Links or discussion; which is more important? December 20, 2004 12:01 PM   Subscribe

What is the appropriate role of links in making FPP’s? A lot of people seem to think that MetaFilter is, essentially, about discussion. But Matt deletes “bad” links, even when they might generate good discussion. Why? If I want to discuss a topic, why can’t I just go and find any old link to start things off? Or can I?

It’s an old topic, but maybe we should adapt to our new users. And short of a definitive pronouncement from Matt, the only way to determine appropriate behavior around here is through community consensus. So: What say you all?
posted by gd779 to Etiquette/Policy at 12:01 PM (127 comments total)

Matt has stated repeatedly over the years that this site is about the links, not the discussion.
posted by konolia at 12:02 PM on December 20, 2004


I can think of dozens of discussions I'd like to start, hanging them off some flimsy reference or other. That's why I have a blog.
posted by caitlinb at 12:04 PM on December 20, 2004


I think it would be fantastic to have a greater focus on discussion... on your own blog.
posted by grouse at 12:05 PM on December 20, 2004


It's been consistently about the links. The goods links generate good discussion. Bad links can too, but much more rarely. Besides, AskMe has become chatty, so why polute the Blue?
posted by FlamingBore at 12:06 PM on December 20, 2004


Yeah. There's a reason why you have to click on "Post a Link" in order to post.

Although some of these are pretty fun to read, in a what-not-to-do sense.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 12:07 PM on December 20, 2004


Matt has stated repeatedly over the years that this site is about the links, not the discussion.

Yes, he has. No, he hasn't. I'm not sure what the official policy is, and I'm quite certain that, whatever Matt may think, a lot of people don't know what the policy is. Maybe it's time for a change?

I'm not advocating one position or another. I'm asking, because I've been repeatedly told that my previous opinion (that the link matters) was wrong.
posted by gd779 at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2004


Unless the post actually can stand on its own then its really not appropriate. And yes, there are exceptions to that rule, like the debate threads back in September and October.

And yeah, personal blogs are great places for discussion. Don't be lured by the traffic of MeFi to post "discussion starter" threads. They will very, very rarely go the way you hope they do and can result in massive ugliness.
posted by fenriq at 12:08 PM on December 20, 2004


We all know that sometimes a seemingly simple post turns into a wealth of links and information, an incredible resource. So I think an absolute hard rule on "what a post should be" is not appropriate...
posted by Shane at 12:12 PM on December 20, 2004


I mentioned this in another MeTa post. There could be advantages to starting a new "color" area for discussion not necessarily related to new and unique posts. "Understandably, there are some who would hate such an area, but if the goal would be a place to banish all threads that don't belong in blue, gray or green, could it make MeFi a better place?"

Now, it could be that Matt doesn't want to deal with administering a general blog and all the bandwidth that entails. Fair enough. But since there seems to be a certain volume of posts that just don't seem to fit in to blue, gray or green, an alternate area is one possible solution.
posted by Doohickie at 12:13 PM on December 20, 2004


new and unique links, actually. oops.
posted by Doohickie at 12:14 PM on December 20, 2004


You get a list of links anywhere. What's unique here is the discussion.

Sorry, I find these same links everyday on Daypop, Blogdex, etc.
posted by xammerboy at 12:15 PM on December 20, 2004


It's about the links, but bad/weak posts have very often been saved by the discussion, and the extra stuff posted inside, so it essentially is a toss-up, I think.
posted by amberglow at 12:16 PM on December 20, 2004


xammer's right--it's rare that any links by themselves are really new or unique.
posted by amberglow at 12:16 PM on December 20, 2004


Metafilter is about whatever the people with enough clout say it's about. Until Matt says otherwise.

Anyway, what good is a link without a discussion? So to say "it's about the links" is just plain silly. At least discussions entail interaction between people; Metafilter as a pure link-board is just group-onanism.
posted by lodurr at 12:18 PM on December 20, 2004


You get a list of links anywhere. What's unique here is the discussion.

Should we ask Matt to make links optional, then?
posted by gd779 at 12:19 PM on December 20, 2004


gd-

First I'm keenly aware of making a lot of responses so I (sincerely and not sarcastically) do not come off micromanaging.

I feel awful that my post triggered such a bad domino effect today. It was really my goal to find out what people thought about that biblical passage however I cynically worded it wrong (whoops).

Anyone that had a negative reaction to my post, I tried gathering their email and sending them an apology. I also apologized in the previous MeTA. I do not know anything else I can do except that I have learned from this and will consider this in my next FPP.

to go on...

My goal here at mefi is to gel, not stick out. But I'm certainly not going to conform either.

So since there is a lot of grey on the issue at hand, who here feels qualified to draft a newbie handbook to mefi? I'm all ears, I want to know as I do not want to be stepping on toes everytime I post or respond.

And to follow up, I'm not trying to pick a fight here or anything...I'm being as sincere as possible. I just want to know as so I can respect anyone who feels they are being treaded upon in MEFI.
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:20 PM on December 20, 2004


Yes it's about the links. But we disagree about the link that prompted this thread - discussion that it generated aside, you think the link was no good, I found it useful and interesting.

That kind of disagreement between one reader and another is part and parcel.
posted by iwearredsocks at 12:21 PM on December 20, 2004


So: What say you all?

You answer your own question simply by the asking.
posted by freebird at 12:24 PM on December 20, 2004


Damn, I got a MeTa callout on a MeTa comment. Don't I get a toaster or something?

No, the link matters. A lot. But it's hard to tell when a mediocre link turns into a fantastic discussion until it develops. Some of the best discussions I've seen on the web happen only here, and I'm astounded that on a daily basis there are essay-length, well reasoned posts that people construct in the space of a few minutes to a half-hour.

Frankly, honestly, and as objectively as I can reason I haven't seen MeFi be "The Best of the Web" for well over a year or more. Yeah, the links are excellent and top notch. But MeFi often is the last on a long list of linkblogs to get to anything that's currently floating to the top of the meme-blender.

Take away the discussion aspect of MeFi and we're left with a very slow-moving and sporadic de.licio.us, linkdump.be or linkswarm.com or the like.

What MeFi has - or perhaps had - above all others is a very engaging, dedicated and often well-thought culture of discussion. These discussions are as equally as important as the links, if not greater than. The majority of the links posted here are easily found on other community linkblogs.

I do not know whether or not this fits into Matt's official vision of the site.
posted by loquacious at 12:26 PM on December 20, 2004


I do not know anything else I can do except that I have learned from this and will consider this in my next FPP.

