If you don't like 'em, don't read 'em. I have a complaint about that.

September 9, 2004 2:50 AM

Every time there is a complaint on MetaTalk about a post/type of post on the Metafilter front page, somebody will always say "If you don't like it/them, don't read them." I find this extremely frustrating, and I believe it ignores the real issues. [More Inside]
posted by seanyboy to Etiquette/Policy at 2:50 AM (127 comments total)

If a group of Metafilter users banded together, and insisted on posting (for the sake of argument) nothing but cookery related links, then you'd get sick of it pretty quickly. Every day, there would be a batch of freshly baked posts containing links to recipes and restaurants, and these would ...

- Ensure that all other posts were more difficult to see.
- Cause other posts to drop off the front page quickly.
- Turn MetaFilter into a cookery site

I believe that this group of users would be asked (rather quickly) to move these front page posts over to a website which catered for cookery posts, and comments such as "If you don't like them, don't read them" would be treated with the scorn they deserve. I also believe that this imaginary group would be happy to move over to a more cookery driven site.

I understand that Politics is important, that our futures are at risk, that there are some things which need to be said again & again. I also understand that the posts people are complaining about probably aren't as prevalent as some of us feel.

Is it possible for us to discuss this rationally, and come to some sort of middle ground on this?
posted by seanyboy at 2:51 AM on September 9, 2004

The difference is that few people would want to read recipe posts every day, while many people on Metafilter want to read political posts damn near every day, so your analogy fails.

The only solution is to create categories and some kind of filter so that people don't have to see topics that offend them. I'm not sure Matt is interested in implementing this.

Oh, or if you don't like the posts don't read them.


PS) noone has "banded together" to post political posts, there just happen to be different people in this community who are interested in those topics.

pps) Posts don't drop off the front page quickly, they last for several days, even with political posts.
posted by sic at 3:11 AM on September 9, 2004

The only solution is to create categories and some kind of filter so that people don't have to see topics that offend them. I'm not sure Matt is interested in implementing this.

If such safeguards were enforced, posters would be certain to work around them. A random glance at USENET forums, vBulletin/PHP sites and eBay listings reveals routine crosspost spam; it's done to get attention. Welcome or not, it pushes the posters' agenda, rules and equiette be damned.

Filters are even trickier; part of the reason Google has become popular is the ability to horse around with PageRank. Slashdot trolls and others will often maintain a decent front before getting "plonked", at which point, they redouble their efforts, at least enough to dupe a few more people another time.

Matt's concern is dead-on: managing a codebase for keeping site visitors in order is not the prime reason for stimulating "best of the web" discussion. No amount of page source will effectively encourage individual maturity - outside (perhaps) of interesting links and open discussion.
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:35 AM on September 9, 2004

I understand that Politics is important, ... Is it possible for us to discuss this rationally ...?
*Laughs and laughs and laughs and laughs*
posted by dg at 3:37 AM on September 9, 2004

I see your point - you are, after all (and even before) a pretty convincing guy, Sean! - but I must disagree. For two reasons:

1. There is so much in the world that is worth reading and so little time - even in a microcosm like MetaFilter. Skipping is choosing and choice is a very respectable and useful passion. How do we know what interests others? If we condemn their own obsessions as boring we're really condemning our own freedom to obsess.

2. There may be a contradiction here, but it's good for the soul to read other people's passions when they differ enormously from our own. Who's to say what's interesting or not? And it's interesting in itself to learn of others' interests.


The real question is whether one should comment or not in the threads we're not really interested in. A few people have the annoying habit of making a disparaging remark just because the thread has disappointed them or wasted their time.

Well, we're all owners of our time and can do with it more or less what we want. So the old "if you don't like it, skip it" is actually very wise, imo. Except sometimes it's useful to step outside one's interests and experience the passion of others.

I have no interest whatsoever in aquariums but I once spent a fascinating night listening to an obsessive friend explain what attracted him about them. Passion is interesting of itself. Anything which limits the range of human curiosity (much less because of lack or excess of popularity) seems impoverishing.

MetaFilter's interesting because of the differences between us - and obliging us to be aware of them - so I'd say that one should separate the writer from the readers. The writer - whatever he/she wrote about - thought it was worth the trouble. People responded or not. Why not leave it at that?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:34 AM on September 9, 2004

As it happens, I don't read it (them). And, as it happens, every day of increasing NewsFilter/ElectionFilter is a day where MeFi becomes increasingly uninteresting to me, I'm less inclined to load the front page, and I'm more likely to miss the posts that I would have wanted to read. Crap posts ruin MetaFilter for everyone one way or another—"just skip them" is not, therefore, a sufficient blanket defense. Ah, so you say it comes down to what's a crap post and what's not?

Well, that may be open to vigorous debate. But the fact that a certain kind of post is increasingly being called out on MeTa far more than any other (recently even more than once a day) indicates that this type of post, at least, seems to a significant portion of MeFi to be "crap".

With more people speaking up lately—people who haven't complained about this matter before—isn't it time to acknowledge that the anti-ElectionFilter brigade has had a point and that the various rote dismissals of these concerns are insufficient?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:48 AM on September 9, 2004

I can't believe nobody told you not to read those comments if you don't like them yet.
posted by fvw at 4:54 AM on September 9, 2004

I'd be happy to spend a night with the obsessive aquarium fan, and in an imagined context of a single aquarium post I too would greet a metatalk callout with "If you don't like it, don't read it."

But, on a bad day, newsfilter posts seem to take up 30-50% of the front page, and it's a lot like listening to the office bore drone on and on and on. There's been a recent ask metafilter question about what to do with people who obsessively quote the Simpsons, and nobody really told the poster to "just get over it".

Saying "you don't have to read it" sidesteps the fact that the people who this frustrates are at a point where it's so upsetting that they can no longer ignore it. Every newsfilter post has a corresponding metatalk post which in turn has the usual line up of obvious comments.

If anything, I'm asking the people who do post these things to understand that there is a section of metafilter for whom this excess is upsetting, and I'm asking them to just, you know, tone it down a bit. This isn't about your rights to post or not to post, this is about a degree of empathy.

p.s. I'm writing this, and noticing the news that Bush was kicked out of flight school, and I'm wondering with dread how long it'll take before it gets posted onto the front page.
posted by seanyboy at 4:56 AM on September 9, 2004

Spam: I think a comparison between spam and newsfilter posts is valid. If I only recieved one spam email a day, I wouldn't mind as much. Instead I recieve many, many more. Spammers are fond of stating that if you don't like the email you can just delete it. Individual spammers aren't to blame, it's the glut of them which causes the heartache. People dislike spam in excess to the actual inconvenience it causes.

On kill files: My objection to allowing users to kill all posts containing a certain word or phrase is that it'd equally hide "Bush falls off bike" and "Bush Assasinated". I'm not convinced that killfiles will be abused. Even the most ardent newsfilter fans would have trouble condoning "B.U.5^H and K-e-rr-e-y meet to discuss nation's future."
posted by seanyboy at 12:42 PM on September 9, 2004

Seanyboy, you hit it right on the money. But I also think it goes back to the recent discussion on MeFi USA.

I wonder, if I was American, if I would think differently about the current crap on the front page.

The current rash of Bush/Kerry stuff is just sheer arrogance if you ask me.
posted by Quartermass at 12:55 PM on September 9, 2004

the amusing thing about metafilter is it's psychotic insistence that it is not what it is. the annoying thing about metafilter is it has always insisted it's not what it is, and there has never been a time when it wasn't insisting that it wasn't what it is. metafilter is very much like george bush in this regard.
posted by quonsar at 12:58 PM on September 9, 2004

If MeFi had minimal categories/voting, then there wouldn't be a problem. But I don't think it's ever going to have them.

How about an extension to the standard response: "if you don't like it, don't read it, and if you don't like not reading it, then go to some other site". You might even find one that isn't a gated echo chamber. Good luck!
posted by reklaw at 1:05 PM on September 9, 2004

The reason so many people chime in with "if you don't like them, don't read them" is that those people, generally, do like these posts, and do read them. What you're hearing is just popular support for politicsfilter, hiding behind a libertarian worldview. These people know that bushsucks conversations are not what the site is for ("interesting links people haven't seen") and they know they're basically hijacking the front page, but are not honest enough to cop to that. Instead you get this facile "live & let live," argument, which you will not we DO NOT see in response to transparently crappy FPPs like doubleposts, Fark links, etc.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:14 PM on September 9, 2004

...which you will note....
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 1:16 PM on September 9, 2004

quonsar, comparing MetaFilter to GWB is just a short step on a slippery slope from Godwin.

