Salvage without the self-link

January 10, 2005 9:35 AM

Delete the self-link and this post stands on its own.
posted by me3dia to etiquette/policy at 9:35 AM (72 comments total)

Although asianmack's stance is unrepentant, I'm not sure it's worth an outright banning. Give'em a week's time-out.
posted by me3dia at 9:35 AM on January 10, 2005

self-link == bannage

Also, like you pointed out, he's unrepentant about the whole thing. I figure that should be a five-dollar penalty.
posted by bshort at 9:37 AM on January 10, 2005

doesn't the sheer unrepentance direcly imply the bannification? I mean, it's not keyser we're talking about here...
posted by dorian at 9:38 AM on January 10, 2005

I think the rabid pile-ons just naturally produce a defensive stance in the poster. If someone just said "hey man, you probably should not have done this" he would have been a little better about it.

Of course, I posted "What. The. Fuck." so who am I to speak against the mouth-frothing pile-ons, but in hindsight, well...
posted by xmutex at 9:39 AM on January 10, 2005

wow, it's as if "linking to your own site in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned." is somehow unclear to people who read it.

people read don't they?
posted by dabitch at 9:39 AM on January 10, 2005

I dunno. I guess I'm just in favor of grounding children instead of hitting them. Firm tolerance or some such.
posted by me3dia at 9:40 AM on January 10, 2005

You can self-promote inside the thread all you want

is this true? I thought you could self promote in the thread IF ONLY there were a good reason for doing it. If not, I'm gonna be putting mands of hanos.com after every thing I post

Hands of Manos
soon 2b famous (from thread spamming) website: mands of hanos.com
click now and get a 20% discount on all FreeQuonsar T-shirts
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:43 AM on January 10, 2005

people read don't they?

Yes, but usually not very closely.


Actually, I just thought of a possible pony to address this. Maybe the URL-checker could check member profiles, too, and if you post a site that's in someone's profile, it could come back and say, "This link appeared in [username]'s profile. If you are [username], be aware that posting this site may be a self-post, which will result in banishment." It certainly would have worked properly in asianmack's case, and I suspect that many of the other self-posts also would have raised the alert.
posted by me3dia at 9:45 AM on January 10, 2005

"I stand by my post"? Cry me a river, he didn't make some deep, philosophical contribution to the world. Anyway, the posting guidelines are pretty clear, and, given that there are so few rules about posting, the ones that do exist probably exist for a reason.

Someone back in the original thread thought that the self-link was a bit of ironic humor. Ok, that's fine and cute, but there's no "unless your self-link is ironic humor" escape clause.
posted by socratic at 9:48 AM on January 10, 2005

Banned. That's above the pale, linking to his own affiliate site to goose a few dollars out of the traffic.

This is exactly why self-links are bad. I like Cringely's columns, but didn't think his predictions were all that interesting.
posted by mathowie at 9:49 AM on January 10, 2005

me3dia,
I think this is one of those times where metaphors are not useful. Asianmack is not a child and what he/she did is not the misbehavior of a child. There is no excuse for the self-link.

On preview:
me3dia, isn't that pony suffciently mocked up here, on the post a link page, w/o any database searches and coding?

Note: You read the guidelines, right? Because linking to your own site in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned..

Why is anything more needed? Your kindness and forbearance are sweet and I applaud them, but I personally find them misplaced.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:50 AM on January 10, 2005

Well, it's probably too late. He already got the traffic and free advertising he was looking for...
posted by chasing at 9:50 AM on January 10, 2005

All right, fair enough.

However, mathowie, what do you think of my idea of adding profiles to the linksearch for FPPs?
posted by me3dia at 9:51 AM on January 10, 2005

"You are getting such a time-out when you get home."

Rules are impossible to enforce if people do not fear the consequences -- or if there are no consequence -- of breaking them. Ask any high-school teacher.
posted by mcwetboy at 9:52 AM on January 10, 2005

Divine_wino, I think my pony would be a second defense, kind of like a word processor's message, "Do you really want to close this without saving?" It's an extra reminder, and if someone didn't read the posting page closely, this makes sure they're aware of their actions.
posted by me3dia at 9:54 AM on January 10, 2005

While we're on the topic of self-links, I have a question for anybody that wants to answer: if the self-link is part of a much larger post and not a huge part of the post or the main part, for that matter, AND if the self-link would not in any material way benefit the self-linker, would there ever be a situation in which a self-link was tolerated or accepted?
posted by crazy finger at 9:56 AM on January 10, 2005

mcwetboy - My wife, who is a Spanish high school teacher, would agree with you wholeheartedly.
posted by Hands of Manos at 9:57 AM on January 10, 2005

ever be a situation in which a self-link was tolerated or accepted?