It's cool, you're obviously not the only one who thought your post was a good one. That's why this thread is emphatically not intended to be about you or your post. It's about discovering and solidifying a consensus on what the role of links will be on MetaFilter.

we disagree about the link that prompted this thread - discussion that it generated aside, you think the link was no good, I found it useful and interesting.

That's why I didn't ask about what makes a good link, though that may obviously become part of the discussion. My question is more narrow, are links necessary? If so, are "good" links (however defined) necessary? If so, why?
posted by gd779 at 12:27 PM on December 20, 2004


Hands of Manos, I think there are a lot of interesting things to say about the book of Revelation, and a comparative Bible site is a useful place to start with that.

However, "This is the real Christmas story" seems, at best, orthogonal to that discussion.

I think you could have made a very interesting FPP about the book of Revelation and its reception through the ages, and that it would have led to a worthwhile thread. And you may still do that. However, that wasn't (in my opinion) it.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:27 PM on December 20, 2004


For discussion without links, there is always IRC.

IIRC.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:28 PM on December 20, 2004


In general, to answer gd779's larger question, I don't think that the "Here's something {link}. Here's what I think about that something." format generally produces rewarding discussions here, especially when the something touches on controversial topics.

Better, to me, is the "Here's something{link}. Here's what someone thinks about something {link}. On the other hand, there's this point of view {link}." approach.
posted by Sidhedevil at 12:30 PM on December 20, 2004


what good is a link without a discussion

It used to be that I would come here and find maybe five or six posts a day that took me to strange and interesting places I had never been. Pretty much everything was worth clicking on, whether it seemed initially interesting or not. The discussion, while often fun, was ancillary. Now the front page is so cluttered I find myself only skimming and finding very little that I bother to click on.


Next, I guess, I will start regaling you with stories about having to walk 10 miles in the snow to get to school.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:34 PM on December 20, 2004


To carry over the topic to here because it fits, the link in the Blue about Walmart paying its workers is effectively a double post. In one search, I found 15 times that the topic has been covered. The post is just a different take on the issue that has been beaten to death 15 times. But, as the comments indicate, including some snark from a new poster about how it is our job to let him know something has been discussed before, the desire to repeat the discussion is more important than the link.

It is basically Link As Pretext to Argument. And the argument/discussion is redundant and insipid.
posted by Seth at 12:44 PM on December 20, 2004


this site is about the links, not the discussion

I really don't understand this position at all--if this site really were just about links, then what the heck are the comments for? Just saying thanks?

If it really were "just about the links", then just remove the ability to post comments, and make it a Boing-Boing with more contributors. (That was a rhetorical device, not a real suggestion.)

I understand that it's not meant to be a space like K5, that pretty much exists for the sake of spurring discussion. That model clearly has its own shortcomings. But as other people have pointed out, 80% of the links nowadays are also on BoingBoing, waxy, NYT, memepool, etc. This place has got to have some kind of added value--I'm not even saying that it should, but that it clearly does, or you wouldn't have the sustained energy of so many folks. For a lot of people, I think it's the chance to have an intelligent interaction around the links.

So, yeah, making sure there's a meaningful link or links is a useful--if somewhat arbitrary--hook to hang our hats on. "If you're going to spur a discussion, you've got to do it by finding something cool." But I think saying "It's all about the links" dramatically constrains the real value of the place.
posted by LairBob at 12:45 PM on December 20, 2004


"...the argument/discussion is redundant and insipid."

Thus spake the master.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:46 PM on December 20, 2004


CL-

Could it be that you've now learned more about how to find the interesting links and are no longer dependent on MeFi for finding them for you? There are many oldtimers around here that will dis a link because it can be found on some other blog that they always go to. But there are many people that use MetaFilter as a literal filter to find the best sites. I think that is what draws many of us here. There are currently a bunch of neoFites trying to figure out what really makes a good blue post (myself included), and the thing is that many of us do not have the same basic set of web resources that the oldtimers have at their fingertips. For the casual viewer, these are all great links, but for the old timers, they are old news and definitely worth flaming. If one has been actively participating in MeFi for a long time, one is also likely to have expanded his or her sources of interesting web links, and MeFi is no longer the the same thrilling place it once was. The oldtimers blame it on the new blood, but perhaps the novelty has simply worn off for the oldtimers?

I don't know if this is particularly accurate or not, but it is one idea.
posted by Doohickie at 12:48 PM on December 20, 2004


GD779,

What I think you're going to find is if you keep things in non-specific terms ("Are links more important than discussion?") pretty much everyone is going to agree, but if you phrase the same question more specifically ("Shouldn't post XYZ go? The links suck, it's just a discussion starter"), people who agreed are going to start disagreeing. It's much the same way as discussion of freedom of speech and the like. Everyone supports it when it's a general concept, but when you get down to individual cases, people all of a sudden don't seem so keen on it.

On preview:

Anyway, what good is a link without a discussion?...Metafilter as a pure link-board is just group-onanism.

I barely even know how to parse that. What good is a link without a discussion? It's fucking excellent, that's what good. I'm not saying it's better without a discussion. I'm just saying 99% of a FPP's goodness is the link, and 1% is the discussion. A link without a discussion is like a steak dinner without the sprig of parseley, or a new car without the complimentary air freshener.

And as far as group onanism, the discussion is more onanistic than the links, by far.

On more preview:

But there are many people that use MetaFilter as a literal filter to find the best sites.

Count me as one. I've been reading MeFi for a long time. I've heard about BoingBoing, memepool, etc., but never had any giant drive to go there, as MeFi was serving up good links piping hot daily. With all this discussion now about how MeFi isn't really about presenting new and novel sites, I realize I may have been making a tactical mistake in coming here.
posted by Bugbread at 12:55 PM on December 20, 2004


It's about the links and the discussion, but it's good to aim for the discussion to be about the links, or something to do with the links. The problem with NewsFilter and ElectionFilter was that it was never about the links — they were just jumping-off points into opinion pieces. If you can replace the link with some other link and get the same outcome then the point has been missed.

My own approach to MeFi is to count on serendipity to come up with things to post, and to sit back and watch what happens after I post instead of jumping in, and it's been successful so far. It's a lot more enjoyable for me to watch other people get excited about the thing I found.

I think that's a lot of what's missing from the questionable posts: the person posting isn't excited about the link. Even back in the election you could find the difference between someone posting something because they saw it and went "Wow!" and someone posting something because it led into the discussion they wanted. The new users' posts that people have disliked were missing the serendipity: they had a new toy, and wanted to try it out, and posted something that seemed good enough, instead of posting something that just made their day. I lucked out in finding something that made my day right after my posting access opened up. "[This is good]" isn't someone saying "This meets Metafilter criteria according to me", it's someone saying "This made my day".