Bush = Filter?
posted by wendell at 1:17 PM on September 9, 2004

Quonsar: ¡YES!
posted by sic at 1:19 PM on September 9, 2004

if you don't like not reading it, then go to some other site
I really like the site and feel a sense of belonging which I know a lot of people don't understand. However some things about the site frustrate me. I believe I should be able to air those frustrations.
posted by seanyboy at 1:20 PM on September 9, 2004

Please stop for a moment and note the name of this website.

Obviously, the entire web can't be here. So what exactly is the character of the MetaFilter filter? What should make it through and what shouldn't? That's for all of us to decide, collectively, with Matt as the ultimate arbiter. We don't always have to agree, but "scroll down retard" contributes nothing to the conversation. It's a head-in-the-sand attitude, as if filtering the web weren't the entire raison d'etre of this site.

If someone objects to some content, don't just tell them to stick it up their ass and scroll down: tell them why you believe the content belongs here. If you can't think of a reason, perhaps it doesn't belong here after all. If you can't think of a reason other than "I like it," then perhaps you can't think at all...?
posted by scarabic at 1:21 PM on September 9, 2004

I also suspect that, if we had categories, those who chose to not view the "politics/bush sucks/no kerry sucks" category would find the front page somewhat empty, which would encourage more posts of the non-politics variety.
posted by papercake at 1:25 PM on September 9, 2004

The reason so many people chime in with "if you don't like them, don't read them" is that those people, generally, do like these posts, and do read them. What you're hearing is just popular support for politicsfilter, hiding behind a libertarian worldview.

The first sentence is probably correct and the second is just nonsense. I don't think anybody feels ashamed to be interested in the political posts. MANY members of this community like and seek those posts (and this is why they belong here Scarabic) and as Quonsar says, we ARE metafilter, at least in part. Why do I like the political posts on Metafilter? Because of the discussion. Granted, I have to put up with a lot of trolling and name calling, but a significant part of those threads contain exhaustive information on a given subject and interesting arguments. You may not agree, you may hate those posts with a passion, which is fine for you, but I don't really want or need you to define my experience for me. I LIKE most of those posts and I am just as much a member of the community as you are. So yeah, just scroll down and leave the part of Metafilter that likes the politics to their own.

There is another part of metafilter that doesn't like those posts and tireless campaigns to have them eradicated from their sight because it ruins the experience for them. Why? I don't know. My front page still shows links from September 2, which is a whole week on the front page for "palatable" links, so I just don't buy into that complaint, the only complaint that would make sense, if in fact it were a problem.

Which it isn't.
posted by sic at 1:33 PM on September 9, 2004

i don't mind politicsfilter in itself ... but there are certain aspects ... the whole vietnam thing ... that have been driven right into the ground ... and the recent resulting discussions have been more like chickens at a pecking party than anything else ... "there's a spot on pp ... peck peck peck"
posted by pyramid termite at 1:43 PM on September 9, 2004

There's been a recent ask metafilter question about what to do with people who obsessively quote the Simpsons, and nobody really told the poster to "just get over it".

People suck, get used to it.

cut him some slack?

Actually, you could count your blessings...

-----

Personally, I lament every day that isn't fossilfilter, or deepseacreaturefilter.

When I am made king, I will declare every single day mandatory science day on the blue, and delete every flash post or commment ever made.

Just 54 more days
posted by milovoo at 2:06 PM on September 9, 2004

The problem is that you see yourself as an arbiter of what should and should not be posted here, of what's interesting. You are not that arbiter.

Here's an analogy, suppose we were with a group of people in the same room and a number of us broke off to discuss something you weren't interested in. How tired would we get of you running up to us to tell us that we shouldn't be discussing what we are, that you don't like it, that the mere conversation's presence offends your sensibilities, etc?

It's a drag to read a post where the first seven comments are "why is this here?" "zzzzzzz..." etc, and that kind of thing does more to degrade the level of conversation than anything else.

No posts "drop off" the front page, and I can't understand what's so hard about just skimming through the links posted.
posted by xammerboy at 2:07 PM on September 9, 2004

quonsar: If you'll allow me to sink into rhetoric for a second. You've talked about what MetaFilter was, and what it currently is. I'm talking (orchestal music starts here) about what Metafilter could be. (Planes fly in formation over collective heads)

sic: I LIKE most of those posts and I am just as much a member of the community as you are.
Not saying that you're not, and I've a feeling that no minds are being changed here, so I thought I'd drop another analogy because you seem to like them so much.

Metafilter's like your local pub. You like some of the people in the pub, you dislike some, but for the most part it's your local, and it's where you hang out.
Front Page posts are like songs on the Juke Box. You like some, you don't care about some, and you really hate some (Rock Music, for the sake of the argument).
I'm not complaining about the odd rock song being played on the Jukebox. What I'm complaining about is the fact that some people insist on playing nothing but Rock. In fact, most of the songs being played now appear to be Rock.

You can say that everybody has a right to play what they want, and you're right. You can say that you enjoy the balance of music, and I can't dispute that either. But, what some people are saying, and what appears to be collectively ignored is the fact that some of us locals don't like so much Rock Music.

OK, we could ignore the Rock Tracks, and we could find another pub, but this is our local, and all we want is for you to do is to tone it down a little bit.

So you can pick whatever holes you want in that analogy. I've said all I can and want to say.
posted by seanyboy at 2:15 PM on September 9, 2004

I like going to the front page and saying "wow, theres some pretty cool stuff on here today". I don't like going to the front page and saying "oh that thing about Bush is on here. great."

I listen to npr all day long pretty much, and I've acquired the unique talent of being about to call what news stories will be on mefi within a few hours. I sit in my car, stare at the road, and think "oh yeah, that'll be on mefi later."
posted by bob sarabia at 2:15 PM on September 9, 2004

...unique talent of being able to...
posted by bob sarabia at 2:17 PM on September 9, 2004

xammerboy ... the problem is you see yourself as an arbiter of what people should and should not complain about here
posted by pyramid termite at 2:22 PM on September 9, 2004

Sorry Seanyboy, but your analogy fails once again. In a bar, everbody has to listen to the same jukebox at the same time in the same space. Metafilter has its threads tucked away behind links on the front page. You can only be assaulted by the unpleasantness of a political link if you click on it and read its content. If you don't click on it you will be blissfully unaware of the goings on in that particular thread.

By the way pyramid termite, nobody is saying that seanyboy can't complain, as long as he does it in Metatalk. Too many people do it in the threads of posts that they don't like. Seanyboy has asked all of us our opinion on this subject and both xammerboy and myself are pretty much saying that just because you don't like a post doesn't mean that it doesn't belong on Metafilter.

Bob Sarabia, I understand your complaint, but, once again, what you think is cool, isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks is cool. So maybe one day you open Metafilter and say, "there's a lot of cool stuff here" and Quonsar opens the same page and projectile vomits all over his/her screen.
posted by sic at 2:40 PM on September 9, 2004

I stand by what I said on Tuesday:

"No one's going to stop posting crappy political FPPs--the question is moot. Certain users crave the attention too badly, revel in the resulting circle-jerk too enthusiastically, push for the Clear Channelification of MetaFilter too stubbornly, and require the approval of their peers too desperately to stop."

I should add:

"...and navel-gaze too Americanly..."
posted by dhoyt at 2:45 PM on September 9, 2004

By the way, I should add that I think that ANY fpp that is longer than three or four lines is taking up too much space, political or not.

unless the fpp is absolutely riveting, of course
posted by sic at 2:49 PM on September 9, 2004

Bob Sarabia said: I listen to npr all day long pretty much, and I've acquired the unique talent of being about to call what news stories will be on mefi within a few hours. I sit in my car, stare at the road, and think "oh yeah, that'll be on mefi later."

what you need is psychiatric treatment, not different metafilter posts.
posted by quonsar at 2:56 PM on September 9, 2004

You may not agree, you may hate those posts with a passion, which is fine for you, but I don't really want or need you to define my experience for me.