Not really - if nothing else, do you really expect Mathowie to got through and determine if your criteria are met on every post? Detecting self links is bad enough, now he has to figure out if it "would not in any material way benefit the self-linker"? Or have a big thread in MeTa to decide it?

Blech. It's not that hard a rule to follow, keep it simple. Self links bad.
posted by freebird at 10:02 AM on January 10, 2005

crazy finger, there are a handful of cases where a self-link was ok, because the information was so rare and out of the way that no one could have stumbled upon it on their own.

But an affiliate site that gives you a kickback when someone clicks or buys? Definitely a no-no.
posted by mathowie at 10:03 AM on January 10, 2005

I'd argue that if the self-link is not a "main part" of the post, it can be safely excised. As for no material benefit, there are ways other than financial that a self-link can benefit the poster -- reputation, for example. Matt's examples are rare and exceptional; I doubt it'd be a good idea for people to get it in their heads that it's possible under special circumstances, which tend to multiply in practice.

Hands of Manos: my SO's a high school science teacher; where do you think I got that idea from?
posted by mcwetboy at 10:07 AM on January 10, 2005

... [internal self-link] IF ONLY there were a good reason for doing it...

I think that works out to be self-policing, for the most part. People who do that for self-promotion will be ridiculed; people who do that to avoid making arguments will have scorn heaped upon them by their opponents. People who do it to avoid derails, OTOH, will most likely get either silence or even the occasional back pat.
posted by lodurr at 10:08 AM on January 10, 2005

"That's above the pale..."

(Emphasis mine) Along with the spirits of the recently departed?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:09 AM on January 10, 2005

... & re bannage ... I don't care. If that's the rule, that's the rule, and it's pretty explicit. Rules are occasionally violated; that's what life is like. I doubt any of us would much enjoy a really truly rule-driven community.

But I do get annoyed by gleeful "banhammer!!!!" pile-ons. If it's really against the rules, it's going to get the user banned -- right? So pile-ons serve as no disincentive, since the offending party is gone. It's like having an automatic death penalty and then saying that it acts as an added disincentive to mock the killer after they're dead.
posted by lodurr at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2005

EB: Of course. The spirits rise from the pale as they evaporate....
posted by lodurr at 10:12 AM on January 10, 2005

I'd argue that if the self-link is not a "main part" of the post, it can be safely excised.

That was kind of my point with this call-out.

I think banhammer pile-ons are an unfortunate replacement for the old pancakes blather that used to accompany soon-to-be dead threads. Not an improvement, in my opinion.
posted by me3dia at 10:17 AM on January 10, 2005

Wasn't there a self-link a couple of weeks ago that passed muster? I think it was something about the tsunami, and there was an observation that this was the exception that makes the rule, because of extraordinary circumstances.... I can't remember...
posted by socratic at 10:25 AM on January 10, 2005

Ah yes, here: http://www.metafilter.com/mefi/37718

(and it wasn't about the tsunami)
posted by socratic at 10:29 AM on January 10, 2005

me3dia - why should the MeFi code have to search through each profile to determine whether a link is a self-link? Presumably, unless a single account is shared between more that one person, a poster is going to explicitly know about all sites that would be considered as self-links.

There's no problem linking to the site of another user in a front page post, and so the only conceivable way this would be of use would be if mathowie had a little tool on the back end that alerted him to possible self-links. I guess he could make this tool public, but what would be the point?
posted by bshort at 10:37 AM on January 10, 2005

Have there been situations where Mefi members who happen to have some sort of relationship outside of Mefi act as shills for each other, creating FPP's with each other's sites but conveniently avoiding the self-link? I was thinking of dedicating an FPP to a collection of interesting links to commercial sites benefitting a certain Mack who happens to be of Asian descent. Would that be frowned upon?

(Obviously, that last statement is a joke followed by a rhetorical question)
posted by crazy finger at 10:48 AM on January 10, 2005

There have been many excellent posts that linked to the site/project of another MeFite, sometimes on purpose sometimes by accident. Most recently the Fluffy Kittens' Lunar Wheel Calendar Post which featured ModestyBCatt's cool calendar.

If you can find another member to put their cred on the line and link to your efforts go for it.
posted by DBAPaul at 11:03 AM on January 10, 2005

bshort, as I said, it'd be a second warning. It obviously wouldn't stop the truly dedicated, but those who might not have read the posting guidelines closely would have one last chance to mend their post. But I think an alert for mathowie would be an excellent addition.
posted by me3dia at 11:06 AM on January 10, 2005

Second warnings my ass. It's not like the guy had a well-established alias and a reputation for positive contribution, and it costs a whopping five bucks to come back in under another alias. Banning is hardly a big deal.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:36 AM on January 10, 2005

me3dia - It looks like the reason you don't want Jamie (asianmack) banned is because you know him.