Conversely, when you're prompting a hot discussion, it might get a lot of participation, but it's not going to make anyone's day. Aim for the day-making and everyone walks away feeling great about the post. Ain't that what it's about?
posted by mendel at 12:56 PM on December 20, 2004


Seth-

Sorry to arouse your ire with the post. In my defense, I searched for "Walmart" before posting it, at the default setting of the last year, and it did not seem to me that the other posts that came up covered quite the same ground. Even following your links (and is something a double-post if it was on MeFi two years ago? Three?) one has to get pretty far into them to find redundant content in the actual FPPs. Given your first couple of comments in the thread, I wonder if your real objection is to the content, rather than simply to the fact that it has been discussed before?
posted by OmieWise at 12:56 PM on December 20, 2004


To put a finer point on it, this attitude seems wrong (see also this):

Seeing as how they comprise 2% of our GDP, don't you think they make a topic worthe discussing from time to time?

Metafilter shouldn't exist as some axe-grinding blog where certain people feel a topic is important enough to argue about it ad infinitum.
posted by Seth at 12:58 PM on December 20, 2004


Metafilter shouldn't exist as some axe-grinding blog where certain people feel a topic is important enough to argue about it ad infinitum.

Indeed. Nor MetaTalk.
posted by freebird at 1:03 PM on December 20, 2004


Omie, please don't feel you have drawn my ire. I do not hold any ill will or the like. I was just point it out for the sake that perhaps we could move on and skip it. And perhaps in the future we can avoid the topic yet again in a couple of months.

And it is a double post. Not in the sense the website is the same or the report is the same, but the whole Walmart mistreats its workers has been done NUMEROUS times including some discussions of other studies. The topic is covered ground. Nothing new is found here. It is not "new and unique" that "readers haven't seen before." We have all seen it.

So take the pointer for what its worth. Hopefully we won't have to do the Walmart thing again in a couple of months.

On preview: freebird... how so clever. What axe do I grind? Is it not the duty of self-policing people to police?
posted by Seth at 1:04 PM on December 20, 2004


If it's all about the links, why not turn off comments altogether?
posted by Shane at 1:10 PM on December 20, 2004


I'd be fine with that.
posted by Seth at 1:11 PM on December 20, 2004


Seth: why ever would you assume I meant you? I mean, if the shoe fits and all, but I thought that was a pretty general comment.

Is it not the duty of self-policing people to police?

But since you bring it up: No. Neither you nor I nor Matt has any real "duty" to police anything on this site. If people choose to do so, that's great, and we all participate. But let's not get carried away. And further, "self-policing" is not the same thing as "policing".
posted by freebird at 1:11 PM on December 20, 2004


I think that it's a combination of links and discussion. You can't just post "I like string! Do you like string?" here. There are other places for that.
posted by Sidhedevil at 1:12 PM on December 20, 2004


I searched for "Walmart" before posting it, at the default setting of the last year, and it did not seem to me that the other posts that came up covered quite the same ground.

If multiple posts showed up in just the year, imagine what might come up over the full four-plus? Besides, unless your take is very different, it's pretty likely that the ground has been covered in the multitudes of comments.

Seeing as how they comprise 2% of our GDP, don't you think they make a topic worthe discussing from time to time?

Seth's right on this point. By that frame of thought we should be discussing the Forbes Global500 on a daily basis. Thankfully, we don't.



On the topic at hand, it's the links, then the discussion -- in that order. Can't have discussion without the links (er, well, you can but not in the Blue), but the discussion is what makes MetaFilter unique and valuable.
posted by me3dia at 1:13 PM on December 20, 2004


OK, well, now that there are paid memberships I suppose one could argue Mathowie has a certain amount of "duty" to the site, a fact he may come to regret. But everyone else? Nope. Not that I don't love this place, and enjoy the community, but let's not take ourselves too seriously. This obsession iwth "duty" and "policing" is more of a danger to that community than any bad post or comment.
posted by freebird at 1:15 PM on December 20, 2004


well, now that there are paid memberships

I has under the impression that the money for a membership looked upon as a donation not a fee
posted by Recockulous at 1:19 PM on December 20, 2004


sorry for leaving out the word "is"
posted by Recockulous at 1:20 PM on December 20, 2004


freebird, so if we all leave it to other people to police and just sit idly by, what will come of the 'filter when no one tries to keep up to standards?

When you see someone taking candy from a little baby, do you do nothing? Do you say to yourself, "that is someone else's problem?"


As to me3dia, I agree that discussion has value, but it seems that some people love the discussion more. Some people seem to want to generate the biggest argument or have a nice circle jerk. Some people seem more motivated by that then sharing new and interesting things they have found on the internet. So, I suspect that many of the worst posts on Metafilter would be nonexistant if people did not have the ability to cause a train wreck or know how many people are seeing their links. If links were only being provided by people who found new and interesting things with the goal to share, I suspect the Filter would be better. So I'd support a temporary turning off of discussions to see if the emphasis would shift to quality links.
posted by Seth at 1:21 PM on December 20, 2004


Could it be that you've now learned more about how to find the interesting links and are no longer dependent on MeFi.... For the casual viewer, these are all great links

Oh bullshit. Mefi is still my main source of what's cool and new online. I don't visit those other link sites you mention and spend most of the rest of my day on news sites. If I don't agree that all the links on today's front page are great links it's surely not because I've changed my surfing habits. I submit it's because there's a shitload more chaff around.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:29 PM on December 20, 2004


So I'd support a temporary turning off of discussions to see if the emphasis would shift to quality links.

You know, that could be an interesting experiment: a MetaFilter day without comments. I suspect, though, that the posts would simply take on more of an editorialized tone.
posted by me3dia at 1:30 PM on December 20, 2004


When you see someone taking candy from a little baby, do you do nothing? Do you say to yourself, "that is someone else's problem?"

Yes, yes that's exactly what I do. And that is exactly the same thing as not getting worked up over links and discussions I don't like.
posted by freebird at 1:32 PM on December 20, 2004


freebird, what makes you think I am "worked up" over this? It takes me little to no emotional energy to say, "this is a double post, we don't need to rediscuss this." You are acting like I am daily obsessed with every link, but my commenting history clearly disproves that.

So you didn't feel like pointing out the double post. I did.
You agree that self-policing is feature of this site. You wouldn't have done it because you didn't care, but I did. What exactly *is* your argument with me besides your personal desire to not bother?
posted by Seth at 1:37 PM on December 20, 2004


Seth-

Sorry to arouse your ire with the post.


