new MetaTalk post limit

February 3, 2005 8:12 PM

This will be my last MetaTalk post for the next seven days, because MetaTalk is now subject to the same time limits as Ask MetaFilter.
posted by me3dia to Etiquette/Policy at 8:12 PM (49 comments total)

I'm not complaining -- frankly, it's probably a very good thing -- I'm just pointing it out. As with AskMe, you might want to think a bit before posting that complaint/call-out/pony request/question about what that "." in that thread means.
posted by me3dia at 8:13 PM on February 3, 2005

you talk too much anyways
posted by joelf at 8:20 PM on February 3, 2005

i wish this kind of thing would be announced ahead of time.
posted by amberglow at 8:25 PM on February 3, 2005

And coming soon - one comment per week!
posted by Krrrlson at 8:27 PM on February 3, 2005

A quick perusal of the archives shows that nobody actually posts to MetaTalk more than once a week. Except maybe mathowie, when he gets inspired.
posted by smackfu at 8:31 PM on February 3, 2005

I found out about it when I went to post my photos from the Chicago meetup and couldn't because I had posted earlier in the week. I emailed Matt, and adding a note to the MeTa post page is on his list of things to do, but I'd guess it's probably fairly low on that list, and I figured in the meantime a warning should be made to those who might post frivolously and find they're shut out when they have something important to say.

Again, I'm not complaining, just pointing it out.
posted by me3dia at 8:33 PM on February 3, 2005

smackfu, you're not going back far enough. There have been times (think of MiguelCardoso's heyday) when people have posted more than once in a day, let alone a week. Matt said he did it specifically to "stem the tide" of people abusing MeTa.
posted by me3dia at 8:37 PM on February 3, 2005

a warning should be made to those who might post frivolously and find they're shut out when they have something important to say

Why? The Boy Who Cried Wolf is really a good lesson for people to learn.
posted by Krrrlson at 8:37 PM on February 3, 2005

This has been true for quite a while...I found out when trying to post a followup to the DC Meetup planning in December.
posted by amandaudoff at 8:45 PM on February 3, 2005

I can't wait until all of our posts have to be previewed and edited for content by the Puritan Committee prior to actually appearing on the site.
posted by keswick at 8:45 PM on February 3, 2005

I wish Matt would code something to stop me from self-abuse more than once a day. It's really getting quite calloused.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:00 PM on February 3, 2005

Crash, I can lend a hand with that problem.
posted by WolfDaddy at 9:22 PM on February 3, 2005

This isn't new.

Anyway, if it's a legit bug kind of thing it can just as easily go via email. Same thing for absolutely positively egregious attacks upon your person ... or, say, attacks on this weeks construct.

Otherwise, if your calling people out more than once a week, you might want to consider the possibility that your a tad too touchy. I'm sure, if it's really that important, that there is enough flexibility built in that #1 might consider a second post in the same week. On the other hand, if it's that bad, maybe it is best dealt with in other ways.

"... and I figured in the meantime a warning should be made to those who might post frivolously and find they're shut out when they have something important to say."

C'mon. How often do these really go together? It's been my experience that those who post frivolously rarely have anything important to say.
posted by cedar at 9:42 PM on February 3, 2005

Fair enough. However, it's still something people should be aware of, and as of right now there's no indication that the policy is in place.
posted by me3dia at 9:46 PM on February 3, 2005

I could scale it back to something like 3 days, which would probably solve almost everyone's problems with it (aside from folks posting often to metatalk), right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:06 PM on February 3, 2005

3 days sounds perfect.
posted by Quartermass at 10:08 PM on February 3, 2005

Matt: a gazillion bucks, a lifetime supply of meth and Old Grandad served on silver platter by nekkid harem girls (willing, adult, feminist, multi-racial, and happy harem girls) wouldn't solve my problems.

But, three days seems like one hell of a reasonable solution.
posted by cedar at 10:49 PM on February 3, 2005

Three days would be great.
posted by me3dia at 11:30 PM on February 3, 2005

There are too many metatalk threads these days anyway. They knock positive things like meetup threads off the page all the time.
posted by interrobang at 12:30 AM on February 4, 2005

I don't see the problem with a week.
posted by Frasermoo at 1:26 AM on February 4, 2005

I don't see the problem with a week.

ditto. Anything that needs to be called out can either wait a week (maximum) or will be called out by someone else.
posted by rooftop secrets at 2:00 AM on February 4, 2005

You know that for an extra 5 bucks you can increase your posting limit to two posts a week?
/me rushes off to register seanyboy_2, seanyboy_3, seanyboy_4.
posted by seanyboy at 4:19 AM on February 4, 2005

I can't imagine anyone really needing to post more than one MeTa thread a week, except perhaps with respect to meetups, and then you can ask for permission.

Think about it. If there's a big problem on MeFi, somebody else will notice it, too. And if nobody else notices it, then it's not such a big problem. Anything that discourages extra whinging around here is a good thing.
posted by anapestic at 5:07 AM on February 4, 2005

This will be my last MetaTalk post for the next seven days

*drops to the ground, weeping copiously, while alternately pulling out large quantities of hair by the roots and banging fists on the floor while wailing, WHY GOD WHY???? How can you do this!! PLEASE don't make us wait 7 days! Why have you forsaken us?? Maybe skallas is right after all! There can be no god that would allow this kind of cruelty to go on unchecked!*

I could scale it back to something like 3 days

*dries tears, pulls herself up by her bootstraps, and goes forth with a renewed sense of justice, knowing that now everything is once again right with the world*
posted by iconomy at 5:15 AM on February 4, 2005

"They knock positive things like meetup threads off the page all the time."

