March 30, 2005

9:37 AM

Say you see a FPP, and say it sucks. What's to gain from posting a negative comment? Many comments I see are not only negative, they're downright vicious. If it's a double post, or a self-link, chances are it will be deleted. Furthermore - personally, if I see a post that's been there for a while and there are only a few comments, I'm not going to read the comments, simple as that. I'd bet many of you follow this as well. So why bash a lousy post?

Some of us seem extremely mindful of MetaFilter's integrity. Does it only hurt it further to barrage a poster with bitching? (PS - I'm aware of the fact that this very post could be a repeat, but it was hard to search for this - the ironing would be delicious).
posted by ORthey to etiquette/policy at 9:37 AM (48 comments total)

Worst. Metatalk. Post. Ever.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:43 AM on March 30, 2005

Negativity is a healthy part of life and anyone who says otherwise is living a fairy tale fuckshit dream. NEXT
posted by angry modem at 9:44 AM on March 30, 2005

Mmmmmmmm, starch.
posted by trondant at 9:47 AM on March 30, 2005

Tempting as it is to exercise my irony by "attacking" this MetaTalk post, I'll resist.

The poster is absolutely right.

There are plenty of FPPs that aren't my cup of tea (I'm not saying they're bad, just not my cup of tea). You can figure out which they are, because I don't (generally) comment in those threads.
posted by orthogonality at 9:51 AM on March 30, 2005

I think I have a lifetime track record of not saying a post sucks within a post, and I suspect most folks do the same, though we all have our transgressions sometimes. I believe as the numbers go up, the 1 in 100 folks that enjoy being mean to others start to look like the norm and dominate the kinds of lackluster threads where most people skip and move on.
posted by mathowie at 9:55 AM on March 30, 2005

metatalk: the ironing is delicious
posted by quonsar at 9:58 AM on March 30, 2005

I think I have a lifetime track record of not saying a post sucks within a post

we don't all have the chance to kill threads and insert "lame" at the top though, so i'm not sure the comparison helps much.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2005

I'm naming my firstborn child MetaTalk Justice as a form of protest.

STANDING AT MY COMPUTER GIVING A METATALK SALUTE RIGHT NOW!!!
posted by fandango_matt at 10:03 AM on March 30, 2005

deep breaths dude.
posted by andrew cooke at 10:04 AM on March 30, 2005

STFU N00B!
posted by trharlan at 10:08 AM on March 30, 2005

oh, the doggie picture! let's have the doggie picture!
posted by andrew cooke at 10:24 AM on March 30, 2005

posted by fandango_matt at 10:27 AM on March 30, 2005

I think this is especially relevant now that there is a flagging system.

Flag it, shut up, move on. If it really needs discussion, bring it to Meta.

Furthermore, nasty comments can also be flagged.
posted by frykitty at 10:29 AM on March 30, 2005

Furthermore - personally, if I see a post that's been there for a while and there are only a few comments, I'm not going to read the comments, simple as that.

See, I think some of the best FPPs are the ones that have some of the fewest comments. It is pretty easy to run up a large digit post if you go on about Iraq, or Bush or, lately, Ms. S.(not to mention any hot topic newsfilter). But, often the posts that don't fall into these categories gather few comments. perhaps because they only appeal to a narrow segment to the community and people don't have time/inclination to read about something new.

I'm not complaining (too much), however the comment # does act as a reinforcer. If Newsfilter gets the highest comment #s, then that is what will be posted. I believe people get a thrill on having a popular FPP, and that is measured by comment #s above all else.
posted by edgeways at 10:35 AM on March 30, 2005

edgeways is right in so many ways.

So is frykitty. I know it ain't no fun but if you can flag and move on, flag and move on. Even with comments.

gawd i lurve that doggie-picture.
posted by dabitch at 10:47 AM on March 30, 2005

I think ideally things would work like this, but the jerk quotient is high at Metafilter.
posted by chunking express at 11:04 AM on March 30, 2005

Older users, and I include myself, need to keep reminding ourselves that flagging exists, and get into the habit of using it; busting a bad FPP in-thread was valid here and there when it was a way of drawing admin attention to it without creating yet another MeTa post. But now it's simply superfluous noise. I'll to try to remember this if you will.
posted by soyjoy at 11:10 AM on March 30, 2005

It feels like many posts of late are like headlines from The Onion; you don't need to click on them to get a sense of what's going on inside.

I agree with edgeways, comment numbers can act as behavior reinforcers. So I try (not very good at it) to thank folks in the smaller threads for their good posts. I figure a positive comment in a small thread affects behavior much more than a negative comment in a big thread. I have to catch myself, though, as the temptation to toss in one more snark in a huge pile-on is really, really hard.