MeFi newbie FAQ:

Rule #1: There is never a reason to apologize to Seth.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:46 PM on December 20, 2004


What exactly *is* your argument with me

Nonexistant. My original comment said nothing about you, and merely reflected on this ongoing debate which doesn't seem to really go anywhere. People will disagree on what makes a good post, and how much discussion there will be. That will always be true.

My concern is that the level of vitriol and policing is more damaging to the site than the excesses it seeks to correct. I saw K5 mostly paralyzed and destroyed by such an excess of navel-gazing about what the site was for and what made a good post, and I'd hate to see that here.

Your insistence that you have a "duty" to "police" the site associates you with the phenomenon I take issue with, but that's your deal. Have fun.
posted by freebird at 1:47 PM on December 20, 2004


Metafilter's not about the links, OR the discussion....

Because it's really all about me.
posted by crunchland at 1:50 PM on December 20, 2004


My question is more narrow, are links necessary? If so, are "good" links (however defined) necessary? If so, why?

Yes links are necessary. Yes "good" links are necessary. I don't know about anyone else but part of what I like about this place is it inspires me, challenges me and it can be thought provoking as well as funny. For me that is what "best of" is.

Actually I've wondered if it isn't about discussion why there is the option to post comments after a link is posted. If it was purely about links we would be similar to boingboing, links with some editorializing thrown in on occasion (or what loquacious said).

who here feels qualified to draft a newbie handbook to mefi?

I'd say read the grey, its what I do (or try the wiki). Best place to get a feel for what people think about the goings on at MeFi.
posted by squeak at 1:52 PM on December 20, 2004


Because it's really all about me.


i thought it was all about quonsar?
posted by Hands of Manos at 1:54 PM on December 20, 2004


You know, that could be an interesting experiment: a MetaFilter day without comments. I suspect, though, that the posts would simply take on more of an editorialized tone.

At first I thought "A day without discussion? Cool!", and then a second later I realized, as you did, that it would just mean that a lot of axe-grinders would use it as an opportunity to make uncontested statements in the forms of links...

When you see someone taking candy from a little baby, do you do nothing? Do you say to yourself, "that is someone else's problem?"

Yes, yes that's exactly what I do.


Huh. This will be the first time to make a personal statement like this on MeFi, but: that's kinda dicklike.
posted by Bugbread at 1:56 PM on December 20, 2004


Please, please, please stop feeding the Seth Troll!!!!!

Omie, please don't feel you have drawn my ire. I do not hold any ill will or the like.

But that made me laugh so very hard. Thanks!
posted by terrapin at 1:58 PM on December 20, 2004


freebird, I see where you are coming from now. And let me say that I agree with you to a point. I think the callouts have become increasingly tourtured since the new users have arised (especially the recent trend of AskMe antics and callouts). But many of them were valid callouts.

When membership was closed, there was something on the page about "growing pains" which is what we are going through again right now. So I guess we need a little retooling.

I saw something different happen at K5 and other group weblogs. It isn't the navel-gazing that destroys them, in my opinion, but the balkanization and destruction caused by people constantly axe-grinding from the soapboxes. There is something I learned as a young man that people should never talk about politics or religion in coversations. The virtue of that lesson can be seen in what happened at other sites. And it can do it here, too. But we don't have to go that way. That is my view. I would love nothing more than people to be respectful of each other and the site. That would require links that comply with the stated goals, and people who don't drag this site into political and religous arguments on a daily basis.
posted by Seth at 2:02 PM on December 20, 2004


I am a troll terrapin? What exactly is your definition of troll? Or do you use that word for anyone who you don't agree with?
posted by Seth at 2:03 PM on December 20, 2004


When you see someone taking candy from a little baby, do you do nothing? Do you say to yourself, "that is someone else's problem?"

Yes, yes that's exactly what I do.


Huh. This will be the first time to make a personal statement like this on MeFi, but: that's kinda dicklike.

What can I do? I hate babies. I was trying to play it cool, but in reality I'd prolly run over, tease and kick the baby, then take the candy from the person trying to steal it - because I hate people in general, really.

You've clearly seen right to the core of my point, and indeed, my very essence as a person.
posted by freebird at 2:10 PM on December 20, 2004


OK, well, now that there are paid memberships I suppose one could argue Mathowie has a certain amount of "duty" to the site

Sure, you could argue. And you would lose ;) It was a donation to the server, nothing more. I've freely donated much more than that over the past few years, and so have a lot of others. Hopefully the people who've paid to join won't be getting any ideas about entitlement. I'm not saying that you have that sense of entitlement, freebird, it's just that your musing reminded me that I've been meaning to comment about that.

Speaking of donating, don't let the measly 5.00 spent to get in here stop anyone from offering or donating more!
posted by iconomy at 2:15 PM on December 20, 2004


Should we ask Matt to make links optional then?
posted by xammerboy at 2:15 PM on December 20, 2004


Look at AskMe. No links for many questions.
posted by xammerboy at 2:16 PM on December 20, 2004


Those of you who think it's not about the links should check out DrJohnEvan's Google search above. Here's a sample of what MeFi could be:
No link here, sorry. I was thinking today of experiences that give me or have given me chills up my spine. When I was young, the national anthem did it for me. What gives it to you?
posted by ttrendel at 2:42 AM PST
Is that what you want? No, I didn't think so. So let's not mess with the Fucking Manual.
posted by languagehat at 2:22 PM on December 20, 2004


Candy is bad for babies. So anyone taking candy from a baby is doing the kid a favor. I would not only not intervene, I'd stand back and applaud. Discreetly, of course.
posted by soyjoy at 2:26 PM on December 20, 2004


In principle, I would agree with just turning off comments. In practice, that would just drive even more of the chatty asshats from the blue to the green.
posted by majick at 2:27 PM on December 20, 2004


"Policing" means that if I don't think what you posted is appropriate, then I say something about it, to the effect of "We try not to do X here."

"Self-Policing" means THINK before you post. "Why am I posting this?" "Does it stand on its own?" "Do I have an agenda other than sharing a novel and/or interesting find?"

Links first, Discussion second. And I agree, that if the discussion is good, I often come away from a post (once it's been alive for a while) with many more excellent links than originally posted.

If you're not sure whether to post something, sit on it for a day, email one of the older members, maybe one who you happen to think is intelligent and level-headed, and they'll give you their opinion.

If you're new here, and you don't know how things work, ask questions. Even better, WATCH for a while, get a sense of what's acceptable or not. Keep your mouth shut and your "ears" open.