Actually, I thought Metafilter was already defined. So did, I believe, every one else that complains about bushkerrynewsfilter. That's why we're complaining. Mefi is not supposed to be newsfilter. Yet each buskerrynews poster simply ignores this. Each newsfilter post is conscious ignoring of the guidelines of the site. And encouraging people to do so with the "scroll down" nonsense doesn't help the problem.

Bob Sarabia, I understand your complaint, but, once again, what you think is cool, isn't necessarily what everyone else thinks is cool.

Cool is irrelevant for this discussion, no? No one's trying to be the arbiter of taste. What people are trying to do is say, "Hey, part of the purpose of MeFi is a refuge from the noise we're confronted with every day, whether that noise takes the form of news, ads, or other things."

You could post that there's proof Bush is the son of god or satan for all I care (both of which may be "cool," depending on your pov). It wouldn't matter. What matters is that I don't need MeFi to give me news.
posted by dobbs at 2:59 PM on September 9, 2004

i just stopped reading metafilter.

works for me.

plus now i have more time for porno.
posted by fishfucker at 3:14 PM on September 9, 2004

I pretty much think that Miguel (and to a lesser degree Quonsar) are dead on.

Consider this: if all of the political posts disappear forever there will not be a reciprocal increase in posts that you think are worthwhile (whatever criteria you use). There will simply be less posts on the front page. The problem is not that political posts vaporize your "good" posts. They are still there. So the only other complaint is that too many political posts make your "good" posts fall of the front page too quickly. As I've stated, fpps usually last around a week on the front page before they fall off. I mean some sites, like Kuro5hin, have the same posts on the front page for ages, and I presume that the majority here don't want that either. A week seems like a reasonable space of time thoroughly digest a thread.

The only logical option that I can see is for people to economize the content of their fpps so that Bob Sarabia and everyone else doesn't have too much trouble finding the posts that they want to read and people who aren't interested in a particular post don't waste their time with it. There is always Matt to delete those posts, political or other, that are so crappy that they shouldn't be on the front page.

On preview: dobbs, "cool" is irrelevant to the argument, I agree, that was Bob S's comment that I was responding to. Anyway the "best of the web" criteria is very subjective, isn't it? That is really what this discussion is about, in my opinion. You don't think that a certain type of post is best of the web, you have your reasoned arguments, you make sense. Fine. But your arguments are NOT convincing to someone else who see the subjective "best of the web" criteria in a completely different way. As Miguel suggests, perhaps "If we condemn their ... obsessions as boring we're really condemning our own freedom to obsess".
posted by sic at 3:15 PM on September 9, 2004

Note: I skipped to the bottom of these comments so I could comment and say that I'm skipping this thread because it doesn't interest me. If anyone else has already said this I apologize for the redundancy, but, for obvious reasons, I did not read it.

(this has been discussed before. continue.)
posted by The God Complex at 3:28 PM on September 9, 2004

Each newsfilter post is conscious ignoring of the guidelines of the site.

You know the guidelines were written, I assume, by Matt, since it's his site. But I took a quick peak at the fpps that Matt has made and I see various posts that I'm sure you would categorize as newsfilter (including one that links to the text of Bush's acceptance speech at the RNC). You see what I'm talking about? The guidelines are not the 10 commandments and what is a good post or a bad post is NOT always so easy to define in a community with such diversity of personalities.
posted by sic at 3:30 PM on September 9, 2004

sic, I'm not arguing about what is best and not best of the web. I think you, and other people who make the arguments that you make, may think that people who are tired of newsfilter like all the other FPPs. It's simply not true. But I'm not trying to argue for the best of the web. It's futile and silly to do so for the very reasons you state.

I understand and appreciate what you're saying, but I really think taste has nothing to do with the discussion.

Is it news? If yes, it's not what MeFi is for. Is it not really as simple as that? Shouldn't it be?

You know the guidelines were written, I assume, by Matt, since it's his site. But I took a quick peak at the fpps that Matt has made and I see various posts that I'm sure you would categorize as newsfilter (including one that links to the text of Bush's acceptance speech at the RNC). You see what I'm talking about?

Yeah, and if I remember correctly, someone called him out for it.

Why has Matt allowed the newsfilter to continue? I haven't a clue. I do know that a few months ago he saw this coming and made a MeTa comment about "What do you think of politics.metafilter.com?"--so it's not like he's completely ignorant of what's going on.

I'm not usually fond of the MeFi memes, but truly: What the fuck, Matt? We all know you're not doing anything about it. I think a bunch of us are curious as to why.
posted by dobbs at 3:45 PM on September 9, 2004

Why do people fear more posts? "It makes the ones *I* want to see harder to spot" doesn't wash...the other thousands of readers of the site should not be penalized for your laziness. Quantity of quality enriches the site—and the reader's experience. And what constitutes "quality" is a different discussion (and demonstrably difficult to pin down, as it is an "eye of the beholder" thing).

I, for one, welcome an onslaught of cooking posts. So long as they are good ones.
posted by rushmc at 3:51 PM on September 9, 2004

why do people mis-label dislike as fear?
posted by andrew cooke at 3:54 PM on September 9, 2004

Consider this: if all of the political posts disappear forever there will not be a reciprocal increase in posts that you think are worthwhile (whatever criteria you use). There will simply be less posts on the front page

I feel pretty certain that there WOULD be an increase of posts about other topics. Why do I think that? Don't know. Just do. Has there been an increase in the number of posts per day since PoliFilter has become so prevalent?

However, for me it's not so much that I'm not interested in the topic. I do read a lot of the political threads. It's that many of them are knee-jerk FPPs of the News Of The Day. That in itself I don't even find so bad (although many do) -- it's that each of these threads very quickly descends into cheering the obvious pov of the poster (usually pro-Kerry) and snarking by those whose beliefs are under attack (usually pro-Bush). I'm very anti-Bush myself, but some of the FPPs are obviously just fuel to keep the bonfire of vitriol going. Sure, tell me to scroll down and not read them. The problem is that I want to read them and some interesting commentary -- not screaming trolls.

Why can't we just have a Election News of The Day thread for each calendar day dump all the links in there?
posted by papercake at 3:54 PM on September 9, 2004

How about:

currentevents.metafilter.com

Get it out of the blue completely.
posted by dhoyt at 3:59 PM on September 9, 2004

Is it news? If yes, it's not what MeFi is for. Is it not really as simple as that? Shouldn't it be?

Well, that seems to be the criteria of some people on Metafilter, but many other members of the community don't agree with it. Therein lies the problem. And I suspect that part of the reason that Matt hasn't done anything about it is because a sizeable portion of the community doesn't want him to.

Papercake: I cannot figure out why you would assume that what you think are "good" posts would increase if there were no political posts. Would the political posters begin to post stuff that you like if they are prohibited from posting what you like? Maybe. I do wholeheartedly agree that the quality of the debate in political threads could be a lot better. I generally don't read the threads for the "debate" but rather to acquire more information on the subject. The trolling and namecalling is dull.
posted by sic at 4:02 PM on September 9, 2004

"if they are prohibited from posting what they like"
posted by sic at 4:04 PM on September 9, 2004

fpps usually last around a week on the front page before they fall off.

sic, FYI each mefi member can determine how long posts stay on the front page through a setting on thier customization page.
posted by quonsar at 4:06 PM on September 9, 2004

"I believe it ignores the real issues."

So, what exactly are those issues? A vocal few of you claim you cannot simply skip over NewsFilter posts, but none of you have yet adequately explained why this is.

I have very little interest in the political posts, and I have no problem skipping over them. Why do you find them to be a stumbling block?
posted by mischief at 4:12 PM on September 9, 2004

sic, FYI each mefi member can determine how long posts stay on the front page through a setting on thier customization page.

Oh yeah, I forgot about that. Mine's set on 10 days! No wonder I can't get those boring non-political posts to fall of the page!
posted by sic at 4:19 PM on September 9, 2004

Even when skipped over, the preponderance of posts defines the site and the experience of the site. I have no idea why this is a difficult concept.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:23 PM on September 9, 2004

A vocal few of you claim you cannot simply skip over NewsFilter posts, but none of you have yet adequately explained why this is.

It ignores the problem...i guess i should use some kind of comparison. How about this:

The cat throws up on the carpet. Everyone steps over it. I say "damn, clean this shit up." But you say "why can't you just ignore it, chump?" I say "because that's just ignoring the problem instead of solving it."

I know that newsfilter != cat throw up since some people like the newsfiltering, but this was mainly used to get the point across that hasn't been explained yet.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:25 PM on September 9, 2004

But Bob, what we don't understand is why a reasonably short political fpp is as upsetting to you as cat vomit on your carpet. That's the mystery. What is it about that post that makes you want to sanitize it, make it disappear, given that you don't actually have to read it or participate in the thread?

For me the experience of the site is defined by the links and threads that I read or participate in. Scanning the front page does nothing for me. I don't even really care if the front page is blue, white or cat vomit green.
posted by sic at 4:35 PM on September 9, 2004

What was so easy about limiting (all but banning) "SportsFilter" from the blue, that the movement to limit the overwhelming, repetitive, rhetorical, choir preachin', double-posting and partisan political posts can't seem to latch onto?
posted by Witty at 5:23 PM on September 9, 2004

Why can't we just have a Election News of The Day thread for each calendar day dump all the links in there?
posted by papercake at 3:54 PM PST on September 9


Even when skipped over, the preponderance of posts defines the site and the experience of the site. I have no idea why this is a difficult concept.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:23 PM PST on September 9
This is so true.

Seriously: why not? No decrease in links; no decrease in snark, trolling or vitriol; same gang [which often includes me]. More space on the front page, less posts on Metatalk, less unhappy neighbours and friends.

What's not to like? Matt, howsabout a little tweak in the guidelines department?
posted by dash_slot- at 5:27 PM on September 9, 2004

What was so easy about limiting (all but banning) "SportsFilter" from the blue

Sports-related posts were never banned from Metafilter. Someone started an alternate, specialized site for them and a small group of people (which probably correlates highly with those Metafilter members with the greatest interest in sports—or at least in posting/commenting about it) now uses it regularly. Someone tried that with political posts (Warfilter) and it failed.

More space on the front page

Oooh, more SPACE. Whatever that means. A webpage is not a newspaper page.
posted by rushmc at 5:39 PM on September 9, 2004

Someone tried that with political posts (Warfilter) and it failed.

It failed because most people making political posts do so for advocacy, not for enjoyment - why relegate news of the latest political scandal to some site no-one ever visits, when you can announce it to the world at the top of metafilter.com?

I would be happy to accept political posts if the people making them would just come clean and admit it's mostly about ideological point-scoring, not about interesting links, not about discussion, and not even about news.

We've got an election coming up in Australia in a few weeks. It's taken all my will power not to fill the front page with a post everytime Mark Latham or John Howard sneezes, just to show people what it's like having your "best of the web" replaced with "irrelevant ideological dodgeball".
posted by Jimbob at 5:58 PM on September 9, 2004

Well, rushmc, I agree: to rephrase, how about the appearance of a more diverse ecology of links.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:00 PM on September 9, 2004

"It failed because most people making political posts do so for advocacy, not for enjoyment - why relegate news of the latest political scandal to some site no-one ever visits, when you can announce it to the world at the top of metafilter.com?"—Jimbob

FPP issue advocacy and obsessive politics is, to me, very similar to what I guess my prolixity is to other people. It's an arrogant imposition. I don't intend my prolixity that way; indeed, my assumption has always been that if I'm too long-winded people won't read what I write and no one's the worse for it. I honestly have had trouble grokking why I can annoy people in this fashion.

Arguing from that analogy, it's both an indictment and a defense of these posts and posters. It's an indictment because to the degree to which the greivance against me is valid regardless of what my motives and psychology really are (that is, the self-importance people instinctively assume in me is incorrect, I think), the greivance against these FPPs is valid, regardless of the posters' assumed intent or psychology. The experience of the reader is to be lectured at, constantly and at length, by a self-important, obssessive blowhard. It doesn't really matter if that's the person's personality. That's the impression it creates, and it's unpleasant.

It's a defense in the sense that the assumptions about motives and psychology may well be false, and arguing on that basis is unfair and probably invalid. Certainly I have an impression of why some people post a constant stream of political, lecturing FPPs—but it's not fair to judge them based upon my assumptions. It is fair, however, to judge them on the basis of what it's like to experience them.

If you are seized with an almost irresistable urge to comment "shutupshutupshutup" in response to this comment of mine, then you understand how I feel seeing the same tired old election/politics/news posts on the blue every damn day.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:34 PM on September 9, 2004

I can't understand what's so hard about just skimming through the links posted.

Increasingly: the same thing that's hard about skimming the whole internet each morning for just the good parts. But the hardest part of all is figuring out at which point we change the name from MetaFilter to ReWeb.

But back to seanyboy's point: let's please all just argue for or against a post on a more sophisticated level than "this sucks!" vs. "I like it!" Both of those lead to a little more "fuck you!" than anyone enjoys.
posted by scarabic at 6:35 PM on September 9, 2004

BTW, I think that idea for more cookery links is an excellent one! ;-P
posted by mischief at 6:40 PM on September 9, 2004

CookeryWeb, or Reweb?

You Decide!
posted by dash_slot- at 7:00 PM on September 9, 2004

There was much handwringing of a similar sort during the last US election cycle (at which time I was a lurker, not a member, I think). This being what many believe to be the most important election for America in a very long time (and thus for the rest of us in the rest of the world), surfing in on the wave of blood from a war about which opinions are strongly divided, it's been a long hard season of political shouting and breastbeating.

It'd be better if it were political discourse and reasoned debate, sure.

But either way, I imagine that this too shall pass, if never disappear entirely. So it goes.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:29 PM on September 9, 2004

Or you know what you could do? Just deal with it. This is one of the most hotly debated political issues in most of our lifetimes, one of the closest election in history, and people are mad. They're mad, or they're confused, or they're frightened, and they want the comfort of bringing something to somone's attention because maybe it's all they can do.

You hear more about politics on tv, on the radio, at work, at church, at 7-11, whereever you go. This is a community of sorts, and all communities right now, online and off, are politically charged.

Just deal with it until November. It's what everyone everywhere else is doing. Try what most adults do when they're faced with an opinion they don't wanna hear--don't participate in the conversation.

Commingle all that with the fact that there isn't exactly a whole lot of advice on what makes a good post on here, and you've got a lot of people who are trying to participate and getting shot down.

And yes, I did get shot down recently and I am still mad about it. Mostly because some of you cnuts out there think that calling something crap is a form of constructive criticism.

Maybe next time you read a few good posts and a few crap posts and the crap ones make you mad and you're gonna say something about it: just get up and go outside. It probably means you spend too much time behind your computer.

Whew. I feel a little better.
posted by chinese_fashion at 7:31 PM on September 9, 2004

Someone started an alternate, specialized site for them and a small group of people (which probably correlates highly with those Metafilter members with the greatest interest in sports—or at least in posting/commenting about it)

Yeah. After getting sick of hearing how MeFi didn't care about sports topics, so stop posting them.
posted by yerfatma at 7:49 PM on September 9, 2004

HA!

chinese fashion:
People are mad, confused, and frightened, so we better just *deal* with the way they behave. We need to do what everyone is doing everywhere. And we better get used to hearing the same politics we hear on tv, rado, at work, at church, etc, on MeFi, too.

Bam! Boy, that sure made a shitload of good sense. Well argued! I'm glad you feel better, but are you listening to yourself? Here's some news for you: I wrote this comment because I spent too much time at my computer. I'm hot, gassy, cranky, and pretty much an asshole, but YOU KNOW WHAT YOU COULD DO? DEAL WITH IT!!!
posted by scarabic at 7:53 PM on September 9, 2004

But none of you get it! See, MetaFilter is only doing well when it's the way seanyboy and Etherial Bligh, et al want it to be. If they don't like it, it must be because there's something deeply wrong with it, not because they have different tastes than other members.

Their tastes are good, and yours are not.
posted by eustacescrubb at 7:53 PM on September 9, 2004

to rephrase, how about the appearance of a more diverse ecology of links.

I'm all for such diversity (not sure I care too much about appearance), but it seems to me that the burden for such falls upon people to post diverse links more than it does to censor other posters.

Yeah. After getting sick of hearing how MeFi didn't care about sports topics, so stop posting them.

So you let yourselves be run out of town by a vocal minority. That's precisely what some of us hope to avoid this time around.
posted by rushmc at 8:03 PM on September 9, 2004

rushmc: you wanna fight about it?
posted by bob sarabia at 8:20 PM on September 9, 2004

Dwarf rapes nun, flees in UFO.
posted by troutfishing at 9:06 PM on September 9, 2004

What irks me most about recent political posts is the trend of the poster to stick his or her feelings, opinions, stabs or whatever in the FPP, rather than inside as a comment. This is a perfect example. I think that's even more distructive to the front page than the deluge of political posts in general.
posted by Witty at 9:13 PM on September 9, 2004

So you let yourselves be run out of town by a vocal minority.

Yuh, we're wicked bitches bro. We shoulda stayed and fought like men. Except no. We, and by "we" I mean "some other people", started another site so as not to bother people any more per majority request. Which seems to be what you're actually trying to avoid.
posted by yerfatma at 9:16 PM on September 9, 2004

P.S. What a game to start the season, huh?
posted by yerfatma at 9:16 PM on September 9, 2004

Y'know, I think the "best of the web" versus "newsfilter" argument involves just the tiniest bit of a false dichotomy. Given that the "things Metafilter doesn't do well" (religion and politics, at least) are among the beliefs people hold closest to their hearts--and thus feel the most need to get all screechy-baboon about when they're challenged on them--to suggest that the "best" of the web automatically excludes them seems to denigrate the very medium. This isn't to say that every single burp or fart uttered by the candidates, every op-ed or tiny detail in an ongoing (and, hello Swift Boat and/or AWOL nuts, irrelevant) scandal is post-worthy, but surely there's room to post that which is geniunely novel and of value?

Having said all that, though, I heartily encourage establishing some sort of politics magnet on MeFi--either a politics.metafilter.com subdomain or, as suggested above, daily catch-all election threads--as the best compromise between allowing a debate that people are so clearly attached to to continue, and keeping the front page from looking like too much of a wasteland.
posted by arto at 9:29 PM on September 9, 2004

You know, someone could just go vigilante and post "This is the daily US election thread" once per day. A pony you can make yourself -- how about that!
posted by reklaw at 10:21 PM on September 9, 2004

eustacescrubb - if someone offers reasons why they think a post sucks, argue with their reasons. But telling people that their standards are all a made-up ploy designed by them to foist their personal taste on others - *that* is stupid. I know accusations of elitism are easy darts to throw, and darn if they don't sound zingy just about any old time someone expresses an opinion, but I highly doubt anyone brings their ego to this particular testicular slaughterhouse to find satisfaction (except quonsar, of course, who's got some kind of nut-stomp fetish to feed).

Just as seanyboy is sick of hearing people say "shut up and scroll down," I'm really tired of people like you, who believe any discussion about standards is really just a penis size contest in disguise. No one here ('cept mathowie) has the power to impose his whims on anyone. Talking about what works and doesn't work on MeFi is exactly what MeTa is for.
posted by scarabic at 10:26 PM on September 9, 2004

guys, it's really not that big of a deal.
posted by mcsweetie at 11:33 PM on September 9, 2004

Great discussion!

Limiting my experience to MetaFilter and threads I wouldn't normally want to read but read anyway, because I was interested in the opinions of people I've learnt to respect, the truth is that I honestly think I've learnt a lot.

I used to be quite an arrogant, self-centred conservative dickhead. After 3 years here, all my real-life friends said I've become a damn lefty in my dotage. Insofar as being less intolerant and assertive signals a welcome decrease in selfishness and individualism - not to mention a very acute awareness of the enormous range of human opinions - I think they're right. It works both ways.

Threads which seem over-political are actually good for the soul. Also, in their rawest sense, Newsfiltery threads touch a nerve and are somehow "real". Although I'm by nature a literary, artsy fart I'd hate it if MetaFilter became as artsy farty, ossified and effete as I am.

It's all about the difference. Like-minded people are great but, as we say in Portugal, "não têm faísca" - they don't spark. Limiting posts is ultimately self-defeating. It's good to read what one didn't want to read. It alerts us to the existence of other people and teaches us to deal with it.

MetaFilter, as conceived by Matt and built by all of us, is about freedom, sincerity and passion. These qualities turn up in the most unlikely and unexpected ways.

Take things as they come - or not. But please don't try to inhibit other posters, just because they're not interesting to you. This is all free: people contribute their time and emotions. Asking them to repress themselves for the sake of scrolling length is like asking for your money back when you haven't actually paid a single penny.

People are as responsible for what they read as for what they write. "Live and let live" may have been disparaged as a maxim but I can't, for the life of me, find a single argument to prove it wrong. What else is there to do?
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:37 PM on September 9, 2004

Well said, Migs. Nice to read you again.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:40 PM on September 9, 2004

No problem with newsfilter, just a problem with too much newsfilter. I'm apt to agree with dash; and an all encompassing "Bush Fucks Up" post would do the trick. (Heck, have two or three of them)

rushmc: the burden for such falls upon people to post diverse links
It's Quantity he wants. Not Quality.
But you have yourself a deal. We'll play it your way.
posted by seanyboy at 12:17 AM on September 10, 2004

There is exactly one thing that has the potential to stop newsfilter posts, and it isn't anyone posting here. It happens about two months from now. (Actually, that's not strictly true - mathowie could pull the plug. So two things.)

Is two months (plus a little more for it to die down) too long to wait? Will metafilter become a flaming trainwreck of bush posts in that time? Tune in in Nov. to see...
posted by advil at 12:36 AM on September 10, 2004

People are as responsible for what they read as for what they write. "Live and let live" may have been disparaged as a maxim but I can't, for the life of me, find a single argument to prove it wrong. What else is there to do?


Bravo, Miguel, Bravo.
posted by sic at 2:43 AM on September 10, 2004

I used to be quite an arrogant, self-centred conservative dickhead

"And now I'm..." No, I can't do it.

Well said, Miguel. Dammit.
posted by languagehat at 7:51 AM on September 10, 2004

You know, someone could just go vigilante and post "This is the daily US election thread" once per day. A pony you can make yourself -- how about that!
posted by reklaw at 10:21 PM PST on September 9

Do it reklaw - do it!
posted by dash_slot- at 8:17 AM on September 10, 2004

Sorry, Miguel, but though you started your post with "Great discussion!" it hardly appears you read it.

MetaFilter, as conceived by Matt and built by all of us, is about freedom, sincerity and passion.

It is? I thought it was a place to drop links to interesting things on the web. Where's the passion in a post to a frisbee-catching dog? The sincerity in a post on watermelon carving? (Note that I think those are great posts.)

Sure, it can be a place where people invest their time to craft meticulous posts about things they are passionate about, but it's hardly what I think of when I think of MeFi. Especially lately.

And where is the sincerity and passion in another Bush post? There is none. Maybe you're talking about the enusing discussion and if that's the case... this is supposed to be a place to discuss interesting things on the web, not a place to discuss current affairs.

But please don't try to inhibit other posters, just because they're not interesting to you.

My lack of interest has little to do with it.

People are as responsible for what they read as for what they write.

Thanks! I literally laughed out loud when I read that one.

Threads which seem over-political are actually good for the soul.

Make up yer mind, Cardoso. Last week this was an American-infested cesspool with little interest and tolerance for those outside that country. This week their politics are good for the soul. If you read any of those political threads you'd see Americans don't take kindly to people who flip flop on their opinions.

And hey, at least when I post drunk I admit it.
posted by dobbs at 8:39 AM on September 10, 2004

this is supposed to be a place to discuss interesting things on the web, not a place to discuss current affairs

What some of you, mind-bogglingly, still don't seem to get after all this time is that the two are not necessarily mutually exclusive. You may find U.S. politics tedious; I may find a frisbee-catching dog tedious. Therefore, your attempts to generalize about what constitutes an "interesting" link are misguided, and there will NEVER be a consensus about this because there cannot be so long as we all have minds and interests and preferences of our own. That being the case, the only possible way to proceed reasonably and fairly is to allow people to post links that interest them, within the broad guidelines already established for the site (no self-links, doubleposts, etc.) and let people perform the second-level filtering for themselves. Pretty much all complaints about this are thinly-disguised attempts at tyranny in service of laziness.
posted by rushmc at 9:00 AM on September 10, 2004

But please don't try to inhibit other posters, just because they're not interesting to you.

My lack of interest has little to do with it.

Well then what does it have to do with? The fact that you have interpreted a set of guidelines in a certain way and you'll be damned if anybody doesn't follow your interpretation of the rules?

I think the discussion has been actually pretty good, hardly any irritated outbursts, people generally showing respect for one another (although not agreeing), especially considering that this topic has been done to death. I've tried to address the concerns brought up in an open way, as have others. What more do you want out of a Metatalk thread?

