Metafilter Celebrities October 23, 2005 12:03 PM Subscribe
Two part question: 1) what are the qualities that give some Metafilter users 'celebrity' status and 2) what are the benefits of having that status? [more inside]
1) what are the qualities that give some Metafilter users 'celebrity' status
Brilliance, personality and sex appeal, duh!
2) what are the benefits of having that status?
Free drugs and groupies.
posted by jonmc at 12:05 PM on October 23, 2005
Brilliance, personality and sex appeal, duh!
2) what are the benefits of having that status?
Free drugs and groupies.
posted by jonmc at 12:05 PM on October 23, 2005
We get plo chops.
posted by interrobang at 12:06 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by interrobang at 12:06 PM on October 23, 2005
The gift baskets are really quite nice.
posted by loquacious at 12:14 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by loquacious at 12:14 PM on October 23, 2005
They post too much
posted by angry modem at 12:18 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by angry modem at 12:18 PM on October 23, 2005
Posting volume has a lot to do with it. Then if you actually have something to say. . .
Of course the other route is to swagger in taking contrary positions to the bulk of the group in an inflammatory manner, ala dios. Now, even when he plays nice he gets attacked. These guys are the infamous MeFites.
posted by caddis at 12:21 PM on October 23, 2005
Of course the other route is to swagger in taking contrary positions to the bulk of the group in an inflammatory manner, ala dios. Now, even when he plays nice he gets attacked. These guys are the infamous MeFites.
posted by caddis at 12:21 PM on October 23, 2005
In dios' case (as well as a few other infamous mefites), people are always attacking him, yet he still heavily contributes. Why? What is he getting out of it?
posted by Quartermass at 12:23 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 12:23 PM on October 23, 2005
I can think of two factors, but there are more:
1) Posting things which result (intentionally or not) in most Mefites recognizing the poster and their personality
2) The poster posting regularly enough that other posters consider the poster as a regular.
So, for example, bevets and Todd Lokken (sorry Todd) aren't "celebrities", per se, because bevets is known for his posts, but isn't seen as a regular, and Todd is known more from a meme that started from a post than his posts in general. And some regulars fly enough below the radar that, while known by some, they haven't reached the critical mass of "known by many".
Though I'm still puzzling out what other factors there are that prevent the other regulars, who are also widely known, from being celebrities. For example, in this thread, are angry modem, keswick, or loquacious seen as "celebrities"? (I just picked y'all because you were the last three posters when I started composing this, and you're all regulars. Nothing personal meant by it)
posted by Bugbread at 12:28 PM on October 23, 2005
1) Posting things which result (intentionally or not) in most Mefites recognizing the poster and their personality
2) The poster posting regularly enough that other posters consider the poster as a regular.
So, for example, bevets and Todd Lokken (sorry Todd) aren't "celebrities", per se, because bevets is known for his posts, but isn't seen as a regular, and Todd is known more from a meme that started from a post than his posts in general. And some regulars fly enough below the radar that, while known by some, they haven't reached the critical mass of "known by many".
Though I'm still puzzling out what other factors there are that prevent the other regulars, who are also widely known, from being celebrities. For example, in this thread, are angry modem, keswick, or loquacious seen as "celebrities"? (I just picked y'all because you were the last three posters when I started composing this, and you're all regulars. Nothing personal meant by it)
posted by Bugbread at 12:28 PM on October 23, 2005
I certainly hope not.
posted by angry modem at 12:30 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by angry modem at 12:30 PM on October 23, 2005
Why? What is he getting out of it?
1. Some people like negative attention. They like being engaged in conversation and they like engaging others. They like that other people are thinking and talking about them, if only negatively. They feel important and special because anonymous people are making an effort to engage them. Alternatively, they feel important because "important people here" are taking time to write to them/about them.
2. Some people think that they can make a difference, even if their words are constantly being twisted and their personalities are being singled out and harassed. They believe that what they have to say is true and useful to others and despite the negative attention, they (being special, intelligent people) have the ability to get past the hostility and touch people.
3. They think it's funny to be contrarian. The constant bickering and yammering is humerous and their role here is to serve as comic relief.
4. Alternative theories related to the above: they have no life; they feel that this is their outlet because they're ignored in real life; they don't have the confidence to approach real people with their thoughts, so they stay here (in a semi-anonymous realm); they are pursuing the celebrity status.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:39 PM on October 23, 2005
1. Some people like negative attention. They like being engaged in conversation and they like engaging others. They like that other people are thinking and talking about them, if only negatively. They feel important and special because anonymous people are making an effort to engage them. Alternatively, they feel important because "important people here" are taking time to write to them/about them.
2. Some people think that they can make a difference, even if their words are constantly being twisted and their personalities are being singled out and harassed. They believe that what they have to say is true and useful to others and despite the negative attention, they (being special, intelligent people) have the ability to get past the hostility and touch people.
3. They think it's funny to be contrarian. The constant bickering and yammering is humerous and their role here is to serve as comic relief.
