This is a forum post, not an FPP April 12, 2006 1:05 PM   Subscribe

GYOBFW
posted by ChasFile to Etiquette/Policy at 1:05 PM (90 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

ChatFilter, YesterdaysNewsFilter, WhoGivesAShitFilter, ThisIsBestOfTheWeb?Filter.

This is a forum thread, not a Metafilter post.
posted by ChasFile at 1:05 PM on April 12, 2006


So this is one of those "I'm not interested in it, so it has no place on the Blue" MetaTalk threads? They always go well.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:17 PM on April 12, 2006


Why did you waste our time with this callout?
posted by wakko at 1:19 PM on April 12, 2006


I don't really get the callout. I'm not sure what standard you're trying to apply, or why you think this post doesn't meet it.

(Oh, by the way, your "WhoGivesAShitFilter" argument isn't helped by the fact that -- as of now -- at least 31 people "gave a shit")
posted by pardonyou? at 1:27 PM on April 12, 2006


This seems to me a fine post. Not sure I understand your animosity.
posted by CunningLinguist at 1:30 PM on April 12, 2006


It beats politics.
posted by drezdn at 1:34 PM on April 12, 2006


We have had quite a few episode-by-epside South Park posts recently. I don't think it's great trend.
posted by mr_roboto at 1:34 PM on April 12, 2006


Other people are also familiar with South Park and Family Guy. Information about the shows cannot, hence, be portrayed as an insider's secret treasure; and they are therefore tired, and discussion about them (no matter the context) is fit only for the lesser blogs of plebian and riff-raff &c.
posted by cortex at 1:37 PM on April 12, 2006


okay, I haven't had a lot of time recently to work on the mefi wiki as I said I would. Now, I would like to have a section in said wiki that covers what exactly makes a proper callout, and which discourages people from simply calling out whatever annoys them or isn't of particular interest to them. If anyone would like to create and/or contribute to such a page, please do so. If not, I'll try to do it sometime in the next couple weeks when I have the time.

Would anyone else besides me be interested in having a "MeFi wiki" category for metatalk posts where we can discuss the usefulness of such changes?
posted by shmegegge at 1:43 PM on April 12, 2006


As for "GYOBFW": if there has been an unseemly trend toward South Park discussion, is the issue with this post or with this-post-as-part-of-trend? That is to say, would this merit a GYOBFW callout on the grey seperate from the perceived trend? And if not, is the poster of this thread in question a major agent in that trend? And if not, what's with the sassy GYOBFW shit?
posted by cortex at 1:44 PM on April 12, 2006


I hate to see Metafilter used to hype something I'm not directly involved in.
posted by crunchland at 1:48 PM on April 12, 2006


also, once the new wiki approaches completion, I would like to see specific mention of the new, more useful pages made on all the assorted pages where one makes a post, thusly:

"Before you click 'post,' have you read the wiki, reagrding what makes a good post? Specifically, if you're about to call out another user's post, have you made sure that you're not falling under one of these categories of poor callout?"

etc... any takers?
posted by shmegegge at 1:51 PM on April 12, 2006


Lame.
posted by eyeballkid at 1:51 PM on April 12, 2006


Get Your Own Bucking FebWog
posted by psmealey at 1:57 PM on April 12, 2006


It seems like a perfectly fine post. Interesting, well researched, and presents the entire story of something I hadn't known about.

I've been thinking about making new MetaTalk posts go into a queue so that I could fix and answer the smallest bugs directly with the user that reported them and to avoid stuff like this that seems baffling and doesn't speak to larger issues.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:58 PM on April 12, 2006


Pretty unineteresting post, IMHO. A well-researched collection of links about interpretations of figures represented in ironical cartoons busy parodying each other. Fwa?

I've been thinking about undergoing surgery to become an antelope.
posted by scarabic at 2:08 PM on April 12, 2006


Oh, Get Your Own Blog, Fuck Wit. I get it. Just took me a while. No, that's not very nice. Not very nice at all.
posted by psmealey at 2:10 PM on April 12, 2006


These metatalk posts are getting more and more bewildering. It's like if the newspaper printed every crank's letter. Are a lot of people having bad days lately?
posted by smackfu at 2:14 PM on April 12, 2006


gyobfw?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 2:17 PM on April 12, 2006


This gets a callout but the star wars spoof viral is fine? Ok?

