I already saw this stuff on Engadget, Memepool, etc.

March 5, 2005 12:51 PM

Via, via, via -- Engadget, Memepool, and Boing Boing, respectively. These are not minor blogs. Boing Boing got 3 million hits yesterday. I already saw this stuff on the blogs and on delicious; can we stick to fresh stuff on MeFi unless we have something insightful to add?
posted by NickDouglas to MetaFilter-related at 12:51 PM (153 comments total)

It's a dilemma. Sometimes I like to read the MeFi discussions about interesting links I see on boingboing or memepool. Other times, it seems really stale.
posted by nyterrant at 1:04 PM on March 5, 2005

Get ready for 1000 people to be outraged that you expect them to read any site on the internet besides MetaFilter. This exact thread has been posted several times, and people always say one of the following:

1) I don't read memepool and I don't think I should have to
2) I read BoingBoing sometimes, sure, but I still want to have everything here, in one place, on Mefi, for convenience' sake

I'm not saying I think those things, but a lot of people do, and I expect you are in for some pain.
posted by scarabic at 1:06 PM on March 5, 2005

So I assume it's okay when you don't credit your sources in the blue?
posted by Item at 1:06 PM on March 5, 2005

I, for one, am proud of your awesome web-surfing cred, Nick.

However, each of the last time this discussion came up here, the consensus was that not all of us have the time, inclination, or testicular fortitude to keep ourselves updated on All the Important Sites, so we don't mind seeing links that may be on them here too.

And on preview, w00t! I'm one in a 1,000!
posted by yhbc at 1:07 PM on March 5, 2005

I don't read any of those sites; therefore, it's new to me. I'm not alone.

How does skipping those posts hurt you in any way?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 1:08 PM on March 5, 2005

I already saw this stuff on the blogs and on delicious; can we stick to fresh stuff on MeFi unless we have something insightful to add?

MeFi puts a neat spin on the same old crap sometimes; the user base is a diverse group of people. How will we know if we have anything new to say unless we say it?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 1:11 PM on March 5, 2005

Okay, here's the pain that scarabic promised: I never read Engadget and I only occasionally read Memepool and BoingBoing (in fact, the latter two are now blocked at work, where I do the majority of my surfing). So such links are usually fresh to me.

Note that I'm not shrieking "what? You expect me to read things other than MeFi?! You bastard!" Fact is, I regularly read lots of things besides MeFi. Just not Engadget, Memepool and BoingBoing. That's all.
posted by scody at 1:11 PM on March 5, 2005

I dont read those sites either. I think Mefites provide a service by bringing over those posts they find worthy to be picked out among the large streams of varying content at the other sites.

Also, sometimes Boingboing picks up stuff from Mefi and engadget does too and many others. Its a back and forth thing. Its the blogger way.
posted by vacapinta at 1:12 PM on March 5, 2005

Previous related discussion.
posted by Arch Stanton at 1:14 PM on March 5, 2005

Metafilter: It's a dilemma.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 1:16 PM on March 5, 2005

What they said.
posted by sciurus at 1:17 PM on March 5, 2005

Metafilter: It's a dilemma.

That's no tagline. /slap

MetaFilter: That's no tagline
MetaFilter: /slap

Am I getting through to you?

MetaFitler: Am I getting through to you?

GODDAMIT!

MetaFilter: GODDAMIT!!

AGGGGHH!!!!!

MetaFilter:

[pulls plug]
posted by scarabic at 1:19 PM on March 5, 2005

On topic, I never read boing boing (I hate those people, especially Cory "fake sci fi look at me" Docto and jap fetish weirdo Xeni) or Fark (redneck droll) and I use to read memepool in highschool, but not so much anymore. I'm too busy embarrassing myself on Metafilter.

I do like engadget, and I don't see why everyone is in such a rut. But it is mildly obnoxious to always add a [via] tag like we didn't know you got the link from somewhere else.
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 1:21 PM on March 5, 2005

MeFi puts a neat spin on the same old crap sometimes

For that above all reasons, I must concede.

MetaTalk: Come back, Daddy still loves you.
posted by NickDouglas at 1:22 PM on March 5, 2005

And item: That hurts. That hurts deep inside.
posted by NickDouglas at 1:23 PM on March 5, 2005

Metafilter: I'm too busy embarrassing myself on Metafilter.
posted by amberglow at 1:24 PM on March 5, 2005

It's not Filter. It's MetaFilter. MeFites grab the stuff from other blogs that's worth reading a lot of the time. And if MetaFilter doesn't grab enough for me, I'll usually just mosey on over there. Yes, I'm lazy...but I like it that way.
posted by rooftop secrets at 1:25 PM on March 5, 2005

But it is mildly obnoxious to always add a [via] tag like we didn't know you got the link from somewhere else.

Actually, I find it really obnoxious to *not* add a hyperlinked [via] tag. I feel like the old and pro-communal habit of giving credit to other filters and filterers is dying and that makes me want to go home and bite my pillow.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 1:26 PM on March 5, 2005

But it is mildly obnoxious to always add a [via] tag like we didn't know you got the link from somewhere else.

Meanwhile, lots of people consider it much more polite to indicate exactly which somewhere else you got it from.
posted by redfoxtail at 1:26 PM on March 5, 2005

(For example, RJ Reynolds and me, apparently. Hi.)
posted by redfoxtail at 1:27 PM on March 5, 2005

Actually, I find it really obnoxious to *not* add a hyperlinked [via] tag. I feel like the old and pro-communal habit of giving credit to other filters and filterers is dying and that makes me want to go home and bite my pillow.

