September 5, 2001

9:10 AM

Ask Metafilter? Metatech? How soon to "My modem doesn't work!" posts?
posted by dhartung to etiquette/policy at 9:10 AM (31 comments total)

I'll give disaster a freebie here given it's his first link, but despite the useful conversation that followed, this really isn't Metafilter material -- it's kind of like posting a generic NY Times link and asking whether the paper is too liberal. Opinions?

And yes, we've been over this ground before, both in terms of setting/communicating guidelines, and creating an "ask metafilter" room.
posted by dhartung at 9:12 AM on September 5, 2001

It's not about fixing anything. Static IP addresses would have been BIG news for anyone connected with the web - it would mean being able to host your site on your own machine.

(OK, such big news that it had to be incorrect, but that's a different story)


posted by andrew cooke at 9:22 AM on September 5, 2001

This is far worse than asking if the Times is too liberal. That, at least, is not using Mefi as a resource for making personal decisions.

Is this too good to be true? Last week I visited a friend in Portland, and he suckered me into moving there. What really got me, in addition to what they have listed on the site was the free bus service in downtown, and that they supposedly use LIGHT RAIL transit systems. I was also told that their streets have bike lanes built in that allow individual lane space to each cyclist. [I have 3 - street bike, mountain bike, and recumbent]. Too good to be true, right?

Would that be a good front page post? If not, then neither is the one in question.

I have advocated for an Ask Metafilter area or feature quite a bit in the past. And though I support that concept at a separate location, I don't think it's appropriate material for the front page, no matter how useful the generated discussion turns out to be.
posted by daveadams at 9:30 AM on September 5, 2001

I would like to clarify. My personal decision was ALREADY made considering I already ordered the service. I thought posting the link would be helpful to metafilterers who might be looking for a static ip address, especially considering that according to the representative I spoke to said that they are changing their dsl completely.

Honestly, I am greatly disappointed at what I am interpreting as flaming here. I don't see how the link to the verizon plan, which appears to be a good dsl plan regardless, is less valuable than the TWO links to games on the lego website in the past week.

I thought metafilter was intended to create helpful and informative discussion for it's members. I suppose that's NOT really what it's about then? I guess to avoid flaming and insults one should post links to articles and whatnot which spark the interest of only 7 or 8 members versus ones which spark the interest of 20+?

I do feel, however, that an Ask Metafilter forum would be quite helpful in many ways, and I support the creation of it wholeheartedly.

Also to further clarify, I am FEMALE.


posted by disaster at 9:49 AM on September 5, 2001

disaster - it always feels pissy when this happens. I think it was an OK post, but the comments here are normal (I've been in your position in the past)

dhartung - thanks for posting a note on the main thread (when I was in this position, there wasn't, and it's much worse coming to something like this way after everyone has come to some kind of conclusion)

daveadams - did you read my post, or did we post in parallel? I think there's a clear case for this being news that would have been very relevant.

posted by andrew cooke at 9:58 AM on September 5, 2001

I am greatly disappointed at what I am interpreting as flaming here.

You're misinterpreting, disaster. The thread's about what is MetaFilter for, not "Look what disaster did wrong!" Your post isn't the first inappropriate post and it won't be the last.

I thought metafilter was intended to create helpful and informative discussion for it's members.

MetaFilter was intended to find and bring attention to new, interesting, and unique things being done with the World Wide Web in specific and across the planet in general.

Helpful and informative discussion doesn't immediately fall out of MeFi's scope, but MeFi also isn't a generic conversation board.

While useful information, it's a pretty generic "Hey, what's a good ISP?" conversation that can be found on thousands of different community sites, thousands of times per year.
posted by cCranium at 10:05 AM on September 5, 2001

Honestly, I am greatly disappointed at what I am interpreting as flaming here.

Huh? We must have wildly divergent opinions about what constitutes flaming.
posted by Skot at 10:09 AM on September 5, 2001

Honestly, I am greatly disappointed at what I am interpreting as flaming here.

Don't. dhartung is well within the bounds of reasonable etiquette with his post. Just because someone hurts your feelings doesn't mean they're flaming.

I, too, felt disaster's front-page post was inappropriate. (This isn't a tech forum or epinions.) But even if I didn't feel that way, Metatalk is the place where we discuss such things.

The MeFi Old Guard must remember, too, that the longer the site goes in its current (IMO misdirected) state, the greater the percentage of users who won't be familiar with how it should be. In other words, given how things have been around here for the last month or two, there's no way a new user would know when his/her link was inappropriate.