Then, when you've got a better sense of the general vibe, take a deep breath and post. If it's good, sit back and watch the enjoyment. If it sucks, then you'll find that out, too. Then try and learn from it, and post again.
posted by exlotuseater at 2:31 PM on December 20, 2004


This whole site gets by on the cult of personality here. Just admit it. Its what drives most of the interest and the return visits. It's the reason for all the meetups. And the cult of personality is derived from the comments and their history, not from the frickin links. All the best links are only conversation starters.
posted by xmutex at 2:33 PM on December 20, 2004


In principle, I would agree with just turning off comments. In practice, that would just drive even more of the chatty asshats from the blue to the green.

what if "turn off comments" were optional? you know...Mefi, to the lurker would be comment free (or they could choose to have comments on a la cookies). Users could have them turned off/on?

just a thought.
posted by Hands of Manos at 2:34 PM on December 20, 2004


what if "turn off comments" were optional?

You mean comments aren't already optional? I'm actually expected and required to read all the crap you people spray out? Oh man.
posted by freebird at 2:39 PM on December 20, 2004


That came out a little mean, I'll admit I'm grumpy today - but aren't comments already optional? Just don't click on that little link...
posted by freebird at 2:44 PM on December 20, 2004


It's always been about the links. Around user 14000 we started getting members turning the site into discussion and agenda pushing.

Doesn't mean it isn't still about the links.
posted by justgary at 2:45 PM on December 20, 2004


Cult of personality or personality cult is a derogatory term for what is perceived to be excessive adulation of a single living leader. The term was coined by Soviet leader Khrushchev soon after the death of Stalin, but the phenomenon as such is much older.

Really? Seems like Matt's a bit too hands-off for that kind of adoration, perhaps you could fine-tune that a bit and explain what you really mean. I certainly don't tune in to Matt's blog (I do seem to remember that he has one, somewhere, although I haven't checked in a while), or focus on any member specifically. Are you trying to work up to a clique-ish type insult? Just try "I think this place is too clique-ish". I would disagree with that too, but at least it would make sense.
posted by milovoo at 2:46 PM on December 20, 2004


xmutex has it there, yet there has to be great links in order to start the discussion. . .

(and round and round we go)

Seriously, in the age of RSS feeds, it has become a lot more efficient to check out all of the good link dumps, etc. etc, metafilter being just one of many.

If you were to only know Metafilter through RSS, through the links, you might get the impression that it is slow moving, kind of boring, recycles all of the links hours (or days) after the others etc. etc. etc.

Then you immerse yourself in the Metafilter "culture" and you realize how much more... fulfilling it is.

The links are important, as that is the crux of the struggle in the grey - what is the "best" of the web, and this is important because with the amount of information out there, updated every minute of the day, we have to be selective. But take away the discussion, and Metafilter gets lost in the crowd. There are other sites that do that better.

Metafilter may have started out as a "links" site, but since our culture has taken over, it can never go back to just that.
posted by Quartermass at 2:49 PM on December 20, 2004


freebird

let me clarify. I meant that you could SEE the comments or not.

THREAD POST.Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
postby Blah Blah
Comments: 33


or

THREAD POST.Blah Blah Blah Blah Blah
postby Blah Blah


so you could have an option. just a thought.

You know, being a mefi newbie is a little like immigrants coming to America (please take that figuratively). People searching for a new community/place and getting met with a lot of resistence.

Folks around my neighborhood get all bent out of shape when a person from Mexico or India move in. I hear things like "them sand niggers and spics better not come in here and fuck up things."

Do you think that statement is a bit harsh and racist? Well, figuratively, it's not so far off from saying something to the tune of "newbies just come in here and post dumb links." (it's similiar, not exact)

But hey, maybe there will be a group of "old timey mefites" that will arise to clean up these newbies and establish a pure Metafilter. I dunno, we could call it the Komondor Knights Kollective
posted by Hands of Manos at 2:55 PM on December 20, 2004


milovoo: I didn't intend the connotation; I just meant that this site's heart is in its people and their personalities, and that these are learned through discussions, not simple links.

Although, there is a sizable portion of ass-kissery. But another topic, really.
posted by xmutex at 2:55 PM on December 20, 2004


As to me3dia, I agree that discussion has value, but it seems that some people love the discussion more. Some people seem to want to generate the biggest argument or have a nice circle jerk. Some people seem more motivated by that then sharing new and interesting things they have found on the internet.

FREE THE MEFI 12!!!!!!, er 6, ... uhmm 5!!!!

Seth, you exist here to simply accuse others of ego-stroking, axe-grinding posts, and yet not a one of us would read jackshit from you without the posts you personally arbitrate as unworthy. If it would shut you up, I would go for a moratorium on comments, in the sure and certain knowledge that the next post concerning politics/weight/WalMart/SUVs/gay marriage/Bush incompetance/politics in general would make your little pinhead explode, simply because you couldn't whine about it ... in comments.
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:55 PM on December 20, 2004


All the best links are only conversation starters.

Huh. For me, the best links tend to be the ones with almost no conversation, just 10 or 15 "[This is good]"s. Not to say that all conversationless links are good, of course. Just that, for any link with over 30 or so comments, it's pretty much guaranteed that the link itself will not be a great link.

It's like a bell curve. Bad links=few comments. Average links=many comments. Good links=few comments.

And, Hands of Manos, the point of turning off comments is not to spare people who don't want to see links. That's easy: "don't click on the link". The issue is that there are some people who think discussion is more important than links, and post crappy links to start up a discussion. If you offer "turn off comments", they're precisely the people who won't use that option, and continue to post crappy links in order to spur discussion.

On preview:

I don't hate discussion, by any means, but I have to profess I'm more interested in the good links than the discussion. Quartermass, you mention that there are other sites that do links better. Which would you recommend?
posted by Bugbread at 2:56 PM on December 20, 2004


bugbread: Uh, then use an RSS reader and be done with it.
posted by xmutex at 2:58 PM on December 20, 2004


Oh bullshit. Mefi is still my main source of what's cool and new online.

Well, maybe not you, CunningLinguist, but I think there are several people that have criticized fpp links as old hat that led to sites I had never heard of.

As a neoFite (thanks for the term, scarabic), I've deserved and caught more than my share of guff from the oldtimers. I get the sense that MeFi's immune system is getting used to the new stimulants, though, and things are quieting down.

I don't know that any changes are really required, at least not yet. Those of us who have a habit of making ill-advised posts are beginning to realize that the neatest thing we ever saw on the web might not be the neatest thing to everyone else, and starting to sit on our hands more. I've seen a few links I've considered posting to the blue... in the beginning I would have regretted not "beating the other guy to it", but not I simply watch with interest to see how they are received.