It makes you want to go home and have sex? ; >
posted by amberglow at 1:32 PM on March 5, 2005

links belong to no one. via is stoopit. it gives credit where none is due. this is inherent in the nature of the web. besides, nobody ever vias blort and we resent it. ;)
posted by quonsar at 1:35 PM on March 5, 2005

I've always been in favor of the [via], but my view on it may change if it leads to many more MeTa threads like this. Had there been no [via], whould you still have called the threads out?
posted by MarkAnd at 1:42 PM on March 5, 2005

It's a dilemma. Sometimes I like to read the MeFi discussions about interesting links I see on boingboing or memepool.?

No, it's really not a dilemma. If the link is stale, don't post it to metafilter, since it's about the links, not the possibility of discussion.

Actually, I find it really obnoxious to *not* add a hyperlinked [via] tag. I feel like the old and pro-communal habit of giving credit to other filters and filterers is dying and that makes me want to go home and bite my pillow.

While I agree with you, that 'habit' isn't dying out, it's dead. For proof, jason kottke just went "pro" and doesn't give credit to any link at any time. So if you can ask for money and not credit your link, why would anyone posting to metafilter do differently?
posted by justgary at 1:44 PM on March 5, 2005

That hurts. That hurts deep inside.
Really? My words are powerful things, then.

By the way, the post I linked to was one of my all-time favorite internet experiences, and before you made this Metatalk post I had you to thank for it. After my careful research was conducted I have to give props to some page about wizards or something. I feel all nasty inside.
posted by Item at 1:45 PM on March 5, 2005

fuck kottke.
posted by quonsar at 1:49 PM on March 5, 2005

item, what "careful research" are you talking about? You did notice that the link you posted was the first link in the FPP, didn't you?
posted by casu marzu at 2:00 PM on March 5, 2005

besides, nobody ever vias blort and we resent it.

Ha! :)
posted by scody at 2:01 PM on March 5, 2005

If the link is stale, don't post it to metafilter

I agree, but sometimes they're not stale. Sometimes they get posted on the same day.

it's about the links, not the possibility of discussion.

Meh. I think there's a hopelessly hung jury on that.
posted by nyterrant at 2:03 PM on March 5, 2005

People should credit the place they got their links from as a courtesy. It's not like the Linking Police are going to break down your door and kick your mothers teeth in if you don't, it'd just be nice if people did. Also, if people like the link they might want to know where they can get more of the same - so don't protect your sources - share the love.
posted by dodgygeezer at 2:03 PM on March 5, 2005

*fucks kottke*
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 2:03 PM on March 5, 2005

got 3 million hits yesterday

!
posted by matteo at 2:03 PM on March 5, 2005

casu marzu: No, it's not. Check again.
posted by Item at 2:05 PM on March 5, 2005

it's about the links, not the possibility of discussion.

Meh. I think there's a hopelessly hung jury on that.

Well, they may be hopelessly hung, but that doesn't mean there isn't a clear verdict.

Guidelines:

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

Notice the "most have not seen it". Notice the "might warrant discussion"? The discussion is a bonus.

If someone post a bad link matt deletes it. And if he knew it would eventually have 200 comments? He'd probably still delete it. A great link that gets no discussion? It would stay.

Just because we now have 20,000 plus members who believe metafilter is what they 'think' it is doesn't mean they're right. The jury in this case is useless.
posted by justgary at 2:16 PM on March 5, 2005

Links have to come from somewhere. Though none of us want to see everything from memepool or linkfilter or boingboing reposted on here, it's inevitable that this happens. The good and interesting links swirl around the internet and more than a few sites are going to pick them up.
posted by Arch Stanton at 2:22 PM on March 5, 2005

fuck the jury.

*looks at quonsar II electric boogaloo and raises eyebrows*
posted by quonsar at 2:23 PM on March 5, 2005

Gary, there is a difference between a bad link and one that contains a [via] to another website.

Just because we now have 20,000 plus members who believe metafilter is what they 'think' it is doesn't mean they're right. The jury in this case is useless.

With respect, you can't win your argument by calling rank. It's clear to me that for a lot of people, it's about both the links and the discussion. You included. You have been a member for 4 years, and your comment to link ratio is running more than 100:1 in the blue.
posted by nyterrant at 2:24 PM on March 5, 2005

Engadget, Memepool, and Boing Boing ... delicious

What are these?
posted by caddis at 2:29 PM on March 5, 2005

*fucks jury (hung, indeed). sees quonsar's eyebrow and raises him one.*
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 2:33 PM on March 5, 2005

MetaTalk: It's getting stale.
posted by semmi at 2:36 PM on March 5, 2005

AUGGH! RUN AWAY! QUONSAR^2 UNIBROW FORMATION IMMINENT!
posted by loquacious at 2:39 PM on March 5, 2005

I subsrcibe to those three (plus many more) sites via Bloglines. It takes a minute to scan them all to see if I want to follow any links. The more stuff you read, the more you realize just how much is recycled. Clean your dryer lint trap for optimum performance! Via LifeHacks and a dozen other places.
posted by fixedgear at 2:41 PM on March 5, 2005

With respect, you can't win your argument by calling rank. It's clear to me that for a lot of people, it's about both the links and the discussion. You included. You have been a member for 4 years, and your comment to link ratio is running more than 100:1 in the blue.

This has nothing to do with calling rank. This has to do with what the creator of the site gave as guidelines. You can argue with them if you want, give more weight to the members opinions than the guy who created the site, just realize you're doing so.