You promoted asianmack on one of your sites (gapersblock), and now you're pleading on his behalf for mercy from banhammer?

That's unbelievably, seriously, gratuitously lame, and I hope Matt bans you as well.
posted by bshort at 11:36 AM on January 10, 2005

bshort, I don't know him, I've never met him. Gapers Block is a Chicago-centric webzine -- we only cover stuff that's in Chicago. Asianmack sent me a link to his site, and I verified that he was indeed in Chicago and posted it. BFD.

If it had been anyone else, I probably still would've said it wasn't worth a ban. The post could have survived without the self-link, and that's what I thought should have been done.

Be regardless: defending someone is now grounds for banning, in your opinion? Should amberglow be banned for advocating Keyser's return? Fuck you.
posted by me3dia at 11:48 AM on January 10, 2005

It's like having an automatic death penalty and then saying that it acts as an added disincentive to mock the killer after they're dead.

I don't think the pile on is about punishment for the pileonee as it is stress relief for the pileoner. I can bitch about the self link wasting my time and the self linker being rude in a sure to be deleted FPP (and this post was so blatant) or I can let it build up day after day and risk going postal some day. Better the as it comes relief posting a "WTF?".

If you think your self link is so good that in should be posted emailing it to matt will get it posted.
posted by Mitheral at 11:49 AM on January 10, 2005

By the way, congratulations.
posted by me3dia at 11:51 AM on January 10, 2005

Wow I thought me3dia was being an jackass about the congrats, but bShort...congrats! Good blessings from me to you guys.
posted by Hands of Manos at 12:00 PM on January 10, 2005

There is always at least one person who wants to save someone from being banned, no matter what they do. It's part of what makes you guys and gals so great (when I'm in a giving mood) ;)

I'm in the ban camp, but I say me3dia scores bonus points for being a gent.

This one time, at ban camp...
posted by The God Complex at 12:01 PM on January 10, 2005

Thanks Manos. The engagee is a mefite as well.

me3dia - whatever. You had a major conflict of interest that you didn't disclose and that you're now trying to gloss over.

As to whether the post should have stood: it was a willful violation of the rules. It was clearly an advertising post made by a newly minted member who appears to be on a promotional mission, pimping his site wherever he can.

Besides, the link was lame. It was a single link to a Cringely column where he gets to brag about his amazing predictive powers.
posted by bshort at 12:11 PM on January 10, 2005

It is more of an ad than a post. And asianmack received traffic because of it, which makes it good advertising. I don't think he is going to cry much about his name or "post" being smeared when it undoubtedly generated revenue for him.
posted by buzzman at 12:17 PM on January 10, 2005

You had a major conflict of interest that you didn't disclose and that you're now trying to gloss over.

Yeah, really major. I posted a link on a site I edit three months ago and had no further contact with the guy. That's major. I'll be careful to include disclaimers in all of my comments from now on.

Maybe I was wrong to try to defend asianmack, but your calling for my banishment is ridiculous.
posted by me3dia at 12:26 PM on January 10, 2005

He broke what's probably the most important rule of Metafilter, and he did it on purpose. Ban him.
posted by drezdn at 12:32 PM on January 10, 2005

I think I overstated how much self-linky inside the thread is ok. I think if he'd said, "I have an interest in this since I've been delving into the whole iTunes blog thing" it might have been vaguely inexcusable. That's within a personal comment, and mentions a self-interest. Ideally it'd just be one of those "look at my profile to find my site" posts. But yeah, linking yourself anywhere near an article that speaks positively of your little livelihood on the blue means you're probably an asshat.
posted by mikeh at 1:36 PM on January 10, 2005

bshort - I don't understand how there is a "major conflict of interest" in me3dia posting about asianmack's site on his blog and then standing up for him here. I know he doesn't have a personal connection to Jamie (neither do I, only know of him), nor is he vouching for his character. I think all he was trying to say was maybe ease up a bit.

Personally, as a newcomer myself, I find it difficult to believe that asianmack misunderstood the rules — self-linking on the main page was obviously off-limits to me from the start — but I'm glad someone took his side, at least for the sake of argument.

I think it's problematic to say that me3dia was somehow showing favoritism in this situation just because of a simple blog post. What's in it for him? AFAIK, there isn't anything mysterious going on behind-the-scenes.

And in the interest of full disclosure, I am standing up for me3dia because I know him personally. So, is that problematic, too?
posted by interrupt at 2:15 PM on January 10, 2005

Mike - no disrespect meant, I was actually just clarifying that (posting your site within threads) is a way to "asshat" as well. I mean, I'd love for people to visit my real site...so that's why I pay for it and do it through text ads (since I'm interested in making revenue). I'm also VERY careful to look over sites to make sure they don't mention me before I post.
posted by Hands of Manos at 2:21 PM on January 10, 2005

"That's above the pale..."