4. Alternative theories related to the above: they have no life; they feel that this is their outlet because they're ignored in real life; they don't have the confidence to approach real people with their thoughts, so they stay here (in a semi-anonymous realm); they are pursuing the celebrity status.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:39 PM on October 23, 2005
I am not attributing any of the above characteristics to dios specifically. That should be made clear.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:41 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by SeizeTheDay at 12:41 PM on October 23, 2005
"See the Metafilter Contribution Index Calculator"
It's broken. Everyone's "Metafilter Threads" and "Metafilter Comments" show as zero.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:42 PM on October 23, 2005
It's broken. Everyone's "Metafilter Threads" and "Metafilter Comments" show as zero.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:42 PM on October 23, 2005
I think the major common quality employs something of the method of actors in live theater (as opposed to film or television): broad strokes, big gestures, the person has to "project" and it has to hit all the way back in the cheap seats.
It's so difficult to read personalities in text, usually. When one hangs out here for a long time, he/she eventually gets to know a lot of different users, and little by little draws mental images of them based on accumulated scraps of information, but the celebrities are noticed right away, and one almost immediately gets a sense of their "role" here, because it's broadcast in a fairly dramatic way.
Of course this is a generalization, sometimes it develops differently - but this kind of ability to quickly shape a vivid impression is often a big part of it. And then, of course, there needs to be something appealing about that character, something that you can hang your hat on. It's as little like the band always being asked to play "that one song", or the comedian who must always do that funny bit with the banana and the feather duster - their fans have expectations, some emotional investment, however slight.
Probably the benefits are similar to any other kind of celebrity: recognition, attention, applause. I guess in some cases that can carry over into some more solid benefits in the real world, professionally.
posted by taz at 12:43 PM on October 23, 2005
It's so difficult to read personalities in text, usually. When one hangs out here for a long time, he/she eventually gets to know a lot of different users, and little by little draws mental images of them based on accumulated scraps of information, but the celebrities are noticed right away, and one almost immediately gets a sense of their "role" here, because it's broadcast in a fairly dramatic way.
Of course this is a generalization, sometimes it develops differently - but this kind of ability to quickly shape a vivid impression is often a big part of it. And then, of course, there needs to be something appealing about that character, something that you can hang your hat on. It's as little like the band always being asked to play "that one song", or the comedian who must always do that funny bit with the banana and the feather duster - their fans have expectations, some emotional investment, however slight.
Probably the benefits are similar to any other kind of celebrity: recognition, attention, applause. I guess in some cases that can carry over into some more solid benefits in the real world, professionally.
posted by taz at 12:43 PM on October 23, 2005
Why? What is he getting out of it?
You know, you could ask him...
Something is definitely wrong with the Top 100 list on the Contribution Index, tho. The bottom certainly does... tail off...
posted by mkultra at 12:56 PM on October 23, 2005
You know, you could ask him...
Something is definitely wrong with the Top 100 list on the Contribution Index, tho. The bottom certainly does... tail off...
posted by mkultra at 12:56 PM on October 23, 2005
"See the Metafilter Contribution Index Calculator"
It's broken. Everyone's "Metafilter Threads" and "Metafilter Comments" show as zero.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:42 PM PST on October 23 [!]
You are right. Now it is just the MeTa/AskMe contribution index.
posted by caddis at 12:57 PM on October 23, 2005
It's broken. Everyone's "Metafilter Threads" and "Metafilter Comments" show as zero.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:42 PM PST on October 23 [!]
You are right. Now it is just the MeTa/AskMe contribution index.
posted by caddis at 12:57 PM on October 23, 2005
"They post too much"
Bingo! angry modem nails it. You can trust him. He's famous.
posted by nthdegx at 1:03 PM on October 23, 2005
Bingo! angry modem nails it. You can trust him. He's famous.
posted by nthdegx at 1:03 PM on October 23, 2005
There are no celebrities on metafilter. There are only people who are less obscure than the rest. And there are no benefits that a person with a healthy self-esteem acquires from whatever marginal status they might gain here.
posted by crunchland at 1:07 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by crunchland at 1:07 PM on October 23, 2005
I think the key to celebrity is to make a comment that someone notices. Once they notice a particular comment (and commenter) they'll start to recognize that poster more and more. That's how it works for me. Agree or disagree, it's all about how salient a post is.
After that, seeing more and more salient comments will cement a user's name in people's memory.
The more people for whom a poster gets recognized the more 'famous' they are. Antagonistic posts tend to get remembered the most, thus the 'celebrity' of Dios and Rothko/Alex.
Also, according to that thing I'm the 7th most loquacious (by total posts) mefite. heh.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on October 23, 2005
After that, seeing more and more salient comments will cement a user's name in people's memory.
The more people for whom a poster gets recognized the more 'famous' they are. Antagonistic posts tend to get remembered the most, thus the 'celebrity' of Dios and Rothko/Alex.
Also, according to that thing I'm the 7th most loquacious (by total posts) mefite. heh.
posted by delmoi at 1:09 PM on October 23, 2005
Within the community then, being 'less obscure' doesn't carry with it more influence or other things of that nature?
posted by Quartermass at 1:12 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 1:12 PM on October 23, 2005
If I were were doing a PhD. in sociology (and I am!), and I were doing it on this topic (I'm not), I would do a network analysis (IAANA).
My hypothesis would be that what makes a person is a star is not just frequency of posting, but the variety of threads to which he/she contributes. In other words, if you have a person who contributes to 100 threads about music, that person will be less of a star than a person who contributes to 10 music threads, 10 politics threads, 10 science threads, 10 technology threads, and 10 Flash Friday threads.
The person with more variety would be more of a star in spite of contributing to fewer threads. Why? Because the person contributing to 100 music threads is making himself visible to the same group of people over and over. There are declining returns on visibility, and having someone hear what you think 80 times just isn't twice as good as having them hear what you think 40 times. If you contribute to a variety of threads, you're not limiting your visibility to those people who are interested in only one topic.
So as I said, I would do a network analysis. I would compile affiliation network/two-mode network data using threads as one mode and users as another. I would imagine that if you ran the data through UCInet or Pajek, you would find that the users with high closeness or degree centrality and low network density were more likely to be stars.
You may already have done something like this, as your advisor did his Masters a network-y department (he was a TA in my undergrad Research Methods class). If you haven't, it would be an interesting follow-up paper (Ah, more work, just what you're looking for, I'm sure).
Anyway, congrats on finishing!
posted by duck at 1:13 PM on October 23, 2005
My hypothesis would be that what makes a person is a star is not just frequency of posting, but the variety of threads to which he/she contributes. In other words, if you have a person who contributes to 100 threads about music, that person will be less of a star than a person who contributes to 10 music threads, 10 politics threads, 10 science threads, 10 technology threads, and 10 Flash Friday threads.
The person with more variety would be more of a star in spite of contributing to fewer threads. Why? Because the person contributing to 100 music threads is making himself visible to the same group of people over and over. There are declining returns on visibility, and having someone hear what you think 80 times just isn't twice as good as having them hear what you think 40 times. If you contribute to a variety of threads, you're not limiting your visibility to those people who are interested in only one topic.
So as I said, I would do a network analysis. I would compile affiliation network/two-mode network data using threads as one mode and users as another. I would imagine that if you ran the data through UCInet or Pajek, you would find that the users with high closeness or degree centrality and low network density were more likely to be stars.
You may already have done something like this, as your advisor did his Masters a network-y department (he was a TA in my undergrad Research Methods class). If you haven't, it would be an interesting follow-up paper (Ah, more work, just what you're looking for, I'm sure).
Anyway, congrats on finishing!
posted by duck at 1:13 PM on October 23, 2005
Oh, and for an answer that may actually be helpful:
2) None. Does anyone think there are?
posted by mkultra at 1:15 PM on October 23, 2005
2) None. Does anyone think there are?
posted by mkultra at 1:15 PM on October 23, 2005
3. They think it's funny to be contrarian. The constant bickering and yammering is humerous and their role here is to serve as comic relief.
That's not true! Shut the fuck up!
posted by keswick at 1:24 PM on October 23, 2005
That's not true! Shut the fuck up!
posted by keswick at 1:24 PM on October 23, 2005
Posting volume has a lot to do with it.
Not really. I've posted almost 3500 comments around MeFi, and have yet to receive the ceremonial booze and whores.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:28 PM on October 23, 2005
Not really. I've posted almost 3500 comments around MeFi, and have yet to receive the ceremonial booze and whores.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 1:28 PM on October 23, 2005
Taz, could you do that bit with the banana and the feather duster just one more time?
posted by Wolfdog at 1:29 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Wolfdog at 1:29 PM on October 23, 2005
I guess in my mind, I'm also making a distinction between celebrity and notoriety. To me they are sort of different. What they elicit is different - celebrities can have more influence in terms of tilting other users toward their point of view - people are often less likely to want to disagree with them, and may recast their positions, while notorious users may inspire some people to take an opposing viewpoint even before they've formulated their thoughts on a given issue. They both get recognition, but it's harder to be a celebrity than to be notorious. (And some people actually manage to be both!)
Wolfdog, did you like that? I just made that up... I think it would be good, whatever it is.
posted by taz at 1:33 PM on October 23, 2005
Wolfdog, did you like that? I just made that up... I think it would be good, whatever it is.
posted by taz at 1:33 PM on October 23, 2005
If I'm a "celebrity", I'm certainly not in the top tier. Assuming I'm a "celebrity" at all, my answer to the second question would be "little or nothing at all". It's sort of nice to think that people know who I am; but, as far as I'm concerned, the attractiveness of that is greatly diminished to the degree to which it includes being widely disliked. Almost all people I'm certain we would call celebrities--quonsar is certainly one of them--are also controversial and disliked by many. Only a very, very few people (if any?) are celebrities but also nearly universally liked. So, unless you enjoy being disliked, I'd say the negatives outweight the positives. Other people will have different opinions, of course.
I am considering the possibility that I might marginally qualify as "celebrity" as, it seems to me, I probably have the qualities that answer your first question. As duck says, first the person needs to be widely (not just deeply) prolific. They need to be visible across the site. Then, as bugbread says, I think the person needs to have a very easily identifiable and distinct personality. More appropriately, a "style" (since I'm not sure that the online personality is actually a personality and not more a writing style). If you're prolific and very identifiable, you're possibly a "celebrity". Being controversial seems even more to correlate; but the "why" of that is something I'm not sure about.
Not that a lot of people won't disbelieve me when I say this, but speaking for myself I certainly don't want to be a celebrity or whatever you want to call it. I've often wanted to have a different posting name every day, just so I can say what I want to say without attracting so much attention. On the other hand, it is almost certainly true that other people come to places like this and participate heavily precisely because they want to be on stage or something. I mention this because I think it's important to realize that the same outcomes don't necessarily require the same motivations. Everyone who gets a lot of attention here (or elsewhere) is not necessarily an attention whore. Maybe they're whoring themselves for other benefits. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:46 PM on October 23, 2005
I am considering the possibility that I might marginally qualify as "celebrity" as, it seems to me, I probably have the qualities that answer your first question. As duck says, first the person needs to be widely (not just deeply) prolific. They need to be visible across the site. Then, as bugbread says, I think the person needs to have a very easily identifiable and distinct personality. More appropriately, a "style" (since I'm not sure that the online personality is actually a personality and not more a writing style). If you're prolific and very identifiable, you're possibly a "celebrity". Being controversial seems even more to correlate; but the "why" of that is something I'm not sure about.
Not that a lot of people won't disbelieve me when I say this, but speaking for myself I certainly don't want to be a celebrity or whatever you want to call it. I've often wanted to have a different posting name every day, just so I can say what I want to say without attracting so much attention. On the other hand, it is almost certainly true that other people come to places like this and participate heavily precisely because they want to be on stage or something. I mention this because I think it's important to realize that the same outcomes don't necessarily require the same motivations. Everyone who gets a lot of attention here (or elsewhere) is not necessarily an attention whore. Maybe they're whoring themselves for other benefits. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:46 PM on October 23, 2005
1) Posting too much.
2) erm... None?
I'm certainly no MeFi celeb and am happy with my Z list status (contribution index 0.47!). It means people don't expect me to state specific positions and allows me to post when I think I have something to add (whether it's worthy or not in other people's eyes has cock-all to do with it). I wouldn't want to be any of the MeFi regulars and my number's way to high to be one of the old school people but I feel comfortable not being such a stand out guy. It also means I don't go around rubber stamping other MeFite's posts all the time - in my mind there is nothing worse than continually saying the same old shit every goddamn time someone posts "bush is evil" or whichever trope is doing the rounds this decade.
on preview - again EB is right (and he is a celeb - whether he likea it or not). As I am not that well known there is more often than not a chance someone might skip my post, but if it is read there is a decent chance I will come across as sensible/likeable. I am quite sad in that I'd rather be generally liked than extremely well known, so sue me.
posted by longbaugh at 1:55 PM on October 23, 2005
2) erm... None?
I'm certainly no MeFi celeb and am happy with my Z list status (contribution index 0.47!). It means people don't expect me to state specific positions and allows me to post when I think I have something to add (whether it's worthy or not in other people's eyes has cock-all to do with it). I wouldn't want to be any of the MeFi regulars and my number's way to high to be one of the old school people but I feel comfortable not being such a stand out guy. It also means I don't go around rubber stamping other MeFite's posts all the time - in my mind there is nothing worse than continually saying the same old shit every goddamn time someone posts "bush is evil" or whichever trope is doing the rounds this decade.
on preview - again EB is right (and he is a celeb - whether he likea it or not). As I am not that well known there is more often than not a chance someone might skip my post, but if it is read there is a decent chance I will come across as sensible/likeable. I am quite sad in that I'd rather be generally liked than extremely well known, so sue me.
posted by longbaugh at 1:55 PM on October 23, 2005
1) any or all of the following: bigmouthedness, clear points of view whether popular or not, easily identifiable interests/topics/things they post about more often than not, easily identifiable style/way of speaking (see EB above), etc
2) some supporters no matter what, being a known quantity means less explanation/clarification needed, feeling of belonging and mattering and of comfort in community which allows more free range of ideas/emotions/whatever, etc
and you left off: 3) drawbacks: detractors no matter what, pigeonholing, easy attacks based not on content but on personality, etc
posted by amberglow at 2:03 PM on October 23, 2005
2) some supporters no matter what, being a known quantity means less explanation/clarification needed, feeling of belonging and mattering and of comfort in community which allows more free range of ideas/emotions/whatever, etc
and you left off: 3) drawbacks: detractors no matter what, pigeonholing, easy attacks based not on content but on personality, etc
posted by amberglow at 2:03 PM on October 23, 2005
I think it's inbetween people like longbaugh who probably have a better overall experience here--liked, but not famous.
posted by amberglow at 2:04 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by amberglow at 2:04 PM on October 23, 2005
amberglow, my friend, you (like myself) are a MeFi celebrity yourself, in the sense that everybody who reads this site knows your name and what you're about. So, I guess we gotta ask ourselves all the whys and wherefors.
posted by jonmc at 2:10 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 2:10 PM on October 23, 2005
On a sort of off-topic query - who was the MeFite who collated tomcatspike's posting history to provide a full breakdown and description of him? I would think the mark of a MeFi celebrity is when an average member like myself can do the same : create a personality from the posting history of another member. Certain members share an awful lot of information online and the filling in of the gaps between these posts makes it easy to formulate assumptions about these individuals (this is also why I dislike hatred of specific users based upon perceived history). I hope that I can retain enough mystery to post on any subject without someone attributing an opinion to me which I do not actually hold.
posted by longbaugh at 2:19 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by longbaugh at 2:19 PM on October 23, 2005
longbaugh, that was tamim.