As for my link to comment ratio, it proves nothing except I rarely find links I think are worthy of metafilter before others do. I have no problem with you disagreeing me, but going into my posting history to try and prove your point is pretty lame (as it is just about everytime someone does the same.)

Metafilter is not lacking for links. Quality over quanity. If you want everyone to have improve their 'ratio', metafilter would be hell.

My point was never that discussion wasn't part of the site, but that the links were more important. Somewhere along the line many members have come to regard metafilter as a discussion board. If that's what you prefer, then it's great, for me, it's not. Each to his own.
posted by justgary at 2:46 PM on March 5, 2005

q, if you need a good lawyer in GR to bring a trademark suit againt boog-in-the-a** or whatever the tag was, email me. I can fix you up.
posted by caddis at 2:47 PM on March 5, 2005

heh, it's my opinion that all those other blogs just steal from own good plep.
posted by madamjujujive at 2:54 PM on March 5, 2005

MetaFilter: Everybody Hates A Tourist
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:13 PM on March 5, 2005

*I* already saw this stuff on the blogs and on delicious; can *we* stick to fresh stuff on MeFi unless we have something insightful to add?
Well shit! I didn't realize we're here to please you. I'll drop everything and start start searching for more fresh links to amuse you. Would you like fries with that?
posted by c13 at 3:13 PM on March 5, 2005

I got signed up on bloglines a few months back, and subscribed to a million blogs. Then my brain exploded. And now I only subscribe to around 25 or so. I can't keep up, and when I try, I usually discover that there are a million blogs linking to the same stooopid shite. So I decided that I would rather go through one site that links to a million sites instead, but has the added incentive of having another area where its users can sit around and talk about how awesome they are all the time, and yet another where they actually get to prove it.
posted by Quartermass at 3:20 PM on March 5, 2005

To be quite honest, I don't mind seeing newsfilter links, or links that have made the rounds on other sites here. We usually get better disussion than other sites. Despite it all, the membership at mefi makes for better content.
posted by jonmc at 3:34 PM on March 5, 2005

The ensuing discussion of a link makes up for any repeptition in most cases.
posted by fire&wings at 3:48 PM on March 5, 2005

"Filter" was an alternative word for "weblog" (you know, sonny, back in the heady days of 1999).

MetaFilter. It filters the filters.

It blogs the best of what the other blogs blog. Truly original, never-seen-before content is an added bonus.

That's all in the name of the site. I don't know if it gets any clearer than that.
posted by Jimbob at 3:50 PM on March 5, 2005

The other day I bought some peonies.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 4:05 PM on March 5, 2005

Is there anyone currently siding with not posting stuff from other high-profile blogs? It usually seems like we have more resistance when there's a thread like this.
posted by graventy at 4:05 PM on March 5, 2005

My point was never that discussion wasn't part of the site, but that the links were more important.

In that case, Gary, we agree. I think it's about balance. If something gets posted on MeFi and Boingboing on the same day, it's probably not such a bad thing. If a memepool post shows up a week later in the blue, it's stale, and probably a questionable post.

I also agree that quality is more important than quantity.

We disagree about what constitutes quality, and how to interpret the phrase 'most people haven't seen it before'. And that goes back to my original point, which is that in a universe of 20,000+ users, we're never going to come to a consensus about it.
posted by nyterrant at 4:08 PM on March 5, 2005

what makes something go stale tho?
posted by amberglow at 4:15 PM on March 5, 2005

q, if you need a good lawyer in GR to bring a trademark suit againt boog-in-the-a** or whatever the tag was, email me. I can fix you up.

thanks, caddis. will do.

i mean, uh, hey wait! don't sue me! oh noes!!111!1
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 4:22 PM on March 5, 2005

graventy writes "Is there anyone currently siding with not posting stuff from other high-profile blogs?"

Me.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 4:35 PM on March 5, 2005

The quonsars are multiplying?

I told you we should've cleaned out that refrigerator.
posted by orthogonality at 4:36 PM on March 5, 2005

what makes something go stale tho?

Thats a good point. I think the best links are things that never go stale. Conversely, if it even has a chance of going stale, it was never very good to begin with, or something too much of the moment, the link-equivalent of bell-bottom pants.
posted by vacapinta at 4:45 PM on March 5, 2005

but bell-bottoms are back (altho under a diff. name) : >
posted by amberglow at 4:49 PM on March 5, 2005

Bell-bottoms never went away. Not in my heart.

[via]
posted by flashboy at 5:10 PM on March 5, 2005

MeFi puts a neat spin on the same old crap sometimes

Isn't that an argument for NewsFilter? I occaisionally appreciate what news can look like after the MeFi's have discussed it. News like tech stuff or science stuff. We still suck at politics.
posted by geekyguy at 5:53 PM on March 5, 2005

News like tech stuff or science stuff. We still suck at politics.

That's a very important caveat ;)
posted by Jimbob at 6:02 PM on March 5, 2005

what makes something go stale tho?

Thats a good point. I think the best links are things that never go stale

Arguing about what's a good link and what's a legit source instead of the content of the link is extremely stale by now.
posted by semmi at 6:09 PM on March 5, 2005

I don't even bother with the blue anymore, mostly. Half the stuff there lately it seems I posted on my own linkblogthing in the previous week or two, and I don't even freakin' try.

Metafilter kinda sucks, but Metatalk is fun, and AskMe enlightening, so I keep coming back.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:12 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "I don't even bother with the blue anymore, mostly. Half the stuff there lately it seems I posted on my own linkblogthing in the previous week or two.... Metafilter kinda sucks, but Metatalk is fun, and AskMe enlightening, so I keep coming back."