(Yes, yes, I'm an elitist pig. The "site should be whatever it's members make it". Who am I to judge. etc. etc.)
posted by jpoulos at 10:12 AM on September 5, 2001

despite the useful conversation that followed
If useful conversation follows, does it matter what the motivation of the poster is? How is "is this too good to be true?" a worse question for kicking off discussion on Mefi than "what do think of this new browser?" or "how cool is this use of technology?". Does the difference matter if the results are good?

it's kind of like posting a generic NY Times link and asking whether the paper is too liberal
Actually, a better analogy would be posting a NYT link and asking if they've gone conservative.

posted by dchase at 10:46 AM on September 5, 2001

I'm confused. Many of Mefi's members are web designers/NOC Trolls/BOFH types (Myself included). The site is undeniably tech-centric. Someone posts a link to a potentially kickass service (low cost, static IP, DSL). I don't see the problem, at all. Especially since we non-designers have to endure an entire eye-glazing thread everytime Dave Whozits or Jacob What'sHisFace make some earthshattering pronouncement.

Point is, I think it's a decent link. Especially for a first post.
posted by Optamystic at 11:00 AM on September 5, 2001

I would like to *further* clarify that I felt that I was/am being flamed by "daveadams" and no one else in particular.

I also agree that the link that I posted kind of falls into a grey area, and the powers that be do reserve the right to decide whether it belongs on metafilter or not.

And I did, in fact, read the guidelines for posting links very closely and at the time I felt that the verizon link fell within those guidelines.

Otherwise, if you are interested in how the "i've only not been a teenager for a year" in me reacted to this situation, you can refer to my weblog via my profile.
posted by disaster at 11:20 AM on September 5, 2001

[disaster] I would like to *further* clarify that I felt that I was/am being flamed by "daveadams" and no one else in particular.

That's interesting. What did I say in particular that you would consider a flame? I can't see it. Honestly.

[andrew cooke] daveadams - did you read my post, or did we post in parallel?

I did not see your post until after I posted. However, I disagree with your comment in any case. At the time of the original post, disaster did not know that static IPs were available. The post came off as "Hey, is this a cool ISP? They might have this cool feature." Had disaster gotten the service set up, figured out that yes, static IPs were available and then posted something like:

Wow, Verizon DSL now provides static IP addresses to residential customers. This is a big change from other DSL providers' policies and practices which go very far to remove that capability. Is this the indication of a sea change in the high-speed access market? Will this new ability broaden demand for this as-yet unsuccessful service and usher in a new age of broadband web applications?

Now, that would be an interesting post. As it stands, the original post is dangerously close to a "Is this a cool ISP?" post, whether disaster had already made her decision or not.
posted by daveadams at 11:34 AM on September 5, 2001

the "i've only not been a teenager for a year" in me

You've got one of those, too? I've had one for years. I keep it in a shoe box under my bed. It works great, but be sure to make the air holes big enough. I once had a tragic accident with the "Don't mess with me, I'm in high school, now" in me. The less said about that the better.

What the hell am I talking about?
posted by jpoulos at 2:29 PM on September 5, 2001

Just adding my vote - Good post. Not great, but certainly not worth getting cranky over.

No, Mefi shouldn't become a help desk. The potential for noise is too high, and there are better places to handle such questions.

But for me, discussions of low cost, static IP DSL fit right in with threads about music, politics, society, etc. Yes, I am a nerd, but static IP DSL is *important* damn it! We aren't talking about "my modem won't work", we're talking about the tenuous wire that connects me to the world.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:42 PM on September 5, 2001

The volvo headlights post is similar is a "ask metafilter" way, no?
posted by mathowie at 4:35 PM on September 5, 2001

To add my final two cents --

The reason I felt that I was being flamed was because daveadams was implying that my post was completely self involved, or so it would seem with the ridiculous analogy to moving that he drew. The moving analogy is a completely self gratifying piece that offers nothing helpful or interesting to fellow metafilterers, nor would it potentially draw a large discussion. The fact that I put a personal spin on the link at all was because I honestly wasn't sure how to pose it in an interesting way that my peers could relate to. I think that had the post been phrased differently, it wouldn't have caused such a problem. I do appreciate, however, those of you who recognized that this was my freshman attempt at posting.

But otherwise, everyone else I appreciate your support and constructive criticism. A lot of time was wasted here thinking of clever analogies and the whatnot, that could have been better spent making good posts that people are interested in reading. Anyone else who has something to say that isn't constructive and condusive to the growth of metafilter in general should keep it to their damn smug self.
posted by disaster at 5:34 AM on September 6, 2001

Anyone else who has something to say that isn't constructive and condusive to the growth of metafilter in general should keep it to their damn smug self.

The above has been quoted as snarkily self-reflective commentary.

