Comments on: Non-obvious links in posts

Non-obvious links in posts

delmoi — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:01:28 -0800

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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:19:55 -0800

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.

By: sid

sid — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:25:13 -0800

It's like a crazy Möbius strip!!!

By: Witty

Witty — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:39:58 -0800

Chicken or the egg... a rift in the space-time continuum?

By: mce

mce — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 14:42:42 -0800

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.

By: wendell

wendell — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:06:39 -0800

MetaFilter: Playing fast and loose with the time-space continuum.

By: fenriq

fenriq — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:07:17 -0800

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.

By: Witty

Witty — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 15:36:24 -0800

Maybe if you weren't racing to post the latest NewsFilter, you wouldn't have that problem. :)

By: underer

underer — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:19:01 -0800

Your taking time to make sense is damning.

By: scarabic

scarabic — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 16:56:54 -0800

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.

By: smackfu

smackfu — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:01:11 -0800

Better than bitching about the "weak" post in the thread.

By: Doug

Doug — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 18:15:07 -0800

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

By: nixerman

nixerman — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:20:12 -0800

I think that's a pretty good post. Keep up the good work, mce. I've got my eye on you.

By: mcgraw

mcgraw — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 19:27:07 -0800

Haven't we been over this?

Fpps must always be logical and coherent! Gosh!

By: darukaru

darukaru — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 22:07:51 -0800

what

By: scarabic

scarabic — Thu, 10 Feb 2005 23:08:32 -0800

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.

By: mischief

mischief — Fri, 11 Feb 2005 08:20:15 -0800

"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.