Or above the pail, perhaps?
posted by piskycritter at 2:53 PM on January 10, 2005

interrupt - Well, it looks like you've posted about asianmack on your blog, where he also commented, and you're a "proprietor" on Gapersblock, so I'm not so sure that you're the calm voice of disinterested reason that you're portraying yourself as.
posted by bshort at 2:55 PM on January 10, 2005

Oh, snap!
posted by mr_crash_davis at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2005

I am a calm voice of disinterested reason. Ban asianmack. Don't ban me3dia. Can we move on now?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:03 PM on January 10, 2005

Someone's talking some sense at last. Well said monju.
posted by squealy at 3:10 PM on January 10, 2005

When did I say I was disinterested? Besides, you smell bad.
posted by interrupt at 3:11 PM on January 10, 2005

From interrupt's blog post, titled "Super Scam?":

"While it's definitely a useful and well thought out idea, and getting some great buzz, the first thing I thought about was how this was most likely created to take advantage of iTunes new reseller policy, instead of supplying substantive, unbiased music criticism."

Clearly he is a supporter of teh asianmack. Ban him!!!1!

What's your beef, bshort? Neither of us have ever met asianmack, I acquiesced regarding his banning as soon as mathowie declared it, and interrupt said he "find[s] it difficult to believe that asianmack misunderstood the rules." (And I had no idea until just now that Ken was even a MeFite, so don't accuse us of colluding.) We have no vested interest in asianmack sticking around or not. There. Is. No. Conspiracy. Here.

I meant it when I congratulated you on your engagement, which you ignored while thanking HoM. You've continued to imply that I'm somehow in cahoots with asianmack. Frankly, your insinuations are starting to smack more of some sort of personal grudge than anything else, and unless you're willing to come out with it, I'm just going to consider you a troll and ignore you from now on, no matter what you have to say.

On preview, thanks, monju. Sense is certainly needed.
posted by me3dia at 3:18 PM on January 10, 2005

BAN.
EVERYONE.
NOW.

There's so many of us there's so many of us there's so many.

No future no future
No future for you
No future no future
No future for me

(sorry, not that semi-obscure old punk references are more fun than this little party. Oh...they are aren't they.)
posted by freebird at 3:33 PM on January 10, 2005

Ban asianmack. Don't ban me3dia. Can we move on now?

Done and done. Except for the moving on part. But I'm willing to give it a go.
posted by cosmonik at 3:46 PM on January 10, 2005

Ban you, ban everybody! Punitive damages!
posted by xmutex at 3:54 PM on January 10, 2005

everyone needs some lovin'
posted by Hands of Manos at 5:35 PM on January 10, 2005

HoM you blew my mind. Anyone who can speak Romanian should check that link out. Immediately.
posted by loquax at 5:45 PM on January 10, 2005

Bannination for everyone!!!
posted by euphorb at 5:52 PM on January 10, 2005

Ban Roll-on!!!

Errr, I mean, um, nevermind...
posted by mischief at 6:14 PM on January 10, 2005

You want to ban me?

Me?
posted by scarabic at 6:44 PM on January 10, 2005

BANS OF MANOS!
posted by Hands of Manos at 6:49 PM on January 10, 2005

bshort, I'm very happy for you and your engagee (nice rock, btw) and please don't take this the wrong way, but you are my ideal man. In one specific way: you used "disinterested"! Which is not the same as "uninterested"! Which is a useful distinction to maintain! I may swoon.

Banning? me3dia: ixnay. asianmack: oh yeah.

I have a newbie question: what does "banning" mean? I can't tell if it's a permanent get-thee-gone, or more of a time-out. Are there gradations of bannage?

Or should this be a MeTa post?
posted by vetiver at 7:25 PM on January 10, 2005

Or should this be a MeTa post?

No Please No
posted by freebird at 8:06 PM on January 10, 2005

You want to ban me? Me?

Why not? Ban everybody! The people that you work with and handle, I probably will ban them too.
posted by Danelope at 11:53 PM on January 10, 2005

Please don't ban the people that I handle. Or those who handle me.
posted by taz at 12:20 AM on January 11, 2005

*handles self in an off-putting manner*
posted by The God Complex at 1:44 AM on January 11, 2005

Thanks, freebird! Just to make sure you see it, I'll post a thank you on MeTa, too.
posted by vetiver at 6:23 AM on January 11, 2005

Handles of Manos!
posted by soyjoy at 7:25 AM on January 11, 2005

Jingle Rock Bell!
posted by cortex at 12:54 PM on January 11, 2005

*is put off*
posted by cosmonik at 2:10 PM on January 11, 2005

Hands Off Manos!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:52 PM on January 11, 2005

Hand off to Manos! Manos scores!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:28 PM on January 11, 2005