I keeps telling you, it's not the links, it's the comments on the links. It's the personalities.

It's the snark!
posted by orthogonality at 6:21 PM on March 5, 2005

It is, for me. I've been saying so, unapologetically, for years -- that the community is more important to me than the links or any 'best of the web' self-strokery. As a weblog, I find MeFi boring as hell. As a community, endlessly fascinating.

So, you know, bite me.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 PM on March 5, 2005

Are we allowed to post links that we got from stav's linkblogthing? Or are those too stale?
posted by casu marzu at 6:39 PM on March 5, 2005

Way too stale!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:41 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "So, you know, bite me."

Honestly, I was not being sarcastic.
posted by orthogonality at 6:44 PM on March 5, 2005

Well, I was being snarky! Heh. [Sorry, then. I misread your tone.]

Also, while I'm at it: why are you bothering to link to comments that are right above the one just made, with 'X writes' in front? It's distracting, and annoying. This isn't email.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:49 PM on March 5, 2005

hey wait! don't sue me! oh noes!!111!1

You know, boogaloo quonsar would be a lot better if she were actually funny. As it is, she's the best argument going for giving quonsar free reign to do whatever quonsar wants to do.

In theory, I mean.
posted by mediareport at 7:02 PM on March 5, 2005

As a weblog, I find MeFi boring as hell.

Really? What percentage of, oh, the last three weeks' posts had you already seen elsewhere?
posted by mediareport at 7:10 PM on March 5, 2005

Since I'm new to this whole MetaFilter thingamajig, I could be wrong, but isn't the whole purpose of this site to find stuff posted somewhere else?
posted by Dark Messiah at 7:12 PM on March 5, 2005

"Metafilter kinda sucks, but Metatalk is fun, and AskMe enlightening, so I keep coming back."
via stavrosthewonderchicken

Exactly.
posted by Ryvar at 7:13 PM on March 5, 2005

Ethereal Bligh writes " Me."


Oh, see, it's hard to tell really. Nick conceded, all you added was the MeFi tag, and pretty much everyone else has said "It's METAfilter." So, I honestly wasn't that sure.

Why she mediareport?
posted by graventy at 7:13 PM on March 5, 2005

Really? What percentage of, oh, the last three weeks' posts had you already seen elsewhere?

Eleventy-three? At least that much. Maybe even squizzeldy-four!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:17 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "Well, I was being snarky! Heh. [Sorry, then. I misread your tone.]

"Also, while I'm at it: why are you bothering to link to comments that are right above the one just made, with 'X writes' in front? It's distracting, and annoying. This isn't email."


Two reasons: One, it's annoying as hell to me when someone writes a reply to another comment, and doesn't link to it, and often doesn't even mention who wrote the quote he's replying to, and sometimes don't even make it clear that his response starts with a quote.

I start reading, then realize I'm reading a quote, then wonder who the author was, and if the quote was taken out of context.

Who's being quoted here? Since it's not within quotation marks, how far into do I have to read before I realize it's a quote and not an author opening with emphasized text? Same here. And literally a dozen other examples, just in this thread.

No quotes, no author of the quoted text indicated. How's a reader supposed to follow who said what, and who is responding to whom?

Initially, to not inflict this on others, I took the time to a) copy the text I wanted to quote, b) to copy the author's user name, c) to copy the url to that comment, d) to put the quoted text in italics, e) except where it already was in italics, where I removed the italics, f) and to put double quotes around it g) and change any double quotes in the quote itself to single quotes, h) and change any single quotes in the quoted text to double quotes, i) unless the first quote mark in the quoted text was already a single quote, and j) taking care not to convert apostrophes, and k) prepending the author's name and the backlink to the original to the quote.

All because I wanted to make the reader's life easier.

Two, then I found a Firefox extension that does all this automatically, and so now I just use that whenever I quote, and it doesn't not format the quote if the quoted comment is immediately above the reply, it just does its thing.
posted by orthogonality at 7:18 PM on March 5, 2005

Why she mediareport?

Why not? quonsar's the quintessential goofydick male, so it makes sense that his shiny new nemesis would be female. Anonymous assholes with a single-minded mission have always been one of the worst blights of the 'Net, so I really don't give a fuck if I'm right. It fits.

Maybe even squizzeldy-four!

Ooh, I've always wanted to have a reason to use the term "shitheel." You're being a shitheel, stavros. Start counting and answer the question.
posted by mediareport at 7:21 PM on March 5, 2005

I'm thinking of starting a community blog called MetaMeh. Or maybe Give Jeanette Money. I haven't decided. Hmm. Maybe MetaRehash? Or Well Hung Jury?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:32 PM on March 5, 2005

That's ridiculous, orthogonality, really. A standard way of quoting people's words has evolved here over years, and works absolutely fine if you actually pay a modicum of attention to what's been said upthread. Now you've decided that using a tool to automate it, and even worse, automate it in a way that is jarringly counter to what the community has organically settled upon as a standard, is 'making the reader's life easier'?

It would seem to me to be making one person's life easier -- yours. You could at least be honest about it.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2005

"Is there anyone currently siding with not posting stuff from other high-profile blogs?"

the very idea is fricken stoopit.


I'm thinking of starting a community blog called MetaMeh. Or maybe Give Jeanette Money. I haven't decided. Hmm. Maybe MetaRehash? Or Well Hung Jury?

the very idea is fricken stoopit.
posted by quonsar at 7:56 PM on March 5, 2005

I found a Firefox extension that does all this automatically

the very idea is fricken stoopit.
posted by quonsar at 7:58 PM on March 5, 2005

How 'bout Well Hung quonsar II electric boogaloo?
posted by soyjoy at 8:02 PM on March 5, 2005

Ooh, I've always wanted to have a reason to use the term "shitheel." You're being a shitheel, stavros. Start counting and answer the question.