This probably deserves its own MeTa thread (rah navelgazing!), but the trend towards ad hominem attacks on people who are trying to self-police MetaFilter disturbs me. It's the only feedback mechanism we have short of Matt pulling a post. If every time someone posts something as mildly critical as what Dave has posted in this thread they're told to "keep it to their damn smug self" (that being, of course, on the mild side, given some of the flaming that's been going on lately), why should people make the effort?

Try this on for size, Disaster -- that was a interesting thread that developed from a post that could have been much more effectively phrased (I didn't read it until I saw this thread, because it looked like an "advise me on my ISP" post to me), and if this discussion helps you make your next post better, it's a win for everyone. Okay? Kitty photos for everyone!
posted by snarkout at 6:10 AM on September 6, 2001

Amen, snarkout. We could all try to be a little more adult around here. That means:

a. Treat each other with respect and politeness.
b. Grow a thicker skin. Don't get all pouty when someone criticizes you, especially if they do it respectfully.

Kids, don't make Matt stop this car!
posted by jpoulos at 8:35 AM on September 6, 2001

Snark - Didn't I say in my last post the exact same thing that you said I should "try on for size." What the hell does that mean anyway?

I think that if people don't have something constructive to say, or only have sarcastic mocking things to say they shouldn't say them at all. It scares me that people take that much time out of their days just to criticize people on a weblog. It's one thing when it's an intelligent constructive conversation about a topic that has some merit, but the fact that this metatalk thread has gone on to 18 or 19 comments, is sort of depressing. Not that I am not interested in peoples' opinions on what I have to say and how I say it but I feel this has gone a bit too far.

Especially since so far the post has received criticism from 4 or 5 people but 30 some odd people found it useful, or merited.
posted by disaster at 9:16 AM on September 6, 2001

disaster - IMHO the post was fine, but your being offended by what daveadams said and your subsequent overreaction are borderline loony.

daveadams has a good point, but you continue to claim it's a personal attack.

"Anyone else who has something to say that isn't constructive and condusive to the growth of metafilter in general should keep it to their damn smug self."

Everyone else seems to be talking about Metafilter. You seem to only be talking about yourself.
posted by y6y6y6 at 9:46 AM on September 6, 2001

It scares me that people take that much time out of their days just to criticize people on a weblog

How much time did I spend on that? I believe it took me only a minute or so to copy your post and make the changes to the appropriate words. Did you think I spent hours laboring over what wasn't really all that clever of an analogy? If you do, you would be wrong. :)
posted by daveadams at 10:02 AM on September 6, 2001

It's just a weblog. It's a nice thing, and eventually it will cease being a nice thing. This is how all good things on the internet come to their demise.
posted by disaster at 10:04 AM on September 6, 2001

I know that you feel unjustly persecuted, but Disaster, there really is no need for that. Neither dave, nor anyone else here was not trying to attack you.
posted by Avogadro at 10:16 AM on September 6, 2001

Heh, for your amusement:
This thread has been metatalked.
posted by daveadams at 10:19 AM on September 6, 2001

Neither dave, nor anyone else here was not trying to attack you.

Argh. Let's try this again:

Neither dave, nor anyone else here was not trying to attack you.
posted by Avogadro at 11:28 AM on September 6, 2001

I actually went back and read this thread again and I think the cause of the whole thing was not dave's comments but the tone of the MetaTalk post ["My modem doesn't work"] which can be taken to imply Disaster is pretty clueless. Probably wasn't meant that way, but am I right Disaster?

psychoanalytically

k
posted by Kafkaesque at 12:47 PM on September 6, 2001

Pfft. The post in no way implies any kind of cluelessness on Disaster's part, Dave was doing that latin word for that arguably bad debating device that means taking an argument to it's extreme ends to proove a point.
posted by cCranium at 8:15 AM on September 7, 2001

OK, Pal! No-one says "Pfft" to me!!

*Grabs folding chair from crowd*

Let's take this outside!

heh

k
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:10 AM on September 7, 2001

OK, Pal! No-one says "Pfft" to me!!

Pfft.

*Grabs folding chair from crowd*

Grabs crowd, waves crowd menacingly over head.

(Gotta love the malleability of the Internet! :-)
posted by cCranium at 9:29 AM on September 7, 2001

*grabs Internet, brandishes it at cCranium, grinning maniacally*

ting tang walla walla ting tang


posted by Kafkaesque at 9:29 PM on September 9, 2001

that latin word for that arguably bad debating device that means taking an argument to it's extreme ends to proove a point

reductio ad adsurdum? Or something? I think it's a good device! Only logical fallacies I don't use often are bad!
posted by daveadams at 10:34 PM on September 9, 2001