For new users, there is an honest desire to be a valuable part of the site. There are various phases people go through, and one of them is posting stoopid shit. Realistic and constructive criticism is welcome, a little bit of hazing is a rite of passage, and eventually the neoFite gets it, or gets piled on enough to give it up, at least for a while.

In the end, I doubt that even the worst fpp's will lead to the undoing of MeFi; Matt will remove them, people will get flamed, and eventually it will all work out.
posted by Doohickie at 3:03 PM on December 20, 2004


For me, the best links tend to be the ones with almost no conversation, just 10 or 15 "[This is good]"s.

Yeah, those are great,. I've learned from them and laughed and just had a great time reading that phrase over and over again. Good times! Then I found out that I could copy and paste that phrase in a word processor and now I just have a great time all by myself, pasting [This is good] and filling up the whole page with it.
posted by milovoo at 3:03 PM on December 20, 2004


milovoo - sif the leader has to be alive for a cult of personality to operate. Meh, I'll take it up with Wiki.

I find the discussions are complimentary to the links, and serve to augment my enjoyment (and understanding!) of them.

The diverse base of MeFi membership (yes, there is some diversity) means often people make comments about factors I just didn't think of. If it wasn't for languagehat, I wouldn't know shit about what makes Finnish so special. If it wasn't for homunculus, I'd miss out on a great many geo-scientific facts about which I know zip. That's just two examples of people whose specialties are alien to me, and so I learn at the feet of the masters.

Discussion is also great for fostering even more interesting links that aren't worthy of an FPP themselves. A couple of threads I've bookmarked since they're so link-rich.
posted by cosmonik at 3:05 PM on December 20, 2004


maybe there will be a group of "old timey mefites" that will arise to clean up these newbies and establish a pure Metafilter. I dunno, we could call it the Komondor Knights Kollective

Wow.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:09 PM on December 20, 2004


I've lurked for a number of years, and the quality of FPPs are definitely going down (ie. What do you keep on your USB thumbdrive). Mefi used to be a place to get "the best of the web" or something at least unique with quality content, that would then have a useful discussion. Now it seems to be a contest: what can I throw on Mefi to start a discussion? Discussions which quickly get mired in personal attacks and politics.

This is not really limited to Mefi. I've noticed the level of antagonism on other boards rise as well. Has something been added to the water?
posted by dbh at 3:10 PM on December 20, 2004


Xmutux:

Er...ok...Use an RSS reader to read what feeds?

Milovoo:

For me, the best links tend to be the ones with almost no conversation, just 10 or 15 "[This is good]"s.

Yeah, those are great,. I've learned from them and laughed and just had a great time reading that phrase over and over again. Good times! Then I found out that I could copy and paste that phrase in a word processor and now I just have a great time all by myself, pasting [This is good] and filling up the whole page with it.


Huh. I see you misread "the best links" as "the best discussions". If you're that fixated on discussion, to the point of forgetting that links even exist, then there's more of a divergence of opinion here than I even suspected.
posted by Bugbread at 3:11 PM on December 20, 2004


the best links tend to be the ones with almost no conversation, just 10 or 15 "[This is good]"s.

For me, those are the "holy shit, this stuff is over my head - better put a "this is good" so everyone else thinks I read it and understood it." The "this is good" thing can sometimes be more about posturing than anything else, which I think is ok.
posted by Quartermass at 3:13 PM on December 20, 2004


maybe one who you happen to think is intelligent and level-headed, and they'll give you their opinion.

Or even the last person that flamed you. One-on-one, a lot of people are more forgiving than they are on the forum. To be honest, I bet most people would be flattered to think you actually value their opinion; it's human nature.
posted by Doohickie at 3:14 PM on December 20, 2004


dbh...I found that USB thumbdrive thread interesting. You read it? It wasn't an AxMe-style literal question, it was a bunch of links about the potential of USB flashdrives, booting linux off them, firefox, etc...I found that information very useful.
posted by cosmonik at 3:17 PM on December 20, 2004


Ironically, it's the people who come here just to discuss random links for the hell of it that I want to hear from least. The interesting discussions arise organically when a member has something to add about the subject of the link and feels moved to post. It seems there has been an influx of people who just want to spout off all over everything.
The more discussion we have the less interesting it gets.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:20 PM on December 20, 2004


Use an RSS reader to read what feeds?

Go to Bloglines. Set yourself up with an account, and you can add the feeds of any site that uses XML (you might have noticed a orange XML button in the blue and around the web).

It then checks the sites every few seconds to see if the site has been updated. When it has, it delivers a headline/summary or post with a link that goes to the site itself.

What this means is that you can subscribe to a huge number of different feeds (such as Metafilter and Ask Metafilter) and only read the updates, not wasting time checking on sites that have not been updated.
posted by Quartermass at 3:20 PM on December 20, 2004


but that's how some are coming off, Cunning. It's true.

and Seth, we've all heard your vision for MeFi, and it matches what HoM said exactly. HoM, take comfort in knowing that the majority of us aren't like that.
posted by amberglow at 3:23 PM on December 20, 2004


that's for the "Wow" above.
posted by amberglow at 3:25 PM on December 20, 2004


The more discussion we have the less interesting it gets.

Then I think that one needs to make a distinction between discussion and blather. It seems pretty obvious to me which way things will go early on the comments to any given post.
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:25 PM on December 20, 2004


cosmonik...it wasn't awful...it was just a link to the comments of another blog. I would have expected it on Ask MetaFilter, rather than as a FPP. Seems like its sole purpose was to start a discussion.

Also, what CunningLinguist said.
posted by dbh at 3:26 PM on December 20, 2004


The "this is good" thing can sometimes be more about posturing than anything else, which I think is ok.

That's because you're thinking entirely in terms of the discussion and community, as if that were the point. Many of us don't think that way. "This is good" is used simply as a compliment, and as a way of alerting others to a quality link, even though you don't have anything of value to add yourself.

The point is, you're looking at things exactly opposite from the way I, and others, look at things. There's a disconnect there in how we view MetaFilter.

there's more of a divergence of opinion here than I even suspected.

I think the divergence is growing, and - because there is virtually nothing anyone but Matt can do to change behavior around here - I suspect that this divergence will grow, until those of us who value the links will either come to accept the change (and accept what we view as a low signal-to-noise ratio) or leave.

And so it is, and so it was, and so it ever shall be. Like I mentioned up front, this is hardly the first time MetaFilter has confronted this trend. But it seems, to me, like the site goes a little bit farther towards pure "discussion" each year. Perhaps that's inexorable. But we can at least recognize and be aware of what's happening, no?
posted by gd779 at 3:26 PM on December 20, 2004


The more discussion we have the less interesting it gets.