Perhaps you might consider slowly and gently fucking the fuck off, my friend. Whatever gave you the idea that you could order me around with an imperious wave of your richly scented hand?

I did not claim that I find Metafilter boring as weblog merely because so many of the posts made can be found elsewhere, and so your question -- which I mocked in my inimitably shitheelian way -- was a pointless waste of time, both in the posing and in any effort I might have potentially expended in attempting to answer.

Rather than tell you you were being thick, though, I made a joke. And hurt your widdle feelings, apparently. Because I'm a shitheel.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:02 PM on March 5, 2005

the very idea is fricken stoopit.
posted by quonsar at 8:03 PM on March 5, 2005

Um. Wha happened to my quote of EB? And howcum the italics got all over my part of the comment? Man, that was gonna be so fricken funny, back when it was just in my head. You'll have to trust me on this.
posted by soyjoy at 8:04 PM on March 5, 2005

Amberglow, "what makes a link go stale tho"

If it is already ubiquitous in the big blogs. For example, the NFL 1,121 things you can't put on a jersey post.

Immediately, it was labeled "Fark-filter", for it had appeared on Fark the day before. It was also on BoingBoing the previous morning. Upon further research, Linkfilter had the article prior as well. Memepool picked it up last, later on the second day.

That would qualify as a stale post.

On preview: *eyes closed, imagining* LOL, soyjoy.
posted by Arch Stanton at 8:07 PM on March 5, 2005

...giving quonsar free reign to do whatever quonsar wants to do.

Now that, my friends...I would pay money to see. :)
posted by dejah420 at 8:13 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken writes "That's ridiculous, orthogonality, really. A standard way of quoting people's words has evolved here over years...."

Your appeal to organic tradition has some sway with me. And god knows that style wars (spaces vs. tabs, brace at line end vs. start of next line, Hungarian notation vs. clarity, emacs vs. vi) can be among the most vicious on the net.

And I can see the appeal of italics without quotation marks, although I'll argue for readers using devices that don't render italics but do render quotation marks: people reading on cell phones or handheld computers (Opera on the Zaurus will render italics, but only at font sizes that are prohibitively large).

But is an attribution really that painful to see? Isn't having a backlink to the original useful -- doe it really detract so much from your enjoyment, or are you just noticing it because it's unfamiliar?

"It would seem to me to be making one person's life easier -- yours. You could at least be honest about it."

Hey, stavros, I'm not giving the worst possible interpretation of your words, and I wish you wouldn't do that to me. Besides, your interpretation just doesn't hold up: when I was doing the quoting by hand, it certainly wasn't easier. It was a lot of copying an pasting and re-formatting. Sure, now it's easier with the tool, but that's not why I started quoting this way.

I don't think I've been impolite to you, or negative in any way toward you -- if I have, it's been unintentional and you have my apology --, and I think you can do better that to accuse me of not being honest.
posted by orthogonality at 8:14 PM on March 5, 2005

I wasn't just being pointlessly snarky, orthogonality. It is difficult and time-consuming, sure, to do all the shit you used to do to quote someone, but it was also completely unnecessary. You arbitrarily decided you needed to do it -- and I repeat, to do it in a way that ran counter to what people usually do -- and then went the next step, to automation.

But simply using the same style that everyone else does -- copy, paste, hit the 'I' button on the little toolbar thingy -- is fast and easy, at least as easy as your Firefox extension enforced style, which, I'd add, can't possibly reach ubiquity, simply because many people (myself included) don't use that browser.

That seems to me to point towards you doing it for your own convenience, rather than anyone else's.

But I didn't tell you to stop doing it -- feel free! It bugs me, not but enough to actually get worked up about for more than about 3 seconds.

(Folks keep reading things into what I say that I have not actually said, here, distressingly. Inclines me to tend toward Ethereal Blighlike overexplanation, something I've long tried to wean myself from.)

Ah well. I apologize if my accusation of dishonesty was unnecessarily impolite. I still think your explanation is a bit suss, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:27 PM on March 5, 2005

orthogonality : 'Isn't having a backlink to the original useful '
If you change the "writes" to ":", it would go a lot easier on the eyes.
posted by dhruva at 8:28 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken writes " It would seem to me to be making one person's life easier -- yours. You could at least be honest about it."

Stav, put a sock in it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:29 PM on March 5, 2005

stavrosthewonderchicken: " But simply using the same style that everyone else does -- copy, paste, hit the 'I' button on the little toolbar thingy -- is fast and easy, at least as easy as your Firefox extension enforced style"

Well, almost: the extension does it just by right-clicking and clicking the pop-up context menu. No copying or pasting. But yeah, essentially the same level of effort.

What do you do about italics in the original? If you italicize the whole thing the original emphasis is lost (not to mention any boldface, links or small fonts iin the original).
posted by orthogonality at 8:37 PM on March 5, 2005

By the way, orthogonality didn't write the Firefox/Mozilla extension that allows this automated quoting—TP Diffenbach did. It's a handly little tool. Why this in particular bothers you given the MILLION OTHER ANNOYING THINGS ON METAFILTER I cannot fathom.