Matt, the quality of the groupies has fallen off lately. The drugs are still great, though!
posted by languagehat at 2:29 PM on October 23, 2005
Matt, the quality of the groupies has fallen off lately. The drugs are still great, though!
posted by languagehat at 2:29 PM on October 23, 2005
cheers lh!
/purchases an "I Love Languagehat" mug at the concessionary stand.
posted by longbaugh at 2:40 PM on October 23, 2005
/purchases an "I Love Languagehat" mug at the concessionary stand.
posted by longbaugh at 2:40 PM on October 23, 2005
Oh, by the way, the contribution index page is fixed now.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2005
Someone create a web site so we can rank users based on popularity. Let's quantify this dammit.
posted by geoff. at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by geoff. at 2:47 PM on October 23, 2005
Crash, it looks fixed...but it's not.
There's no way y2karl is above Rothko or amberglow.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:50 PM on October 23, 2005
There's no way y2karl is above Rothko or amberglow.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:50 PM on October 23, 2005
Ah, nevermind. You need to click the user's profile to update the real score. Then refresh and all will be well.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:53 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by SeizeTheDay at 2:53 PM on October 23, 2005
/sharpens knives and thinks of Eideteker whilst muttering darkly under breath
posted by longbaugh at 2:57 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by longbaugh at 2:57 PM on October 23, 2005
(Bows head in shame at high rank of contribution index)
posted by Bugbread at 3:07 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 3:07 PM on October 23, 2005
There are two routes to celebrity here, 1) posting high quality links and comments for years and years, or 2) being a huge asshole for a few weeks.
posted by LarryC at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by LarryC at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2005
Some of us who are celebrities in the real world prefer to keep a low profile here to avoid being famous here as well. Being famous is no fun!
posted by bigbigdog at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by bigbigdog at 3:14 PM on October 23, 2005
bigbigdog : "Being famous is no fun!"
We feel for ya, Snoop.
posted by Bugbread at 3:16 PM on October 23, 2005
We feel for ya, Snoop.
posted by Bugbread at 3:16 PM on October 23, 2005
ooh, ooh, ooh, who are you bigbigdog? [why bring up your "celebrity" if you want to keep a low profile?]
posted by caddis at 3:50 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by caddis at 3:50 PM on October 23, 2005
caddis : "[why bring up your 'celebrity' if you want to keep a low profile?]"
To be fair, unless bigbigdog actually says who he/she is, bringing it up doesn't conflict with wanting to be less famous than you are in RL. Kinda similar to saying "We shouldn't get rid of anonymous questions on AskMe, they serve a useful purpose. I posted an anonymous question, and I'm glad I had the option." doesn't really out the person who says it.
posted by Bugbread at 3:58 PM on October 23, 2005
To be fair, unless bigbigdog actually says who he/she is, bringing it up doesn't conflict with wanting to be less famous than you are in RL. Kinda similar to saying "We shouldn't get rid of anonymous questions on AskMe, they serve a useful purpose. I posted an anonymous question, and I'm glad I had the option." doesn't really out the person who says it.
posted by Bugbread at 3:58 PM on October 23, 2005
loungbaugh!? thanks for that scarabic - how am I supposed to reach popular critical mass if'n you can't even write my name properly?
posted by longbaugh at 4:00 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by longbaugh at 4:00 PM on October 23, 2005
Wasn't there a thread a few months ago in which one regular (maybe jonmc) tried to put down another regular, during a discussion, by referring to how many other users linked to him versus the other guy.
That seems like a fairly obvious way of not only acknowledging "celebrity", but also attempting to quantify and exploit it. As I recall it backfired. Can't find the thread though.
posted by Rumple at 4:03 PM on October 23, 2005
That seems like a fairly obvious way of not only acknowledging "celebrity", but also attempting to quantify and exploit it. As I recall it backfired. Can't find the thread though.
posted by Rumple at 4:03 PM on October 23, 2005
1) The ability to piss off other "celebrities".
2) The ability to piss off other "celebrities".
I think the word "circlejerk" may be useful here.
posted by seanyboy at 4:05 PM on October 23, 2005
2) The ability to piss off other "celebrities".
I think the word "circlejerk" may be useful here.
posted by seanyboy at 4:05 PM on October 23, 2005
I remember loungebaugh. I saw them when they were playing the hospitality lounge of the Holiday Inn in Shreveport.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:15 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by mr_crash_davis at 4:15 PM on October 23, 2005
Posting a lot and making comments that are outlandish will make people automatically think that you have celebrity status whether it is true or not. Once this is recognized, even minor comments will result in people responding to you so that they too can achieve celebrity status. It's all very strange. Also, having a pre-$5 user number doesn't hurt.
posted by my sock puppet account at 4:17 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by my sock puppet account at 4:17 PM on October 23, 2005
Message to all you Mefi "celebrities":-
Get a life in the real world, jerks.
ROFL!!
posted by FieldingGoodney at 4:31 PM on October 23, 2005
Get a life in the real world, jerks.
ROFL!!
posted by FieldingGoodney at 4:31 PM on October 23, 2005
1. being regonizable by name/handle, which supercedes whatever may be written, by familiarity with said party or varied prejudice
2. none i can see
posted by philida at 4:54 PM on October 23, 2005
2. none i can see
posted by philida at 4:54 PM on October 23, 2005
Get a life in the real world, jerks.
It's precisely because I'm a complete nobody out on the street that I enjoy the fact that people pay attention to what i say here. On a certain level it's incredibly amusing, really.
posted by jonmc at 4:58 PM on October 23, 2005
Only without the boobs.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:34 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by mr_crash_davis at 5:34 PM on October 23, 2005
*puts on see through body suit, dances out of time, yet somehow suggestively, then gets knocked up by trailer-park gangsta wannabe*
posted by jonmc at 5:35 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:35 PM on October 23, 2005
After clicking on only one or two random people in the contribution index, I chose loquacious, and was greeted with a "Happy Mefi birthday!" So happy Mefi Birthday, Loquacious!
posted by artifarce at 5:41 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by artifarce at 5:41 PM on October 23, 2005
Hey, jonmc, let me ask you something since I'm nearly certain you will relate. Isn't it sort of weird that male wiring is such that, for some of us anyway, the mention of "Britney Spears" and boobs is stupidly thrilling? Or maybe I'm just due a cold shower. I dunno.
But I think talking about Spears's boobs is more entertaining than MeFi's "celebrities". I'm just sayin'.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:51 PM on October 23, 2005
But I think talking about Spears's boobs is more entertaining than MeFi's "celebrities". I'm just sayin'.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:51 PM on October 23, 2005
Well, she exists mostly in my mind's eye, anyway, being that I'm not very exposed to the sort of media within which she normally appears. And in that mind's eye, she's a boobylicious teen trailer-trashy wonder. And I approve this message.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:56 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:56 PM on October 23, 2005
Too blonde, too skinny, too much make-up, too madonna-whore complex for my taste. I'm more a girl-next-door or weird chick guy.
posted by jonmc at 5:59 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 5:59 PM on October 23, 2005
"I'm more a girl-next-door or weird chick guy."
Well, me too as far as actual relationships go. And actually, even with, um, porn. Still, though, I'm sure Dan Savage would agree that a little madonna-whore complex never hurt anyone.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:10 PM on October 23, 2005
Well, me too as far as actual relationships go. And actually, even with, um, porn. Still, though, I'm sure Dan Savage would agree that a little madonna-whore complex never hurt anyone.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:10 PM on October 23, 2005
I'm sure, dude. It's just that aesthetically speaking, to my eyes, she's kind of...boring, and thus unarousing.
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by jonmc at 6:12 PM on October 23, 2005
Celebrity has nothing to do with longevity, that's for sure. Although, once on MeFi, I won bioluminescent water (which I'm still waiting on...)
I'm surprised that I made the contribution index calculator. I didn't think my addiction was that bad.
posted by plinth at 6:15 PM on October 23, 2005
I'm surprised that I made the contribution index calculator. I didn't think my addiction was that bad.
posted by plinth at 6:15 PM on October 23, 2005
Mmmmmm. Pron. Britney-shaped porn, even. Britney-shaped, at least, in that it has boob and ass.
That's my kinda celebrity. Mmmmm.
Speaking of celebrities, could someone actually list these celebrities, so that I can at least know who I'm supposed to kow-tow to? 'cause right now, I'm pretty much clueless.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:24 PM on October 23, 2005
That's my kinda celebrity. Mmmmm.
Speaking of celebrities, could someone actually list these celebrities, so that I can at least know who I'm supposed to kow-tow to? 'cause right now, I'm pretty much clueless.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:24 PM on October 23, 2005
I'm not sure exactly what a Mefi celebrity is. I am sure I don't want to, and never will be, one.
The most recognizable people to me when I was a lurker were quonsar and jonmc. quonsar because he was frequently funny and jonmc because of the music.
There are some people I enjoy hearing from and / or recognizing because they post interesting (to me) links or post thoughtful comments. Other people because they are assholes. Who wants to be a Mefi Celebrity along the lines of [insert your most loathed user here] who lost it in that thread of Spring '03?
How would you like your Mefi epitaph to read? I hope mine would say "He was kinda quiet, but did a couple good front page posts."
posted by marxchivist at 7:19 PM on October 23, 2005
The most recognizable people to me when I was a lurker were quonsar and jonmc. quonsar because he was frequently funny and jonmc because of the music.
There are some people I enjoy hearing from and / or recognizing because they post interesting (to me) links or post thoughtful comments. Other people because they are assholes. Who wants to be a Mefi Celebrity along the lines of [insert your most loathed user here] who lost it in that thread of Spring '03?
How would you like your Mefi epitaph to read? I hope mine would say "He was kinda quiet, but did a couple good front page posts."
posted by marxchivist at 7:19 PM on October 23, 2005
As I recall it backfired. Can't find the thread though.
Yeah I remember that too. Don't get me wrong, jonmc comes across to me as a very likeable guy and a generally mellowing presence on the site, and I look forward to dropping in on a NYC meetup sometime to meet him - but this thread is further evidence that some of us enjoy our "celebrity" with a keen sense of self-consciousness about it. My personal philosophy is that all attention is good attention, and I enjoy what I get, but the day I start considering just how much cachet I command around here, comparing it to other peoples'... even if I come to a flattering conclusion, the inquiry itself will shame me.
posted by scarabic at 8:11 PM on October 23, 2005
Yeah I remember that too. Don't get me wrong, jonmc comes across to me as a very likeable guy and a generally mellowing presence on the site, and I look forward to dropping in on a NYC meetup sometime to meet him - but this thread is further evidence that some of us enjoy our "celebrity" with a keen sense of self-consciousness about it. My personal philosophy is that all attention is good attention, and I enjoy what I get, but the day I start considering just how much cachet I command around here, comparing it to other peoples'... even if I come to a flattering conclusion, the inquiry itself will shame me.
posted by scarabic at 8:11 PM on October 23, 2005
Wow. I'm on that contribution list! #67. Yay me.
Do I actually make any kind of difference here?
posted by Jon-o at 8:44 PM on October 23, 2005
Do I actually make any kind of difference here?
posted by Jon-o at 8:44 PM on October 23, 2005
I've been thinking about unasked question #3 - How do celebrities benefit Mefi?
Whenever I come across a longish thread (60+ comments) I tend to scan for the MeFi celebs - jonmc, dios, amberglow, C_D, etc. I'm not sure if it's volume of comments, force of personality or something else completely about the MeFi celebs, but the momentum of the conversation is almost always directed by one or more of these people. If you were to read only the comments by the celebs and those they are directly conversing with you'd probably get the gist of almost any thread. All those non-celebs can amount to a lot noise and tangential topics.
posted by mullacc at 10:25 PM on October 23, 2005
Whenever I come across a longish thread (60+ comments) I tend to scan for the MeFi celebs - jonmc, dios, amberglow, C_D, etc. I'm not sure if it's volume of comments, force of personality or something else completely about the MeFi celebs, but the momentum of the conversation is almost always directed by one or more of these people. If you were to read only the comments by the celebs and those they are directly conversing with you'd probably get the gist of almost any thread. All those non-celebs can amount to a lot noise and tangential topics.
posted by mullacc at 10:25 PM on October 23, 2005
If you were to read only the comments by the celebs and those they are directly conversing with you'd probably get the gist of almost any thread. All those non-celebs can amount to a lot noise and tangential topics.
That's the benefit of celebrity. The illusion that through sheer number of responses (quantity) certain values (quality) are given to those members opinions.
posted by justgary at 10:46 PM on October 23, 2005
That's the benefit of celebrity. The illusion that through sheer number of responses (quantity) certain values (quality) are given to those members opinions.
posted by justgary at 10:46 PM on October 23, 2005
Actually, my guess is that it's not so much that there's an assumption of quality, as much as most people are comfortable with "known quantities", so to speak. This is the oft-unrecognized appeal of fast-food franchises and it's also, I suspect, an appeal of our tendency to create and follow "celebrities". In a less abstracted way of putting it, I think that people like to think that they "know" other people in some meaningful sense and so we latch on to those people in a crowd whom we recognize. Where there's just many, many (and in my case, even more many) words on the screen, it's a natural human tendency to watch for recognizable individual personalities and give less weight to everyone else.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:51 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:51 PM on October 23, 2005
I agree with EB - not so much an assumption of quality, but maybe the celebs have become arbiters of quality. I've known a few people that were not that cool/interesting themselves, but cool/interesting people were always attracted to them and through them found other cool/interesting people. The MeFi celebs are sorta of like that - they might not always have the best comments, but if you look for the celebs you'll find the best comments.
posted by mullacc at 11:09 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by mullacc at 11:09 PM on October 23, 2005
LOL - that's a brilliant analogy, EB. Keen and hilarious to boot.
posted by scarabic at 11:14 PM on October 23, 2005
posted by scarabic at 11:14 PM on October 23, 2005
I don't think of anyone here as "celebrity." Well, maybe Miguel back in the day, but that's because he actually is considered a celebrity, at least in ol' Portugal.
Everyone else I classify either as "good guy", "irritating schmuck", and "whu?"
The "good guys" generally post comments that are well-written and clearly express their opinion, and generally do so without rancour.
The "irritating schmucks" post comments that are either inanely unsupported by reality, or are abusive to others without having been severely provoked.
The "whu?" folk are those who's names I don't recognize, which is almost every one of our 26 000+ members. I've a terrible memory for names, and an even worse memory for their posting history if I do recognize their name.
I note that both "good guys" and "irritating schmucks" tend to be identified by name a whole lot more in threads than the "whu?" users. This stands to reason.
I honestly have no idea whether I myself fall into people's "good guys" or "irritating schmucks" categories. Until this last spurt of new users, which saw MetaFilter gain some pretty great aliases, I figured my name alone would keep me out of the "whu?" category. These days I'm not so sure.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:28 PM on October 23, 2005
Everyone else I classify either as "good guy", "irritating schmuck", and "whu?"
The "good guys" generally post comments that are well-written and clearly express their opinion, and generally do so without rancour.
The "irritating schmucks" post comments that are either inanely unsupported by reality, or are abusive to others without having been severely provoked.
The "whu?" folk are those who's names I don't recognize, which is almost every one of our 26 000+ members. I've a terrible memory for names, and an even worse memory for their posting history if I do recognize their name.
I note that both "good guys" and "irritating schmucks" tend to be identified by name a whole lot more in threads than the "whu?" users. This stands to reason.
