it. I certainly didn't think about it when I started this thread.

Gag. Has this callout officially backfired yet?

You're making a point for me. What possible reason could I have had to dislike Monkeyfilter when I posted that comment? I remarking on that practice, which I don't care for.

But if Monkeyfilter would like to try to spear me with more stuff cribbed from Sarcasm For Beginners I really enjoyed the unexpected attention.

seanyboy, I am truly sorry for making it look like I singled you out. Honestly, it wasn't my intention.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:12 PM on May 26, 2004

Is this Monkeyfilter something I'd need to not have a Metafilter login for?
posted by inpHilltr8r at 7:15 PM on May 26, 2004

Fair enough, Mayor. If examples of this practice are actually kinda hard for you to find, and it doesn't really bug you, then I guess we're done.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on May 26, 2004

Personally, MonkeyFilter's colour scheme gives me a headache. Just sayin'.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 8:42 AM on May 27, 2004

I think the "previously posted on [wherever]" might be appropriate if sites from the same source are consistently getting reposted without a "via [wherever]" tag of acknowledgement, as a sort of callout to the poster to find his own links or give proper accredation. And occasionally it can be interesting to know which community sites are getting the links faster than MeFi. But otherwise, yes, people just do it to show that they're cooler than the original poster.

Mayor Curley, I did see this post as a way of possibly getting some more MonkeyFilter bashing going after they mocked your "big league" post. You say I'm wrong, and I'll go with that, but I wish you'd stop randomly insulting them now, since (1) by definition all but a few of them can't respond here since signups are closed; and (2) it doesn't seem like something a real big league player would do.
posted by onlyconnect at 12:05 PM on May 27, 2004

If examples of this practice are actually kinda hard for you to find, and it doesn't really bug you, then I guess we're done.

Sum-zero game. ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:07 PM on May 27, 2004

Some of you are missing the point.

The guy admits he spent 10 minutes trying to "prove" it was a double post, only to find it on MoFi instead.

That is what Mayor Curley is really getting at (I think).

All this expended effort to "call out" someone on a double post, only to find it at another location. Then, still insinuating it is a sort of "double post" because someone else linked it.

Pinkstainlesstail has the right idea.

"More available at MoFi" = good

"I know this is a double post, somewhere" = bad

Not very hard to see the difference really.
posted by Ynoxas at 6:48 AM on May 29, 2004

I think the "previously posted on [wherever]" might be appropriate if sites from the same source are consistently getting reposted... But otherwise, yes, people just do it to show that they're cooler than the original poster.

I heard that.
posted by NortonDC at 9:58 PM on May 31, 2004