That said, I of course would prefer what I think is the nicest looking quote style:

“You arbitrarily decided you needed to do it -- and I repeat, to do it in a way that ran counter to what people usually do -- and then went the next step, to automation.”—stavosthewondershicken

...but others have said that takes up too much vertical space. Regardless, I've seen more people complain about unattributed quotes than your complaint against orthogonality's (or my) use of the metafilthy extension.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:39 PM on March 5, 2005

orthogonality writes " What do you do about italics in the original? If you italicize the whole thing the original emphasis is lost (not to mention any boldface, links or small fonts iin the original)."

That's what the blockquote tag is for. See above.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:40 PM on March 5, 2005

Ethereal Bligh writes "orthogonality writes ' What do you do about italics in the original? If you italicize the whole thing the original emphasis is lost (not to mention any boldface, links or small fonts iin the original).'

"That's what the blockquote tag is for. See above."

Yeah, but (see my quote of you, above) the metafilthy extension converts italics in the original to non-italics, and keeps all other HTML, including links. And (see above again) reformats quotation marks from double to single as appropriate. It even does running quotes for multiple paragraph quotations (see above again), if you tell it to.
posted by orthogonality at 8:49 PM on March 5, 2005

Yeah, I know. But I think the blockquote style is better. Extra vertical space notwithstanding. TP's extension is very clever and cool; but I personally think it would vastly be improved if switched to the blockquote style (or allow a choice).
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:57 PM on March 5, 2005

Actually, just to put my peep in, I think the extension's quote formatting is really fucking ugly.
posted by majick at 9:00 PM on March 5, 2005

quonsar writes "the very idea is fricken stoopit."
posted by quonsar at 9:06 PM on March 5, 2005

Metafilter's policy writes "A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others."

This is something so often overlooked. MetaFilter is not about finding, per se, the "absolutely unknown" best of the web, it's about finding the BEST of the web, defined as above: most people haven't seen it, it's interesting, and it may or may not spark discussion. People who talk about "creating" a post by finding crossreferences and supporting background to prop up weak links ("It might have been a good post if you also linked to A or B or counterargument C") are focusing on the one give-or-take condition, discussion. They're trying to craft good discussion (a good thing, of course) out of a bad or weak link (by definition, not mefi-worthy).

Or maybe it just bugs me when there are 5 links in a post, and one is to a map of a country, or a picture of someone, or the like.

Back on topic, if we find that the majority of people here read boingboing, memepool, etc., then the central idea (we shouldn't post boingboing links) makes sense, as it fails condition 1: "most people haven't seen it before". If, however, as this thread and several others point out, many people read boingboing/memepool, but not most, then posting something appearing on boingboing/memepool does not contradict the guidelines, and I can't see what the big deal is.

stavrosthewonderchicken writes " But simply using the same style that everyone else does -- copy, paste, hit the 'I' button on the little toolbar thingy -- is fast and easy, at least as easy as your Firefox extension enforced style"

Yeah, but that results in crappy quote attribution: the person being quoted is not named. To use a decent style of quoting, you need to copy, paste, select the pasted section, click "I", go back and copy and paste the author (or type it in, if it's short and memorable enough, unlike XYZYTGOPY or whatever it is where you actually have to copy-paste or scroll up and memorize spelling), select the author, click "B", and then type a colon. Which, of course, is still do-able, but having an extension where you just select the part you want to quote, right click, and click "metafilthy" to do all that, is much, much easier.

I do agree that the formatting sucks. Unfortunately, I'm java/javascript illiterate, and while I looked through the code, I couldn't figure out how to make it show up the way I want to, which is:

Author: Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote. Big long blockquote.

EB, orthogonality, others: can you help a person out with some coding? What should I change where in order to get that type of quoting in Metafilty? I think I've found the right part of the right file, but I don't know what to change it to.
posted by Bugbread at 9:45 PM on March 5, 2005

The other day I bought some peonies.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs

Yes, but are they new peonies? Or are they the same stale old peonies that you told us about before? Because I am keeping track. In fact I am starting a web site of all the botanical purchases referenced in MetaFilter, MetaTalk, and AskMe. It will be color coded. It will be fresh, fresh, fresh.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 9:46 PM on March 5, 2005

I don't really understand the impulse behind abandoning the usual MeFi quoting style. Why is attribution so important? Surely what someone said is more important than who said it. And a link back to a previous post in the same thread? Why link back to something I would have just recently read. People don't use italics for emphasis here all that much, anyway, and they especially don't do it at the start of a comment. Emphasis is generally something you build to rather than commence with.
posted by anapestic at 9:49 PM on March 5, 2005

Anapestic: I wasn't really aware that the usual MeFi quoting style was non-attribution. As long as I've been reading, it's seemed that there are two styles:

I don't really understand the impulse behind abandoning the usual MeFi quoting style.

and

anapestic: I don't really understand the impulse behind abandoning the usual MeFi quoting style.

Some people use the top one for all quotes, and some people use the top for quotes that are nearby, and the bottom for quotes of things further up the page. I tend to be in the second camp, and the only reason I don't use pattern 2 for all quotes is that it's a PITA to do all the extra copy-paste.

You're right about the linking (not really necessary if it's in the same page), that's just a bonus of the way Metafilthy is coded. If we had all coded our own FF extensions for quoting, it might look more like pattern 2 than the Metafilthy version:

anapestic writes "I don't really understand the impulse behind abandoning the usual MeFi quoting style."

I'm going to make another attempt to tweak the code, and hopefully I can get Metafilthy to do quote style 2, without all the copy-n-pasting of doing it manually.
posted by Bugbread at 9:57 PM on March 5, 2005

Bugbread, I looked at the code specifically for the purpose of making that sort of modification. But it's sufficiently complex relative to my javascript competence (which is minimal, I've sort of been opposed to the very idea of javascript from the moment Netscape introduced it) that I'm not willing to invest the time. I just keep hoping that TP will include the functionality I desire. (He put in his new alpha the requested "line under post recently read" feature. Which, as it happens, I don't like.) So, the metafilthy code is in active development. Anything's possible.

