Comparison of two FPPs on the same subject

December 7, 2005 6:21 AM

Obvious vs Obtuse

More inside:
posted by empath to Etiquette/Policy at 6:21 AM (53 comments total)

uh oh.
posted by delmoi at 6:21 AM on December 7, 2005

Who the f**k are you calling obtuse? Oh, uh, right.
posted by grateful at 6:23 AM on December 7, 2005

usually it's a good idea to have your "more inside" composed beforehand for exactly this reason.
posted by jessamyn at 6:23 AM on December 7, 2005

I'm honestly not trying to start anything here. Both threads are started by new metafilter users and took drastically different approaches to the same story. Is there some kind of unspoken rule about what's appropriate or not? Personally, I'm a compulsive link-clicker and one of the first things that got me hooked on mefi in the first place was a thread thread that had every single letter linked to a different page.

I also kind of think that my thread turned out better because it turned out that the people that clicked into it were probably intrigued by the pull quote, where as the obvious story drew in people for whom the battle lines were drawn before they even clicked on the comment thread.

I'm really just asking for future reference, before I cause another double on the front page again.
posted by empath at 6:23 AM on December 7, 2005

I did have it composed before hand, I just added more after I pasted.

Man this metafilter thing is hard.
posted by empath at 6:24 AM on December 7, 2005

and fuck, obscure is what I meant.
posted by empath at 6:27 AM on December 7, 2005

I think people missed the double-postiness of the two threads because they probably didn't read one post or the other, or like me, skip religion posts entirely. If it weren't for the tags, I would not have known what your post was about, I would have just said "oh great, some huge block of links" and skipped it entirely. Bringing yourself to MetaTalk pointing out that your (later) version of a double-posted topic went "better" is sort of a weird way to start a discussion about post composition.
posted by jessamyn at 6:28 AM on December 7, 2005

I'm not sure what the question is, here. Your FPP wasn't deleted. Personally, of the two, I find yours superior, although the Dormant Gorilla's (!) FPP is acceptible as far as one two-link NewsFilter goes.

But, er, whatever. My wife isn't a cat person, but I don't call her out on MeTa.
posted by Plutor at 6:30 AM on December 7, 2005

Um, first version.
posted by empath at 6:30 AM on December 7, 2005

I'm not trying to call him out at all.

I think his was a good post that turned into a gigantic clusterfuck. I was just curious if my post was that poorly done and if there was a metafilter preference for one style over the other.
posted by empath at 6:32 AM on December 7, 2005

Obtuse worked perfectly well in that case. And I should know, I'm a friggin' grammar king.
posted by delmoi at 6:33 AM on December 7, 2005

one of the first things that got me hooked on mefi in the first place was a thread thread that had every single letter linked to a different page.

And other people just ignore those threads. So, different strokes, and neither is better.
posted by smackfu at 6:36 AM on December 7, 2005

empath, I had no idea what your post was about until nicwolff rewrote it inside your thread. Personally, I think his version is the best of the three.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:40 AM on December 7, 2005

I'm with smackfu. If only we could just realize that

A: there are more than enough good posts for every taste

so

B: there's no reason to take a poop in a decent thread you don't care for.
posted by selfnoise at 6:42 AM on December 7, 2005

It was people taking a crap on my thread in both threads that got me to start this here instead of continuing it on MeFi.
posted by empath at 6:43 AM on December 7, 2005

empath, your motives may be sincere, but your question in this thread comes across as "my post was better, don't y'all think?" If that is not your question, then what is it? (If it is your question, my answer is the same as CunningLinguist's, for whatever it's worth.)
posted by brain_drain at 6:51 AM on December 7, 2005

You should know that comments like this and threads like this make you sound really attention-seeking and whiny, just FYI.
posted by CunningLinguist at 6:52 AM on December 7, 2005

brain_drain: more like: "It wasn't that bad, was it?"

But yeah, point taken. It wasn't that bad, matter of preference, now I know.

And I may be whiny, but not necessarily attention-seeking. This is all in response to getting called out by name more than once to say my post sucked, and I wanted to get more input on it without further derailing the threads.

Don't expect more like this from me, and I've learned a lesson about fpp style for the future. If metatalk isn't for threads like this, I don't know what it's for.
posted by empath at 7:03 AM on December 7, 2005

"oh great, some huge block of links" and skipped it entirely.

Sorry to get all AOL here but ROFLMAO.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:03 AM on December 7, 2005

This is going well so far.

Is there some kind of unspoken rule about what's appropriate or not?

Well, yeah, there's lots of unspoken rules. Every social group, online or not, has those. Is there a really important one that was transgressed here? Doubtful.

That said, merely posting news stories is going to piss off a sizeable chunk of your audience. Posting news stories without making clear that it's a news story is going to piss that same group off double, because they'll feel like they were tricked into reading something they don't want to read. If you don't want to piss them off double, make it clear when you're reporting news; if you don't want to piss them off at all, don't post news stories.

(I don't post often to the blue, but when I do, I post something I found interesting that I'm pretty sure people are either going to enjoy or just shrug their shoulders and go on to the next post. I don't get long discussions in return, but I get to see a bunch of people enjoy discovering something on the Web I enjoyed discovering. It gets a rewarding sort of feedback, and I highly recommend it as an alternative to posting news stories.)
posted by mendel at 7:04 AM on December 7, 2005

Sorry empath, it was really unclear from your post what you were after. In short I think it's a different strokes sort of thing. For any post on MeFi, some people will think it sucks. If the post covers a hot button topic like religion, Israel/Palestine, Iraq, etc (I think there was a nice long list of these in an older MeTa thread) the "this thread SUCKS" comments will be more frequent and more angry. That just seems to be the way people respond. Often it's a better idea to just sort of let people have their say, get the "this sucks" off of their chests and then let the thread go where it is going.

Excessive thread moderation often leads to people getting a bead on you and deciding that you are deeply committed to the topic, and nothing gets a pit of vipers going faster than someone wearing their heart on their sleeve. I don't think that this is necessarily cool of them, but it's observable beahvior here and worth knowing if you're concerned about tactics. In short, I think your post was fine, and attracted people who were interested in the quote, or religion, or possibly other things that you'd posted earlier. They would have had to have had some interest in the general topic, because it was unclear from what you posted what the links would be about. Some people like this sort of mystery and others do not. The post before it was interesting to people who were already maybe interested in the Kansas goings-on, OR who maybe wanted to get together and be snarky about someone getting their ass kicked, or rend garments over the sorry state of American politics. It's hard to know. The first one seemed to, in my estimation, go downhill faster. The second one seemed to get a bit more personal, possibly because it was clearly a topic that was important to you.

As you can see from the responses here, people like the place for a lot of different reasons. I think most people will admit that it can be a tough place to break into and find your stride in, but my suggestion would be to not let that stop you, pay some attention to what people are saying but don't take them too personally, and stick around for a while.
posted by jessamyn at 7:12 AM on December 7, 2005

My vote is for the nicwolff version.

"oh great, some huge block of links" and skipped it entirely.

That is exactly what I think when I see a post like that.
posted by drpynchon at 7:14 AM on December 7, 2005

jessamyn:

Thanks, that's exactly what I was after.
posted by empath at 7:16 AM on December 7, 2005

Both posts were newsfilter, hence unfortunate. Dormant Gorilla's was better because it was shorter and did not pretend to be more than newsfilter by stuffing in a lot of tangentially related links. The reason that the discussion turned out better in your thread is that two users hijacked the other to conduct their ongoing groovy hate fuck of one another.

On preview: As always, the best advice is from Jessamyn.
posted by LarryC at 7:19 AM on December 7, 2005

Nicwolff's excellent rewrite of Empath's post shows the problem with the original. Empath's post is not about Intelligent Design, or assault, or science versus religion. It is about Empath, and how clever he is to put these together as he did. It is a vanity post. I shouldn't single him out for this, this has become a common posting stratagem, and is the common theme in all the obtuse category of posts.
posted by LarryC at 7:30 AM on December 7, 2005

empath: I suppose it could be said that your thread had a better discussion because some of the more vitriolic posters missed it. (Going by what LarryC said, anyway).

From my point of view, the 'don't know where your clicking' links are best used for pages where once clicked, the user will know exactly what they're supposed to be looking at without having to read very much, one where a description isn't really needed. If it's just one blind-link it can be OK too (but I'd rather not see 'em) but a bunch is just. Bleh.
posted by delmoi at 7:39 AM on December 7, 2005

"I think his was a good post that turned into a gigantic clusterfuck. I was just curious if my post was that poorly done and if there was a metafilter preference for one style over the other."
For good design, the form follows the function. That means that when I see something like your post, I expect exceptional content to justify the form in which it is presented. The content was pretty middle-of-the-road newsfilter, dressed up in an artistic sausage casing. I clicked the comments to see what it was about, saw Nicwolf's summary, and ignored it.
The part you missed on being clever is that there has to be a payoff for being clever, otherwise it's just a wank.
posted by klangklangston at 7:49 AM on December 7, 2005

empath-No one shat in your thread. No one piled on. There was some constructive criticism offered and some preferences stated, but no one shat anywhere in either thread. Since you're asking for that criticism here you might also stop to think about your characterization of events, if only because you should stick around MeFi and you won't last long if the mild comments directed your way seem like piling on to you. You'd do better to read the two or three positive comments and consider that you were venerated and your efforts were lauded.
posted by OmieWise at 7:57 AM on December 7, 2005

Metafilter: Dressed up in an artistic sausage casing.
posted by Gator at 7:59 AM on December 7, 2005

I skipped empath's FPP because I thought it was all just one big link by someone who doesn't know html. Now that I know it is actually multiple links, well, that's even worse. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:00 AM on December 7, 2005

I'm also in the "oh great, some huge block of links" and skipped it entirely. camp.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:02 AM on December 7, 2005

I think the reason that empath's thread was less of a clusterfuck is because the people willing to parse the post were more thoughtful, intelligent, and handsome.

:)
posted by Optimus Chyme at 8:11 AM on December 7, 2005

... or they are slackers with nothing better to do. heheh
posted by mischief at 8:18 AM on December 7, 2005

now i get it. metafilter is a neurosis.
posted by quonsar at 8:21 AM on December 7, 2005

Empath's post is not about Intelligent Design, or assault, or science versus religion. It is about Empath, and how clever he is to put these together as he did. It is a vanity post. I shouldn't single him out for this, this has become a common posting stratagem, and is the common theme in all the obtuse category of posts.

Amen. That's exactly what's wrong with many FPPs, and it's just one of the things that makes me snicker when people insist MetaFilter is totally different from Fark. FPPs should be more about content and less about, "Hey, check me out: I'm clever!!"

...And that goes quadruple for tags.
posted by cribcage at 8:28 AM on December 7, 2005

I, too, am in the "oh great, some huge block of links and skipped it entirely" camp. If i'm going to get and read newsfilter, sure, i'd like to see several (not a billion-millon) supporting/backstory/contextual links...but i'd also like it to read normally...and the text to flow normally into the links (again, contextually). In short, nicwolf seriously nailed it.

Cleverness is ok, I guess, for some things...but most FPP could stand to take away some things from some accessibility guidelines (for instance: "Clearly identify the target of each link")...but then again, maybe i'm just being crabby.
posted by tpl1212 at 8:32 AM on December 7, 2005

What is the question of this post? All I see is:

Is there some kind of unspoken rule about what's appropriate or not?

...which is kind of a broad topic.
posted by scarabic at 8:38 AM on December 7, 2005

I didn't like the design of empath's "version" because it was, as empath him/herself said, obtuse.

But this aversion that people have to editorial presentation in posts is just silly. Of course the post was "about empath"; all posts are "about [poster]." And all posts that include disparate concepts (and there are lots of them, every day) are "clever" in the same way as empaths.

FWIW, the two had different kinds of things being discussed. One got into Irving Kristol and neocon moralism; that wasn't going to happen in the gorilla's post. In a strict regime of double-post policing, one would have disappeared, and we'd have lost something of value. But then, I am in that black-hearted subset of mefi members who believe that it's about a bit more than just the links.

As for shitting, I'm inclined to agree w/ OmieWise that no one shat in either thread. Though I also think some people revealed quite excessively sensitive olfactory appratus. Which made things stink a bit for other reasons. But shit? No, not shit.
posted by lodurr at 8:39 AM on December 7, 2005

...which is kind of a broad topic.

Oh, god, no, not broad and narrow.... [looks for revolver /]
posted by lodurr at 8:40 AM on December 7, 2005

Just so you know, I skipped your post because I didn't know what you were trying to get at and didn't have the time to find out, but I did click on Dormant Gorilla's link.
posted by caddis at 8:49 AM on December 7, 2005

all posts are "about [poster]."

I think you're mistaken in that. If I thought you were correct, I wouldn't be here.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 9:06 AM on December 7, 2005

Strongly mistaken. It's always weird to me when the poster participates in the subsequent discussion, doubly so if they're talking about the discussion itself.
posted by mendel at 9:09 AM on December 7, 2005

Thanks, everyone for responding. I'll take a few days to digest before fpp again.
posted by empath at 9:13 AM on December 7, 2005

Agreed. A good post is about the link or links, not about the person posting it. A little cleverness is fine by me as long as I can still tell what the post is about. (of course, there are excpetions to every rule.)
posted by caddis at 9:14 AM on December 7, 2005

Whether people think the post is "about [poster]" or not is usually going to depend on whether they like the post. That doesn't change the fact that all posts are at some level "about [poster]." They are, after all, made by somebody, who decided to make them for a reason. The post is an act; the act has reasons behind it. The post is "about" the act, in at least that sense.

But then, this is really just the old debate about being "about the links" all over again. AFAIAC, "about the links" is a comfortable illusion. It's always about the post. And sometimes the post is about the thread that's attached to it.
posted by lodurr at 9:25 AM on December 7, 2005

And empath, don't take the criticism here personally. It's obvious that you put a good amount of effort into the post, and were trying to be creative -- and that's more than half the posters on most days can say. Sometimes the obscure approach works, but it's usually in the context of fun/creative/puzzling links (where post form and content are in sync), not newsy links.
posted by drpynchon at 9:32 AM on December 7, 2005

I'll take a few days to digest before fpp again. - empath

This is a good idea anyways. If everyone did an FPP everyday, the vast majority of them would never get read and it would become an unmanagable noisy mess (exponentially moreso than it is now).
posted by raedyn at 9:38 AM on December 7, 2005

What cribcage said and -13^5 what lodurr said. Saying that every post is necessarily about the poster is sophistry because it aims to replace commonsense with an implicit strong argument against the possibility of objectivity. Of course no once can be totally objective, but there is more objective and less objective. Common sense and every day interaction prove that people generally differentiate between "objective" and "subjective".

[You're also making an inverse slippery-slope argument that is invalid. If you were right, then no one would have any good reason to be annoyed at what I admit is excessive anecdotalizing on my part because, hey, after all, every comment is essentially the product of someone's experience.]

When someone makes a post that has its text about a link and the link is something that can reasonably be expected to be both interesting and novel to most readers, that's a post that is, as a practical matter, not about the poster.

When someone posts a news item that is already widely reported (or will be widely reported) and is on a topic they think is "important", with "supporting" links providing more information, that is a post about their beliefs, their priorities, their interests, and their desire to influence other people. It's a post about them.

Also, empath, as drpynchon says, don't take the criticism here personally. I certainly don't intend it personally.

But also what jessamyn said bears repeating:

"...and nothing gets a pit of vipers going faster than someone wearing their heart on their sleeve. I don't think that this is necessarily cool of them, but it's observable beahvior here and worth knowing if you're concerned about tactics."

...or concerned about your own untanned hide. I am nothing if not an earnest person and my entrance here to mefi basically put my heart on the chopping block and handed everyone a big, shiny knife. As a rule, I think that any cultural attitude that finds earnestness to be provocative of attack to be sick; but that's neither here nor there because what is, is. And that's the way MetaFilter is. You have to protect yourself here, just as you generally do throughout the web. It's not about "tactics", it's about survival.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:55 AM on December 7, 2005

Saying that every post is necessarily about the poster is sophistry because it aims to replace commonsense with an implicit strong argument against the possibility of objectivity.

that actually wasn't my intent, believe it or not, though I see your point. My intent was actually almost the opposite: To point out that we're all subject ot this problem, and so start out on an equal footing.

What I'm casting aspersions upon is not the objectivity of the poster, but of the reader. As I said, I think most judgements of excessive cleverness boil down to judgements of topical preference.
posted by lodurr at 10:00 AM on December 7, 2005

Hats off to Empath for asking the question and responding well to criticism! I didn't like your post, but you are a class act here.
posted by LarryC at 10:00 AM on December 7, 2005

Okay, I haven't read everything here, but I think it is worth offering this style suggestion anyway...

The idea of using a quote as the framework for your post is... Well, I don't really care. I tend to prefer the principal of least surprise/astonishment... But the thing is, you could have done the following instead, and it would have been much easier to read:

"If God does not exist, and if religion is an illusion that the majority of men cannot live without...let men believe in the lies of religion since they cannot do without them, and let then a handful of sages, who know the truth and can live with it, keep it among themselves. Men are then divided into the wise and the foolish, the philosophers and the common men, and atheism becomes a guarded, esoteric doctrine--for if the illusions of religion were to be discredited, there is no telling with what madness men would be seized, with what uncontrollable anguish."

See, links look very bold. Making the entire text of the quote look like a link is the same as highlighting every line in a book...
posted by Chuckles at 11:04 AM on December 7, 2005

truly, a roiling sea of neurosis.
posted by quonsar at 11:10 AM on December 7, 2005

I heven't read your post empath, but I did read the Gorilla's.

As I said there, I have limited spare time; I'm just not willing to squander it on indecipherable posts that seem to be more about their style than the internal content.

Now other people like that kind of thing, however. Go figure.
posted by PareidoliaticBoy at 10:20 PM on December 7, 2005