Perhaps Matt would consider a fourth Meta-page, say MetaBash, for meetups. The background could be paisley.
posted by mischief at 7:27 AM on February 4, 2005

mmmmm! paisley!
posted by quonsar at 7:52 AM on February 4, 2005

paisley's not in style--how about an oversized damask? ; >
posted by amberglow at 7:59 AM on February 4, 2005

I dunno, damask just doesn't give me the warm fuzzies that I get from paisley.
posted by mischief at 8:04 AM on February 4, 2005

i wish this kind of thing would be announced ahead of time.

No kidding.

The posting limits make sense on Metafilter and MetaTalk, but I can't see the reasoning for them here. Problems do not occur on a timetable. If bug reports/feature requests are no longer welcome, why not just eliminate MetaTalk entirely?

Yes, help my by taking the time to bring things going wrong on the site to my notice...but only once in a while, eh?
posted by rushmc at 8:15 AM on February 4, 2005

Perhaps Matt would consider a fourth Meta-page, say MetaBash, for meetups

No no no! MetaBash is for complaining about people.

You are thinking about MetaParty.
Or possibly MetaDrunkenOrgy.
Or even MetaGatheringWithCallOutsOnPaperNapkinsThatMightDescendIntoDrunkenOrgies.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:30 AM on February 4, 2005

WHY GOD WHY???? How can you do this!! PLEASE don't make us wait 7 days! Why have you forsaken us??

I <3 you, too, iconomy. Soon enough, sweetie -- in fact, four days sooner than when i started this cockamamie thread.br>
The posting limits make sense on Metafilter and MetaTalk, but I can't see the reasoning for them here.

Er, what?



Strangest thing: when I previewed my comment, the S in "Soon" showed up lowercase, even though I capitalized it. This continued to happen until I finally used &#083; in instead. Odd.
posted by me3dia at 8:35 AM on February 4, 2005

Ooh, I think I see why -- the < in my <3 broke the markup -- note that the <br> tag at the end of the line is messed up -- there should have been a paragraph space between my comment to iconomy and my quote of rushmc. My mistake.

posted by me3dia at 8:38 AM on February 4, 2005

I don't see the problem with a week.

And you won't until a situation arises that point the problem out to you. God forbid you should be some super-mensch who points out the tag fiasco then wants to post meetup pics all in the same week.
posted by scarabic at 8:52 AM on February 4, 2005

Aw I hope you know I was just joshing ya, me3dia. I would heart you with a real heart if I knew how, but I don't, so I'll send you back one of these <3, which has always looked to me like a beak and a sideways hiney ;)
posted by iconomy at 8:57 AM on February 4, 2005

"a beak and a sideways hiney"

From one end to the other.
posted by mischief at 9:14 AM on February 4, 2005

Uh-oh. Now the <3 is *always* going to be a beak and sideways hiney to me.
posted by taz at 10:28 AM on February 4, 2005

This is my only line.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 10:36 AM on February 4, 2005

☺ is &#9786;.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:38 AM on February 4, 2005

I wish Matt would code something to stop me from self-abuse more than once a day. It's really getting quite calloused.

Run some lotion into it.

That, or use a Microplane personal-care tool.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:10 AM on February 4, 2005

fff, I don't WANT to be exposed to "Foot File Friendzy."

iconomy, I knew you were teasing. And if &hearts; still worked, I woulda given you one.
On preview: Wait! it does work! ♥!
posted by me3dia at 11:34 AM on February 4, 2005

Wait! Meetups have orgies?! Why didn't anyone tell me?

I don't see any real problem with a one a week posting limit. I can't imagine any emergency that an email to matt or another member wouldn't result in a post.

The key defining feature of a meetup is that there is more than one person there. Seems it would be easy enough to have one person be the report starter.
posted by Mitheral at 12:37 PM on February 4, 2005

God forbid you should be some super-mensch who points out the tag fiasco then wants to post meetup pics all in the same week

I also support keeping the restriction at once per week. If the worst is that posting of pictures of a meetup are delayed (presuming that the person can't find anyone else to post for him/her), then so be it.

As anapestic said, if there is a real need to post, plenty of people will notice that posting is needed. If not, there isn't a real need.
posted by WestCoaster at 1:04 PM on February 4, 2005

Eat your paisley.

for the member who says there's not enough Dead Milkmen references 'round here.
posted by LouReedsSon at 1:18 PM on February 4, 2005

Is this because I whine too much?
posted by Smart Dalek at 2:19 PM on February 4, 2005

I think it's important for us to realize that the best possible time to make ad hominem attacks on people is after they post to MeTa about someone else. So, to start things off, Fuck you me3dia!
posted by graventy at 4:25 PM on February 4, 2005

The posting limits make sense on Metafilter and MetaTalk, but I can't see the reasoning for them here.

Er, what?

Oops, AskMe, not Meta, obviously.

I think it's important for us to realize that the best possible time to make ad hominem attacks on people is after they post to MeTa about someone else.

Good point.
posted by rushmc at 5:17 PM on February 4, 2005

Is this because I whine too much?

Yes. Yes, it is. ; >
posted by amberglow at 6:36 PM on February 4, 2005

rushmc, the best part is that if other people step up against the attacks that get made, they will get attacked! Bam!

Yeah, yeah, I know that's a piss-poor example of a weak MeTa thread, but I'm tired.
posted by graventy at 10:59 PM on February 4, 2005

I hate this policy. It makes me not want to post AskMe or Meta threads at all, for fear of wanting/needing to make a more crucial post later and being unable to.
posted by Jairus at 12:19 PM on February 5, 2005