True so many, many places in so many, many ways.
posted by freebird at 3:28 PM on December 20, 2004


"It takes a storm to clear a foul sky."
posted by superposition at 3:37 PM on December 20, 2004


Quartermass:

Thanks for the bloglines explanation. I'll give it a shot. Don't get me wrong, I do like the discussion here (if it were just the links, I wouldn't have paid 5 dollars for the ability to post), but having a high quality link pool is the reason I started visiting Mefi, so I'll try bloglines out as well.

As for the [This is good], I was thinking more along the lines of online galleries, videos, collection sites, etc. Stuff that's easy to understand, interesting as hell, but which doesn't lend itself to much discussion. For posts like that, people don't have much to discuss, but are generally very happy with the link, and really want to let the link poster know that they appreciated it, hence [This is good]. I've used it myself for that reason, and I can see a lot of FPPs that use it where that reason makes sense. I suppose a [This is good] in an FPP about superstring theory is more the type of [This is good] that you were imagining. I hadn't noticed them existing, but it may be just which links I'm clicking.
posted by Bugbread at 3:43 PM on December 20, 2004


You know what blew my mind? Aside from instant pudding, I mean?

Seth's comment history. And all I have to say is that you've gotten amazingly good mileage from 212 comments. You must be the most efficient web jackass anywhere. Kudos to you.
posted by fenriq at 3:52 PM on December 20, 2004


Well, the KKK analogy is stretching things (mainly because the anti-newbie animus isn't based on anything so arbitrary as race). The more proper analogy would be to stuffy dowagers who say "there goes the neighborhood," when "new" people come in. People fear change.

I welcome the n00bs. A whole new world of people I haven't pissed off yet.
posted by jonmc at 3:57 PM on December 20, 2004


Jonmc: Don't give yourself so much leeway. Lots of us are longtime readers. Enough to know about your fixation with uncoolly coolly uncool music : )
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 PM on December 20, 2004


Metafi's 3rd law of motion: for every action there is an equal an opposite reaction.
posted by superposition at 4:09 PM on December 20, 2004


This is just the tip of an exponential curve. I am eagerly awaiting the MeFi Singularity, when the link/dialogue curve rises so steeply, so quickly, that the unprepared are washed away like so much dross. The world will have changed around you all, leaving you confused and mute. MeFi will be as The Aleph.

I kid, I kid.

Nothing will change, people will complain, others will defend.

*sips coffee, puffs cigarette*
posted by exlotuseater at 4:58 PM on December 20, 2004


Seems like its sole purpose was to start a discussion.

It did, but not about 'I keep x on my flashdrive'. It provided links about portable DSL, applications, etc. I initially thought 'take it to AxMe', but it became something else.

My take on it is: if the end result of it is good, let it flow. I don't care if it started from a bad link, if it comes good. People are free to ignore discussions they find lame; others can participate and get stuff out of it they wouldn't otherwise get. This may understandably offend the MetaPurists, but when it comes to MeFi, I'm results-oriented.

On preview: Nothing will change, people will complain, others will defend.

Dammit exlotuseater, now I have that 'Circle Of Life' song from the Lion King in my head.
posted by cosmonik at 5:00 PM on December 20, 2004


Metafilter is an active community that filters the "best of the web" and discusses it. It isn't a chat site, and it isn't a "wacky" or "news" conglomeration site. Metafilter is a community that has a relatively strong editorial focus in the context of presenting and discussion "the best of the web". That there's some sort of standard that FPPs are held to, and even that the discussion is held to some standards, is in the context of this being a general interest site a bit problematic because the "standard" becomes the most distinctive characteristic of mefi. That makes mefi ambiguous and arguments about its nature contentious, but it's inherent to what mefi is. Posts should be good, they should link to good sites, and, ideally, discussion about the posts will add value to them by way of providing clarification, additional information, interesting viewpoints, etc. As someone said, it's first about the links, then about the discussion. Neither can really stand completely on its own and still be what we know and love about MetaFilter.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:01 PM on December 20, 2004


That's why I have a blog.

Wait. Caitlinb has a blog?
posted by rushmc at 6:39 PM on December 20, 2004


I'd be fine with that.
posted by Seth at 1:11 PM PST on December 20


This boggles my mind. Why don't those who say they only want links only look at the links? Clearly, what they really seek is not to deny themselves the commentary, but to deny it to the rest of us, and that's vile and controlling. If you believe that foregoing the comments will improve your Metafilter experience, by all means don't click on the link to the thread.
posted by rushmc at 6:41 PM on December 20, 2004


If I don't agree that all the links on today's front page are great links it's surely not because I've changed my surfing habits. I submit it's because there's a shitload more chaff around.

Or you are dreaming of a "good old days" that never was.
posted by rushmc at 6:43 PM on December 20, 2004


rushmc is right. Nobody is stopping anyone from reading only the links right now.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:47 PM on December 20, 2004


There is something I learned as a young man that people should never talk about politics or religion in coversations.

Three cheers for the advocate of ignorance and suppression!
posted by rushmc at 6:52 PM on December 20, 2004


Wait. Caitlinb has a blog?

OMG, it is so boring. Rants about Apple repair service and breathless reports of my cat's latest thing (peeing in the toilet!!!!).

You'd hate it.
posted by caitlinb at 6:59 PM on December 20, 2004


This boggles my mind. Why don't those who say they only want links only look at the links?

Seth has posted 1 link and 212 comments to MetaFilter, and the majority of his comments are complaints about the links. Seth is only here to complain. It's probably a medical condition.
posted by Armitage Shanks at 7:10 PM on December 20, 2004


So why post a reasonable reply of your position when you can just take a big spicy dump and get more reaction?
posted by robocop is bleeding at 7:13 PM on December 20, 2004


There is something I learned as a young man that people should never talk about politics or religion in coversations.

I'm guessing sex was out, too. What did that leave you, crabgrass and toe fungus?
posted by jonmc at 8:18 PM on December 20, 2004


I actually think that when people talk about politics and religion, the result tends to be more of a "debate" than a "conversation". I like "debates" just fine, but sometimes "conversations" are more appropriate to the situation (for example, at the reception after a funeral, on a job interview, etc.)

caitlinb's cat can pee in the toilet? Far freakin' out.
posted by Sidhedevil at 8:23 PM on December 20, 2004


Reading threads like this, I wonder if many of youse have heard of Usenet, lately a.k.a. Google Groups. You know, zillions of discussion boards covering everything from Mac computers (comp.sys.mac) to pet cats (rec.pets.cats) to suicide threats (alt.suicide.holiday). And let's not forget all the political groups, running the gamut from Nazis (alt.politics.nationalism.white) to fringe splinter commies (alt.politics.socialism.trotsky). And hell, shucks, I even have my very own "newsgroup", which has nothing to do with Barney.

