Comments on: self-policing too many posts

self-policing too many posts

sylloge — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 02:54:10 -0800

Help Police! Hey, self-policing community members, let's start cracking the whip a little but here. Number of posts on September 16th alone:

HoldenCaulfield: 4 posts
aaron: 3 posts
NortonDC: 2 posts
tpoh.org: 2 posts
arf: 2 posts
Postroad: 2 posts
MiguelCardoso:: 2 posts
Oxydude: 2 posts
adrober: 2 posts

By: raaka

raaka — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:00:18 -0800

Out of hand.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 03:09:46 -0800

This is ridiculous. I don't even know if I got everyone who posted more than once on the 16th (it gets annoying scrolling through that list) and I left off others like Bixby23 who posted twice in an hour and half but happened to straddle the date change.

Metafilter is useful and very interesting right now but the noise is unreal. I hadn't been reading much in the month or so before 9/11 since it seems to have crossed some threshold (albeit a personal idiosyncratic one) where it is just isn't worth looking through all the crap to find interesting links/discussions. Right now it is worth it, but if we are put some additional effort into, ah, helping others see the light, things could be even better.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:35:16 -0800

aaron has posted 94 links and 1746 comments to MetaFilter

NortonDC has posted 11 links and 254 comments to MetaFilter

The world is out of hand, ridiculous and unreal right now. Some people on that list, myself included, have long records and link/post ratios that are not out line for active participants. There are people that are abusing the posting privilege, and Matt is dealing with it efficiently. I've watched posts appear and disappear even before being able to comment on them here or in their thread.

And one of my posts from that day is a direct response to an act of intolerance right here on MeFi. This for this.

There are abuses happening, but the numbers do not tell the whole story, and Matt is on top of it.

By: dogmatic

dogmatic — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 04:54:54 -0800

What's wrong with 2, 3, or even 4 posts a day, really? Sure, the number of posts to the front page have gone nuts...But are you willing to deny any of the links and discussions that have been posted by these people? Almost all have yielded worthwhile discussions. And if they've yielded worthwhile discussions, you can't exactly dismiss them simply because a few posters have been working overtime.

By: geoff.

geoff. — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 05:00:55 -0800

The fact that no real new information has come out since Wednesday means that we should really cut back on front page posts. I've only seen a few posts that haven't been brought up before, somewhere. The fact that alot of the posts are getting 0-5 comments is a testament to the redundancy.

By: arco

arco — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:12:11 -0800

I think the problem is that some (many?) of the posts coming out now don't seem to have been well-examined before posting to the front page. Not that they aren't good links, but some of them might be better used as "supporting links" for discussions that are already ongoing, and it seems like a gret deal of them are redundant or double-posts. Plus, with so many new posts some threads that are worthy of extended discussion get "pushed off the screen" too quickly.

My suggestion for people who've had linkherria recently is to wait until you have two or three links on a certain subject to combine them into one "front-page-worthy post." This would avoid the "breaking news" posts that were useful for two days but have been distracting recently.

(And yes, I know I'm a newcomer here; I invite the MeFi Elders to point out holes in my logic....)

By: dogmatic

dogmatic — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 07:55:32 -0800

Maybe, but I think that if you're going to point fingers, you're pointing in the wrong direction. I don't have a problem with the amount of links being posted as long as they are quality links. In the case of Holden, aaron, and NortonDC, I think they all have been. Which pretty well goes against the suggestion that those posting the most are posting quantity over quality.

By: norm

norm — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 10:37:17 -0800

Matt, maybe you could limit people to a post a day maximum. I doubt that would stop the crapfest, but it could slow the rate of discharge.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 11:31:14 -0800

In the case of Holden, aaron, and NortonDC, I think they all have been.

That "Chirac naked" one was a real winner, huh? Or the one about the date coincidence with the plane in 1994?

I don't have a problem with aaron's or norton's links in particular, but there's definitely some junk coming from people who are posting way too much.

Someone called da5id, for example, has contributed some real tripe.

By: gluechunk

gluechunk — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 13:36:40 -0800

...and is HoldenCaulfield's homepage url really drudgereport.com?

By: aaron

aaron — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:05:29 -0800

That "Chirac naked" one was a real winner, huh? Or the one about the date coincidence with the plane in 1994?

Hey, I didn't post those!

Besides, I keep strange hours. It might have been three posts in a specific day as determined by Pacific Time (which is far away from my own time zone anyway), but to me it was one posts on the 15th and two on the 16th.

That said, listen to dogmatic. I don't care if someone makes 50 front-page posts in a row if they're all quality. And normality has been thrown out the window for the last week anyway, in case anyone hasn't noticed.

By: jpoulos

jpoulos — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 14:17:06 -0800

(aaron: i said i don't have a problem with your posts. i probably could have worded it more clearly, though.)

These conversations always come back to a single truism: If a post is good, if a link is interesting, NO ONE NOTICES WHO POSTED IT.

And if anyone is feeling picked on, that they're being singled out, keep that in mind.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:11:27 -0800

Aaron, actually, your posts were all quite good, and I wasn't trying to single anyone out -- just the fact that there were at least 11 people making more than one front page post in 24 hours. Remember those arguments that start: There are X many users now, if every one decided to do just one post per week, then we'd have ...

> don't care if someone makes 50 front-page posts in a row if they're all quality.

I sure do. This is not just a weblog. The conversations are part of the point, and posters should take a little bit of time to read over what is already there, and see if there if they are really starting a new conversation or just adding to one that already exists.

As things are right now, the conversations die too-quick deaths as new ones start up because there is such a flurry of front page posts. This means everything becomes much more superficial and we don't get the really meaningful conversations which might occur otherwise. Likewise, the useful links are resources are spread over way too many threads and are mostly without context or categorization.

Looking over today's posts, about half aren't high enough quality and another half of the remainder really belonged inside other threads. We are all capable of reloading CNN for breaking news if we need it, and the web is full of interesting stuff -- but we can reproduce it all in here.

Dogmatic: in which direction should the finger be pointed?

>are you willing to deny any of the links and discussions that have been posted by these people? Almost all have yielded worthwhile discussions.

What I'm saying is that many of the discussion would have been more worthwhile if they weren't so scattershot. Just a little restraint and a little discipline would go a long way.

By: th3ph17

th3ph17 — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 17:23:35 -0800

it has been hard to keep up...i find i've been reading most of the linked articles but commenting very little, haven't found my words yet. I do agree that some excellent posts didn't really get a good discussion going because of all the other noise.

By: daver

daver — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 18:03:21 -0800

Here's an example of somthing that I and a few others thought was excellent... maybe it was just us, but I think this got totally quashed in the noise... Too many posts makes mefi less usefull... only those who have nothing else to do can really follow, and the rest of us have no real way to judge except # of responces, which is shaky a best...

By: jjg

jjg — Mon, 17 Sep 2001 19:15:35 -0800

I'm totally with sylloge on this one.

Limiting users to posting one thread per day seems quite reasonable to me. It may actually make people think more carefully about making their post count.

By: NortonDC

NortonDC — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 06:28:20 -0800

If there was one I could take back, it wouldn't be one of the two that sylloge has seen fit to brandish like the schoolmaster in The Wall ("Poems everyone, ...he reckons himself a poet!").

No matter what, given that my DSL line, my only home net connection, has flatlined and is expected to stay that way, you shouldn't have too much to fear from me in the future.

By: Mo Nickels

Mo Nickels — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 11:47:29 -0800

Not every good link has to have its own thread: good links belong in pre-existing threads already covering the same topic. It's easy, and it makes the thread more interesting.

By: skylar

skylar — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:30:28 -0800

Forgive me if I've misunderstood the point of this thread, but I find the tone very upsetting. There's a feeling of superiority and superciliousness running through this thread, as if the MetaFilter community would be so much better if only it wasn't allowed to throb and kick in its own organic, natural way. Perhaps if only a select elite of members was allowed to decide which messages pass muster then the site would be more enjoyable to users.

I don't know - personally I'm finding it all very enjoyable. But perhaps I'm one of those yahoos you'd rather didn't post so often to the site. I must admit I'm fearful now that I will be banished, admonished or laughed at in a thread like this. Should I not post so many links or comments?

Perhaps there are technological solutions to these problems, and perhaps the community can contribute to coding them. As others have suggested in the feature requests, there could be a karma system. Or as mentioned above, a maximum number of posts per day. I would feel more comfortable with any approach which is non-elitist and democratic, affecting beginners and old-timers equally.

By: Mick

Mick — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 13:41:04 -0800

MeFi was once a place to bring attention to unusual or interesting links and have a discussion about them. Now it's a place to talk about every AP story that crosses the wire.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 15:32:52 -0800

> Forgive me if I've misunderstood the point of this thread

No, I think you nailed it. I was just trying to prance around displaying my superiority and superciliousness and find someway to prevent the natural pulsations of MeFi's vital biorhythms from blossoming into the transcendent superior life form which is its true potential.

Look, if you disagree, state your disagreement. Don't mince it all up with BS like "Perhaps if only a select elite of members was allowed to decide ..." I'm stating my opinion: that people ought to be taking more care in contributing good links to existing threads rather than starting new discussions and be a little more judicious in posting on the front page. This should not be very upsetting for you.

> I would feel more comfortable with any approach which is non-elitist and democratic

Having open discussions in Metatalk about how to improve Metafilter is non-elitist and democratic. Self-policing is done by the whole community and everyone has a chance to voice their opinions.

By: lnicole

lnicole — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:44:38 -0800

My question is related to this only because it deals with the comment/post ratio. I didn't want to cause conflict by posting a separate MetaTalk thread (and wasting more space), even though it's a separate issue.

*sigh*

The privilege of posting links to main page comes after posting a few comments and being a member for at least a week.

What number, exactly, is equal to "a few"? Metafilter is getting on my damn nerves now. =( I agree with what everyone's said about the clutter on the front page and the newbie bashing and what-not, but I'm frustrated because I still can't post a link to the front page. I'm not going to apologize for not posting enough comments. I offer an opinion only when I see fit or when something on MetaTalk makes me bubble up inside and spew out something to say (like now). I have my own blog if I wanna type up what I'm thinking every five minutes.

But I was trying to be a good MetaCitizen and self-police myself. I've been a member for nearly a month now, and I already whined about trying to fit in. I noticed that some people whose names have already been mentioned here have been posting like it's going out of style. But damn... I just wanted to contribute one cool, non-double-posted, non-tragedy-related thing.

I'd appreciate a helpful, friendly answer to the number question, but if you would like to flame me by email, that's okay too. I guess it's part of the initiation. However, if you would like to make things simple and offer an opinion on some random post in place of me so I can have front page posting privileges finally, that would be cool too.

By: sylloge

sylloge — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 22:49:48 -0800

I don't know what the magic number is, but why don't you go post comments in a few dead threads and see if it works after?

By: lnicole

lnicole — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:09:21 -0800

sylloge: because I'll probably be slapped on the hand either way. I'm just trying to stay out of trouble here.

By: mathowie

mathowie — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:09:36 -0800

it's three. Three comments, a week, and you can post. I only instituted that rule because some people would sign up and post without hanging around long enough to see what a typical post looks like.

That's good that you're only posting when you see a reason to lnicole, I hope you understand that the rules are pretty good at stopping the few people that signup just to post a link to their own site, while allowing new gregarious members to post after some participation.

By: lnicole

lnicole — Tue, 18 Sep 2001 23:17:56 -0800

Thanks for clarifying that for me, Matt. Unfortunately, there isn't much being said now that I wanted to contribute to. I hope that doesn't make me look like I'm not gregarious (because now that I think about it, I have been seeming kinda snooty and complaining a lot...)

By: skylar

skylar — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:19:15 -0800

Sylloge: okay, I DISAGREE.

Having just informed me that I should express my disagreement without "mincing it up" with rhetoric or sarcasm, you go ahead and respond in exactly the same sardonic tone you've just criticised. I *do* interpret this as a supercilious: as if my kind of rhetoric is not acceptable, but yours is.

Having open discussions in Metatalk about how to improve Metafilter is non-elitist and democratic.

Yes, in theory, but the fact that I only discovered MetaTalk yesterday despite having been joined to MetaFilter for a month suggests that this part of the site is a little more secretive than we're all letting on. I think in fact the front page is the least elitist and most democratic part of the site, and that's what the problem is. We're talking about trying to find ways of limiting that newbie activity to make the site a more enjoyable experience once more.

That said, I will once again voice my opinion re: employing technological solutions which affect all equally. Perhaps, for example, a maximum number of front page posts per day or week could be employed, and a message to that effect placed on the site.

By: rcade

rcade — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 05:47:34 -0800

And normality has been thrown out the window for the last week anyway, in case anyone hasn't noticed.

I've noticed. In my opinion, the craziness on the MetaFilter front page is just a reflection of the real world, and it will calm down on its own in time.

Yes, in theory, but the fact that I only discovered MetaTalk yesterday despite having been joined to MetaFilter for a month suggests that this part of the site is a little more secretive than we're all letting on.

I think that's by design. MetaTalk is for diehard MetaFilter addicts who have chosen to show up here to bitch, moan, plead, and cajole about how the community functions. If people don't care enough about MetaFilter yet to find MetaTalk, they wouldn't be likely to put up with the suggestions and criticism that are posted here.

By: HoldenCaulfield

HoldenCaulfield — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:07:43 -0800

Just got an e-mail saying I was on MetaTalk. The Chirac garbage I'll have to agree was a really bad post. Maybe someone had a laugh at this difficult time. I apologize for those that already heard the story in August.

As for my page being www.drugereport.com, what can I say, if you believe that, you probably also believe that BS is a virgin. It's not my homepage, just put it there for the sake of it.

Do you believe I'm THE Holden Caulfield lol? (If you don't know who he is look it up.) BTW, I agree having fifty quality posts in a row. I'll be more careful from now on ;-)

By: dangerman

dangerman — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 09:29:12 -0800

"MeFi was once a place to bring attention to unusual or interesting links and have a discussion about them. Now it's a place to talk about every AP story that crosses the wire."

Wait a minute...I thought MeFi was about posting nothing but news articles? You mean there was orginally a different format planned for MeFi? Shocking.

- Don't slip on the sarcasm.

By: lia

lia — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:33:08 -0800

Yes, in theory, but the fact that I only discovered MetaTalk yesterday despite having been joined to MetaFilter for a month suggests that this part of the site is a little more secretive than we're all letting on.

A month? Have you not seen the links to MetaTalk at the top and bottom of every single MeFi page? Have you not seen people get called out to MetaTalk in threads that ugly? Hello?

If people don't care enough about MetaFilter yet to find MetaTalk, they wouldn't be likely to put up with the suggestions and criticism that are posted here.

What rogers said.

By: cCranium

cCranium — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 10:45:54 -0800

I would feel more comfortable with any approach which is non-elitist and democratic, affecting beginners and old-timers equally.

Caution: Unapologetic elitist old-timer rant coming.

Why do you think that new comers deserve just as much respect as old timers? The only reason you've heard of this site is because of what the old-timers have done, making it worthy of public notice.

The only reason _I_ heard of this site is because of what the older-than-me-timers had done, getting it to the point where it crossed my radar.

I'm sorry, but if you think that you've contributed as much to the site as I have because you made yourself a user id you are sorely, sorely mistaken.

No, I personally did not make this site, and I personally can not break this site, but there are a few dozen people who have contributed more to this site than me and more to this site than you, and it is because of these contributions that the site is even around today.

This does NOT mean that new users are not deserving of respect, and an equal opportunity to make the same contribution older members have done, but get this quite clear:

You and I have not contributed equally to the development of the site.

Yes, in theory, but the fact that I only discovered MetaTalk yesterday despite having been joined to MetaFilter for a month suggests that this part of the site is a little more secretive than we're all letting on.

The fact that it took you a month to click on the third link from the left on the FRONT PAGE says to me that you took a month to bother exploring and learning about the site.

How is it secretive if it's in plain site? How is it secretive if almost one thread every day gets a "Taken to MetaTalk" post in it? How is it secretive if your lack of interest in the history and purpose and LIFE of this site prevents you from exploring what's in plain site?

By: Catch

Catch — Wed, 19 Sep 2001 18:52:36 -0800

cCranium: I remember I discovered Metatalk in my first week because you called me out here.
respec'