Self-policing the self-police January 27, 2006 12:53 PM Subscribe
I'm sure this has been MeTa'd to death. At least I'm pretty sure. Even so, I'm going to drag out the horse and make him glue:
What can we constructively do to curtail the post vigilantes or post thought police? [mi]
What can we constructively do to curtail the post vigilantes or post thought police? [mi]
I miss the days when there was only one non-meetup-related MeTa post per day.
posted by mds35 at 12:56 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by mds35 at 12:56 PM on January 27, 2006
And in some form of irony, I only munged jessamyn's link with a ". sigh.. here it is.
posted by cavalier at 12:57 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by cavalier at 12:57 PM on January 27, 2006
...but to your point: I agree that the post vigilantism is getting out of hand, but I doubt there is a simple mechanism whereby it can be controlled.
posted by mds35 at 12:58 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by mds35 at 12:58 PM on January 27, 2006
I'm all for slagging bad posts, but save it for the people who make one-link fpps that point to google video or the latest funny link off fark.
Ah yes, it's the Google People we should kill. Just wanted to get that strait.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:59 PM on January 27, 2006
Ah yes, it's the Google People we should kill. Just wanted to get that strait.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 12:59 PM on January 27, 2006
You know what? Even with all this blistering technology at my finger tips on the cutting edge of this information superhighway I somehow managed to first discover this via MeFi!
So that justifies the post? By that logic I might as well go to cnn.com, pick a story off the front page that I find interesting, and post it here. It doesn't matter if 30000 MeFites already knew about it, as long as one MeFite learns about it first from MeFi, it's a valid post, according to your logic.
That said, I seem to recall that at one point Matt had floated the idea of having something akin to Wikipedia's Talk pages for each post, so that discussion about the links themselves could go in the main discussion, while discussion about the quality of the post could go on the talk page (or whatever it's called), without either disrupting the main discussion or generating a MeTa callout. That's an idea I'd endorse.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:03 PM on January 27, 2006
So that justifies the post? By that logic I might as well go to cnn.com, pick a story off the front page that I find interesting, and post it here. It doesn't matter if 30000 MeFites already knew about it, as long as one MeFite learns about it first from MeFi, it's a valid post, according to your logic.
That said, I seem to recall that at one point Matt had floated the idea of having something akin to Wikipedia's Talk pages for each post, so that discussion about the links themselves could go in the main discussion, while discussion about the quality of the post could go on the talk page (or whatever it's called), without either disrupting the main discussion or generating a MeTa callout. That's an idea I'd endorse.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:03 PM on January 27, 2006
Actually you're demonstrating my point! Instead of immediately participating in the discussion your first effort is saying that my post is crap! I hope you can appreciate that I did not think I was alone in seeing that was new?
Thanks for participating afterwords ;). That's interesting.
posted by cavalier at 1:06 PM on January 27, 2006
Thanks for participating afterwords ;). That's interesting.
posted by cavalier at 1:06 PM on January 27, 2006
It is getting back up to Seth like levels but just point out the obvious irony that protesting a post in the blue because it's against the rules or isn't the "best of the web" does, in itself, break the rules.
If it continues. They're just embarassing themselves.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that we'd have to many MetaTalk threads.
posted by juiceCake at 1:12 PM on January 27, 2006
If it continues. They're just embarassing themselves.
The other side of the coin, of course, is that we'd have to many MetaTalk threads.
posted by juiceCake at 1:12 PM on January 27, 2006
Instead of immediately participating in the discussion your first effort is saying that my post is crap!
If your intended topic of this thread was what to do about excessive thought-policing, you should have stuck to that topic. I was merely responding to your defense of a particular post. You brought up the topic in the first place. Don't blame me if the point I am discussing is one you brought up, yet claim that you don't want discussed.
I hope you can appreciate that I did not think I was alone in seeing that was new?
I hope you can appreciate that my argument holds even if you weren't the one and only person who learned of it from MeFi.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:15 PM on January 27, 2006
If your intended topic of this thread was what to do about excessive thought-policing, you should have stuck to that topic. I was merely responding to your defense of a particular post. You brought up the topic in the first place. Don't blame me if the point I am discussing is one you brought up, yet claim that you don't want discussed.
I hope you can appreciate that I did not think I was alone in seeing that was new?
I hope you can appreciate that my argument holds even if you weren't the one and only person who learned of it from MeFi.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:15 PM on January 27, 2006
Are you being ironic with the policing thing on purpose?
posted by cavalier at 1:19 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by cavalier at 1:19 PM on January 27, 2006
Inasmuch as I'm pointing out the irony of you attempting to direct the flow of the discussion in a thread complaining about excessive policing, yes.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:23 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 1:23 PM on January 27, 2006
I'm trying to have a discussion about policing. I'm sorry I don't meet your level of criteria. Please try to have a nice day.
posted by cavalier at 1:25 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by cavalier at 1:25 PM on January 27, 2006
give me a goddamn break.
posted by puke & cry at 1:26 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 1:26 PM on January 27, 2006
the reality is what floats user 555's boat is probably not what floats user 5555
In case of conflict, the lowest number wins.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:30 PM on January 27, 2006
In case of conflict, the lowest number wins.
posted by I Love Tacos at 1:30 PM on January 27, 2006
In case of conflict, the lowest number wins.
I disagree with I Love Tacos.
posted by liam at 1:38 PM on January 27, 2006
I disagree with I Love Tacos.
posted by liam at 1:38 PM on January 27, 2006
I don't know what "we" can do about it, but somehow this particular hand-wringing, navel-gazing, horse-beating MeTa post has certainly prompted me to remember that I need to get the hell away from my computer and go get some fresh air. So thanks, cavalier, for at least reminding me why I shouldn't read MeTa half as much as I do.
posted by scody at 1:39 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by scody at 1:39 PM on January 27, 2006
With Jessamyn and Matt around to delete comments and FPPs, why do these excessive slagging comments even stay on the site? Why don't they get deleted (except perhaps for the first one or two, which can be left in place for educational or cultural purposes).
I mean, if the fpp is really that bad, flag it, it'll get deleted (or not), and move on.
I feel odd finding myself arguing in favor of more deleting rather than less, but these pile-ons seem much more off-topic and destructive than do the ironic, slightly-less-than-straightforward replies to AskMeFi questions that seem to get deleted.
posted by alms at 1:40 PM on January 27, 2006
I mean, if the fpp is really that bad, flag it, it'll get deleted (or not), and move on.
I feel odd finding myself arguing in favor of more deleting rather than less, but these pile-ons seem much more off-topic and destructive than do the ironic, slightly-less-than-straightforward replies to AskMeFi questions that seem to get deleted.
posted by alms at 1:40 PM on January 27, 2006
It would be nice to see that post deleted so that jfrancis could then make a metatalk post asking why his post was deleted.
posted by puke & cry at 1:42 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 1:42 PM on January 27, 2006
The thread was derailed by goodnewsfortheinsane, who posted the 1st and 4th comments and called it a crap post, which pretty much set the tone for the thread.
Amusing thing: goodnewsfortheinsane later posted jfrancis's site as a FPP.
posted by smackfu at 1:43 PM on January 27, 2006
Amusing thing: goodnewsfortheinsane later posted jfrancis's site as a FPP.
posted by smackfu at 1:43 PM on January 27, 2006
(Ha, that was already mentioned. Maybe I should read the all the comments before posting.)
posted by smackfu at 1:44 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by smackfu at 1:44 PM on January 27, 2006
The post sucked because it was a/newsfilter that had been in all the papers and spent a half day as drudge's splash and b/days-old newsfilter. When I saw it on the front page, I thought, "Huh. That was in the news last week. And oh look, the poster linked to google news, proving he has no good links and also knows it was well covered. What a dipshit. Moving on...." I didn't feel the need to open the thread and start snarking, but I fully support those who did.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:46 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:46 PM on January 27, 2006
In case of conflict, the lowest number wins. - I Love Tacos
I disagree with I Love Tacos. - liam
I disagree with liam.
posted by raedyn at 1:47 PM on January 27, 2006
I disagree with I Love Tacos. - liam
I disagree with liam.
posted by raedyn at 1:47 PM on January 27, 2006
I always thought discussing the quality of the FPP links in the blue was even against the guidelines. Isn't that what Meta is for? But then, I think when the post is really bad, most people forget to flag the complains as "noise". I for one, haven't even clicked on this thread, having seem the story elsewhere some time before (as everybody else minus cavalier, apparently).
That is more or less it, I think - flag the offending comments and move on. Eventually the powers deal with them.
posted by nkyad at 1:48 PM on January 27, 2006
That is more or less it, I think - flag the offending comments and move on. Eventually the powers deal with them.
posted by nkyad at 1:48 PM on January 27, 2006
And oh look, the poster linked to google news, proving he has no good links and also knows it was well covered. What a dipshit.