By the way, one can even download lots of nekkid chyx jpegs for free from groups like alt.binaries.nospam.coed (if you use a real Usenet client instead of Google Groups). No credit card needed!
posted by davy at 8:57 PM on December 20, 2004


Why don't those who say they only want links only look at the links? Clearly, what they really seek is not to deny themselves the commentary, but to deny it to the rest of us, and that's vile and controlling. If you believe that foregoing the comments will improve your Metafilter experience, by all means don't click on the link to the thread.

I think you're misunderstanding the anti-comment position. The problem isn't that the comments are bad. That's easy to avoid. Just, as you say, don't click them.

The problem posited is that, because the comments are being seen as so important, people are posting more "conversation inducers" than "good links". The existence of the comments is seen as the cause of the problem. And, even more specifically, the existence of the comments is seen as being a problem specifically in relation to the people who want to read the comments.

To go out on a very long limb for an example, it's like complaining that legalization of carrying concealed weapons is causing an increase in gun accidents in your neighborhood. You're saying the equivalent of "if you have such a problem with concealed weapons, just don't carry one". But in this case, the problem isn't the person making the complaint, it's the fact that everybody else who loves carrying concealed weapons is carrying, and they keep going off accidentally and injuring random folks.

That was a big stretch example, and not to be taken too far, but I hope it makes it a bit more clear what the problem is that people have with the excess of comments. It's not that they hate having to read the comments; they don't, they can just skip them. It's that the excess focus on comments is causing a perceived decrease in link quality, and, once you're skipping both the comments and the links, you're basically giving up on MeFi entirely.

I don't necessarily share that position (well, I do, but not nearly so strongly), but I wanted to clarify the position being misrepresented.
posted by Bugbread at 6:05 AM on December 21, 2004


I think metafilter just needs more existentialists.

There are so many people who concentrate on how things are supposed to be instead of just accepting how things are.
posted by crunchland at 7:07 AM on December 21, 2004


(of course, if I were more accepting of how things are, I wouldn't need to think the site needed more existentialists, would I? oh well. Life is a conundrum.)
posted by crunchland at 7:16 AM on December 21, 2004


There is something I learned as a young man that people should never talk about politics or religion in coversations.

The actual adage is "One should not discuss politics, religion or sex in polite conversation." MeFi is many things, but polite is not one of them.
posted by Doohickie at 7:32 AM on December 21, 2004


I think metafilter just needs more existentialists.

Never a bad idea.

When I first began reading metafilter, I didn't even realize there were comments. That was also back in a time when I didn't know as many other sites and blogs and general 'web culture' as I do now, so a lot that seemed new & exciting then might just seem old hat now, as someone above (doohickie?) suggested.

When I discovered the comments I got more caught up in reading discussions, but memberships were closed for a while before I could actually join in. Nowadays I find exciting links more rare than interesting discussions, but I don't know if that's because of decreased quality or signal/noise ratio, or if it's just that I'm gettin' old and crotchety (in internet years).
posted by mdn at 8:03 AM on December 21, 2004


So I'm figuring this post about cellphones disrupting DNA basically ends this argument. The story was bannered on Drudge all day yesterday, it was in most every newspaper this morning and on TV ad nauseum. Linking to the story's mass coverage in google news was apparently considered a plus by the poster.

Methinks Metafilter has now officially jumped the shark into news discussion rather than best-of-the-web links.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:31 PM on December 21, 2004


Yes, CL. It was always great coming here to see and learn something new, out of the mainstream. Now it's just Fark II.
posted by dbh at 2:47 PM on December 21, 2004


The Rumsfeld autopen thing has been everywhere the last few days; why does it need be FPPed on MeFi?
posted by Doohickie at 3:01 PM on December 21, 2004


Because people are desperate to participate -- whether it means mining the metafilter archives for reposts, or posting about the same shitty subject that is on every other weblog on the internet.

People are compelled to post something. Especially new users, who have been chomping at the bit to participate for the last two years, and now have the chance to be among the few and the proud.

And so it's like anything that was once cool, and then was co-opted by the general population ... it has been distilled and distorted into something night quite as cool as it once was.

You can grieve if you want, but it's futile to complain about it. It just is.
posted by crunchland at 4:33 PM on December 21, 2004


The noobs are still the minority. (And yes, I count myself among that number.) Hopefully things will sort themselves out. If there is any consolation in my own case, it is that most of my mistakes were made in the gray and the green, and I haven't fucked up the blue that bad.
posted by Doohickie at 4:40 PM on December 21, 2004


I think metafilter just needs more existentialists.

crunchland! my noob heart plunged into my gut when i read this, assuming it was a slam directed at my very own first post.

then i realized it had nothing to do with me.

phew.
posted by joe lisboa at 10:48 PM on December 21, 2004


That's because you're thinking entirely in terms of the discussion and community, as if that were the point. Many of us don't think that way.

Reality check time: That's horseshit.

Anyone who thinks this site is "all" or even primarily about the links is not in touch with reality. Anyone who doesn't think that MeFi succeeds primarily, if not only, because of its "community" properties, is not in touch with reality.

MeFi is a virtual community. It's an organism that feeds on links, and its only activity of any real interest to any of its participants is discussion, at some level or another. Some of those discussions happen at meetups, some of them happen in Ask and MeTa. But the success of this site is very, very clearly due to the discussion. You can debate that all you want, but the very act of debating the question merely proves the point.

Take away comments, MeFi would die a quick and gruesome death. (Less gruesome if comments were also turned off in Ask and MeTa.) The fact that a person can expend hours of effort and energy arguing for the minimal role of comments in a MeTa comment thread never ceases to amaze me.
posted by lodurr at 6:14 AM on December 22, 2004


Yeah, but lodurr, is the point to post any old link just to discuss them or to post unusual and interesting links and then discuss them?
Because half the front page of the NYT has been showing up on ours and there are plenty of other places to discuss the day's news.
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:22 AM on December 22, 2004


Well, that's a different issue. The bulk of this thread has been caught up in the (IMO prima facie silly) debate over whether it's the links or the discussion. It's like arguing over nature v. nurture. [... cue politically-charged debate tangentially related to nature v. nurture ....]
posted by lodurr at 11:47 AM on December 22, 2004


« Older Useless post that doesn't follow the guidlines...   |   Return of MeFiSwap! Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments