Crafting Good Posts Part XXMCIV: labelling

November 30, 2004 9:59 PM

Crafting Good Posts Part XXMCIV: labelling. Things to note when making a post: [QuickTime] = "this link has quicktime movie content," [NSFW] = "you may want to view this discretely," [NYT] = "this link requires a New York Times registration..."

What else do you wanna know up front? Let's go over it for our neoFites.
posted by scarabic to etiquette/policy at 9:59 PM (43 comments total)

Whenever the link does not point to HTML, I'd prefer to know what I'm getting myself into. PDF, flash, WMV, whatever. If the file is unexpectedly large (e.g. uncompressed audio), providing the file size is a nice touch.

Personally, I'm sick of the NYT registration warnings. If the link goes to the Times, you should know what to expect by now.
posted by Galvatron at 10:19 PM on November 30, 2004

Okay... here goes: I asked about an inside MeFi joke on AskMeFi, and they said it would be better posted here "in the Gray".

So.... what is an appropriate question for AskMeFi?
posted by Doohickie at 10:25 PM on November 30, 2004

Okay... here goes: I asked about an inside MeFi joke on AskMeFi, and they said it would be better posted here "in the Gray".

So.... what is an appropriate question for AskMeFi?

A serious inquiry about something that has absolutely nothing to do with metafilter (blue, grey, or green).
posted by The God Complex at 10:27 PM on November 30, 2004

Ah.... okay.
posted by Doohickie at 10:29 PM on November 30, 2004

MetaFilter related questions go to MetaTalk. Anything requiring expertise, specialized knowledge or accumulated wisdom go to AskMetaFilter.
posted by y2karl at 10:31 PM on November 30, 2004

[+] or (mi) means more inside.

Titles can be inserted into your links by replacing the closing > with title=""> after you make a link. Like so. Click on View and then Click on Source to see how, if that makes no sense, and to find out how to do such things as the small and big tags, etc.
posted by y2karl at 10:45 PM on November 30, 2004

If the link is to an html file but plays some kind of loud audio, those of us who share offices would like to know.
posted by cali at 10:52 PM on November 30, 2004

What about posts that consist of:

.

? What doe the "." mean?
posted by Doohickie at 10:55 PM on November 30, 2004

Unrelatedly: is it just me, or does "target=_blank" not work around here?

On preview: This ".", it vibrates?
posted by m0nm0n at 10:58 PM on November 30, 2004

you teach elementary school, don't you scarabic?
posted by quonsar at 11:06 PM on November 30, 2004

Doohickie - As I think someone pointed out earlier, The MetaFilter Wiki really is a great reference. It's even linked from the front of metatalk.

In fact, a quick search on "period" turned up the answer to your question. Really, please search somewhere before asking. In fact, read the MeTa archives before asking... this was answered last week.
posted by SpecialK at 11:27 PM on November 30, 2004

In fact, doohickie, the answer to your question is item #2 in This thread ... I know you're new, but you've asked two different questions like this now. Once is ok, twice is fine, but three times and even I'm gonna start smacking you around like a n00b. When you join a community, there's no excuse for not reading some of the information that's provided for new users.
posted by SpecialK at 11:29 PM on November 30, 2004

.
posted by grouse at 1:38 AM on December 1, 2004

As far as I'm concerned, these newbs can play floor hockey with my NUTS.
posted by The God Complex at 2:25 AM on December 1, 2004

Jesus Christ, q, I guess I do now. I would really, really like to attribute a sense of irony to the person who said "what does '.' mean?" No dice, though.

LOOK PEOPLE: the only purpose of this thread is to help the n00bs remember to say stuff like [NSFW] and [MPG 200MB] and [hi res pics of bleeding anuses] before posting to the Blue. I'm trying very hard to open a discussion about one small thing that's helpful and not on the Wiki yet.

[loud audio]
[PDF]
[Big File]
...anything else?

Incidentally, Doohickie, when someone says "take it to the Grey" they don't mean that you should come here and ask your question in the first thread you see. They mean you should come here and open your own new thread for the purpose of asking the question. Running around willy nilly asking about what the inside jokes mean is going to wear you down. That is, if I don't kill you myself first.

Please, for the love of god, all curious n00bs read this page and find out all you need to know in order to talk about vibrating pancakes with all the cool motherfuckers here.
posted by scarabic at 2:30 AM on December 1, 2004

[this is a shit flash game that will annoy anyone with the word gameplay in their vocabulary].
posted by nthdegx at 2:45 AM on December 1, 2004

Jesus, is it always this bad when the gates open? I would think that the vast majority of people who signed up had been around for awhile (hence could justify the $5 to participate). Although with 2000+ users joining I suppose there's only been about 0.5-1% of those people asking retarded questions. The funny thing is, I "just got here" and I'm sick of these questions because of all the time I spent lurking.

And I think it's typically in bad taste to use inside jokes when you weren't technically around for their inception. So while I may get the MeFi pankake-pony-vibrating-periods, I am hoping that new inside jokes will develop with the influx of new users, thereby justifying my use of them. Because inside jokes make you cool. Like scarabic up there. He's cool, right? Right??

On topic: That's a good list so far. Also add Registration Required ([Reg. Req.]?) like for this thread (not for newspaper), because it's nice to know in advance.
posted by rooftop secrets at 2:47 AM on December 1, 2004

[To get to the Wiki, make a left at the pool.]
posted by Smart Dalek at 3:21 AM on December 1, 2004

Noted.
posted by Colloquial Collision at 3:23 AM on December 1, 2004

am hoping that new inside jokes will develop with the influx of new users

and the living will envy the dead
posted by luser at 5:47 AM on December 1, 2004

If you (have to) link to the New York Times, there is a tool to generate a link that doesn't require registration.

The special coding tells the Times's server that the link is coming from a weblog, and now and in the future, this link will work without a fee to access the archive.

So, a link without registration, no need for the [NYT Reg. req.] warning and the link will work for a long time. Should make everybody happy.
posted by ltl at 5:56 AM on December 1, 2004

It's perhaps worth remembering at this point that, as useful as acronyms and abbreviations are, they also help to create an insular community. I mean insular here in the worst sense of the word -- think Great Wall of MeFi. Our private language, while it serves as a badge of membership and acceptance, also signals to "outsiders" that they are outside, unwanted, unthoughtof.

So please, reconsider using FPP when you mean to say "a post to the front page" (or similar), and skip using [mi] or other cutesy shibboleths when what you really mean is that there is more detail inside the thread. If it will help convince you, I'll mention that Matt has asked that we avoid both.


Unrelatedly: is it just me, or does "target=_blank" not work around here?

It's generally considered good form to let people decide when/whether they want links opened in new windows or tabs, and not to force that decision upon them.
posted by gleuschk at 6:08 AM on December 1, 2004

Don't forget "spoilers inside" and remembering to actually put them inside the thread and not as part of the original post.

Also, being sure to recognize that although the majority of the people here are in US timezones, we are a global community and some posts become spoilers due to the time/day differences alone.
posted by cyniczny at 6:16 AM on December 1, 2004

SpecialK:

a) Thanks for the link.

b) I now fully understand the reception I've been getting.

c) I could have missed it, but is there a link to that thread from the information for new users page? If not, it wouldn't be a bad addition.

d) On the other hand, if this abuse is part of the initiation (kind of like sending a new employee to get the "left-handed rope pusher"), then nevermind.

e) I'm buying a thicker skin when my paycheck comes in this week, so if you have to bitchslap me, go for it.

eom.
posted by Doohickie at 6:21 AM on December 1, 2004

Oh, and scarabic: My apologies for infringing on the sovereignty of your thread.
posted by Doohickie at 6:22 AM on December 1, 2004

is there a link to that thread ...?

Ah... there it is, right in the "Some helpful links:" sidebar.



Okay.

So I'm a noob.
posted by Doohickie at 6:36 AM on December 1, 2004

It's also considered -- what? polite? good form? correct? -- to link and tip the hat to the site from which you appropriated your FPP link: [A&L Daily] [The Morning News] [Fark], etc.
posted by papercake at 7:31 AM on December 1, 2004

...appropriated your FPP link...

Grr.
posted by gleuschk at 8:02 AM on December 1, 2004

I'm with gleuschk - I used to wonder why folk needed to make a distinction between posts still on the front page and those that had passed into the archives. Until I worked out it was just an utterly nonsensical way of distinguishing between the perfectly distinct posts and comments. [mi], [+] and the like are also rather annoying, since they barely save any space on screen (I assume that's the point?), look jarring, and could lead to a new user or reader missing useful content (it's not a discussion site, remember - some of us just like to click on the links!)

And ltl's pointer to the NYT link generator should probably be emblazoned in letters of fire on the posting page. Or similar.

One other thing: mightn't it be nice if folk linking to a site that is likely to suffer under the weight of MetaFilter scrutiny - geocities and the like - could link to the Google cache of the page, as well as providing the original link (though not, perhaps, in the body of the post itself)? Someone always ends up doing this anyway in a comment, so it might as well be pre-empted.
posted by jack_mo at 8:59 AM on December 1, 2004

Regarding registration required references (damn, I'm good): Check out BugMeNot, which is a tool that comes in various forms (including a Firefox extension) to allow you to bypass silly registrations for most sites.
posted by knave at 9:06 AM on December 1, 2004

Unrelatedly: is it just me, or does "target=_blank" not work around here?

gleuschk addressed this already but let me just say this: no. No. In addition, no. Furthermore, no. To conclude, no. In summation, no.
posted by TimeFactor at 10:14 AM on December 1, 2004

Don't forget to put the toilet seat down.
posted by rocketman at 10:15 AM on December 1, 2004

[Quicktime] [Flash] [PDF] etc...
"special software required to enjoy this link"

[via Waxy]
"I saw this linked on another site, here it is."

[registration required]
"the site I link to won't show you the article until you sign up with them"

[more inside]
"I don't want to take up any more space on the homepage, there's additional info inside the thread"

[loud audio]
"you may want to turn your speakers down"

[250MB]
"it's a big fucker"

[spoilers]
"if you enter this thread you may learn key plot points that will ruin the movie/book for you"

And of course:

[not safe for work / NSFW]
"sexual and/or graphic content best view discretely"

[not safe for lunch]
"gross or disturbing content of some kind"

[not safe for anyone]
"really fucked up content, view at your own risk"

Anything else?
posted by scarabic at 11:49 AM on December 1, 2004

Grr.

Was it something I said, how I said it, or just that you like to make growly noises?
posted by papercake at 12:43 PM on December 1, 2004

It was the FPP part. Why not just say "...appropriated your link"?
posted by gleuschk at 2:26 PM on December 1, 2004

Because FPP is clearer and more precise than "link," which can refer to many different things that happen here. The FPP is the main currency of MeFi, and though I know Matt has officially deprecated the term, I say noobs should just get used to it, because it sure as hell ain't goin' away.

All the other stuff I agree with. Everything. Even when it contradicts itself.
posted by soyjoy at 7:55 PM on December 1, 2004

It's also considered -- what? polite? good form? correct? -- to link and tip the hat to the site from which you appropriated your FPP link: [A&L Daily] [The Morning News] [Fark], etc.

That practice is kinda deprecated these days, no? IMO, a tip of the hat is polite if you cribbed the link from your average shmuck blogger. That way s/he can get some traffic. But there's no need to credit larger sites like Fark.

I also want to re-post cyniczny's comment above, for emphasis.

Don't forget "spoilers inside" and remembering to actually put them inside the thread and not as part of the original post.

Also, being sure to recognize that although the majority of the people here are in US timezones, we are a global community and some posts become spoilers due to the time/day differences alone.

If you're on the east coast and post the winner of the latest season of Survivor--especially if you do it before the west coast has seen it, you will be in a world of hurt.
posted by jpoulos at 9:23 AM on December 2, 2004

view discretely

One at a time, folks. One at a time.
posted by ook at 9:30 AM on December 2, 2004

Seriously, though, the one thing I wish I could personally pound into the skull of every newbie:

You do not need to sign your posts. The site does it for you.

One of the things that Makes Metafilter Better™ is the absence of footers, headers, .sigs, avatars, and all the other crap that makes most messageboards unreadable.
posted by ook at 2:12 PM on December 2, 2004

Howdy, newbie question: what HTML tags are allowed in posts? I've already figured out that I don't need to insert the P's to break up the text, and the neato formatting buttons below the textarea. But I wanted to add something minor at the bottom of the post and tried FONT SIZE="-1" to do that but it was rejected. Oddly, it did allow the superscript tag!
posted by intermod at 6:26 PM on December 2, 2004

You can use "small" for that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:29 PM on December 2, 2004

You can also view source.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:59 PM on December 2, 2004

Re view source, yeah, I didn't think to look for an existing comment. Re the "small" tag, I'm old fart when it comes to HTML and still use the old logical tags (e.g. strong instead of bold), and so tags like big and small don't exist in my narrow HTML worldview. I'll remember them now though. Thanks!
posted by intermod at 7:08 PM on December 2, 2004