PS - I'm not saying either deserves a MeTa or a FPP.
posted by Pollomacho at 2:17 PM on April 12, 2006


scarabic--
Isn't that pricey? I've heard of some self-Tragelaphinacation kits, but those scare the beejesus out of me.
posted by Squid Voltaire at 2:18 PM on April 12, 2006


I've been thinking about making new MetaTalk posts go into a queue so that I could fix and answer the smallest bugs directly with the user that reported them and to avoid stuff like this that seems baffling and doesn't speak to larger issues.
posted by mathowie Admin at 9:58 PM


Sounds good. Worth repeating.
posted by dash_slot- at 2:18 PM on April 12, 2006


I've been thinking about making new MetaTalk posts go into a queue so that I could fix and answer the smallest bugs directly with the user that reported them and to avoid stuff like this that seems baffling and doesn't speak to larger issues.

Then what are we going to bitch about?

Good idea, btw.
posted by eyeballkid at 2:18 PM on April 12, 2006


Suggestion: enable voting for MeTa callouts like there is for MetaProjects. I vote that this one sucks.
posted by TimeFactor at 2:18 PM on April 12, 2006


Interpretations of figures represented in ironical cartoons busy parodying each other is way more interesting than two internet plankton having a tired feud over fuck-all, and it's worse because it's a pretty irrelevant fuck-all. South Park is watched by millions, and this story is actually interesting even for people like me who don't like South Park. The post is fine.
posted by fire&wings at 2:24 PM on April 12, 2006


The problem I see with a queue is that people will feel more comfortable posting borderline stuff. Since it won't go public, the shame factor is removed. "Hi. I had a thought. Feel free to kick this out Matt if it's dumb."

How about a MeTa time out that only blocked the user from posting to MetaTalk for an extended time? It seems to me that a) the number of stupid MeTa callouts has increased this year, and b) folks who are this clueless about what should be posted aren't a great MeTa addition anyway. For such folks, reading MeTa talk would be a good idea, but posting is a skill they just aren't up to.

So I'm saying -

- Make a MetaTalk only timeout
- And make it rather long

Making MeTa timeouts a bit more biting might have the same effect that banning dumb jokes from AskMe had - People get a clear understanding of what is going to fly, along with an understanding that you're serious about it.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:33 PM on April 12, 2006


I would just like to take the opportunity of this ridiculous callout to say that "approbation" doesn't mean what Three Blind Mice thinks it does.
posted by found missing at 2:41 PM on April 12, 2006


How about a MeTa time out that only blocked the user from posting to MetaTalk for an extended time?

What percentage of shitty meta posts are followed within [timespan equal to proposed lengthy timeout periods] by a second shitty meta post? My gut says it's a pretty small number, but I can't be sure.

Or are you proposing that posters of shitty posts are timed-out from any participation on Meta for the Duration?
posted by cortex at 2:43 PM on April 12, 2006


Geez. That post's nowhere near the utter piece of shit that this one is.
posted by interrobang at 2:51 PM on April 12, 2006


"Or are you proposing that posters of shitty posts are timed-out from any participation on Meta for the Duration?"

Exactly. And the intent would be to make folks just think for an extra minute before rushing to post. Lord knows I've posted some crap here. And I know I'd have thought about it longer if I knew it might get my MeTa privileges taken away.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:54 PM on April 12, 2006


The problem I see with a queue is that people will feel more comfortable posting borderline stuff. Since it won't go public, the shame factor is removed. "Hi. I had a thought. Feel free to kick this out Matt if it's dumb."

The workload of passing over a dozen dumb metatalk posts a day would be nothing compared to having to nurse 2 or 3 clusterfucks that currently pop up each day.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:55 PM on April 12, 2006


No posting to MeTa for the first 4 years that you're a member? (Membership has it's' privile[d]ges?)
posted by blue_beetle at 2:56 PM on April 12, 2006


Swarms of angry ants that emerge from the monitor when you're making a stupid FPP and sting you until you stop?
posted by Astro Zombie at 3:10 PM on April 12, 2006


people will feel more comfortable posting borderline stuff

If you haven't noticed, people are plum-perfect with posting absolute insanity right now. What "shame factor" is at work today?

I'm really pretty cautious about this whole queue idea, though. MetaTalk is a forum for this community, not a mechanism for asking Matt questions. Sure, some questions are "answerable" with little effort but I think it's often worthwile to carry out a discussion about the surrounding topics. And yes, we have duplicate questions posted again and again, but some of them deserve to be revisited over time as new members join and people's standards shift in response to the evolution of the site.