I honestly have no idea whether I myself fall into people's "good guys" or "irritating schmucks" categories. Until this last spurt of new users, which saw MetaFilter gain some pretty great aliases, I figured my name alone would keep me out of the "whu?" category. These days I'm not so sure.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:28 PM on October 23, 2005
This ["known quantity"] is the oft-unrecognized appeal of fast-food franchises
?!? No.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:30 PM on October 23, 2005
?!? No.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:30 PM on October 23, 2005
They are kind of difficult questions in some ways. Celebrity is in the eye of the beholder, although I suppose you are more talking about the very publically acknowledged variety. In which case it is distinctive posting style (think y2karl on fpps, Ethereal Bligh on comments); distinctive character (think jonmc and even mathowie, although he hardly counts); distinctive content (think quonsar or even taz, for completely different but complementary reasons or languagehat); distinctive style (think Rothko, dios, loquacious, Mayor Curley).
So I think some people project a certain characteristic of notoriety, tweaked by prolificness and longevity.
But that's just the 'main arena' kind of celebrity. We all have our favourites too. Although some people might not say much or post many fpps, I am so there to look and listen when they (my secret bunch of MeFites) contribute.
posted by peacay at 2:55 AM on October 24, 2005
So I think some people project a certain characteristic of notoriety, tweaked by prolificness and longevity.
But that's just the 'main arena' kind of celebrity. We all have our favourites too. Although some people might not say much or post many fpps, I am so there to look and listen when they (my secret bunch of MeFites) contribute.
posted by peacay at 2:55 AM on October 24, 2005
I think i'll always see the older members as more celebs than my (admittedly fab) crowd or newer--they were already established and "famous" even back in 02.
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by amberglow at 7:37 AM on October 24, 2005
I've been a non-celebrity like forever. My lack of cred? Old-school.
posted by cortex at 8:15 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by cortex at 8:15 AM on October 24, 2005
...agreed, amberglow... people who have been here for a long time would be the ones that I would classify as celebrities, if such a thing even exists here. By virtue of history and consistency, they have helped to make the place less of an anonymous grand central station.
I am more with fff in having my own categorization system that goes along the lines of "me like" and "me no like."
posted by madamjujujive at 8:19 AM on October 24, 2005
I am more with fff in having my own categorization system that goes along the lines of "me like" and "me no like."
posted by madamjujujive at 8:19 AM on October 24, 2005
mjjj said:
Like me? :)
posted by riffola at 8:39 AM on October 24, 2005
people who have been here for a long time would be the ones that I would classify as celebrities
Like me? :)
posted by riffola at 8:39 AM on October 24, 2005
I just realized I've been a part of MeFi for over two thousand days!
posted by riffola at 8:41 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by riffola at 8:41 AM on October 24, 2005
It is funny but also quite predictable that, just like high school, whoever were the upperclasspeople when one arrived as a lowly freshperson are the truly Coolest People Evar while everyone after them are mere wannabees.
No one will ever be as cool as Stan Chin.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:01 AM on October 24, 2005
No one will ever be as cool as Stan Chin.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:01 AM on October 24, 2005
Stan Chin had a fucking gold star. I don't care that he was an upperclassman, or that he did or didn't write good posts, or that he was or wasn't a troll. He had a fucking gold star.
posted by Bugbread at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by Bugbread at 10:44 AM on October 24, 2005
Aw, man. Yesterday was my three year MeFi birthday and I missed it.
posted by deborah at 10:48 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by deborah at 10:48 AM on October 24, 2005
Stop! By responding to this thread you are a party to cheating. Qaurtermass do your own damn homework!
posted by Mr T at 11:12 AM on October 24, 2005
posted by Mr T at 11:12 AM on October 24, 2005
Hey, over three years already! (In my present incarnation, even.)
I guess that makes me a Mefi O.F.
posted by konolia at 11:24 AM on October 24, 2005
I guess that makes me a Mefi O.F.
posted by konolia at 11:24 AM on October 24, 2005
A thesis project that was carried out over two years is hardly 'homework'
posted by Quartermass at 2:52 PM on October 24, 2005
posted by Quartermass at 2:52 PM on October 24, 2005
riffy, I had you in mind particularly - congrats on your 2,000 day mark, woo-hoo!
posted by madamjujujive at 3:18 PM on October 24, 2005
posted by madamjujujive at 3:18 PM on October 24, 2005
"A thesis project that was carried out over two years is hardly 'homework'"
Yeah, it's not as if you did most of it at "home", is it? :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:46 PM on October 24, 2005
Yeah, it's not as if you did most of it at "home", is it? :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 5:46 PM on October 24, 2005
So, it's situational and previous-cohort-dependent, Quarter. : >
(but Grandpa riff is ancient!)
posted by amberglow at 6:06 PM on October 24, 2005
(but Grandpa riff is ancient!)
posted by amberglow at 6:06 PM on October 24, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
The above questions are two which we have discussed in other threads, in other contexts, but I wanted to do this thread to hear some other opinions on the topic. This is not a plea to get people to do the work for me; think ‘enrichment.’
So far, the thesis has really fallen together, was a lot of fun and a lot of hard work. I am excited to post it for everyone to read in the next few weeks to help prepare for my defense!
posted by Quartermass at 12:04 PM on October 23, 2005