Non-obvious links in posts

February 10, 2005 2:01 PM

what? posts around here have often had lots of extra links about a topic, but is it too much to ask that the text of a post at least make sense? Personally, I'd like to get a clear idea of what I'm clicking on (even if it doesn’t elucidate the full scope) in mefi posts.
posted by delmoi to etiquette/policy at 2:01 PM (16 comments total)

Agreed. The sentences only make sense if you already went to the links. But why would you follow the links if the post makes no sense? It's ironic or a catch-22 or something like that.
posted by smackfu at 2:19 PM on February 10, 2005

It's like a crazy Möbius strip!!!
posted by sid at 2:25 PM on February 10, 2005

Chicken or the egg... a rift in the space-time continuum?
posted by Witty at 2:39 PM on February 10, 2005

I agree that, in hindsight, a 'more inside' style of post might have allowed for more grace in the wording and presentation of the post. Oh and sleep too - I'm pretty sure it made sense inside my head when I wrote it ;). That being said the topic is a large one with many nonintuitive consequences. My efforts might be viewed as an attempt to offer a couple entry points into a nebula of interconnected issues.

It might have been too much to hope that mefi would provide a different set of exit points.

Oh and fp too I guess.
posted by mce at 2:42 PM on February 10, 2005

MetaFilter: Playing fast and loose with the time-space continuum.
posted by wendell at 3:06 PM on February 10, 2005

One thing that always gets me when I'm putting together a post is the urge to rush through it so no one else posts it ahead of me. I have to force myself to slow down, proof it and make as close to sure as I can that it makes sense.

And even then, I almost always want to go back and edit the post.
posted by fenriq at 3:07 PM on February 10, 2005

Maybe if you weren't racing to post the latest NewsFilter, you wouldn't have that problem. :)
posted by Witty at 3:36 PM on February 10, 2005

Your taking time to make sense is damning.
posted by underer at 4:19 PM on February 10, 2005

I have to say I was expecting some kind of oddly-encoded grammarfuck prose poem. I've seen much less coherent posts than this. Not that it's a clear and good and fine post. It isn't. But this is more in the category of a "weak" post, not necessarily "against the rules." Calling out a "weak" post for its flagging quality makes a kind of "weak" callout in itself and is, quite possibly, "wrong," depending on who you talk to.
posted by scarabic at 4:56 PM on February 10, 2005

Better than bitching about the "weak" post in the thread.
posted by smackfu at 6:01 PM on February 10, 2005

Metatalk works best for "weak" posts. Obviously bad posts are, well, obviously bad and don't really require much discussion.
posted by Doug at 6:15 PM on February 10, 2005

I think that's a pretty good post. Keep up the good work, mce. I've got my eye on you.
posted by nixerman at 7:20 PM on February 10, 2005

Haven't we been over this?

Fpps must always be logical and coherent! Gosh!
posted by mcgraw at 7:27 PM on February 10, 2005

what
posted by darukaru at 10:07 PM on February 10, 2005

Metatalk works best for "weak" posts. Obviously bad posts are, well, obviously bad and don't really require much discussion.

Well, I see your point, in that posts that actually break rules always do so in a cut-and-dried obvious way (um... is that true, though?) and that therefore all that's left to do on MetaTalk is rate posts for quality (hm, that doesn't sound right).

Actually, no, I disagree.
posted by scarabic at 11:08 PM on February 10, 2005

"is it too much to ask that the text of a post at least make sense?"

delmoi, you have been here long enough to know the answer is:

YES!!!

'Incoherent FPP writeups' is a common complaint I receive after I recommend MeFi to others.
posted by mischief at 8:20 AM on February 11, 2005