March 31, 2005

3:33 PM

Just a general question, not a call out per se.
Are annual events ok to post to each time they occur?
Question prompted by the latest 50 loathsome New Yorkers thread. I flagged and mentioned it in the thread as being a double from last year, then Arch Stanton mentioned it was run here in 2003 as well.
Does this mean I can repost Geek Prom, because, you know, its next year already. (don't worry it will not be a FPP, just making a point)
posted by edgeways to etiquette/policy at 3:33 PM (33 comments total)

it's different this time, right? Besides, someone's going to post it anyway.
posted by puke & cry at 3:39 PM on March 31, 2005

Damnit, I wish it had been a year since the last time this was asked. Then it would be so deliciously ironic. As it is, this is an unwarranted dupe, based on our rigid unyeilding rules. Delete!
posted by Plutor at 3:43 PM on March 31, 2005

fine, fine delete. Whatever.

sorry its = it is
posted by edgeways at 3:44 PM on March 31, 2005

I was being sarcastic about the call for deletion. Mostly.
posted by Plutor at 3:46 PM on March 31, 2005

For stuff that is worthy of a post, it's ok. That one bad writing contest gets posted here every year (something like button-something) and I think it's just fine.
posted by mathowie at 3:57 PM on March 31, 2005

The fact that the post is of regional relevance is more depressing than the fact is has been posted yearly. No wait, it gets exponentially more depressing. Can anyone link to their local newspaper's latest boring website story via a single link post? I'm not complaining actually, it's easier just not to read it.
posted by fire&wings at 4:04 PM on March 31, 2005

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.
posted by mathowie at 4:10 PM on March 31, 2005

My god you people are getting dumber.
posted by Stan Chin at 4:20 PM on March 31, 2005

I say Paris is more famous, if only because there's a Paris, IL and Paris, TX (among others). Although I suppose that would make Sandwich, IL a pretty famous city. I hear that word a lot.

As a recovering NYer, it's certainly regional and the NYPress does a damn fine job of making it boring.
posted by sachinag at 4:20 PM on March 31, 2005

Fairly major American celebrities in what Americans probably consider the most famous city in the world. It was regional and boring to me. However I understand that I am in the minority and posts like this are fine as long as people from New York outnumber others.
posted by fire&wings at 4:24 PM on March 31, 2005

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.

I don't see how those two characterizations are in any way, shape or form mutually exclusive. Also, calling at least half of the people on that list "fairly major celebrities" is a huge stretch for people not living in New York.
posted by anapestic at 4:30 PM on March 31, 2005

I read it, I'm not from New York...by the end, I couldn't care less...

I vote boring as well...
posted by HuronBob at 4:30 PM on March 31, 2005

I'm not from NY--I've never even visited NY--But I still read the entire thing. There were some amusing bits and some bits were informative. But what do I know? I'm not from NY!
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 4:34 PM on March 31, 2005

It's not a regional, boring thing. It's a humorous look at fairly major celebrities in the most famous city in the world.

Really? The Olsen twins and Mr. Kim, the video store owner? Their recognizability factor(s) must be off the charts.
posted by fixedgear at 4:36 PM on March 31, 2005

The pitchfork 50 worst albums of the year that comes out every year is something I'd rank in the same genre of the new york list. Funny and interesting to me, maybe lame and pointless to you, but perfectly fine to post on mefi if someone likes it enough to post about it.
posted by mathowie at 4:37 PM on March 31, 2005

Aren't things that are posted despite being lame, irrelevant and pointless to some people, and posted for no reason other than the poster likes it enough to post it, GYOFB material?
posted by fire&wings at 4:48 PM on March 31, 2005

"Mr. Kim, the video store owner?"

Was he on Seinfeld?
posted by mischief at 4:53 PM on March 31, 2005

fire&wings: So you're saying that every post has to appeal to all 20k+ users?
posted by Doug at 5:49 PM on March 31, 2005

Bulwer-Lytton.
posted by gleuschk at 5:55 PM on March 31, 2005

What are the factors in such a judgment call?

1) How much the content changes each year
2) How interesting it is as a concept, in the first place
3) How exposed it is overall

Something that's well-written / well-shot / well-populated every year to the point where people wait on the edge of their seats for the new iteration = yes.

Something refreshingly novel that breaks the mold or embodies excellence each and every year = yes.

Something that takes place every year but somehow hasn't quite penetrated the popular consciousness and isn't going to be picked up by lots of news/blogosphere sources = yes.

Something that doesn't offer much that's new each year, and is a one-joke haha in the first place, and that's gotten a lot of play = no.

This has been discussed in the past, edgeways, but don't trip. It's a good question and perhaps worth bringing up from time to time. Plutor saw an easy opening and took it, but sweat not. The way this site is sucking up the clueless, we need to have every discussion quarterly anyway.
posted by scarabic at 6:59 PM on March 31, 2005

I, for one, am waiting breathlessly for non-U.S. members to start posting "50 most loathsome" lists from newspapers in their biggest cities.

Seriously.

*turns blue*
posted by mediareport at 8:33 PM on March 31, 2005

Well, I didn't know. I didn't know!
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 8:52 PM on March 31, 2005

What are the factors in such a judgment call?

1) How much the content changes each year
2) How interesting it is as a concept, in the first place
3) How exposed it is overall

If it qualifies and has been linked before, is it then ok to remind people a year later by posting your own site?

See Here.
posted by vacapinta at 10:37 PM on March 31, 2005

I think the claim can be safely made that New York is the most famous city in the world. Simply from America's enormous cultural influence via movies, TV, etc, New York is probably more famous than any other. I would bet money that New York's skyline is recognizable by more people around the world than any other city, for the same reasons.
posted by Sangermaine at 12:38 AM on April 1, 2005

...the most famous city in the world.

What are the criteria for judging this competition?
posted by the cuban at 3:32 AM on April 1, 2005

We thought Paris was the most famous city.
posted by mischief at 6:23 AM on April 1, 2005

Paris isn't nearly as famous as NYC. You can blame Hollywood for that.

The story was entertaining.

You guys really need to lighten up.
posted by nixerman at 6:50 AM on April 1, 2005

"Paris isn't nearly as famous as NYC."

We are doubtful.
posted by mischief at 7:51 AM on April 1, 2005

...the most famous city in the world.

I think he's using "world" the way baseball uses it: The United States plus Toronto.
posted by timeistight at 9:23 AM on April 1, 2005

Could be worse. Could be used the way the NFL uses it. Or the WWE. (Do they even have a European title anymore?)
posted by sachinag at 10:18 AM on April 1, 2005

How'd they limit it to just 50?
posted by dhoyt at 10:22 AM on April 1, 2005

And even for the people who are known outside of NYC, their reasons for being on the list only have relevance within a tiny geographic area.

There is just something really interesting about the psychology of people from NYC that they think the rest of the world really cares what their shit smells like.
posted by KirkJobSluder at 12:40 PM on April 1, 2005

I would bet money that New York's skyline is recognizable by more people around the world than any other city

How much money? What about London, Hong Kong, Sydney, Paris ...

Of course, if we are talking about the world as 'merkins seem to view it (comprising the US and countries with borders contiguous, providing they are friendly to the US this week), perhaps you are right. If you mean the actual world, I suspect that you are mistaken. Don't forget that a sizeable proportion of people have never seen the skyline of New York in real life or by any other means - or did you only count people with TVs?

*quits while he is only slightly behind*
posted by dg at 6:07 PM on April 1, 2005