But I have asked the question a couple of times now and neither Bob Sarabia nor Seanyboy or you have really answered the question: If you don't have to read it, why can't you tolerate its presence, a thread hidden away behind a link that you know you won't like? Bob Sarabia used a cat vomit analogy and I asked:

"why a reasonably short political fpp is as upsetting to you as cat vomit on your carpet. That's the mystery. What is it about that post that makes you want to sanitize it, make it disappear, given that you don't actually have to read it or participate in the thread?"

I got no answer, but that's the key to this disagreement: you don't have to read it or particpate every thread. Why can't you let those who do want to read and participate in it have their fun, separate from your fun, whatever that may be? Is having to scroll down really the big issue here? Scarabic seems to say that due to the newsfilter the 10 or so posts that are published daily on Metafilter (of which 3 or 4 could be considered newsfilter) are as overwhelming as the billions of items posted on the entire Internet daily. Huh? Or is it merely insistence on following your interpretation of the guidelines? If that is the case than you will always be unhappy at a place like Metafilter that has so many different personalities...
posted by sic at 9:08 AM on September 10, 2004

People have answered the question. You just don't agree with their answers.

My own answer to the question is that the ratio of news to non-news posts is getting out of hand. Pretty soon there'll be so few non-news posts that it'll be pointless to come here for anyone who isn't USA'n or isn't interested in the American election.

And you're right, for the most part, this discussion was more civil than normal (for this topic). However, it's also clearly pointless and frustrating, which tells me I should just scoot for a few months hiatus. The general climate of the blue and grey isn't good for my mental health.

(And no, I won't let the door hit my ass on the way out.)
posted by dobbs at 9:31 AM on September 10, 2004

The inclusion of "just skip over it" into the palette of reading modes, of cognitive 'driving patterns' for traversing the territory of a web page or community discourse, is IN AND OF ITSELF a fascinating and rich development. Rather than linear-feeding, passive cows consuming whatever is put into the trough for us, we become free-range consumers of information on the grazing-grounds of discussion: choosing to nibble or pass by as we desire, altering the landscape in so doing, and interacting with the MetaFodder in a fuller way.

From another perspective, it's isomorphic to what Miles Davis, among others, did with music - by considering the REMOVAL or ignoring of a note or a passage as a musical action just like including it, a new axis of creativity, structure, and exploration is opened. By making the 'nagative space' a valid part of the terrain, the whole becomes that much more expansive.

So by being forced to consider NOT reading certain comments and posts (I'll not stoop to the the Bowdlerized, puerile, morally bankrupt 'FPP' abberation), you are in fact forced to live in a richer, more rewarding, and more intellectually fertile world with higher fractal dimension.
posted by freebird at 9:39 AM on September 10, 2004

What if comments were closed? Not that I would want to see that happen, but what if they were? Would we see fewer "newsfilter" posts if the ability to comment on them wasn't there?

I imagine if there were no outlet for commentary, we'd see that fall off and more of the "hey, neato website" posts increase. Metafilter would become memepool if that happened, however, but I think that a lot of the incentive to post "newsfilter" stuff is because of the ability for debate within this group, rather than a genuine feeling on behalf of the poster that a "newsfilter" topic is "the best of the web." Hell, in some cases, the conversation sparked by a post is itself the best of the web. So who the hell knows.

And I wouldn't mind cookery posts all the time. But then again, I also seek out sites for that rather than look for them here.
posted by macadamiaranch at 9:42 AM on September 10, 2004

Hell, in some cases, the conversation sparked by a post is itself the best of the web. So who the hell knows.

I agree completely. Sometimes just one or two posts in an otherwise irritating thread can be, for me, "the best of the web".


Pretty soon there'll be so few non-news posts that it'll be pointless to come here for anyone who isn't USA'n or isn't interested in the American election.

Rubbish. The "newsfilter" posts do not cause other posts to cease to exist, even if they increase. This shouldn't be the reason why you leave Dobbs. I also have to insist that my question remains unanswered, why does a "newsfilter" Front Page Post (*nods to Freebird, but avoids direct eye contact*), if it is tolerably short and has not been opened or read or participated in by you, ruin your Metafilter experience? It doesn't impede you from clicking on and reading the Front Page Posts that are attractive to you. Does it?
posted by sic at 9:57 AM on September 10, 2004

Street preachers! All of you are just crazy street preachers trying to shout each other down, and I will have none of it!
posted by rocketman at 12:40 PM on September 10, 2004

Rubbish. The "newsfilter" posts do not cause other posts to cease to exist, even if they increase.

I don't know about that. They (and their concomitant vitriol) can turn off non-news *posters* and eventually cause them to leave. There's little doubt that people leave this site. And there's little doubt that the vitriol turns a lot of people off. Perhaps these dots don't actually connect, but I think you may be a bit overconfident in lodging a "rubbish" on the whole subject.
posted by scarabic at 1:08 PM on September 10, 2004

One last note: that for every silent lurker who reads and enjoys a newsfilter post, there is another silent lurker who *does* actually skip over it, doesn't read it or complain about it. Which silent population is the majority? I don't know and neither do you.

But if the majority of the people were actually skipping the majority of the site, wouldn't you call that a problem?
posted by scarabic at 1:12 PM on September 10, 2004

Miguel, why aren't you responding to my emails? Lisbon is very beautiful by the way.
posted by Pretty_Generic at 1:50 PM on September 10, 2004

Migs hasn't responded to my last email, either.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:44 PM on September 10, 2004

Pretty soon there'll be so few non-news posts that it'll be pointless to come here for anyone who isn't USA'n or isn't interested in the American election.

That's ridiculous of course, but let's say that it were true. Wouldn't it be the choice, freely made, of those who bother to POST to Metafilter, rather than just read what others have posted? I guess the difference of opinion concerns what is owed to the person whose only experience of Mefi is reading it (and demanding the flavor of posts they prefer).
posted by rushmc at 3:51 PM on September 10, 2004

I dunno, rush. Anyone with the ability to complain here also has the ability to post. Most of us do, excepting Seth. So I think it's more about defining a space for cocreationg that demanding someone produce exactly what you want to consume and nothing else.

Here's an analogy. You start an informal little acoustic jam down in the park. Third wednesday of every month. It's going great for a while. People are bringing their guitars and having a great time. Lots of folk music. A few guys busting rhymes and doing beatbox. There's this one guy who plays his harmonica with distortion through a little pocket amp, and a lady from the choir who comes down with some angelic vocals. Quite a mix. One day you get a sweet jam on to a Bob Dylan song, and the whole crowd around you sings along. Good times!

Then people start bringing in boomboxes and doing karaoke to Bob Dylan songs. They draw quite a crowd, because, as we know, people love karaoke. You say "hey, this isn't a karaoke club, you guys. Some of us are actually trying to play some music." But they tell you to shut up, because clearly people are loving the karaoke. Then you ask them to turn down the volume a bit, at least, so you can share space. They tell you to shut up again, because anyone who stands right next to you can still hear you playing. What's your problem, you tyrant? If they're really interested, they'll find you. You need to lord over the whole park, do you?

So you shrug and pack it up. It's a public park after all. But at the end of the day, your neighborhood has a fucking karaoke festival going on in the park instead of live music, and you're obviously some kind of elitist fuck for daring to lament the fact.
posted by scarabic at 4:12 PM on September 10, 2004

scarabic, you don't mention the park keeper - but it seems he likes the odd bit of karaoke in the mix too.
posted by dash_slot- at 4:35 PM on September 10, 2004

Just for the record, I don't think you are an elitist fuck, Scarabic. And I hope neither you nor Dobbs leave the site because of this. I especially like the posts that Dobbs contributes. For my part I am going to encourage "newsfilter" posters to make sure that the FPP that they write up is discrete, so as not to distract or anger people who hate them. But beyond that I think we are just going to have to shake hands on this one and agree to disagree.
posted by sic at 4:47 PM on September 10, 2004

So I think it's more about defining a space for cocreationg that demanding someone produce exactly what you want to consume and nothing else.

Ideally it would be, but unfortunately that's not how most of the complaints actually read. There are a few holier-than-thou types who admit openly that they will try to bully users into using the site according to their preferences by crapping in every thread that doesn't meet with their approval, which is directly contrary to the way mathowie has set up the site (i.e., with MetaTalk to keep such discussion out of the threads proper). It's this attitude and behavior, I think, that most of us disagree with the strongest. If you can't convince an opponent of your point of view, you should seek compromise, not try to enforce your views upon them. That's just ugly.
posted by rushmc at 5:02 PM on September 10, 2004

that's not how most of the complaints actually read.

Perhaps not, but try to remember that 1/2 of the way something reads is the way you read it.

There are a few holier-than-thou types who admit openly that they will try to bully users into using the site according to their preferences

Perhaps so, though the ethic of not shitting *in* the thread is pretty universally established. Comments like that are best handled by deletion, not stifling a conversation like this one, which is taking place in the grey. I've been accused of being a bully and a tyrant just for expressing my opinion here.

And my opinion is partly personal pereference, partly my interpretation of Matt's charter, and partly observation about what works well here, what makes MeFi different from Yahoo! News. This is why I'm frustrated by comments like "complaints about this are thinly-disguised attempts at tyranny in service of laziness." If I just wanted to inflict myself on someone, I'd go beat up a nun.
posted by scarabic at 5:31 PM on September 10, 2004

you should seek compromise, not try to enforce your views upon them. That's just ugly.

Anyway, I agree with you completely on this. I started out this thread saying that if you don't agree with someone's objections, argue with them, don't just tell them to shut up and scroll down. That's ugly too.
posted by scarabic at 5:32 PM on September 10, 2004

Then we are in agreement on the larger issue, scarabic. But I think most of us on both (all?) sides of this issue are getting very tired of the weekly debate, since it will never be resolved. (Then why continue to participate, you ask? I suppose because if one side is continually brought up and the other side isn't represented, there is the fear that the first side will win by default. But it's still very tiresome.)
posted by rushmc at 5:44 PM on September 10, 2004

Well, the newsfilterians are the ones to win by default, since, even now though the debate rages on, their posts continue to go up. My personal philosophy is not to start the debate, but I'll engage it for my part once it's going. The only reason I'd hate to see the debate end entirely is that any incoming newbies would just naturally think that newsfilter posts were great and widely adored, when in fact they're quite controversial.
posted by scarabic at 6:00 PM on September 10, 2004

scarabic, you don't mention the park keeper - but it seems he likes the odd bit of karaoke in the mix too.

Just so. The odd bit. But he's asked them to turn the volume down quite often, too, and he always yanks their 'lectric at sundown.
posted by scarabic at 7:01 PM on September 10, 2004

There are so many posts, usually daily, that I don't have time or inclination to read them all.

Political posts bore me to tears for the most part, so I normally skip those posts. I still have a selection of things that are of interest to me to choose from.

I just don't understand why the 'if it doesn't interest you, skip it' mantra is so hard to follow.
posted by kamylyon at 7:59 PM on September 10, 2004

It isn't hard to follow. I follow it. I also complain about having to follow it. I just don't understand why the "but I skip the posts because they suck" is so hard to grasp.
posted by scarabic at 9:05 PM on September 10, 2004

I miss the old days when I would read all the FPPs. Well, true, these days I still read all the FPPs...it's just that I've already read most of them elsewhere.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:40 PM on September 10, 2004

Scarabic,

You are hilarious. This isn't a bar, or a park, or any of the other analogies you use. No one's taking the tambourine out of your hand.

These are links to different conversations. If you want to jam, all you need to do is participate in the discussions you are interested in.
posted by xammerboy at 11:18 PM on September 10, 2004

scarabic:
I also complain about having to follow it.

Why complain? Why bother? What.is.the.point?

Read what you want to read and go on from there.

The bothering to complain is what I'm wondering about. I'm sorry, you read a newspaper, you skip the stories that don't interest you. Do you write a letter to the editor about the stories you didn't like?

I doubt it.

So why do it here? MetaFilter is like a newspaper to me. I read the parts that interest me, and skip what doesn't. Fairly simple, imho.

I do wish there were more on the cartoons page though....
posted by kamylyon at 12:23 AM on September 11, 2004

Everywhere I've ever lived, any time the local newspaper changes either their design or their news balance, a whole bunch of people complain. Seems like people care about the whole package, even if they don't read every little thing. So yours is not a good analogy for your purpose.

Of course, in the case of a newspaper, there's limited space and it's basically zero-sum. People argue here that MeFi isn't zero sum and more newsfilter doesn't come at the cost of less non-newsfilter. In fact, while it's not zero sum, there is a relationship between the two—the more it become one thing, the less it is the other. Compare a MetaFilter with (daily) eight non-newsfilter stories and two newsfilter stories to a MetaFilter with two hundred newsfilter stories and eight non-newsfilter stories. There's no less non-newsfilter content than before. Nevertheless, they are two very, very different MetaFilters.

People often claim that the "correct" response to complaints about newsfilter is to post more non-newsfilter posts. But that would be a viable corrective if there were as much "best of the web" content to post as there is newsfilter content to post. But there isn't. The limit on newsfilter content availability is effectively infinite. There's new news, new big news, every single day. There's no limit on "things that might prompt an interesting conversation", either.

Maybe the problem isn't actually getting any worse once we subtract out the US election year portion. Maybe what we're complaining about hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen. Maybe. But the antinewsfilter argument is valid in principle...though people keep trying to argue that it isn't.

There's a whole lot of places on the web that either are explicitly current event and political chat sites, or they are true anarchic communities with no charter and are constantly redefining themselves. Metafilter isn't one of them. It does have a charter (that is, it's explicitly intended to be a certain kind of thing), and it's not ultimately an anarchy. For whatever reason, while Matt is God of MetaFilter, he's also allowed a certain sort of limited democracy and he created MeTa for the purposes of self-policing and the like. In this sense, the community does get to decide what Metafilter is, except that we're limited by arguments from the text, as it were. The closest thing we have to a defining text are the posting guidelines, Matt's commenting history, and his moderating history. And the one thing that is clear from that is that MeFi is not freeform. Matt's made it clear that there are a lot of things that he won't allow MeFi to be. So it's clear that we don't get to just have an unrestricted majority decision about what MeFi is. We are allowed to try to come to terms with what those restictions are on our own—Matt doesn't want to babysit us, so to speak. And that's what we're doing.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:11 AM on September 11, 2004

This is a difficult debate for me, because I'm fairly evenly split.

On the one hand: Many of the political posts do contain information that is less visible in the mainstream media; it is a rather remarkable time in U.S. and world history and if MeFi didn't reflect that, I think it would be sad and strange; and people are eager to talk about it.

On the other: It's absolutely true that if any other topic were introduced so continuously, and with such a proportion of poor presentation and content, the outcry would be deafening, and I believe that MeFi is being seen, more and more, as a "political blog" in consequence.

For those of you asking "why not pass over the posts you don't like", the answer is that this question is not the answer to the original concern, which is not "how can I avoid looking at these posts", but "isn't there a danger that MetaFilter is rapidly evolving into a news and politics blog". I don't know what the resolution to the conflict is, and I can't really align with either side, but both points of view are valid and shouldn't be dismissed out of hand with solutions that don't actually address the issues.
posted by taz at 2:11 AM on September 11, 2004

I just don't understand why the "but I skip the posts because they suck" is so hard to grasp.

Because "sucking" is a subjective, idiosyncratic opinion! No one is saying you shouldn't have an opinion on which posts suck...just that you (and by "you" I mean "those who do this") shouldn't try to ram that opinion down the throats of everyone who disagrees, which ironically is exactly what the anti-newsfiltarians are accusing those who post political links of doing to them, only worse, because censorship is worse than mere promiscuity.
posted by rushmc at 4:06 AM on September 11, 2004

I ran across this comment from 4 years ago. This problem is apparently not very new.

I skip political posts, unless they have tons of comments, and then I only read the comments because I find them amusing.

Perhaps it is the sheer popularity of US political posts that have non-politickers pissed. Someone might post a great link to some dude who plays a saxophone with his toes and it only gets two comments. On the blue at the same time might be five different "CNN reports: Bush's brother's dog takes a crap" posts each with 80 comments.

When this is the case, it probably isn't surprising that non-politickers are disgruntled. And it also isn't surprising that the majority who like political posts lashes out at the disgruntlement. Not only does the complaint seem to be a hidden gibe at the subjective taste of political posters, it also threatens their King of the Hill status, which for some reason, must be defended.

Clearly, my blathering is mere supposition. taz puts it better than I do.
posted by sciurus at 4:55 AM on September 11, 2004

I suggest you all check out the front page, right now. The last two days there have been a lot of links posted and a very small amount of them fall under what people are calling "newsfilter". Metafilter is not in danger of becoming anything bad. This is a very important election cycle in the world's sole superpower. There is a war going on. People are interested in the topic of politics, therefore there will be more political posts. But Metafilter is still being Metafilter.

Don't worry about it so much.

Don't have anymore time to spend on this topic, but I want to thank just about everybody for having a mature discussion (for once) on this touchy subject. Well done!
posted by sic at 6:44 AM on September 11, 2004

I read this thread top to bottom because from time to time I enjoy witnessing what a macrochosm of an individual mind MetaFilter is. So many of these metatalk threads are like the village in my head that is forver hashing things over, no matter that they've been rehashed a hundred times.

Judging from the relatively low number of posters here, I would say that a vast majority of this site's members didn't think that this thread would be interesting, so they didn't read it. That strikes me as a pretty poetic demonstration of the scroll-down-holmes position.

Also, if one constructive thing comes of this thread, perhaps it will be a shortening of (especially political) front page posts. I agree with those who advocate putting it inside.

Also, I'm glad to see scarabic reverse his initial position on starting metadiscussions within threads. If you don't like a thread, folks, just smile: it's not karaoke in your face, it's a few lines of text on your screen. Glide... glide on by.

Oh, and I can vouch for scarabic's gassiness. Ho, buddy.
posted by squirrel at 12:18 AM on September 12, 2004

squirrel: 'Judging from the relatively low number of posters here, I would say that a vast majority of this site's members didn't think that this thread would be interesting, so they didn't read it.'

Or, they read it, and found that the comments already posted adequately covered their POV, so were disinclined to add comments. It has been a well expressed and polite thread.

If any thread were conducted with such respect and gentility, I would be inclined to read it, whatever the subject.
posted by asok at 4:04 AM on September 12, 2004

Anyone have any idea why this iteration of this argument resulted in a more polite and reasonable thread than usual? I don't doubt that we're going to continue to argue about this and it'd be nice to know how to do it nicely and productively.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:59 AM on September 12, 2004

Anyone have any idea why this iteration of this argument resulted in a more polite and reasonable thread than usual?

No idea, but it's been a good read for a change.
posted by kamylyon at 5:13 PM on September 12, 2004

It's a fluke. Enjoy it while it lasts. Tomorrow we go back to Lord Of The Flies-style feral playground mob justice.

Mmmmmmm. I can smell the torches and the grinding axes already.
posted by chicobangs at 11:10 PM on September 12, 2004

[lights torch]

Why complain? Why bother? What.is.the.point?

Why ask? Why wonder? Please.Lick.Me.Crosseyed.

Read what you want to read and go on from there.

This is getting really boring. For the last time: the word "filter" is in the name of the site. The P.O.I.N.T. is to filter the web and link to the B.E.S.T. of it. From time to time we're going to talk about what this little blue filter screens in and out, what "best" means, etc. Get used to it. Why do folks repeat "but chill, man, let's just post everything under the sun, and then everyone can just skim for the stuff they want" over and over? This is not the internet white pages. This is MetaFilter. Where we fil-ter the web. Mmmkay?

If anyone is really under the impression that, even now, anything under the sun is cool to post, they're delusional. That spankin' blue homepage you love is a work of craft, a distilled spirit, a masterfully culled tiny wedge slice of the big hairy internet pie. I'm not going to stop discussing its particular character, the process by which this magic is created. However, neither am I drowning in an explosive pool of my own diarrhea over the subject.

This is a conversation about the character of our beloved little filter, which is mostly a member-generated miracle. Members are going to chat about the ins and outs thereto. Please, if you've never posted a single link, and think "MetaFilter is like a newspaper to me," that just magically appears on your doorstep every morning, do yourself a favor and shut up. I'm always amused by folks who take time out of their day to complain about my taking time out of my day to complain about something. How about you just subscribe to a damn newspaper if you're so content with that metaphor?
posted by scarabic at 1:15 AM on September 13, 2004

/ polite and reasonable discussion.
posted by sic at 7:29 AM on September 13, 2004

The conversation about what makes a good post is never going to just end. It's a healthy one to have. What gets my panties in a bunch is the folks who jump into it just to say "Stop having this conversation! Stop having an opinion! Why must you complain so?" I think this conversation has a much better chance of remaining civil and reasonable if people allow it to exist in the first place. Going alllll the way back up to seanyboy's original point: "just suck it up" is not a useful contribution to the everlasting conversation about what makes a good post.
posted by scarabic at 1:24 PM on September 13, 2004

See what I mean? Gassy. Careful with that torch, chico!
posted by squirrel at 10:51 PM on September 13, 2004

[Fingers copy of Cassavetes' "Faces," brings it closer to the torchflame...]
posted by scarabic at 11:36 PM on September 13, 2004

What gets my panties in a bunch is the folks who jump into it just to say "Stop having this conversation! Stop having an opinion! Why must you complain so?"

Scarabic is logically right. People (like me) who think they're saying "Oh, stop whining and get on with it" are actually whining too. It doesn't make much sense to step into a thread against the "if you don't like it, skip it" mantra - the sort of thread we anti-whiners don't like and therefore should skip - and whine endlessly about how, instead of having that very legitimate contrary opinion, they should just skip what they don't like. Like who? Certainly not like us.

Oh the embarrassment!

Yeah, but you whiners started it first. And, besides, what is worse: the dog who barks all night or the neighbour who bores the community meetings senseless about it and then starts a petition to have the poor beast's vocal chords removed? Yup, really bad analogy. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:18 AM on September 14, 2004

Because everyone, by definition, lives in the neighborhood but only a very few people come to the neighborhood association meetings, I'd say that the barking dog is more annoying to more people than is the complaining neighbor. Which is, I guess, why you thought this was a bad analogy.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:02 AM on September 14, 2004

Reading from the UK, I enjoy the USA-biased newsy content and the ensuing debates, and even the mud-slinging, mainly because it is heartening to see sensible (to me) opinions expressed by Americans when the media over here, and often the opinion polls, suggest the majority of you chaps across the Ocean are all totally bloody insane war-loving gun nut foetus-obsessed Bush voters. Conversely, it's valuable to see the right wing folk on here express their opinions in a more considered fashion than the caricatures allow. (Or, roughly, what MiguelCardoso said about learning from participating here.)

In the end, this is all a matter of taste, and if nice mister mathowie wishes to code tools for the anti-news people to avoid having their eyes soiled by partisan claptrap/breaking news/etc., that's surely up to him, as is his (seeming) tacit approval of some news content here; if not, then, really and truly, it's not something to get too het up about. You can always effect a change in the ratio of newsy to best-of-the-webish posts - might not all the words and energy expended in this thread have been better spent on crafting lovely posts free of news? I wonder what would happen if all the folk troubled by NewsFilter posts pledged to make one extra non-NewsFilter post per week? Better to turn this into a fight for supremacy on the front page than to talk shop ad nauseam... oh, no, sorry, I've been typing so long I completely forgot where I was!
posted by jack_mo at 10:09 AM on September 14, 2004

Reading from the UK...

Now that was nice. A reasoned, substantial, subjective case for why the newsfiltery stuff is grand. If we could trade in those more often, and trade less often in the "scroll down you complaining bimbo" remarks...

As for "it's a matter of taste," I see something empirically valuable behind your remarks. One of the basic tenets of what's good to do on MetaFilter is: something that isn't already being done everywhere else (as with the portrayal of Americans as reasoned beings). That much isn't a matter of taste. It's a matter of economics, since there's no reason to subject Matt and our gracious host to the trouble and expense of duplicating something that's already widely available with major funding backing it.

The "already widely available" factor is what kills newsfilter for me. But if the commentary that follows does something unique for you, jack_mo, then tally-ho.
posted by scarabic at 11:55 AM on September 14, 2004

My usual futile attempt at using actual filters on Metafilter part 471:-

How about a dead simple filter. When you make a newsy FPP, you check a box that says "This post has news in it". Then users get a big fat button on top of their page that says "Hey, I don't need all that news crap on my front page!". Fil - tah!

And.....then there'd be no call-outs and we'd all live happily ever after.
posted by SpaceCadet at 12:13 PM on September 14, 2004