I think you might be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.
posted by smackfu at 1:54 PM on January 27, 2006
I think you might be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously.
posted by smackfu at 1:54 PM on January 27, 2006
To constructively curtail post policing? Use that little [!] dealie and flag the comment. Flag them all. Good or bad.
posted by fenriq at 2:07 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by fenriq at 2:07 PM on January 27, 2006
Instead of immediately participating in the discussion your first effort is saying that my post is crap!
I dunno about crap, but it is rambling and self-important.
I think I'll join scody outside. Maybe we'll play frisbee.
posted by boo_radley at 2:12 PM on January 27, 2006
I dunno about crap, but it is rambling and self-important.
I think I'll join scody outside. Maybe we'll play frisbee.
posted by boo_radley at 2:12 PM on January 27, 2006
I agree 100% with cavalier. The usual pricks were derailing the thread, apparently folks with limitless time to surf the web and a deluded sense of self importance.
Wanna know what actually hurts Metafilter? Its breaking the "do not shit in threads on the blue" rule. Flag it and move on if you don't like it. if you really don't like it, bring it to MetaTalk.
posted by Rumple at 2:21 PM on January 27, 2006
Wanna know what actually hurts Metafilter? Its breaking the "do not shit in threads on the blue" rule. Flag it and move on if you don't like it. if you really don't like it, bring it to MetaTalk.
posted by Rumple at 2:21 PM on January 27, 2006
I think you might be taking this whole thing a bit too seriously
Oh no doubt. I'm home sick and have nothing better to do. You should see how obsessed I'm getting with Sudoku.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:24 PM on January 27, 2006
Oh no doubt. I'm home sick and have nothing better to do. You should see how obsessed I'm getting with Sudoku.
posted by CunningLinguist at 2:24 PM on January 27, 2006
So the majority opinions so far are
1) Flag offensive comments
2) Keep post derails/critiques out of the Blue
On the minor side we had the idea of a Wikipedia-talk type page for every post, kind of a mini MeTa for every post..
Doing great so far! What else are we missing?
posted by cavalier at 2:26 PM on January 27, 2006
cavalier : "Doing great so far! What else are we missing?"
An elite tactical flagging team?
posted by nkyad at 2:31 PM on January 27, 2006
An elite tactical flagging team?
posted by nkyad at 2:31 PM on January 27, 2006
Anybody here watch CBB?
posted by srboisvert at 3:13 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by srboisvert at 3:13 PM on January 27, 2006
Face it, MeFi is collectively nothing more than a bunch of mean little bastards.
... and if that isn't enough, MeFi is damned proud of it.
... and if that isn't enough, MeFi is damned proud of it.
jfrancis blogrrrl mihailposted by mischief at 3:22 PM on January 27, 2006
ah ha haha...teh metafilter:selfpolicing
posted by thomcatspike at 3:42 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by thomcatspike at 3:42 PM on January 27, 2006
As a new user who was got thread-policed on my second thread here (which could have been better to be honest), I have to say that what I really wish is that people who dislike threads AT LEAST have enough respect for not only the person who posted the thread, but for the rest of the community here, to just give it time to develop naturally and see if the community makes it into something worthwhile.
For example, the FPP Atheist-to-Christian post that was so controversial was a HORRIBLE fpp by any objective measure, but that didn't stop it from turning into an interesting thread.
Start a MeTa thread if you don't like it, but if everyone craps on every thread they had a mild distate for, then no thread posted here will escape unscathed.
posted by empath at 3:42 PM on January 27, 2006
For example, the FPP Atheist-to-Christian post that was so controversial was a HORRIBLE fpp by any objective measure, but that didn't stop it from turning into an interesting thread.
Start a MeTa thread if you don't like it, but if everyone craps on every thread they had a mild distate for, then no thread posted here will escape unscathed.
posted by empath at 3:42 PM on January 27, 2006
MeFi is dedicated to scaring off n00bs, so that the old-sk00lers can more easily remember which other members they were busy forming bitter rivalries with. N00 bl00d either means too many people to hate, thus diffusing precious vitriol; or too many usernames to sort through while looking for that one comment by the person you've sworn to destroy so that you can flame them on it.
There's also the fact that people are always frightened the new person will be smarter, cooler, and funnier than they are. And that the new people will not buy into their rivalries, thus trivializing their bickering and marginalizing it under a mountain of non-politically charged, non-flamebait FPPs.
posted by Eideteker at 3:48 PM on January 27, 2006
There's also the fact that people are always frightened the new person will be smarter, cooler, and funnier than they are. And that the new people will not buy into their rivalries, thus trivializing their bickering and marginalizing it under a mountain of non-politically charged, non-flamebait FPPs.
posted by Eideteker at 3:48 PM on January 27, 2006
I miss the days when there was only one non-meetup-related MeTa post per day.