Wolfdog's post from the 18th has actually kept me busy for almost two weeks and I've yet to hit the bottom of the weirdness found within. Did you know that Kissenger likes to dress up like a lady and get chased by barrel-chested members of the NWO? I sure didn't!
posted by robocop is bleeding at 11:16 AM on March 30, 2005

I like your nurse's uniform, guy.
posted by driveler at 11:36 AM on March 30, 2005

robocop is beelding: for a second I thought you were talking about taxi1010.com which should keep folks busy for at least a month.
posted by fixedgear at 11:38 AM on March 30, 2005

See, I think some of the best FPPs are the ones that have some of the fewest comments.

Berek agrees with this.

It feels like many posts of late are like headlines from The Onion

Hopefully by pointing out in the comments how lame these supposedly humorous posts are we can embarrass other people enough that they won't post more of them.

Besides, snarky is a way of life.
posted by berek at 11:39 AM on March 30, 2005

For me this is the #1 top most annoying thing about Metafilter.
posted by xammerboy at 11:41 AM on March 30, 2005

Said berek: Berek agrees with this.

Bob Dole, is that you?
posted by fandango_matt at 11:43 AM on March 30, 2005

Older users, and I include myself, need to keep reminding ourselves that flagging exists, and get into the habit of using it.

Agreed. But it would be nice to have a flag for Using-MetaFilter-2-3-times-a-week-to-recycle-Kos-items-originally-posted-to-my blog-which-is-hosted-at-kos-and-gleans-content-from-Kos-even-though-i-swore-i'd-changed-my-proselytizing-ways.


You're probably aware of the phenomenon.
posted by dhoyt at 11:49 AM on March 30, 2005

if I see a post that's been there for a while and there are only a few comments, I'm not going to read the comments, simple as that.

Then you're missing a lot of good links and reading a lot of crappy ones. Number of comments does not necessarily mean a great post. And some great links just don't require much discussion.
posted by justgary at 11:50 AM on March 30, 2005

It'd also be nice to have a flag for "More bitching about a post with a liberal bent."
posted by eyeballkid at 11:58 AM on March 30, 2005

Then you're missing a lot of good links and reading a lot of crappy ones. Number of comments does not necessarily mean a great post. And some great links just don't require much discussion.

That's not what I said. I said I won't read the comments, not necessarily the link. I try to make a habit of at least looking at every single link.
posted by ORthey at 12:14 PM on March 30, 2005

We see a distinct difference between a lousy post (double-post, self-links) and a link to a site whose content sucks. We see no problem in blasting the latter in-thread.

"We can do this because we are omnipotent." ® ;-P
posted by mischief at 12:39 PM on March 30, 2005

(PS - I'm aware of the fact that this very post could be a repeat, but it was hard to search for this -
You have to use search when you can see two threads below this?
May I use the space to officially apologize to justgary? Iirc, I interpreted his italic comment in a thread which was posted in another member’s comment incorrectly. Then ripped on him in return. My bad.
posted by thomcatspike at 2:11 PM on March 30, 2005

Whatever happened to just not clicking on FPPs if you're not interested in them?

I'm sure I'm not the only one with that ability.
posted by clevershark at 2:20 PM on March 30, 2005

It is always always always bad form to criticize a MetaFilter post in the blue. Always.

Has been ever since the creation of MetaTalk, and flagging makes it even more so.
posted by NortonDC at 2:21 PM on March 30, 2005

I'm sure I'm not the only one with that ability.

Thats why you are the Clevershark. ;)
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:22 PM on March 30, 2005

Didn't your mamas tell you "if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all"?

And yes, there are nice ways to tell someone they fucked up.

Negativity is a healthy part of life and anyone who says otherwise is living a fairy tale fuckshit dream.
Very true, but why add to it? /pollyanna

*puts on flame retardant suit*
posted by deborah at 2:30 PM on March 30, 2005

I believe people get a thrill on having a popular FPP, and that is measured by comment #s above all else.

I get a thrill when my FPP isn't deleted or when I avoid being called out in MeTa, anything else would be considered a bonus.
posted by squeak at 2:35 PM on March 30, 2005

deborah : "Didn't your mamas tell you 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'?"

Nah. Moms tend to use phrases from their own culture, and my mom's Spanish. The rule of thumb, though, seemed to be "if you can't say anything nice, at least say the bad stuff in Spanish so the person you're talking about has a much lower chance of understanding and being offended".
posted by bugbread at 2:37 PM on March 30, 2005

¡Tendré que recordar eso!
posted by deborah at 5:26 PM on March 30, 2005

So why bash a lousy post?

Because it makes insecure, passive-aggressive dorks feel better about themselves. In real life they are like the dog on the left, and internet is the only place where they can act like the dog on the right.
It has it's uses, I suppose.
posted by c13 at 6:19 PM on March 30, 2005

I'm surprised no one's mentioned the civilizing effect on NOOBs - both the poster and new lurkers - of a correction in the blue. Not "bashing" but a bit of useful criticism, preferably after contributing something positive to the thread.

Flagging, useful as it is, doesn't do much to spread information to new members about what's been considered acceptable/unacceptable at the site in the past. Given that there's often a fuzzy area between "flag and forget" and "so bad it needs a MeTa thread," I think there's still a place in the blue for gentle criticism of a bad post.
posted by mediareport at 11:56 PM on March 30, 2005

I don't think anyone has a problem with constructive criticism, but a lot of the nastier call outs lead a lot of reasonable people to conclude it's not worth posting.
posted by xammerboy at 6:29 AM on March 31, 2005

I personally revel in devouring pressed textiles. I'm relieved to discover that someone else shares this obsession with me. Thank you MetaFilter!
posted by raedyn at 6:30 AM on March 31, 2005

There is no useful meta-criticism in the blue, because the main lesson of any meta-criticism in the blue is that the blue is the place for meta-criticism when it is not. MetaTalk is the place for meta-criticism.

The valid options are: make it better without bitching by your own contribution, flag it, email the author, or MetaTalk it.

All other corrections in the blue are Look-At-Me wanking by the "correction's" author.
posted by NortonDC at 7:00 AM on March 31, 2005

Didn't your mamas tell you 'if you can't say anything nice, don't say anything at all'?"

No, I think my mama just said, "If you can't say anything nice, then get over here so I can wash out your mouth with soap and, by the way, here is a smack in the face to change that attitude, little miss."

For all you fans of stubbornness: I haven't changed my attitude, I just keep my thoughts to myself.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 5:45 PM on March 31, 2005

There is no useful meta-criticism in the blue

I think that's a ridiculous statement that assumes an absurdly clear black-and-white world. A useful counter-example off the top of my head might come in a thread started by a post that links to a Quicktime file, but fails to note that the link is to a Quicktime file. A comment that adds to the thread, then includes a parenthetical at the end saying, "By the way, it's considered good form to warn folks when you link directly to a movie/audio file", would not only be acceptable, but would have positive ramifications for the site that more than justify any violation of NortonDC's angry "NO META-CRITICISM IN THE BLUE!!" law.

I'd love a cite for that law, by the way.
posted by mediareport at 8:48 PM on March 31, 2005

Your attempt at a counter-example is a poor one, mediareport, largely because it fails to be an example of criticism in the blue. It's an independent statement of principle, not an assessment of the post. It was inspired by something you found lacking in the post, but the way your example works, it (wait for it, wait for it...) ADDS NO META-CRITICISM IN THE BLUE!!

Keep trying.
posted by NortonDC at 8:56 PM on March 31, 2005

It's an independent statement of principle, not an assessment of the post.

That's a pretty cool fudge, bravo. Anyway, I'd say it's all in the tone and phrasing, but helpful criticism in the kindly softened form of a general statement of principle still counts as criticism.

Done trying.
posted by mediareport at 6:27 AM on April 1, 2005

It is not a criticism, nor an assessment, nor a judgement of the post. It's motivated by all those things, but exactly what makes your "example" acceptable is that it skips the motivation and only states the principle, meaning that it is* actually an example of the first option I identified in this statement:

The valid options are: make it better without bitching by your own contribution, flag it, email the author, or MetaTalk it.

Your "example" adds new information without bitching.


*Or rather, would be if it was an established fact. I'd love a cite for that law, by the way. What you state as fact is no more official policy than what I have stated.
posted by NortonDC at 7:11 AM on April 1, 2005

You were right there, R. Mutt, making it better instead crapping on the blue, but then Hildalgo started impugning the quality of the post and its poster. Then the pile-one from LittleMissCranky, then meta-commentary from transona5, and then even you abandonned any pretense of discussing anything but the qualities of the post itself.
posted by NortonDC at 4:51 PM on April 6, 2005

dhoyt,

God forbid a greasy Eurotrash wife-beater distracts you from your taste for the cowardly personal attack (usually hurled against those who are absent), but what the fuck does crapping on troutfishing have got to do with this MeTa thread?

I know you hate trout's politics, hate Kos, etc, we're all part of your blacklist, but still this is a bit lame. even for your standards.
posted by matteo at 5:17 PM on April 6, 2005