I guess I'm just having a hard time imagining what MetaTalk posts Matt would let through. It seems like you hate on the Grey pretty bad, Matt. Are you sure that what festers here won't find another outlet if you bring MeTa to its knees?
posted by scarabic at 3:12 PM on April 12, 2006


Related question: why do you have to nurse clusterfucks?

This is a genuine question. I guess intervention is sometimes required to keep the inmates from killing one another, but in other respects, why *do* you check MeTa first thing in the morning? I think it would be okay for you to take a step away from this place - though it will always be productive for the rest of us to have a forum to work out our intra-community issues.
posted by scarabic at 3:15 PM on April 12, 2006


"Geez. That post's nowhere near the utter piece of shit that this one is."

And oddly Chas is sticking up for that one...
posted by greasy_skillet at 3:17 PM on April 12, 2006


No posting to MeTa for the first 4 years that you're a member?

*counts on fingers*

Let's make it three and a half.
posted by languagehat at 3:30 PM on April 12, 2006


*counts on fingers*

Haha, n00b!
posted by cortex at 3:43 PM on April 12, 2006


I guess I'm just having a hard time imagining what MetaTalk posts Matt would let through.

I'd let everything but the petty or very specific through. I don't think you'd see any reduction in the posting of general topics like "do we have too many posts about X as of late?"

What you would see gone is "this person/post/comment sucks and should be nuked from orbit because I say so" unless there was some larger issue or if it was particularly notable.

I think it would be okay for you to take a step away from this place - though it will always be productive for the rest of us to have a forum to work out our intra-community issues.

I keep dibs on this place because in many ways is the active heartbeat of the rest of the sites -- I can tell if people are cranky, what they are cranky about, and who they are being cranky towards before it blossoms into the other parts of the site.

Also, so much of the intra-community issues boil down to "well, we can all agree that x is y and that's all well and good but pointless until Matt does z to enforce it."
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:46 PM on April 12, 2006


Keep tabs?
posted by cortex at 3:58 PM on April 12, 2006


MetaTalk is a forum for this community, not a mechanism for asking Matt questions. Sure, some questions are "answerable" with little effort but I think it's often worthwile to carry out a discussion about the surrounding topics. And yes, we have duplicate questions posted again and again, but some of them deserve to be revisited over time as new members join and people's standards shift in response to the evolution of the site.

Yes

I keep dibs on this place because in many ways is the active heartbeat of the rest of the sites -- I can tell if people are cranky, what they are cranky about, and who they are being cranky towards before it blossoms into the other parts of the site.

and yes.

I would hate to see Meta switch to a queue system, though. A lot of the surprisingly frequent great moments that come out of this subsite arise spontaneously where you wouldn't expect them, just because there's no real imperative not to derail.

This is the best place on Metafilter and it's working so why change it? Matt, I can't speak for anybody else but I generally assume that if you don't respond to a thread you didn't think anything in it was worth responding to or you just didn't bother to read it/continue reading it - and I'm really genuinely OK with that, however mistaken I might be. You've got (I assume) much more important shit to do than read every idiot thing said on MetaTalk. Hell, *I* have more important shit to do.

I think blocking the petty, in any case, is a particularly bad idea because it gives the person being petty some pretty significant feedback - or leads to a fracas. Both of these play a role and are usually pretty damn entertaining.
posted by Ryvar at 4:09 PM on April 12, 2006


They call him Mr. Dibs
posted by found missing at 4:10 PM on April 12, 2006


What you would see gone is "this person/post/comment sucks and should be nuked from orbit because I say so" unless there was some larger issue or if it was particularly notable.

Amen to that.
posted by y2karl at 4:12 PM on April 12, 2006


This is the best place on Metafilter and it's working so why change it?

I hear from a small subset of heavy users that they like this part best of all, but many others (even including that same subset) would say this part of the site typifies the worst of things.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:23 PM on April 12, 2006


What about users who like this part best of all because this part of the site typifies the worst of things?
posted by keswick at 4:32 PM on April 12, 2006


psmealey -- don't you mean "Get Your Own BLucking FebWog?"

(Which incidentally is quite a tongue-twister.)
posted by spiderskull at 4:32 PM on April 12, 2006


MetaTalk: like a food fight in the middle school cafeteria. Everyone is stained, some are crying and some are laughing uncontrollably.
posted by Cranberry at 4:38 PM on April 12, 2006


many...would say this part of the site typifies the worst of things.

I thought that was kinda the point. Steam valve, etc. "Better here than elsewhere."

I suppose an approval queue would probably work OK, but it does kinda seem like fixing something that ain't particularly broke.
posted by cribcage at 4:48 PM on April 12, 2006


Swarms of angry ants that emerge from the monitor when you're making a stupid FPP and sting you until you stop?

This is an excellent idea. I just worry about the load on the server. That's a fucking lot of ants.
posted by dersins at 4:52 PM on April 12, 2006


God I love taglines, you really could take any substring from any post and use it:

MetaFilter: The site typifies the worst of things.
MetaFilter: Would probably work OK.
MetaFilter: A forum to work out our intra-community issues.
MetaFilter: At least 31 people gave a shit.
MetaFilter: Make it rather long.

MetaTalk amuses me because I can write this and no one questions why.
posted by kcm at 5:14 PM on April 12, 2006


Complain about this stuff in your own blog.

kthx.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:17 PM on April 12, 2006


I don't think I like the queue idea, because you guys aren't perfect, and it rests the entire load of deciding what gets posted to MeTa on your shoulders. No one should expect you to BE perfect, obviously, but since you guys sometimes close threads early when they might be better left open, there's reason to expect that you wouldn't post MeTa threads that might deserve posting. Sure, you might intend to only leave out the threads that specifically say "this post annoys me. kill it," but bad moods, fatigue and plain old bad judgement can lead to mistakes. why add more human interaction in an essentially automated posting system? it just leaves room for error and frankly smells a bit like slashdot.
posted by shmegegge at 5:19 PM on April 12, 2006


I think everything we do should be approved by shmegagge. (and so does he).
posted by eyeballkid at 5:29 PM on April 12, 2006


or she


whatever
posted by eyeballkid at 5:29 PM on April 12, 2006


What you would see gone is "this person/post/comment sucks and should be nuked from orbit because I say so" unless there was some larger issue or if it was particularly notable.

Lots of leeway in those latter 2... people generally do not craft MeTa posts well, though sometimes interesting things come out of them as they evolve.

In the case of the very petty or very specific and easy to answer, why not just continue with the thread-closure system? You literally told someone "you're high" and closed one thread today. You've offered an answer to many others and quickly closed them. How would a queue be different?
posted by scarabic at 5:34 PM on April 12, 2006


I love the idea of a metatalk queue, especially because I can abuse it. I hate opening meta threads, so when I think there's a problem, generally I'll trudge all the way over to my email, find matt or jessamyn's address, and write. It's arduous. I'd much rather start a meta thread, knowing it would hit a queue, be seen by an admin, and probably never be posted.

But then you'd probably go ahead and post the thing just to embarrass me, wouldn't you? Mmmhmm.
posted by frykitty at 6:03 PM on April 12, 2006


The problem with the quick-close is that even though it solved the immediate problem, there were often people who felt ripped off that they didn't get to weigh in on a particular topic, even if the thread seemed pretty specific maybe to mathowie or I. There were a fair chunk of MeTa threads that, when closed, spawned whole new threads basically saying "hey, you shouldn't have closed that" A queue would skip that level of scrutiny, though it seems to me that there should be some happy medium area. A lot of times people will email me for misc little formatting blips and that seems like the best way to keep some of the not-maybe-necessary MeTa noise down.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:05 PM on April 12, 2006


Metatalk is a festering cesspool, no doubt, but it is our festering cesspool. And lame callouts such as this one serve to draw off a lot of the bad karma from the rest of the site.* Metatalk is like bleeding and leeches that way.

*Unproveable assertion, actual reality may vary.
posted by LarryC at 6:09 PM on April 12, 2006


A queue would skip that level of scrutiny

Ah, now we come to it: people wouldn't ever know what had been yanked or not! Mighty convenient! Don't get me wrong - I'm not disagreeing with the idea. Something about it seems a little draconian, and I think it's the veil aspect of it. Only allowing approved posts to a community forum is, anecdotally, kind of a short leash. Deleting threads that will cause problems, or locking ones that are out of control - now those methods are pretty standard.
posted by scarabic at 6:38 PM on April 12, 2006


Only allowing approved posts to a community forum is, anecdotally, kind of a short leash.

Is this a good time to plaintively cry that deleted posts should be available to us, and not censored?

I don't really want them to be, but nobody has whined about that in over 6 hours now and I was starting to miss the topic.
posted by tkolar at 6:46 PM on April 12, 2006


MetaTalk: People are cranky.
posted by loquacious at 6:47 PM on April 12, 2006


Just out of curiosity, matt, do you happen to know what percentage of your readership actually reads metatalk? Not hits, but unique hits.
posted by empath at 6:51 PM on April 12, 2006


Only allowing approved posts to a community forum is, anecdotally, kind of a short leash.

Um, look at almost every other kind of similar community site and usually nothing gets posted to the front page without approval by a team of editors.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:12 PM on April 12, 2006


"Metatalk is a festering cesspool, no doubt"

Actually no. It's more of a refreshing spring, with a few turds floating in it.

I don't know about you, but I prefer my spring water with a few turds in it. But that's just me.
posted by y6y6y6 at 7:23 PM on April 12, 2006


Please, please, please put some locks on this out-of-control contraption before it takes out someone's eye.
posted by SweetJesus at 7:38 PM on April 12, 2006


Chasfile; I am sorry you didn't like my post. Why didn't you just flag it and move on?

To most others; I'm glad you found some interest in my post.

Also mathowie; thanks for the kind words.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:46 PM on April 12, 2006


Um, look at almost every other kind of similar community site and usually nothing gets posted to the front page without approval by a team of editors.

Those sites are not the MetaFilter I know and love. The fact that this place is more or less wide-open and yet somehow maintains a rather cohesive identity is something I find most amazing. I'd really hate to see the free-form format go.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:57 PM on April 12, 2006


If mathowie approves every "callout" to make it to the grey, does that make it a "mathowie approved callout", such that everyone can now safely pile onto the poor schmuck being called out?
posted by popechunk at 8:14 PM on April 12, 2006


In reality, the best course of action is for Matt to give up on MeTa as any sort of useful means of communicating with him. He might as well allow MeTa to be a crapflood of idiot mewling and bleating, knocking off only those Leading Posts that are beyond tolerable.

He can then clone MeTa as MetaMatt, and run the real business of MeFi over there, using both submitted questions and blog-style updates on site development and his general feelings as to how the sites are doing (technically and socially).

Because, unfortunately, if he kills the crapflood in here (and it has always been a pretty shitty part of the boards), it's going to get into the blue and green. I really do not think that is in his, nor our, best interests.

Hope like hell he's reading this, because IMO cueing the grey will cost him a helluva lot of work in trying to moderate the blue and green.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:23 PM on April 12, 2006


Anus, I agree. And I also love MetaTalk. Please don't fix it since it ain't broken.
posted by keijo at 8:24 PM on April 12, 2006


Ah, now we come to it: people wouldn't ever know what had been yanked or not! Mighty convenient!

My point, if I was not being clear, is that this seems like overkill for a problem that is not terribly frequent and it would be nice if we could find a solution to make MeTa more useful while maintaining as much admin transparency as possible. The times when people email me saying "um can you fix this link I broke" or whatever don't seem like they need to be all hanging out in MeTa, though some posts that discuss sitewide rules or admin policies really should be there and probably not only in email or some holding pen.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:24 PM on April 12, 2006


look at almost every other kind of similar community site and usually nothing gets posted to the front page without approval by a team of editors.

Are you talking about the front pages of sites? Or the community forums of said sites? Community forum as in: area to talk about bugs, raise issues, blabber with mods... Typically, the community forum is more of a message board. If you want to moderate the Blue, maybe you should. Why moderate the Grey?

Team of editors? What sites do you consider "similar?"
posted by scarabic at 8:40 PM on April 12, 2006


I thought it stood for Get Your Own Blue F*#%ing Website.
It doesn't?
posted by Sprout the Vulgarian at 8:47 PM on April 12, 2006


AUGH FUCK MY EYE!

You bastards! What the hell is wrong with you people!?

*cups bleeding eyehole, runs off looking for a medic*
posted by loquacious at 8:55 PM on April 12, 2006


If mathowie approves every "callout" to make it to the grey, does that make it a "mathowie approved callout", such that everyone can now safely pile onto the poor schmuck being called out?

Snark aside, that's a damn good point. If the goal is to make MeTa less contentious, there's considerable potential for backfire in that regard once every callout carries an admin's rubber-stamp approval.
posted by cribcage at 9:04 PM on April 12, 2006


The times when people email me saying "um can you fix this link I broke" or whatever don't seem like they need to be all hanging out in MeTa, though some posts that discuss sitewide rules or admin policies really should be there and probably not only in email or some holding pen.

Maybe on the 'Post a new MetaTalk thread page' change "<b>note</b>: For small, immediate problems, contact mathowie or jessamyn directly to fix it."

to "<big><big><big><b>note</b>: For small, immediate problems, contact mathowie or jessamyn directly to fix it. THIS MEANS YOU.</big></big></big>"
posted by Ryvar at 10:30 PM on April 12, 2006


Metafilter: It's a festering cesspool.
posted by CRM114 at 10:40 PM on April 12, 2006


I've said it before, but I love repeating myself: bandaids don't help. By this I mean to say that coded, workflowy 'solutions' meant to resolve what at heart are problems of bad user behaviour have unintended consequences, and don't usually address the actual issues at hand.

I rode a hobbyhorse suggesting more timeouts and outright bans for repeated fuckery a few weeks back, and I ain't a-gonna revisit that, 'cause the poor wooden bugger's been flogged to death, but.

I love Metatalk, and although I think many newer users have a little bit of a skewed perspective on it (thanks in great part to my self-declared nemesis, the word 'callout'), it works, and is my favorite part of the site in many ways. I don't think it's broken, and I think that when it does start to smell a bit, it's because people are behaving badly or dumbly, and not using it for its intended purpose, which is to make the rest of the site better, and provide a forum so that the userbase can discuss how and why to do that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:03 PM on April 12, 2006


Because Matt closed this thread, I'm posting this here:

Metafilter: you're totally high

Now, having gotten that out of the way, I can say that this callout is kinda dumb and useless, but the dumb and useless callout threads are my favourite ways to spend time on MeFi these days.
posted by antifuse at 2:59 AM on April 13, 2006


See? I toldja it would go well.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:32 AM on April 13, 2006


Maybe on the 'Post a new MetaTalk thread page' change "note: For small, immediate problems, contact mathowie or jessamyn directly to fix it."

This is an excellent idea. Aside from that: please don't mess with success.
posted by languagehat at 5:42 AM on April 13, 2006


If you're going to change that text, remove the "immediate" wording. It sounds like it's only for urgent problems, not minor ones.
posted by smackfu at 6:43 AM on April 13, 2006


I just wanted to comment that in the thread just below this one, the phrase "self-linking double post callout" sounds like a Starbucks drink.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:02 AM on April 13, 2006


I'm all for policing and don't begrudge people's their personal feelings about quality. But I find this callout confusing. Out of all the bad posts that degrade Metafilter, I'm not sure this cracks my top 100... from the last month.
posted by dios at 8:54 AM on April 13, 2006


What you would see gone is "this person/post/comment sucks and should be nuked from orbit because I say so" unless there was some larger issue or if it was particularly notable.

And you wouldn't want any input from the user base as to those larger issues or particular notability? What ever happened to the idea of a largely self-governing MeFi? I mean, it's good in theory until you double the membership for cash and then can't keep up with it, am I right? Get some admin help; leave MeTa like it is.
posted by squirrel at 12:41 PM on April 13, 2006


I'm not sure this cracks my top 100... from the last month.

You're keeping lists now, are you?
posted by amberglow at 3:58 PM on April 14, 2006


I mean, it's good in theory until you double the membership for cash and then can't keep up with it, am I right?

No, you're being an ass for assuming that's my motivation for everything.

Pointless callout threads like this one don't build community, they just create in-fighting and tear it apart. My only motivation for a queue system is to avoid these petty member vs. member conflicts that seem to arise from "I don't like this single post for no good reason"
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:28 PM on April 14, 2006


So what is your motivation for keeping membership open then?
posted by keswick at 6:15 PM on April 14, 2006


Matt - people are "asses" and "totally high" quite a bit, it's true. But on some level, I think people here factor money into your motivations not because they think you're greedy, but because you quit your day job a while back and as we all know there are bills to pay, etc.

It might help to clarify if MeFi is still your primary focus or if you're gettin' the rent elsewhere these days...? Kind of a personal question, of course, I'm just pointing out that in absence of an answer, I believe people are thinkin' MeFi is your bread and butter.
posted by scarabic at 7:36 PM on April 14, 2006


Mm, okay... I may have been a jerk to tag the money on the doubled membership issue. I'm sorry for that. I don't think you're greedy; I think you're overwhelmed. I'm sorry if my snarky inclusion of money detracted from my point that if the site has gotten out of hand, you should get admin help rather than pruning back vital features like live MetaTalk.
posted by squirrel at 8:46 PM on April 14, 2006


« Older a self-linking double post callout   |   Mathowie interview Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments