Pepsi Bluest of the Web

March 16, 2005 7:56 AM

Pepsi Blue?

This is a single-link FPP to a new brand of cellphone. Is this really BOTW?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy to Etiquette/Policy at 7:56 AM (36 comments total)

Yes.
posted by jba at 7:58 AM on March 16, 2005

Interested me.
posted by nthdegx at 8:07 AM on March 16, 2005

I clicked through. But then, I'm unemployed.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:08 AM on March 16, 2005

No, but the ensuing discussion is pretty good.
posted by caddis at 8:12 AM on March 16, 2005

BOTW under the heading: unique and new technology, good ideas.

Is this on the lower end of BOTW? Probably. Is it consistent with the treatment of say, Apple products? Yes.
posted by catachresoid at 8:16 AM on March 16, 2005

Posting a press release for your company's latest product launch or website makes for a bad post.

Although Matt is refers to your company's products specifically, I'd say this is largely relevant for any company's products. And by the way, can we stop with this "best of the web" analysis, like it's some sort of technical specification? It's not mentioned in the guidelines, and is not the criteria by which we should determine if a post is good or bad.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:34 AM on March 16, 2005

I'd refer users to the very early days of MetaFilter, too.
posted by nthdegx at 8:48 AM on March 16, 2005

I see many links on MeFi to sites that can be construed as advertising products. The art sites in particular.
posted by mischief at 8:49 AM on March 16, 2005

As one of the dissenters of the fpp, there is one general concern that addresses the criticism of this post: As mobile phone popularity advances, there have been volumes written on the controversy over age-appropriateness for introduction of mobile phones and packages marketed specifically towards 'tweens'. I think if the original post text had addressed more of these issues, and demonstrated that s/he did more than 0.2 seconds worth of research on the subject, it would have been a more substantial post. That is precisely why the fpp is perceived as pepsi blue. On such a widely known topic, with so much information and articles available, it's insouciant to offer one paltry link to a ubiquetous product.
posted by naxosaxur at 9:04 AM on March 16, 2005

... ubiquitous ...
posted by mischief at 9:29 AM on March 16, 2005

I see many links on MeFi to sites that can be construed as advertising products. The art sites in particular.

Did you know that Damien Hirst's Pharmacy was commissioned by Pfizer and sponsored by Proctor & Gamble?

Well, it should've been.
posted by DaShiv at 9:33 AM on March 16, 2005

THANK YOU MISCHIVE!
posted by naxosaxur at 9:55 AM on March 16, 2005

Heh, I came here to say pretty much exactly what naxosaxur just said.

There are a few things that strike me as very pepsi Blue-ish, for example: A single link post to a products page. A single link post to a viral ad, shilling a product.

I've seeing the types of posts mentioned above quite a lot recently. I love ads, mind you, so I jump on those viral ad posts like the ad-addict I am, but I still wonder, is it really appropriate for Metafilter?
The phone might be neat, but it's a product for sale on that page available in the USA only, (so they lost a sale here since I'm actively looking for a phone that will suit my 8 year old niece) and not say, an article describing the product and parents wishes for such a widgets or something else to make the single sell link a little "meatier" and less Pepsi-shill....

Did that make any sense?
posted by dabitch at 10:13 AM on March 16, 2005

You're welcome.
posted by mischief at 10:15 AM on March 16, 2005

mischief, while great posts about cartoon collections and art book sand whatnot might actually insppire a mefioso or two to purchase something, it's still not quite comparable to linking straight to the products page where it is for sale or linking to the products actual (viral) ad, now is it?
posted by dabitch at 10:15 AM on March 16, 2005

spell check hates me... sand/and insppire/inspire
posted by dabitch at 10:16 AM on March 16, 2005

Do you really think everyone asking if a post they find not to be best of the web really is best of the web EVERY FREAKING TIME SOMEONE DOESN'T LIKE A POST is the best of the web?
posted by xmutex at 11:00 AM on March 16, 2005

It's not that I don't like the post, per se; I think the phone is actually a pretty nifty device. Divorced from any links providing some sort of context (as, for example, noted above), however, a single-link FPP to a product for sale is just not Good MetaFilter(tm). I didn't want to derail the thread over there, so I brought it here.

Also, there is an enormous difference between posting to art, which is admittedly a product, and posting to an everyday electronic gizmo. True, I have to add, Google and Apple seem to get a free pass as far as ProductFilter goes. Without derailing this thread too far, I'd venture to guess that at least part of the reason for that is both companies' products having far greater impact on the world, especially the internet, than a cellphone for kids.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 11:20 AM on March 16, 2005

I think it's an interesting product, but a pretty lame post. I dislike it more for its complete lack of description than the PespsiBlue-ishness of it.

Also, shouldn't there be a MeTa link in that thread somewhere?
posted by obloquy at 11:49 AM on March 16, 2005

Done. Thanks, obloquy.
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 12:10 PM on March 16, 2005

"now is it?"

Yes, it is. About as different as 'theft' and 'copyright infringement', in both cases the elements are one level of abstraction from being equivalent. Close enough in my book.

I don't have a problem with FPPs like this, but generally, I do object to using semantic differences as arguments. Just as I support abortion, I don't deny that it is legalized homicide.
posted by mischief at 12:14 PM on March 16, 2005

as the one who posted the link, i do apologize for the lack of context, but i did feel it was one of those things that could spark interest and discussion.
and forgive me for sounding like a dork, but what does FPP stand for?
posted by ShawnString at 12:35 PM on March 16, 2005

but what does FPP stand for?

Front Page Post.
posted by Arch Stanton at 12:39 PM on March 16, 2005

thank you...

MattHaughey frowns on the use of FPP as an acronym since it is so opaque to the uninitiated.
posted by ShawnString at 12:44 PM on March 16, 2005

Why is Matt's name all run together like that on the wiki? It's like some hangover from the days of WorldCom or MoganStanleyDeanWitter or something. It's not even his handle, for god's sakes, it's his name.
posted by Mid at 12:50 PM on March 16, 2005

mischief, I might not be thinking of the same art sites as you, as I have never seen art site posts where the art was actually for sale on said site. Perhaps I've not been paying attention.
I've been under the impression that good posting form is for example when talking about a book, it's far more interesting to link to a review of it, and/or an excerpt of it than to only the amazon link where one can buy it. This makes sense to me.
posted by dabitch at 12:51 PM on March 16, 2005

Mid: the wiki tags do not support spaces.
posted by catachresoid at 3:29 PM on March 16, 2005

While we're at it, what does '.' mean? [/sarcasm]
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:36 PM on March 16, 2005

Never mind.

Actually, aren't spaces like a pretty basic concept?
posted by Mid at 4:02 PM on March 16, 2005

While we're at it, what does '.' mean?

And what is this "Pepsi Blue" that you speak of?
posted by fixedgear at 6:19 PM on March 16, 2005

whew, I am definitely getting tired of MeTa callouts. I know I'm new and everything, and if that makes my opinion on the matter less valuable, I accept that. But it's been said before that callouts can be made WITHIN the original thread, rather than MeTa.

I think this is pepsi blue, btw. I mean, link to an article about the phone at least, or something. Or maybe an article about parents trying to keep in touch with their kids and their kids safety concerns, etc...

But I still think the callout should have been in the thread. It seems like we're in some kind of callout fad, right now.
posted by shmegegge at 6:36 PM on March 16, 2005

I still think the callout should have been in the thread.

schmegegge, but then someone calls you out for shitting on the thread. People can never win.
posted by Arch Stanton at 6:41 PM on March 16, 2005

shmegegge, MeTa was created expressly for this purpose, among others (bugs, for example). It's really not sporting to make callouts on the blue, and here's why: Maybe it's a bad post, or maybe not, but complaining about it inthread almost always leads to massive derails and complete conservational breakdowns.

Sometimes marginal posts can turn into good ones because of great supporting links in the comments. Sometimes a post isn't actually bad at all, but it just happens to tweak someone's nerves. Sometimes the complaint may be about format instead of content... In each of these cases, though, the thread still gets trashed if it turns into a debate (or brawl) over the callout, so Matt made a specific place where these questions could be discussed instead.

Of course, sometimes a post is made that is so bad that 20,000 heads explode at once, and there is no hope in these cases, and there doesn't really need to be — but don't confuse those instances with proper behavior on the other 99% of the front page.

I can understand why people get frustrated with what seems like a lot of negativity here, but this is exactly why it exists — so that it doesn't happen there. I know that it's really popular to bash the poster in MeTa, and this may serve a limited function in terms of keeping it from becoming a huge MeTa whine where everyone vents their tiniest displeasure, but don't draw the conclusion from this that complaints should generally be aired in the blue.
posted by taz at 9:37 PM on March 16, 2005

okay... normally I don't bother to fix my messies, but "conservational breakdown" just sounds too much like a real thing. "Conversational breakdown" is what I meant. Conservational breakdown is when you get an Error Occurred While Processing Request response when trying to access an archived thread, I think.
posted by taz at 12:04 AM on March 17, 2005

While we're at it, what does '.' mean? [/sarcasm]

Now, if you'd have dropped the "[/sarcasm]" it might have been funny.
posted by nthdegx at 5:34 AM on March 17, 2005

I guess that makes sense. Doesn't it feel a bit like public shaming, to make a whole thread devoted to telling some guy he's a douchebag? Although, on the other hadn, it's arguably MORE public to do it in the higher volume blue, I guess. Ach, there's no perfect solution.

complain=off
posted by shmegegge at 8:23 PM on March 17, 2005