Comments on: What's the "usual" amount of research involved in an FPP?

What's the "usual" amount of research involved in an FPP?

tvjunkie — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:42:36 -0800

How much leg work/research is common for a FPP? I had my first and I admit I didn't do much - as evidenced by the subsequent discussion. I was just happy to find something that came up empty on Search Metafilter.

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:54:51 -0800

The best way around this is to only post newsfilter, and make pure it's a breaking story.

By: Witty

Witty — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 07:55:02 -0800

None of my FPPs have been the result of "leg work/research". I don't really have the time or motivation for it. That's why when I do bother to post, it's usually just a link to a peculiar video or something. Other people love putting those posts together and quite often I love them for it.

I don't see anything wrong with your post at all. Well done, I say.

By: PinkStainlessTail

PinkStainlessTail — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:04:11 -0800

as evidenced by the subsequent discussion.

I think that's actually pretty cool: you found an interesting story, other people with more knowledge on the AI in question came in with materials and viewpoints different from your link that added more dimensions to the whole thing. Looks like a demonstration of "weblog as conversation" to me.

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:27:51 -0800

r = ilj/nhdfxq

where

r = amount of research necessary
i = how interesting the topic is to those that are likely to be interested
l = the number of people who are likely to be interested
j = the likelihood of you being insomnia_lj
n = notoriety of the subject
h = how funny the post is without the addition of context
d = the likelihood that the post will be deleted
f = the likelihood that interest in the post will be diminished by a devastatingly contentious news filter post
x = the odds of your having accidentally made an inclusion that will lead to your post being snarked to a timely flaming death
q = the likelihood that quonsar is watching you

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:29:11 -0800

I call this the riljnhdfxq equation.

By: tvjunkie

tvjunkie — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:30:35 -0800

Thanks Witty & PST. I was not so much unhappy with the post, just feeling remiss in not checking for more background.

By: tvjunkie

tvjunkie — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:43:19 -0800

nthdegx - ROTFL

Any family link to Lewis Carrol?

By: nthdegx

nthdegx — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:46:51 -0800

Yeah yeah! My Mum's read all his books.

By: hellbient

hellbient — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 08:59:21 -0800

thanks for asking this, i was thinking about asking the same thing.
I spent a beautiful Sunday researching my knives post, around 8 or 9 hours. Probably a bit much. In the end, nobody commented past my first (and admittedly most interesting) link.

That said, just because no one commented on the other links doesn't mean it wasn't read or appreciated. And I learned alot from the research. In hindsight though, it could have easily been a one-link FPP.

And I just always assume quonsar is watching...

By: orthogonality

orthogonality — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:19:38 -0800

hellbient writes "And I just always assume quonsar is watching..."

He watches over all of us. Not a sparrow falls without quonsar knowing it.

By: Bugbread

Bugbread — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:24:55 -0800

I think it was a good post as well. Posts aren't meant to indicate your massive mastery of a subject, but to provide an interesting link. Some people may already know the link. Such is life. And some people may knot know the link, but may know much about the subject. Such is life. There's no responsibility to be an expert on a subject you link to, just to be reasonably informed (to avoid linking sites that say the utterly, completely obvious).

By: andrew cooke

andrew cooke — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 09:50:26 -0800

typically, i just post an interesting link. as far as i know, that's what this place is about. find something really good on the net you want to share? post it. no more research necessary.

in your case, you were a bit unlucky. cyc has been around forever and has something of a bad reputation in many places. so a lot of the people who might comment on it either wouldn't bother, or are critical. one solution to that is to only post links in subject areas you know well, but i think that's too restrictive.

so it was an ok post. you were a bit unlucky. i wouldn't seat it. try again. :o)

By: grouse

grouse — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 11:03:29 -0800

I ask on #mefi when I think I might have a good post. They always tell me the right answer very quickly.

Which is why I only have one post on the blue.

By: ColdChef

ColdChef — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 17:49:37 -0800

Please don't "Post Pad". Thank you.

By: mediareport

mediareport — Fri, 22 Apr 2005 21:09:43 -0800

Please learn to recognize a nicely researched, non-padded post when you see one. Thank you.