"Double post" callouts

June 24, 2004 9:07 PM

double post, double post...you missed something from 2001 I would hereby like to call a moretoreum on "double post" callouts in threads when the original link was more than, lets say, 18 months ago. Not everyone has been a member since the beginning, most people don't have the time to go back and read multiple years of archives, nor is it reasonable to expect that they would. The search is wonky, we all know that. [more inside]
posted by dejah420 to Etiquette/Policy at 9:07 PM (51 comments total)

Recently there have been a spate of "double post" callouts when the original post was back when dot coms still looked like a feasible business plan. And the vast majority of responses are readers saying that they hadn't seen the link before.

I agree that newsfilter double posts are inexusable...as is anything that ages that fast. But sites like this are interesting, and it has been 3 years since anyone mentioned it here. We've added a whole lotta people in 3 years.

So, double post callouts...political/newsfilter/current even threads...fair game. Double posts shouldn't happen with current events.

But double post callouts for interesting sites on the web, that many current readers probalby haven't seen, just seems to be a tad bullying and I'd like to ask that we stop doing it, please.
posted by dejah420 at 9:07 PM on June 24, 2004

Double post
posted by filmgoerjuan at 9:26 PM on June 24, 2004

have you seen this website?
posted by angry modem at 9:26 PM on June 24, 2004

What's wrong with it is that it's against the rules.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:56 PM PST on August 5

That made me laugh.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:30 PM on June 24, 2004

Well, there's call-out and there is linking to a MeFi thread with more discussion; the latter is useful for these really old links...
posted by costas at 9:30 PM on June 24, 2004

Just adding double post with a link is fine (after all, the older discussion might still be of interest). There might be nicer link texts, but there's no reason to take too much offence from the text "double post". There is no huge shame in making a double post, though as a rule I don't think doing it on purpose should be encouraged. And with google searching all the archives isn't more than should be expected for someone wanting to post on the front page.

On the flip side, stuff that's still interesting after 18 months is going to be good MeFi material, generally. So good on whoever double posts it anyway.
posted by fvw at 9:33 PM on June 24, 2004

So I can roam through the archives looking for old, good posts to make my own?

*taps fingers together maniacally*
posted by The God Complex at 9:59 PM on June 24, 2004

When people aren't even made aware that there was an earlier discussion they end up reinventing the wheel. Instead of adding something original, they just repeat the same thoughts expressed in response to the earlier post, sharing the same tangentially related links, making or refuting the same counter-points, and asking or answering the same obvious questions.

Also, I don't understand why--at least with google--it's any harder to search things that were posted longer ago....
posted by jbrjake at 10:06 PM on June 24, 2004

Metafilterfilter.

or MetaMetafilter, I guess.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:07 PM on June 24, 2004

This idea of calling for a moratorium on things is an interesting and novel approach to things. I bet it works.
posted by xmutex at 10:20 PM on June 24, 2004

they just repeat the same thoughts expressed in response to the earlier post, sharing the same tangentially related links, making or refuting the same counter-points, and asking or answering the same obvious questions.

Cost to the site as a whole of this happening: negligible.

Benefit to the people taking part in the discussion, and to people who hadn't seen the link before: quite high.
posted by Jimbob at 10:22 PM on June 24, 2004

So I can roam through the archives looking for old, good posts to make my own?

I dont know if you meant that sarcastically (who can tell around here?) but, yeah, the archives are packed with really good stuff. I've tried exploring a bit myself but theres just too much.

If someone would take some time to find the gems that never got the attention they deserved, I'd consider that a valuable contribution.
posted by vacapinta at 10:27 PM on June 24, 2004

Sounds like an interesting idea vacapinta - maybe some project where everyone could nominate their favourite post ever?
posted by Jimbob at 10:30 PM on June 24, 2004

"Double post" sounds pejorative to me. Saying something like "also check out this earlier discussion" seems more helpful if one is really not accusing the poster of egregious repetition, but trying to point out additional info.

At any rate, in the most recent incident, searching "Mayday Mystery" in either the MeFi or Google search fields does not turn up the earlier post, even though that exact phrase was used in it. Also, this is not a static article; there is more information available now than there was when the topic was first introduced, so even people who did see the first post might be glad to be reminded of it in order to check out the latest devlopments.
posted by taz at 10:41 PM on June 24, 2004

I appreciate the fact that "not everyone has seen it before" simply because it's been posted to MetaFilter before. That's quite true. People are always ready to come out of the woodwork to say "That was great! I'd never seen it!" even for posts that are duplicates from less than 1.5 years ago.

So: can we all agree to tolerate some duplication, in exchange for people not freaking out and assuming elitism if people do happen to locate and note the original thread? It's not necessarily a slap in the face to post a "previously discussed here" link in the comments. Those links provide perspective, they keep us from re-inventing the wheel (conversationally) and they bring back to life any linked-to resources from the original conversation. Some of those members are gone. If the link is worth reviving, so are their comments.

So, in sum:
1) it's not bad to link to some most excellent thing that's already been linked way-back-when
2) it's not elitist, snobby, or evil to note a previous metafilter thread where this link has appeared in the past

/everybody's happy
posted by scarabic at 12:32 AM on June 25, 2004

But everyone enjoys pointing out a double post, it makes you feel so good to get one over on someone! We can't rob Metafilter members of this delight. Think of others, for a change!
posted by mokey at 2:18 AM on June 25, 2004

re: scarabic's summation-- addenda:

1) it's not bad to link to some most excellent thing that's already been linked way-back-when
..if a reasonable effort was made to check for previous posts. If it's been posted before, and you still want to FPP it, well just write a better post. Include a link to the previous discussion, and find other items to add that will make the post at least possibly interesting to those of us who have not only already seen the link in question, but commented on it here.

2) it's not elitist, snobby, or evil to note a previous metafilter thread where this link has appeared in the past

It's in fact simply common courtesy to link to previous discussions if they exist. There's no reason to take such offense. Sometimes posters will try to find a funny or more interesting way of saying "double post" or "as previously discussed here". Sometimes not. Stop thinking of them as "callouts" and instead see them for what they are- handy links to earlier discussions.
posted by obloquy at 2:41 AM on June 25, 2004

I'm assuming that #1 is only ever committed by mistake, in which case all I suggest is not necessarily instantly disemboweling the offender.

But - if people start making careers here by consciously warming over yesteryear's favorites, I'm going to have to shit bricks and bust heads, for sure.

Graceful re-posting keys on the tone in which all these messages are exchanged. And preferably, if you're posting something old, take advantage of the time that's passed therein and add something interesting and/or timely.
posted by scarabic at 3:04 AM on June 25, 2004

Sometimes posters will try to find a funny or more interesting way of saying "double post" or "as previously discussed here". Sometimes not. Stop thinking of them as "callouts" and instead see them for what they are- handy links to earlier discussions.

Amen. It all depends on the spirit in which it's done. Take that recent link to Found magazine, for example; we've discussed it twice before over the years, and other similar sites as well. There are lots of links and good points in those old threads, making those threads themselves useful links to add to the discussion. Links to old threads make the repost a better resource, a greater aggregation of all linkage on the one subject.

Or are we supposed to believe that nothing any Mefite ever said on the subject in the past has value? That the joining date of the newest member is MetaFilter Year Zero?

This kind of "callout" (which we shouldn't regard as a callout at all, as obloquy says) is fundamentally different from the annoyed cries of double post that crop up whenever someone posts a link we all saw two days ago.
posted by rory at 4:04 AM on June 25, 2004

Has anyone visited cat-scan.com? It's one of the strangest sites I've seen in some time.

Seriously, though, MeFi's provided me with many excellent links over the past few months which were doubleposts for the site but not for me. Linking to the previous discussion is a nice courtesy too; I enjoy seeing what other people had to contribute to the matter.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 6:05 AM on June 25, 2004

Google for double posts? Through how many pages deep must one wade?
posted by mischief at 6:11 AM on June 25, 2004

I posted the mayday link. I searched mefi for it, using various takes on the terms in the article. I got no result. I don't post often to mefi, and the number one thing I hate on mefi are the idiotic "double post" comments. Great, thanks! You want a cookie now?

Even when I took the time to look I still got shot down.

I guess what i'm saying is, the whole "double post" snarky mentality is going to put a lot of people off from publishing good stuff.

I agree, we need to either expand the search capabilities of mefi or learn to let some doubleposts fly.
posted by quibx at 6:27 AM on June 25, 2004

When people aren't even made aware that there was an earlier discussion they end up reinventing the wheel. Instead of adding something original, they just repeat the same thoughts expressed in response to the earlier post, sharing the same tangentially related links, making or refuting the same counter-points, and asking or answering the same obvious questions.
posted by snarfodox at 6:30 AM on June 25, 2004

Sounds like we need a MetaFilter's Greatest Hits. I'll contact K-Tel.
posted by papercake at 7:53 AM on June 25, 2004

I think it's the "most people" haven't seen this before thing that gets us into trouble. We all interpret that by our own standards, and what seems like ancient news that even your grandmother has seen to one person, may be considered a quirky and little-known corner of the web to another. Someone who calls "double post" and links to a two year old discussion may feel that that exemplifies his point - that was maybe sort of unknown two years ago but by now it's made the rounds for sure. And others will clearly think that a brief discussion from internet-eons ago has little to no bearing on how well known the link is.

Anyway, I don't think folks should take it too personally when someone notes that something is a double post. It's simply a fact, and the previous conversation may be interesting. It's true that very few among us will be familiar with every site that's been linked before, but I still think it's worth striving for some kind of novelty.

So, try to figure out if it's been linked, try to be original in the way you set the post up so that even if you miss the fact that it's an old link, there's still something original in your post, and be gracious if it turns out to be old news to most folks. And likewise on the other side of the fence - give everyone the benefit of the doubt, don't assume superiority just because you've wasted more time online than they have :), and be gracious in the way you link to the previous discussion.
posted by mdn at 8:08 AM on June 25, 2004

I think that dejah420 has a sinister motive behind his allow-double-posts adgenda .

I mean just look at his name! It clearly starts with 'deja'!
posted by kenaman at 8:27 AM on June 25, 2004

Ms. kenaman, dejah's not a he.

There was a point, and I think we passed it a while ago, where those who posted could reasonably expect to have either have seen or could find pretty much all of what had already been posted.

But it's possible we passed that moment, and unless this whole site is going to be packaged somehow into some kind of Best-Of-The-Webipedia for future generations, I don't necessarily see a problem with doubleposting, as long as (and as has been mentioned by a few people already) there's somethign new that can be added to the conversation.

Think of it like a modern band doing a cover song. Do it note-for-note and everyone think's you're a dick. Add something new to an old song, though, and you'll get the respect that being almost original affords you.
posted by chicobangs at 8:34 AM on June 25, 2004

Man, what is this, Drag Every Damn Thing to MeTa Week? The more time I spend on MonkeyFilter, the gladder I am it doesn't have a MonkeyTalk.

Um, kenaman, dejah's a she.
posted by languagehat at 8:40 AM on June 25, 2004

kenaman: dejah's a she.

Oh, and by the way, when people aren't even made aware that there was an earlier discussion they end up reinventing the wheel. Instead of adding something original, they just repeat the same thoughts expressed in response to the earlier post, sharing the same tangentially related links, making or refuting the same counter-points, and asking or answering the same obvious questions.
posted by snarfodox at 8:45 AM on June 25, 2004

Buried above is an interesting idea: we're sitting on a veritable treasure trove of interesting links here. Searching the archives is a time-consuming and usually frustrating task. I wish we could have some way to flag those links that a majority perceive as particulary useful or interesting to create a sort of (no, I'm not kidding) Meta-MetaFilter for the content that stands the test of general usefulness and time.

Or, barring a majority "voting" mechanism, which has the inherent ability to be manipulated, an "editorial voice" that merely decides what get's MetaMeta'd and what doesn't. Matt, you are the sole voice for what's not good enough, you must have some personal criterion for determining which posts demonstrate excellence as well? Would you have any interest in creating such a thing? If not creating, perhaps "chairing a committee" of long-timers who volunteer to wade through the archives and make suggestions as a "first cut" so you'd only be reviewing new posts and those from the past that have been suggested by people you trust?
posted by JollyWanker at 8:56 AM on June 25, 2004

The more time I spend on MonkeyFilter, the gladder I am it doesn't have a MonkeyTalk.

But if it did, you'd read it, just as you read MetaTalk. Of course, you have the choice to ignore this. As do we all.
posted by rocketman at 9:10 AM on June 25, 2004

An example to us all.
posted by Blue Stone at 9:36 AM on June 25, 2004

The thing that bugs me about double posts is that ten people feel obliged to point out that it is one. Can we just not reiterate that it's a double post after the first person points it out, and then other people can contribute to the thread or not as they see fit, and let mathowie decide whether or not to delete?

Esepcially when anyone can make a double post.
posted by orange swan at 9:48 AM on June 25, 2004

People don't read the other posts. That's par for the course. Not saying it's right.

kenaman. dejah. a she.
fnord.
posted by chicobangs at 10:16 AM on June 25, 2004

That's three people saying dejah's a she.

I'm getting dejah vu...

is thing on??
posted by jonmc at 10:20 AM on June 25, 2004

There is another argument for saying "double post" - "does a falling tree make noise if no ears hear it?"
posted by thomcatspike at 10:43 AM on June 25, 2004

Or is it one person saying "dejah's a she" three times?

I'm sorry. I didn't mean to BLOW YOUR MIND!
posted by chicobangs at 10:48 AM on June 25, 2004

Double post - filmgoerjuan

Heh...oh, the irony.

This idea of calling for a moratorium on things is an interesting and novel approach to things. I bet it works. - xmutex

I live in an innocent and utopian mindspace. It could happen. We could all get along... Or, you know...what scarabic said.


People don't read the other posts. - chicobangs

Na, of course they do. Oh, hey...did anyone mention to kenaman that I am a Delicate Flower of Southern Womanhood? *flutter*
posted by dejah420 at 11:08 AM on June 25, 2004

I'm surprised people read MeTa but, apparently, not the meetup threads with photos. If they did, they'd have known that deja420 is one of them-there womenfolk.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:12 AM on June 25, 2004

Oh, hey...did anyone mention to kenaman that I am a Delicate Flower of Southern Womanhood? *flutter*

Really? I'm a sturdy oak of Northern Manhood. *sputter*

Meet me at the Mason-Dixon line in an hour.
posted by jonmc at 11:43 AM on June 25, 2004

Ethereal Bligh I know personally I pay little attention to who says what or whether they are female or male; american, european, or asian; black, white, or blue; neo-con, or flaming liberal.

Unless you have a very distinctive posting style (the internet equivelent of missing an arm or 2m tall) or have in some way piqued my interest I'm not going to remember your sex even if I at one time knew it.

Beside which anyone not using the names Adam or Eve probably shouldn't be offended if others guess/assume your sex wrong. With the number of women hiding their sex to side step harrasement and the number of guys pretending to be female for kicks even someone with the handle William or Elizabeth could be easily mis-identified.
posted by Mitheral at 12:22 PM on June 25, 2004

While we're on the subject: my missing arm is 2m tall.

If you find it, let me know. I'm sick of the leers I get when I tell people I'm typing with one hand.
posted by chicobangs at 12:51 PM on June 25, 2004

Oh the Irony!!!.

*BLINK*
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:17 PM on June 25, 2004

Definitely deserves a callout. Maybe people can call Matt some names, he can get defensive, and all the regular MeTa fun will ensue.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:32 PM on June 25, 2004

> What's wrong with it is that it's against the rules.

It's not against any religion
to want to dispose of a pigeon

posted by jfuller at 3:03 PM on June 25, 2004

Buried above is an interesting idea: we're sitting on a veritable treasure trove of interesting links here. Searching the archives is a time-consuming and usually frustrating task. I wish we could have some way to flag those links that a majority perceive as particulary useful or interesting to create a sort of (no, I'm not kidding) Meta-MetaFilter for the content that stands the test of general usefulness and time.

Whaddya know, somebody started a Wiki page for exactly that purpose. Have at 'er, folks.
posted by arto at 6:40 PM on June 25, 2004

But if it did, you'd read it, just as you read MetaTalk

Sad but true.
posted by languagehat at 6:57 PM on June 25, 2004

This subject was the topic of my first metatalk post back in early 2001.
posted by crunchland at 6:57 PM on June 25, 2004

I bought him his first razor.
posted by y2karl at 10:37 PM on June 25, 2004

The search is wonky, we all know that.

Apparently not quite everyone:

Search works good enough for me --mathowie

Anyway, I don't think folks should take it too personally when someone notes that something is a double post. It's simply a fact, and the previous conversation may be interesting.

Exactly. If people can refrain from being obnoxious when they point out that a post is a double, the link to the previous discussion adds tremendous value. Whether the link is "double enough" to warrant deletion isn't up to us to decide, anyway.
posted by rushmc at 10:09 AM on June 26, 2004

I think that "see the 2001 post on this topic", or even "discussed here in 2001" is more polite than "double post".

But, you know, whatever. I went back and read the 2001 discussion, and that and the link itself ate two hours of my life. Fascinating.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:11 PM on June 26, 2004