Also, thanks, TP, for the work you've put into this!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:07 PM on March 5, 2005

In the oldskool way of quoting, when something appears that doesn't immediately strike me, I use the ctrl+F in Firefox with the highlight feature enabled. Works really nicely.

I like the idea of Metafilthy, but I don't like the "X user writes:" because it is as visually jarring as the old yellow [!]'s.
posted by Quartermass at 10:38 PM on March 5, 2005

Let's continue discussion of Metafilthy over in the Firefox extension post.
posted by Bugbread at 10:47 PM on March 5, 2005

Yes, I agree with Quartermass and Stav... Seeing all those little yellow "writes" is beginning to get on my nerves. At any rate, I think the whole thing is kind of a tempest in a teaplug... It's a fun little gadget, but I suspect that the people who were quoting sloppy before (not linking/attributing when the quoted material was quite far upthread) are not really going to bother to install the plugin and use it. Others more careful will continue to be so, either using the extension or under their own steam.
posted by taz at 11:30 PM on March 5, 2005

taz : "Seeing all those little yellow 'writes' is beginning to get on my nerves."

Is that less visually jarring?
posted by Bugbread at 11:39 PM on March 5, 2005

(Er, sorry, I realize I just suggested moving talk of Metafilthy over to the other thread, but since the post above was asking the opinion of folks who don't particularly like Metafilthy, I figured they wouldn't be in that thread, and this would be the best place to ask. But I promise to move all my other discussion of Metafilthy over to the other post. Sorry.)
posted by Bugbread at 11:41 PM on March 5, 2005

I have no problem with the less 'letter intesive' link to the original quote, bugbread. However, I think it's much more difficult to click on when drinking.
posted by Arch Stanton at 11:46 PM on March 5, 2005

True. Personally, I'd be fine with removing the whole link (all I really want is the ability to automatically copy, paste, italicize, and attribute), but I don't know how to tweak the code of the extension to do so.
posted by Bugbread at 11:50 PM on March 5, 2005

Stav, put a sock in it.

I'd much rather put a sock in you.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:34 AM on March 6, 2005

Also, I've always used and understood username: yadda yadda to be directly addressing someone, not quoting them, as in

Ethereal Bligh: I'd much rather put a sock in you.

And what anapestic said.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:46 AM on March 6, 2005

Stav: Yeah, my example was bad.

I always take the following to be a quote:

stavrosthewonderchicken: "I'd much rather put a sock in you"

And the following to be addressed at someone:

Stavrosthewonderchicken: Very classy, telling someone who tells you to shut up that you want to physically assault them.
posted by Bugbread at 12:56 AM on March 6, 2005

I don't know about you guys, but I find the subtext conversation here highly entertaining
posted by dhruva at 1:08 AM on March 6, 2005

Stavrosthewonderchicken: Very classy, telling someone who tells you to shut up that you want to physically assault them.

Oh shut up and page to "sarcasm" in the dictionary. Sheezus. When you've been assaulted by the thing called the "wonderchicken" I think you'll know.
posted by scarabic at 1:19 AM on March 6, 2005

Stav: I'd prefer to hit you in the back of the head with a baseball bat. But I thought "put a sock in it" would be more polite. Cheers!
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:21 AM on March 6, 2005

was that sarcasm? sure it was. check the dictionary.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:22 AM on March 6, 2005

EB: The whole "put a sock in it" beginning to this testosterone cocktail is because stav said "Inclines me to tend toward Ethereal Blighlike overexplanation, something I've long tried to wean myself from." ? And now with the baseball bats?

You've admitted to a tendency toward overexplanation yourself, no?
posted by taz at 1:30 AM on March 6, 2005

I confess I can neither use a dictionary or sense humor.

[reluctantly sits out yet another half-masted internetosterone feud]
posted by scarabic at 1:37 AM on March 6, 2005

Hey, I'm just funnin'. I don't really want to hit stav in the back of the head with a baseball bat. Not at the moment, anyway.

Perhaps I should explain myself more fully?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:42 AM on March 6, 2005

I'm just funnin', too, of course.

That bugbread sure is all serious and stuff, though.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:10 AM on March 6, 2005

Isn't he? It's part of what I like about him. And that orthogonality dude, too.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:43 AM on March 6, 2005

talk about fuckin minutia! you guys are really arguing over how to quote someone, and have been for 50+ messages.

You guys all need girlfriends. desperately.
posted by crunchland at 2:56 AM on March 6, 2005

My wife might object.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:06 AM on March 6, 2005

As would my fiancee.

I'm only dead serious on the internet, anyway. In real life, I'm just as anal, just less serious.
posted by Bugbread at 4:06 AM on March 6, 2005

Besides which, I wasn't arguing with anyone, was I?
Man, now I'm all worried that my reading comprehension has gone into the toilet. Who here was arguing? (Raise your hands)
posted by Bugbread at 4:15 AM on March 6, 2005

oh. sorry. you weren't arguing? I just assumed you were. I didn't actually read any of that crap. Carry on.
posted by crunchland at 4:30 AM on March 6, 2005

Can we maybe agree that two words that should never be on the front page are "via drudge?"
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:32 AM on March 6, 2005

"via drudge?"

Totally. When its the home page of like 88.4% of us, whats the point?
posted by Quartermass at 6:46 AM on March 6, 2005

"via drudge?"