These golden days never existed, unless they occurred in the past calendar year when I wasn't reading the site. Though even five a day looks like it would be an improvement at this point
(" ,)
posted by The God Complex at 4:06 PM on January 27, 2006
These golden days never existed, unless they occurred in the past calendar year when I wasn't reading the site. Though even five a day looks like it would be an improvement at this point
(" ,)
posted by The God Complex at 4:06 PM on January 27, 2006
thomcatspike: "ah ha haha...teh metafilter:selfpolicing"
MetaFilter: Self-policed by jack-booted thugs
posted by JMOZ at 4:18 PM on January 27, 2006
MetaFilter: Self-policed by jack-booted thugs
posted by JMOZ at 4:18 PM on January 27, 2006
Perhaps .mefi is a gated community. Or perhaps the metaphor is inapt. Whatever the case, I'm going to eat a quesadilla.
posted by milquetoast at 4:19 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by milquetoast at 4:19 PM on January 27, 2006
" the FPP Atheist-to-Christian post that was so controversial was a HORRIBLE fpp by any objective measure"
Um, what? There is an objective standard for stuff on MeFi? Damn! What the hell are all of the argumetns about then?
posted by oddman at 5:06 PM on January 27, 2006
Um, what? There is an objective standard for stuff on MeFi? Damn! What the hell are all of the argumetns about then?
posted by oddman at 5:06 PM on January 27, 2006
The argument, I think, wasn't about the quality of the particular post, but whether Christians should be attacked for a pattern of posting about Christian topics. Personally, I don't think they should.
posted by empath at 5:37 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by empath at 5:37 PM on January 27, 2006
Cavalier, I so dig your point, but when you compare noob posts to posts by folks who have been here since the beginning, you'll see that the cajoling and hammering on about stuff eventually helps us/them/you create better posts.
Besides, it's fun fuckin' with people, especially when they are new. They will catch on eventually. Nice of you to take a stand, but wait and watch the beauty of mother nature (evolution) take it's course. Ahh, I feel better now.
NEXT!
posted by snsranch at 5:45 PM on January 27, 2006
Besides, it's fun fuckin' with people, especially when they are new. They will catch on eventually. Nice of you to take a stand, but wait and watch the beauty of mother nature (evolution) take it's course. Ahh, I feel better now.
NEXT!
posted by snsranch at 5:45 PM on January 27, 2006
This problem calls for a posse!
posted by five fresh fish at 5:52 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 5:52 PM on January 27, 2006
In case of conflict, the lowest number wins. - I Love Tacos
I disagree with I Love Tacos. - liam
I disagree with liam. - raedyn
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with raedyn.
posted by ewagoner at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2006
I disagree with I Love Tacos. - liam
I disagree with liam. - raedyn
I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to disagree with raedyn.
posted by ewagoner at 6:04 PM on January 27, 2006
"What can we constructively do to curtail the post vigilantes or post thought police?"
The single most effective thing we can do is stop posting crap. A post about a widely-reported news story linking to CNN and Google News is an egregiously worthless post.
I don't give a duck's fart that this was the first you heard of this. MeFi doesn't exist to be your news aggregator.
"AT LEAST have enough respect for not only the person who posted the thread, but for the rest of the community here, to just give it time to develop naturally and see if the community makes it into something worthwhile."
No. Giving a craptacular post time to develop into a good discussion is counterproductive because it invites people like you to embrace the "MeFi is about disccussion" philosophy. Metafilter is not primarily about discussion and FPPs are not opening questions or statements in a seminar. Good discussions don't validate bad posts.
With all due respect to Matt and Jess, the flagging system and the deletion of posts and comments are too low-profile and are insufficient to curtail bad posts and wrongheaded ideas about MetaFilter's purpose. The majority of users do not notice that a post or comment has been deleted. Flagging is invisible to users. Most users don't read MeTa.
Negative feedback in comments is high-profile and instructive. Matt disapproves of it, however. But the threads are the frontline and negative comments the most potent weapon.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:34 PM on January 27, 2006
The single most effective thing we can do is stop posting crap. A post about a widely-reported news story linking to CNN and Google News is an egregiously worthless post.
I don't give a duck's fart that this was the first you heard of this. MeFi doesn't exist to be your news aggregator.
"AT LEAST have enough respect for not only the person who posted the thread, but for the rest of the community here, to just give it time to develop naturally and see if the community makes it into something worthwhile."
No. Giving a craptacular post time to develop into a good discussion is counterproductive because it invites people like you to embrace the "MeFi is about disccussion" philosophy. Metafilter is not primarily about discussion and FPPs are not opening questions or statements in a seminar. Good discussions don't validate bad posts.
With all due respect to Matt and Jess, the flagging system and the deletion of posts and comments are too low-profile and are insufficient to curtail bad posts and wrongheaded ideas about MetaFilter's purpose. The majority of users do not notice that a post or comment has been deleted. Flagging is invisible to users. Most users don't read MeTa.
Negative feedback in comments is high-profile and instructive. Matt disapproves of it, however. But the threads are the frontline and negative comments the most potent weapon.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:34 PM on January 27, 2006
We need a greasemonkey thingamabob that shows whether other posters are lower or higher numbered than you, so you know when to completely disregard them. Maybe a color code or something.
posted by signal at 6:36 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by signal at 6:36 PM on January 27, 2006
Metafilter: I don't give a duck's fart
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:50 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:50 PM on January 27, 2006
signal, your thingamabob is built into your browser. Mouseover a user name, then look down at the bottom of the page.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 8:00 PM on January 27, 2006
Face it, MeFi is collectively nothing more than a bunch of mean little bastards.
The more I hang out here, the more I feel like MeFi is collectively nothing more than a bunch of folks who were the brunt of bullying attacks in grade school, now settling the score by being a bunch of bullies to the weakest here where it's safe to be an asshole.
They're giving back what was given them, and that saddens me.
posted by tristeza at 8:02 PM on January 27, 2006
The more I hang out here, the more I feel like MeFi is collectively nothing more than a bunch of folks who were the brunt of bullying attacks in grade school, now settling the score by being a bunch of bullies to the weakest here where it's safe to be an asshole.
They're giving back what was given them, and that saddens me.
posted by tristeza at 8:02 PM on January 27, 2006
No. Giving a craptacular post time to develop into a good discussion is counterproductive because it invites people like you to embrace the "MeFi is about disccussion" philosophy. Metafilter is not primarily about discussion and FPPs are not opening questions or statements in a seminar. Good discussions don't validate bad posts.
I disagree very much with your opinion here. But how much is it shared I wonder? The whole joy of MeFi for me IS the discussion, the original links are more often than not springboards. While a well thought out post with a cornucopia of links is always enjoyed, it is often the people who come out of the woodwork in the discussion that makes this place sing.
If you wanted just links with no discussion, why are you here instead of [insert blogorama here]?
posted by cavalier at 8:08 PM on January 27, 2006
I disagree very much with your opinion here. But how much is it shared I wonder? The whole joy of MeFi for me IS the discussion, the original links are more often than not springboards. While a well thought out post with a cornucopia of links is always enjoyed, it is often the people who come out of the woodwork in the discussion that makes this place sing.
If you wanted just links with no discussion, why are you here instead of [insert blogorama here]?
posted by cavalier at 8:08 PM on January 27, 2006
the original links are more often than not springboards
But the original links have always still been held to a certain standard of "stand-on-their-own-ness," cavalier. If you want to change that, you're the one who should be looking for another site, not us.
posted by mediareport at 8:44 PM on January 27, 2006
But the original links have always still been held to a certain standard of "stand-on-their-own-ness," cavalier. If you want to change that, you're the one who should be looking for another site, not us.
posted by mediareport at 8:44 PM on January 27, 2006
your "joy of MeFi" makes me want to vomit. It's about the links, not the disscussion. Perhaps that is where the disconnect is in your understanding of mefi.
posted by puke & cry at 8:52 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 8:52 PM on January 27, 2006
Ethereal Bligh: Negative feedback in comments is high-profile and instructive.
I agree with a lot of what you said, but that last part sounds like a excuse for people to be assholes. "But I was being instructive!!!" Constructive criticism helps new members and improves MeFi, negativity doesn't.
puke & cry: It's about the links, not the disscussion.
2 links and 348 comments? Perhaps that is where the disconnect is in your words and your actions.
Just tryin' to be instructive, buddy.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:06 PM on January 27, 2006
I agree with a lot of what you said, but that last part sounds like a excuse for people to be assholes. "But I was being instructive!!!" Constructive criticism helps new members and improves MeFi, negativity doesn't.
puke & cry: It's about the links, not the disscussion.
2 links and 348 comments? Perhaps that is where the disconnect is in your words and your actions.
Just tryin' to be instructive, buddy.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:06 PM on January 27, 2006
there are so many things wrong with this callout on a simple conceptual level. Now, I'm one of the people who thought it was a bad post and said so, so take this with as many grains of salt as you require.
1. This is how MeFi works. We say when a post is bad, or at least when we think it is. If you don't like it, then you don't like how mefi works. mathowie, as the owner and senior administrator, has it entirely in his power to eliminate this kind of self-policing and/or discussion from the site if he chooses. Instead, he's talked about making talk pages (like wikipedia talk pages) for each thread so that there's a proper place for this kind of thing that's separate from people who just want to talk about the thread topic. Why? Because there's a need in this community for people to be able to say "this sucks." or "this is great" or "shouldn't this have been posted to meta/askme?" or whatever.
2. Of course, that doesn't excuse being a prick about it, but not one of the comments made before jfrancis took his ball and went home was being a prick about it. Dismissive? some of them were, sure. But that's what happens when your post is an easily dismissed link to cnn.com and google news. It's not prickish to dismiss a crap post, even vocally. It's just saying, "this isn't worth mefi's time" in very few words.
3. As you've said already, there was a substantial reaction in favor of the post. So what's your problem? You want people to react against negative reactions to the post? It already happened. You're asking for something that already happens and is already built into the way MeFi works. Unless, of course, you want some kind of official or popular movement to remove all negative speak from MeFi, which I strongly suspect you don't want.
4. Jfrancis' reaction was, quite simply, immature. He ignored the supportive comments, lumped all of MeFi in with the people who dislike his post, then cried and gave us the silent treatment. What on earth is there to defend? Maybe you're lucky enough that you've never made a post worth negatively criticizing, but most of us have and we've dealt with it and moved on. That's not just how MeFi works, that's how the world works.
So, seriously, what is it you want? More people to chime in with positivity for crappy posts? That already happens. More people to like all the posts you like? Get real. More newsfilter? Welcome to the club. You're one of thousands, and you're gradually driving the rest of us away until Metafilter will be exactly what you want. But until then, we're going to vocally object to the treatment. Maybe we're pissing in the wind, but it's still our right, and part of MeFi's functionality, for us to do just that. If you don't like it, you have two options: Deal, or do what jfrancis did and run home.
for what it's worth, regarding the logic of "well, I didn't know about it until I read mefi, so it's fine,"... If it's a link to cnn.com and google news, there's every reason to believe that it's a link well served by services outside mefi, because it's already on cnn and google news. Just because you don't read two of the world's most popular sources of news doesn't mean the rest of us need to put up with unneccessary shallow linkage cluttering up the blue. But then, that's an old argument that isn't and may never be settled. So I guess I'm just chiming in on the side that says "It doesn't matter whether individual user [x] has read it before or not. MeFi isn't a news aggregator, so stop treating it like one."
posted by shmegegge at 10:18 PM on January 27, 2006
1. This is how MeFi works. We say when a post is bad, or at least when we think it is. If you don't like it, then you don't like how mefi works. mathowie, as the owner and senior administrator, has it entirely in his power to eliminate this kind of self-policing and/or discussion from the site if he chooses. Instead, he's talked about making talk pages (like wikipedia talk pages) for each thread so that there's a proper place for this kind of thing that's separate from people who just want to talk about the thread topic. Why? Because there's a need in this community for people to be able to say "this sucks." or "this is great" or "shouldn't this have been posted to meta/askme?" or whatever.
2. Of course, that doesn't excuse being a prick about it, but not one of the comments made before jfrancis took his ball and went home was being a prick about it. Dismissive? some of them were, sure. But that's what happens when your post is an easily dismissed link to cnn.com and google news. It's not prickish to dismiss a crap post, even vocally. It's just saying, "this isn't worth mefi's time" in very few words.
3. As you've said already, there was a substantial reaction in favor of the post. So what's your problem? You want people to react against negative reactions to the post? It already happened. You're asking for something that already happens and is already built into the way MeFi works. Unless, of course, you want some kind of official or popular movement to remove all negative speak from MeFi, which I strongly suspect you don't want.
4. Jfrancis' reaction was, quite simply, immature. He ignored the supportive comments, lumped all of MeFi in with the people who dislike his post, then cried and gave us the silent treatment. What on earth is there to defend? Maybe you're lucky enough that you've never made a post worth negatively criticizing, but most of us have and we've dealt with it and moved on. That's not just how MeFi works, that's how the world works.
So, seriously, what is it you want? More people to chime in with positivity for crappy posts? That already happens. More people to like all the posts you like? Get real. More newsfilter? Welcome to the club. You're one of thousands, and you're gradually driving the rest of us away until Metafilter will be exactly what you want. But until then, we're going to vocally object to the treatment. Maybe we're pissing in the wind, but it's still our right, and part of MeFi's functionality, for us to do just that. If you don't like it, you have two options: Deal, or do what jfrancis did and run home.
for what it's worth, regarding the logic of "well, I didn't know about it until I read mefi, so it's fine,"... If it's a link to cnn.com and google news, there's every reason to believe that it's a link well served by services outside mefi, because it's already on cnn and google news. Just because you don't read two of the world's most popular sources of news doesn't mean the rest of us need to put up with unneccessary shallow linkage cluttering up the blue. But then, that's an old argument that isn't and may never be settled. So I guess I'm just chiming in on the side that says "It doesn't matter whether individual user [x] has read it before or not. MeFi isn't a news aggregator, so stop treating it like one."
posted by shmegegge at 10:18 PM on January 27, 2006
...if you'd like to speak to an agent about an ongoing case, press 5. If you'd like to speak to a customer service representative about issues with billing or with your account, press 6. If you really don't care at all and would like to hear a duck fart, press 7...
posted by loquacious at 11:51 PM on January 27, 2006
posted by loquacious at 11:51 PM on January 27, 2006
::presses 7::
posted by Dreamghost at 4:34 AM on January 28, 2006
posted by Dreamghost at 4:34 AM on January 28, 2006
"And this duck fart..... .au? .wav? .mp3?"
It doesn't matter, they'll all open in QuackTime Player.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:21 AM on January 28, 2006
It doesn't matter, they'll all open in QuackTime Player.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:21 AM on January 28, 2006
Even if something's a bad post, you elitist old-timers don't have to be dicks about it (hey hey I'm saying that with the utmost respect, please don't pile on me it hurts so much).
I know I'll never be making a FPP. I'm sure that's the way the old-timers want it.
posted by melt away at 6:32 AM on January 28, 2006
I know I'll never be making a FPP. I'm sure that's the way the old-timers want it.
posted by melt away at 6:32 AM on January 28, 2006
Just tryin' to be instructive, buddy.
Yeah, that's valid. If you don't like a movie you can't criticize it until you make a better one.
posted by puke & cry at 9:12 AM on January 28, 2006
Yeah, that's valid. If you don't like a movie you can't criticize it until you make a better one.
posted by puke & cry at 9:12 AM on January 28, 2006
puke & cry: It's about the links, not the disscussion.
2 links and 348 comments? Perhaps that is where the disconnect is in your words and your actions.
What the hell does that prove? We need more links? Metafilter needs more filter, not less.
The fact is this statement:
I disagree very much with your opinion here. But how much is it shared I wonder? The whole joy of MeFi for me IS the discussion, the original links are more often than not springboards. While a well thought out post with a cornucopia of links is always enjoyed, it is often the people who come out of the woodwork in the discussion that makes this place sing.
Is dangerous and misguided, yet it seems to be the general view of many newbies. The comments may be someone's "joy", but it's not mefi's backbone. Sometimes matt allows a link with good discussion to stay, but he's not going to allow a bad link to stay if he gets there before the discussion starts. But a great link, even without discussion, will always stay.
Too many people treat metafilter as a giant open-ended discussion board. You're hurting metafilter.
posted by justgary at 9:36 AM on January 28, 2006
2 links and 348 comments? Perhaps that is where the disconnect is in your words and your actions.
What the hell does that prove? We need more links? Metafilter needs more filter, not less.
The fact is this statement:
I disagree very much with your opinion here. But how much is it shared I wonder? The whole joy of MeFi for me IS the discussion, the original links are more often than not springboards. While a well thought out post with a cornucopia of links is always enjoyed, it is often the people who come out of the woodwork in the discussion that makes this place sing.
Is dangerous and misguided, yet it seems to be the general view of many newbies. The comments may be someone's "joy", but it's not mefi's backbone. Sometimes matt allows a link with good discussion to stay, but he's not going to allow a bad link to stay if he gets there before the discussion starts. But a great link, even without discussion, will always stay.
Too many people treat metafilter as a giant open-ended discussion board. You're hurting metafilter.
posted by justgary at 9:36 AM on January 28, 2006
Man, that sounds good. Or maybe with some naan and paneer, with a little curry sauce?
On a side note, I've heard that a duck's fart doesn't echo.
posted by klangklangston at 10:59 AM on January 28, 2006
On a side note, I've heard that a duck's fart doesn't echo.
posted by klangklangston at 10:59 AM on January 28, 2006
I just want it known that I care more more about the duck fart now then the original topic, as the horse glue is all stringy.
That and flag, flag... FLAAAG!!
posted by cavalier at 11:43 AM on January 28, 2006
That and flag, flag... FLAAAG!!
posted by cavalier at 11:43 AM on January 28, 2006
Too many people treat metafilter as a giant open-ended discussion board. You're hurting metafilter.
Er, I don't think I am. I didn't say it was an open ended discussion, the link usually guides the direction of the discussion. if you want Robot Wisdom, you can get Robot Wisdom. I always thought there was a reason, a cherished reason, why MeFi still allowed comments in the wizened old age of link boards. Discussion helps.
at least more than it hurts, usually :p
posted by cavalier at 11:48 AM on January 28, 2006
justgary & puke & cry: I'm not defending willy nilly posting or telling someone to put up or shut up; we're all here because of the links, but the discussion is what makes MeFi a community.
My point is, if discussion is as irrelevant as you seem to feel, why bother commenting?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:08 PM on January 28, 2006
My point is, if discussion is as irrelevant as you seem to feel, why bother commenting?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 1:08 PM on January 28, 2006
Discussion is important, but it's clearly not a necessary ingrediant for how MeFi is formally defined—posts with no discussions are allowed to remain and the guidelines don't require the likliehood of a good discussion.
Informally, it's also clear that discussion contributes a great deal to what makes MetaFilter what it is. Eliminating the discussion would change mefi into something distinctly unlike itself. Even so, it's also clear that discussion isn't primary as posts with no discussion are obviously accepted and often considered "good" while posts with no link or that are discussion-centric with a poor link are rejected by the community, not just by Matt.
In short, good discussion is a very important part of what makes MetaFilter the place that it is, but no particular post requires it and discussion alone is not sufficient for an acceptable post.
A good link that can be considered "best of the web" and which is relatively novel to most members is absolutely required. That it fosters good discussion is desirable but not required. Allowing more and more mefites to consider discussion the raison d'etre of MetaFilter is not only encouraging a misconception, but greatly contributes to the pressures pushing MeFi in the direction of a politics/news related discussion board and so should always be opposed by those aware of this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:13 AM on January 30, 2006
Informally, it's also clear that discussion contributes a great deal to what makes MetaFilter what it is. Eliminating the discussion would change mefi into something distinctly unlike itself. Even so, it's also clear that discussion isn't primary as posts with no discussion are obviously accepted and often considered "good" while posts with no link or that are discussion-centric with a poor link are rejected by the community, not just by Matt.
In short, good discussion is a very important part of what makes MetaFilter the place that it is, but no particular post requires it and discussion alone is not sufficient for an acceptable post.
A good link that can be considered "best of the web" and which is relatively novel to most members is absolutely required. That it fosters good discussion is desirable but not required. Allowing more and more mefites to consider discussion the raison d'etre of MetaFilter is not only encouraging a misconception, but greatly contributes to the pressures pushing MeFi in the direction of a politics/news related discussion board and so should always be opposed by those aware of this.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:13 AM on January 30, 2006
« Older Should this have been in the Blue? | When hitting the + on any askme tag page, to add a... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Is it a pony, or warm milk?
Here's my thing. Here's a post referencing an event I had never heard of: jfrancis's pet rock.
Yes, I have cable news. Yes, I TiVo the Daily Show. Yes, I know how to use Google News.
You know what? Even with all this blistering technology at my finger tips on the cutting edge of this information superhighway I somehow managed to first discover this via MeFi! Yay!
So here's the MeTa callout. The 'this post sux!!!1!' police showed up in such force that a new, still wet behind the ears member, ticked off at all the immediate flack, essentially said "Screw you, I'm taking my ball and going home!" But wait! The police weren't done yet!
Now granted, for experienced MeFi's the callout wasn't much. However, I'm going to call crap, crap, and say for a new poster that that gangup seemed unnecessarily harsh past the initial dissatisfaction in links.
In fact, the post seems to read about one half post police and then one half supporters - including jessamyn!
13twelve makes a point that inspired my MeTa. When we as a community jump to interact by bagging and ragging on new members, how is that in any way beneficial to the community as a whole?
The original comment maker almost immediately offered helpful constructive critique as to why he dinged it. Then as the pile on grew he took a laudible effort in trying to make up for the pile on by posting a great FPP about jfrancis's website. That was a cool turnaround.
I think that this post vigilantism needs some kind of deterrence itself. I know the goal is people trying to keep the quality up, but the reality is what floats user 555's boat is probably not what floats user 5555. What can we do to encourage some more.. dare I say it.. tolerance..?
Less cronyism/elitism?
Your thoughts?
posted by cavalier at 12:53 PM on January 27, 2006