Totally. When it's the home page of like 88.4% of us, whats the point?
posted by Quartermass at 6:46 AM on March 6, 2005

ugh... tried to save myself from getting the dreadded "its" callout, but too late. Sorry!
posted by Quartermass at 6:47 AM on March 6, 2005

Quote like regular mefites and get over yourselves already. Anyone who can't tell who said what can re-read the thread as many times as it takes them to figure it out.
posted by beth at 7:14 AM on March 6, 2005

beth writes "Anyone who can't tell who said what can re-read the thread as many times as it takes them to figure it out."

Maybe you have that kind of time....
posted by orthogonality at 8:37 AM on March 6, 2005

Who here was arguing? (Raise your hands)
posted by bugbread at 4:15 AM PST on March 6

Puts her hand firmly down, because obviously her style of quoting with names and time and everything is so "old school" as to be obsolete and therefore completely unworthy of discussion.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:51 AM on March 6, 2005

Secret Life of Gravy writes "obviously her style of quoting with names and time and everything is so 'old school' as to be obsolete and therefore completely unworthy of discussion."

Do what bugbread suggested:
bugbread wrote "Let's continue discussion of Metafilthy over in the Firefox extension post."
posted by orthogonality at 9:25 AM on March 6, 2005

the fricken stoopit in this thread is strong.
posted by quonsar II electric boogaloo at 11:26 AM on March 6, 2005

Boing Boing got 3 million hits yesterday

not that it really means anything, but...

The world population is about 6.4 billion. So that means roughly .047% of the world's population visited BoingBoing on Friday. I was not one of them.
posted by gluechunk at 1:16 PM on March 6, 2005

aol.com is real popular too.
posted by quonsar at 1:24 PM on March 6, 2005

As someone who has tracked the traffic from a link on Boing Boing, followed by a link on MetaFilter the next day, I can assure you that the MetaFilter audience is significant and different.
posted by KS at 1:30 PM on March 6, 2005

Boing Boing got 3 million hits yesterday

According to that page, on March 4th Boing Boing served 3 million files, produced by only 660,000 page views or 240,000 visits, with the number of unique visitors being a fraction (possibly one third) of that.
posted by cillit bang at 3:35 PM on March 6, 2005

So the proposal is now that we must search bOING bOING, Memepool and other such sites for the links we find? Bogus.

(By the way, I like when a Cory post from bOING bOING is posted over here, because it's usually minus the often factually incorrect bullshit of a Cory post.)
posted by Captaintripps at 6:48 PM on March 6, 2005

Examples, please.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:19 PM on March 6, 2005

According to that page, on March 4th Boing Boing served 3 million files, produced by only 660,000 page views or 240,000 visits, with the number of unique visitors being a fraction (possibly one third) of that.

I'm glad someone posted the clarification; it was obvious that the 3 million figure dramatically overstated the number of daily BB visitors. I'm not sure why anyone would highlight hits; it's always been the least informative measure of site activity, but sounds better since it produces the highest numbers.
posted by mediareport at 10:40 PM on March 6, 2005

Viva Via!
I don't mind when boingboing/Waxy/Memepool etc some of their links end up here for discussion at all. When they do, they're usually a little meatier, with more links and less factually incorrect bull and that is something to aim for.
Though, you know what would be cool? If the small unknown sites (in comparison) that y'all read got their [via]-credit too. Seems rather rare, one seldom sees: "[via totally uknown site I never heard of before]". Spread the cred kids. I like finding new waterholes on the web that way, so please remember to add your via.
posted by dabitch at 3:26 AM on March 7, 2005

Good point, dabitch! Let's promote the independents - I love finding fresh new blogs.

BTW, I've seen plenty of instances of Boing Boing and others reposting links that have appeared here first - often with no acknowledgement.

Re link freshenss - if unsure, it can be helpful to run the link through a quick check on Technorati or Blogdex for a quick test as to how "shopworn" it is in the blog world.
posted by madamjujujive at 5:12 AM on March 7, 2005

>I don't mind when boingboing/Waxy/Memepool etc some of their links end up here for discussion at all. When they do, they're usually a little meatier, with more links and less factually incorrect bull and that is something to aim for.

Just filter the stuff, I like my BoingBoing rigourously masticated. Spool it to the sidebar to save time.

And I would like a bookmarklet for quoting, because I'm lazy.

Or, what if it's factored in? A link next to a comment that quotes the content in a standard style.

Retreating...
posted by gsb at 5:40 AM on March 7, 2005

NickDouglas member since: December 28, 2004
Dude, you barley have had posting rights...if your read this site before becoming a member, why change it?
Oh! You’re a member now. Oh! You’re a member now. Oh! You’re a member now...
posted by thomcatspike at 8:20 AM on March 7, 2005

What tomcatspike just said...
posted by Irontom at 12:10 PM on March 7, 2005

I've seen plenty of instances of Boing Boing and others reposting links that have appeared here first - often with no acknowledgement.

And I've seen plenty of instances of Boing Boing reposting links that have appeared here, with acknowledgement. So there! [/pointless bickering]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:19 PM on March 7, 2005

They turned me into a comic!
posted by NickDouglas at 4:53 PM on March 7, 2005

/ yanks on a few chicken feathers.

Hey, you silly fowl, you - bickering pointlessly? Moi? Harumph. My point is just that we aren't necessarily as stale as charged, nor are we the only blog on the block guilty of the dread reposting.

Besides, how can we possibly not be fresh with wonder chicken droppings almost daily ;-)
posted by madamjujujive at 5:25 PM on March 7, 2005