If someone flags a post, is it appropriate for him to put a note in the thread indicating as much? May 3, 2006 12:09 PM Subscribe
If someone flags a post, is it appropriate for him to put a note in the thread indicating as much?
If I see it, I flag it as noise.
And then note that in the thread.
posted by smackfu at 12:11 PM on May 3, 2006
And then note that in the thread.
posted by smackfu at 12:11 PM on May 3, 2006
I think there are some cases where it's appropriate: a self-flag to acknowledge you made a mistake, for instance, and hopefully avoid a pile-on. I think that if you're doing it to call someone else out in the blue (or green), then it's probably not a good idea.
On the other hand, Jessamyn has said that it's ok to indicate in-thread that you've started a metatalk discussion. I guess that's because it's expected that further off-topic conversation is expected to go there.
posted by aberrant at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2006
On the other hand, Jessamyn has said that it's ok to indicate in-thread that you've started a metatalk discussion. I guess that's because it's expected that further off-topic conversation is expected to go there.
posted by aberrant at 12:19 PM on May 3, 2006
I don't think so. I mean, we say "flag it and move on", right? I guess if you're burning to chime in, "flagged as foo". I might do that more for good comments than bad, though.
posted by boo_radley at 12:26 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 12:26 PM on May 3, 2006
I could not care less what flags other people make.
Seems like a way to make backhanded digs at things.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:27 PM on May 3, 2006
Seems like a way to make backhanded digs at things.
posted by sonofsamiam at 12:27 PM on May 3, 2006
Stating that you've flagged something as bad or inappropriate completely undermines the idea of flagging. It draws *more* attention to the stupid comment.
I like when people mention that they've flagged something as fantastic, however.
posted by occhiblu at 12:31 PM on May 3, 2006
I like when people mention that they've flagged something as fantastic, however.
posted by occhiblu at 12:31 PM on May 3, 2006
I don't see the point of flagging and mentioning that one has flagged - redundant. Though I don't suppose
it's ok to indicate in-thread that you've started a metatalk discussion
Obligatory rather than OK, I would've thought.
posted by jack_mo at 12:38 PM on May 3, 2006
it's ok to indicate in-thread that you've started a metatalk discussion
Obligatory rather than OK, I would've thought.
posted by jack_mo at 12:38 PM on May 3, 2006
*Flags ND¢'s new haircut as "it breaks the guidelines"*
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by Faint of Butt at 12:41 PM on May 3, 2006
Seems like a way to make backhanded digs at things.
no, it's a way to make fronthanded digs at things. flags are backhanded, in a way, themselves. saying you've flagged something is just a way to say you don't like a thread, comment or whatever to the user's face.
i suppose there could be some reason to forbid doing it, but part of mefi has always been discussing post and comment quality on the site. the idea that we shouldn't mention when something sucks (within reason) is silly, to my mind. it's that "special snowflake" thing that a lot of people don't like. accountability for your mistakes and viewpoint is part of mefi's appeal.
posted by shmegegge at 12:46 PM on May 3, 2006
no, it's a way to make fronthanded digs at things. flags are backhanded, in a way, themselves. saying you've flagged something is just a way to say you don't like a thread, comment or whatever to the user's face.
i suppose there could be some reason to forbid doing it, but part of mefi has always been discussing post and comment quality on the site. the idea that we shouldn't mention when something sucks (within reason) is silly, to my mind. it's that "special snowflake" thing that a lot of people don't like. accountability for your mistakes and viewpoint is part of mefi's appeal.
posted by shmegegge at 12:46 PM on May 3, 2006
Stating that you've flagged something as bad or inappropriate completely undermines the idea of flagging. It draws *more* attention to the stupid comment.
I like when people mention that they've flagged something as fantastic, however.
This needs repeating because it's exactly right-on.
posted by puke & cry at 12:54 PM on May 3, 2006
I like when people mention that they've flagged something as fantastic, however.
This needs repeating because it's exactly right-on.
posted by puke & cry at 12:54 PM on May 3, 2006
Make a public announcement that you have flagged the thread or comment, added the author to your killfile, and started a MetaTalk thread, and furthermore you are quitting Metafilter forever because of such comments.
Preferably in blinking text.
posted by LarryC at 1:07 PM on May 3, 2006
Preferably in blinking text.
posted by LarryC at 1:07 PM on May 3, 2006
I flagged this thread as NOT NEARLY DRUNK ENOUGH.
posted by loquacious at 1:20 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by loquacious at 1:20 PM on May 3, 2006
My mother has already been flagged several times, but thank you, keswick, for your further attempts. I have now crossed "get her a metafilter account" off of my Mother's Day Possibilities list.
posted by redsparkler at 1:23 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by redsparkler at 1:23 PM on May 3, 2006
I would like the [!]s to look like small flags.
posted by soundofsuburbia at 1:27 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by soundofsuburbia at 1:27 PM on May 3, 2006
I burned a flag.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:30 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:30 PM on May 3, 2006
God hates flags.
posted by brain_drain at 1:35 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 1:35 PM on May 3, 2006
On June 14, I'm going to flag everything.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:44 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:44 PM on May 3, 2006
"If someone flags a post..."
... and no one is there to see it...... is it appropriate for her...
... what was the question?posted by mischief at 1:48 PM on May 3, 2006
I flagged smackfu's comment as awesome. It was awesome.
posted by chunking express at 1:49 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by chunking express at 1:49 PM on May 3, 2006
Flagging flagged as flaggin' fantastic.
p.s As soon as I click 'Post Comment' I will immediately flag this as noise.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:03 PM on May 3, 2006
p.s As soon as I click 'Post Comment' I will immediately flag this as noise.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:03 PM on May 3, 2006
flagged.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:04 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by blue_beetle at 2:04 PM on May 3, 2006
I would like the [!]s to look like small flags.
You mean like: [¶]? Or maybe [Ґ] or [₣] or [╒]?
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on May 3, 2006
You mean like: [¶]? Or maybe [Ґ] or [₣] or [╒]?
posted by delmoi at 2:06 PM on May 3, 2006
*flagging keswick's mom*
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2006
flagged as a double. keswick's mom has been flagged many, many times before.
posted by Gamblor at 2:19 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by Gamblor at 2:19 PM on May 3, 2006
No. Emphatically "no". Announcing a flagging is akin to announcing an addition to a killfile.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:48 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:48 PM on May 3, 2006
Don't note it in the thread, ever. I hate seeing it since the whole point of flagging was to keep threads clean from "this sucks, it's a double, dood" comments.
It's like starting a thread in metatalk, but then also continuing to argue the quality or tone of the post inside the mefi thread.
Please, drop the "flagged" comments. It just seems so passive aggressive and defeats the purpose of them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:50 PM on May 3, 2006
It's like starting a thread in metatalk, but then also continuing to argue the quality or tone of the post inside the mefi thread.
Please, drop the "flagged" comments. It just seems so passive aggressive and defeats the purpose of them.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:50 PM on May 3, 2006
I look forward (in a cringing-during-a-horror-flick sort of way) to someone starting a Metatalk thread that simply reads
"I flagged your comment as noise". [MI]
posted by cortex at 3:13 PM on May 3, 2006
"I flagged your comment as noise". [MI]
posted by cortex at 3:13 PM on May 3, 2006
You mean like: [¶]? Or maybe [Ґ] or [₣] or [╒]?
I dunno... Maybe like this: [>–], that's kinda like the czech flag, at least. :)
posted by soundofsuburbia at 3:23 PM on May 3, 2006
I dunno... Maybe like this: [>–], that's kinda like the czech flag, at least. :)
posted by soundofsuburbia at 3:23 PM on May 3, 2006
Make a public announcement [...] Preferably in blinking text. - LarryC
In a large block of bold blinking text, no less. And maybe add a couple of hotlinks to goatse while you're at it.
posted by raedyn at 3:52 PM on May 3, 2006
In a large block of bold blinking text, no less. And maybe add a couple of hotlinks to goatse while you're at it.
posted by raedyn at 3:52 PM on May 3, 2006
Don't note it in the thread, ever. I hate seeing it since the whole point of flagging was to keep threads clean from "this sucks, it's a double, dood" comments.
It's like starting a thread in metatalk, but then also continuing to argue the quality or tone of the post inside the mefi thread.
Please, drop the "flagged" comments. It just seems so passive aggressive and defeats the purpose of them.
Well, how often do you actually act on any of them? Every single recent thread i post is derailed by one of 2 people--i flag it as such, but nothing happens. Others do so too, and nothing happens. If action would be taken, then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to mention it.
Tell us: what are you doing and/or not doing when things are flagged as derails or noise? From where i sit (and others), nothing is ever done, unless some big stink is made here in MeTa or in the thread, which further derails it.
posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on May 3, 2006
It's like starting a thread in metatalk, but then also continuing to argue the quality or tone of the post inside the mefi thread.
Please, drop the "flagged" comments. It just seems so passive aggressive and defeats the purpose of them.
Well, how often do you actually act on any of them? Every single recent thread i post is derailed by one of 2 people--i flag it as such, but nothing happens. Others do so too, and nothing happens. If action would be taken, then maybe people wouldn't feel the need to mention it.
Tell us: what are you doing and/or not doing when things are flagged as derails or noise? From where i sit (and others), nothing is ever done, unless some big stink is made here in MeTa or in the thread, which further derails it.
posted by amberglow at 3:55 PM on May 3, 2006
I kind of agree with amberglow. I've flagged things that I was sure would get deleted and nothing's happened, and flagged others where deletion was lightening fast. No complaints, mind, as I know there's a lot to deal with and everything's a judgement call, but that may explain why people highlight their own flagging (I've done it myself, sorry to say).
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by loquax at 3:59 PM on May 3, 2006
I hate seeing it since the whole point of flagging was to keep threads clean from "this sucks, it's a double, dood" comments.
metafilter:self-policing since 1999.
posted by shmegegge at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2006
metafilter:
posted by shmegegge at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2006
Tell us: what are you doing and/or not doing when things are flagged as derails or noise? From where i sit (and others), nothing is ever done
I'm in between a rock and a hard place on this. We have more threads in MetaTalk about how deleted comments are a problem than flagging doesn't do enough. So I see the flags and if a bunch of people flag stuff, I'll act on it, but if I don't catch it early enough just deleting the derailing comment and not getting each and every followup is a problem. So only the most egregious stuff with flags from several users gets picked up quickly.
If you think just 1 or 2 users are the problem, feel free to email me about it and I'll watch them more closely.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2006
I'm in between a rock and a hard place on this. We have more threads in MetaTalk about how deleted comments are a problem than flagging doesn't do enough. So I see the flags and if a bunch of people flag stuff, I'll act on it, but if I don't catch it early enough just deleting the derailing comment and not getting each and every followup is a problem. So only the most egregious stuff with flags from several users gets picked up quickly.
If you think just 1 or 2 users are the problem, feel free to email me about it and I'll watch them more closely.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:13 PM on May 3, 2006
Shmegegge, how is users flagging posts not self-policing?
posted by occhiblu at 4:35 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 4:35 PM on May 3, 2006
How is it self-policing? It's more like phoning in an anonymous tip. The flagee never even knows it's happened unless the police say "we got a lot of flags on that".
posted by timeistight at 5:14 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by timeistight at 5:14 PM on May 3, 2006
If you think just 1 or 2 users are the problem, feel free to email me about it and I'll watch them more closely.
I think you should watch amberglow.
posted by timeistight at 5:15 PM on May 3, 2006
I think you should watch amberglow.
posted by timeistight at 5:15 PM on May 3, 2006
How is it self-policing?
Because it's not just Matt randomly choosing what to delete?
I mean, MetaTalk is still here, where larger issues can be discussed and debated until a consensus is more or less reached. I'm not sure we need the same extended debate / smack-down about everything; that's not self-policing, that's anarchy.
posted by occhiblu at 5:21 PM on May 3, 2006
Because it's not just Matt randomly choosing what to delete?
I mean, MetaTalk is still here, where larger issues can be discussed and debated until a consensus is more or less reached. I'm not sure we need the same extended debate / smack-down about everything; that's not self-policing, that's anarchy.
posted by occhiblu at 5:21 PM on May 3, 2006
It's not strictly self-policing, because I have to actually hit the delete button, but without flagging we don't really have self-policing besides applying social pressure in MetaTalk.
Flagging is a great help on the admin end, I don't have to be everywhere all at once, I can just view the reported problems and act on the most pressing ones.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:42 PM on May 3, 2006
Flagging is a great help on the admin end, I don't have to be everywhere all at once, I can just view the reported problems and act on the most pressing ones.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:42 PM on May 3, 2006
actually, it IS just Matt choosing what to delete, though not randomly. the entire process of deletion has always been strictly his domain, which is cool, but what gets to his attention has always been a matter of community discussion, not just community reportage. oftentimes, i'll see something that doesn't catch my attention, then someone else says what bothers them about it, and I take a closer look. sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but the discussion is important.
further, there is plenty that happens on this site that ISN'T just a matter of delte/no-delete. for instance, (I'm assuming that this thread was inspired by the "my mom thinks bolivia is evil" post, but even if it's not, this still stands) in the bolivia thread there are people (disclaimer: myself included) who anounced flagging the post. EVEN if the post doesn't get deleted, and it likely won't, the fact remains that the OP saw the people mentioning the flags and, hopefully, realizes that the post shouldn't have started off quite so chatty and anecdotal. Is it REALLY that big a deal that people said things like "your mother? flagged," instead of just "your mother? this post sucks," or even "your mother? you shouldn't make posts like that?" The end statement is precisely the same, but one makes use of the term "flag." something tells me it's not the term you folks object to.
this is what I'm getting at. mathowie's comments here give an incredibly strong impression that the flags were designed from the get go to eliminate metadiscussion of all kinds in the blue. since we're constantly talking about how not every minor gripe needs to go straight to MetaTalk, the "take it to meta" argument is clearly bullshit. flags would seem, then, to be designed to take all the non-MeTa-worthy commentary out of the blue. if that's how #1 wants to run the site, then hey it's his site, but everyone who thinks this is fine should be aware that what they're fine with is the erosion of all community self-policing from the site. sending anonymous flags off into the ether with no idea whether you've been heard, how it's been received or whether or not you're even flagging something worth flagging does not satisfy, in any way whatsoever, the desire of some of this community to have a more active role in the development of said community. leading by example has been demonstrated, by newsfilter and political flamewar posts that continue to happen over and over again, NOT to work here. what should and should not be deleted is a constant source of contention both among community members AND between the users and admins, so deletion can't be the only way we enforce a high standard of post, either. so what's left? metatalk, which devolves into meaningless brawls because that's how it was designed? which is supposed to be used only for seriously problematic posts, and not any old minor correction or annoyance? seriously, what else is there?
lastly, it's important to remember that deletion is the ONLY disciplinary result of flags, unless said deletion is accompanied by a timeout or ban. but deletion is the minimum and there are plenty of things that don't merit deltion or MeTa but should still be discouraged.
honestly, what on earth is there to LIKE about this idea? if you're okay with saying "there is [problem x] with this post" then who cares if you say it by saying "flagged," or by saying it some other way? no, I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you people have a problem with the word flag. you object to telling people their post sucks. that's fine if you feel that way, but that's part of self-policing, and you want to get rid of that.
by the way, #1, who cares if someone says a post is a double within the thread? it's just going to get deleted for being a double anyway, right?
posted by shmegegge at 5:58 PM on May 3, 2006
further, there is plenty that happens on this site that ISN'T just a matter of delte/no-delete. for instance, (I'm assuming that this thread was inspired by the "my mom thinks bolivia is evil" post, but even if it's not, this still stands) in the bolivia thread there are people (disclaimer: myself included) who anounced flagging the post. EVEN if the post doesn't get deleted, and it likely won't, the fact remains that the OP saw the people mentioning the flags and, hopefully, realizes that the post shouldn't have started off quite so chatty and anecdotal. Is it REALLY that big a deal that people said things like "your mother? flagged," instead of just "your mother? this post sucks," or even "your mother? you shouldn't make posts like that?" The end statement is precisely the same, but one makes use of the term "flag." something tells me it's not the term you folks object to.
this is what I'm getting at. mathowie's comments here give an incredibly strong impression that the flags were designed from the get go to eliminate metadiscussion of all kinds in the blue. since we're constantly talking about how not every minor gripe needs to go straight to MetaTalk, the "take it to meta" argument is clearly bullshit. flags would seem, then, to be designed to take all the non-MeTa-worthy commentary out of the blue. if that's how #1 wants to run the site, then hey it's his site, but everyone who thinks this is fine should be aware that what they're fine with is the erosion of all community self-policing from the site. sending anonymous flags off into the ether with no idea whether you've been heard, how it's been received or whether or not you're even flagging something worth flagging does not satisfy, in any way whatsoever, the desire of some of this community to have a more active role in the development of said community. leading by example has been demonstrated, by newsfilter and political flamewar posts that continue to happen over and over again, NOT to work here. what should and should not be deleted is a constant source of contention both among community members AND between the users and admins, so deletion can't be the only way we enforce a high standard of post, either. so what's left? metatalk, which devolves into meaningless brawls because that's how it was designed? which is supposed to be used only for seriously problematic posts, and not any old minor correction or annoyance? seriously, what else is there?
lastly, it's important to remember that deletion is the ONLY disciplinary result of flags, unless said deletion is accompanied by a timeout or ban. but deletion is the minimum and there are plenty of things that don't merit deltion or MeTa but should still be discouraged.
honestly, what on earth is there to LIKE about this idea? if you're okay with saying "there is [problem x] with this post" then who cares if you say it by saying "flagged," or by saying it some other way? no, I find it exceptionally hard to believe that you people have a problem with the word flag. you object to telling people their post sucks. that's fine if you feel that way, but that's part of self-policing, and you want to get rid of that.
by the way, #1, who cares if someone says a post is a double within the thread? it's just going to get deleted for being a double anyway, right?
posted by shmegegge at 5:58 PM on May 3, 2006
I think I may have failed to properly close out the small tag.
posted by shmegegge at 6:03 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 6:03 PM on May 3, 2006
I have a flag in my pants.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:10 PM on May 3, 2006
let's also not forget that mathowie has taken the time, in the past, to listen to people's objections and defenses of posts (in the blue, mind you. i'm not just talking about MeTa) before making his final decision on whether or not to delete something. now, all we're supposed to do is leave a non-descript note saying "see this post" and hope he knows what we're talking about and can see the issue from all angles by himself? come on.
posted by shmegegge at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2006
> i'll see something that doesn't catch my attention, then someone else says what bothers them about it, and I take a closer look. sometimes I agree with them, and sometimes I don't, but the discussion is important.
Why? Why is the discussion important? If it's an obvious misuse of the site, then presumably it's already been discussed and decided that whatever the poster is doing in inappropriate. If it hasn't been decided, then either someone will bring it to MeTa rather than flagging it, or the post/comment will get deleted and then someone will come to MeTa asking why.
Your argument makes sense for borderline cases, but how many of those are there, really?
And there is community feedback with the flagging, I feel. I could be wrong, but I assume that if I flag something and it doesn't get deleted, it's because no one else has flagged it. In my mind, it's the equivalent of my bringing to MeTa and having everyone say "You're wrong."
I guess, partly, what I don't get is why you think it makes sense for everyone to weigh in on every decision, even when the problem didn't affect them originally. If you run into a problem post or comment during your time on the site, you flag it. But if *I* run into a problem on the site, why on earth do you need to be alerted to it? Do you really need to know how many posts on AskMe I flagged in the last few days?
For larger or more controversail issues, yes. But I don't think everything needs to be a huge community discussion, because the community is too big to be effective for that.
posted by occhiblu at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2006
Why? Why is the discussion important? If it's an obvious misuse of the site, then presumably it's already been discussed and decided that whatever the poster is doing in inappropriate. If it hasn't been decided, then either someone will bring it to MeTa rather than flagging it, or the post/comment will get deleted and then someone will come to MeTa asking why.
Your argument makes sense for borderline cases, but how many of those are there, really?
And there is community feedback with the flagging, I feel. I could be wrong, but I assume that if I flag something and it doesn't get deleted, it's because no one else has flagged it. In my mind, it's the equivalent of my bringing to MeTa and having everyone say "You're wrong."
I guess, partly, what I don't get is why you think it makes sense for everyone to weigh in on every decision, even when the problem didn't affect them originally. If you run into a problem post or comment during your time on the site, you flag it. But if *I* run into a problem on the site, why on earth do you need to be alerted to it? Do you really need to know how many posts on AskMe I flagged in the last few days?
For larger or more controversail issues, yes. But I don't think everything needs to be a huge community discussion, because the community is too big to be effective for that.
posted by occhiblu at 6:11 PM on May 3, 2006
(I should note that I flag more comments than posts, though. I can see the discussion being necessary more often for posts. But flagged comments rarely seem to need a huge debate.)
posted by occhiblu at 6:12 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by occhiblu at 6:12 PM on May 3, 2006
what you said doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Why is the discussion important?
are you joking? why not just have unthreaded posts, then? remove comments altogether? the reason the discussion is important is because, although the links are more important than the posts, you can go to memepool for links. discussion is part of the site, and discussion is how you find out what the people you share the site with think about your behavior and the behavior of other people. it's how you know that it's not okay to just link to a picture of a portabello mushroom and then rant for 3 paragraphs about a sales clerk. it's how the site works.
seriously, what is this sentence even supposed to mean? If it's an obvious misuse of the site, then presumably it's already been discussed discussion isn't important because if it's needed then it's already happened? this is nonsense.
your idea of community feedback also makes no sense. a total lack of reaction means you were obviously wrong? since when? there are plenty of threads that don't get deleted even though they break the rules. sometimes it's because there's enough good discussion to merit sticking around, sometimes it's because the admins just didn't catch it. sometimes it's because it's an innocent mistake and the poster knows not to do it again. you don't know any of these things with the flag system. there's feedback in that?
and when did I say that it makes sense for everyone to weigh in on every decision? I'm just saying it makes sense for us to weigh in on things in general. it's what we're here for. the idea that we shouldn't weigh in on anything is abjectly contrary to how the site has been operated for years. saying that we should be allowed to talk about the quality of a post isn't the same thing as saying we should all have an equal say in every decision, and it CERTAINLY isn't asking for a list of all flags.
seriously, your comment makes very very little sense. you seem to have ignored 90% of what I said, misinterpreted the other 10% and added an extra 5% of things I didn't even say.
posted by shmegegge at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2006
Why is the discussion important?
are you joking? why not just have unthreaded posts, then? remove comments altogether? the reason the discussion is important is because, although the links are more important than the posts, you can go to memepool for links. discussion is part of the site, and discussion is how you find out what the people you share the site with think about your behavior and the behavior of other people. it's how you know that it's not okay to just link to a picture of a portabello mushroom and then rant for 3 paragraphs about a sales clerk. it's how the site works.
seriously, what is this sentence even supposed to mean? If it's an obvious misuse of the site, then presumably it's already been discussed discussion isn't important because if it's needed then it's already happened? this is nonsense.
your idea of community feedback also makes no sense. a total lack of reaction means you were obviously wrong? since when? there are plenty of threads that don't get deleted even though they break the rules. sometimes it's because there's enough good discussion to merit sticking around, sometimes it's because the admins just didn't catch it. sometimes it's because it's an innocent mistake and the poster knows not to do it again. you don't know any of these things with the flag system. there's feedback in that?
and when did I say that it makes sense for everyone to weigh in on every decision? I'm just saying it makes sense for us to weigh in on things in general. it's what we're here for. the idea that we shouldn't weigh in on anything is abjectly contrary to how the site has been operated for years. saying that we should be allowed to talk about the quality of a post isn't the same thing as saying we should all have an equal say in every decision, and it CERTAINLY isn't asking for a list of all flags.
seriously, your comment makes very very little sense. you seem to have ignored 90% of what I said, misinterpreted the other 10% and added an extra 5% of things I didn't even say.
posted by shmegegge at 6:27 PM on May 3, 2006
But flagged comments rarely seem to need a huge debate.)
but they're not flagged for fun--they're flagged to alert matt and jess and so that something can be done, usually. and they're flagged so that we don't have 700 meta posts every day. Should we not be flagging and taking everything here instead? Should we not care about things here?
shmegegge has it exactly right. we have this tool that's supposed to help everyone here, but the only way we know it has any effect is when the flagged thing is gone--otherwise we're left with nothing (except to note the flag here or in the thread).
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2006
but they're not flagged for fun--they're flagged to alert matt and jess and so that something can be done, usually. and they're flagged so that we don't have 700 meta posts every day. Should we not be flagging and taking everything here instead? Should we not care about things here?
shmegegge has it exactly right. we have this tool that's supposed to help everyone here, but the only way we know it has any effect is when the flagged thing is gone--otherwise we're left with nothing (except to note the flag here or in the thread).
posted by amberglow at 6:35 PM on May 3, 2006
What I'm saying is this: One flags an individal post or comment because it breaks the guidelines, right? We know it breaks the guidelines because those guidelines have been hashed out in MetaTalk. If a comment or post is a double, or is horribly offensive, or is a self-link, or is just generally bad for all the reasons we've already discussed things being bad, then why do we need to have another MetaTalk discussion about it?
In those cases where a post or comment is borderline, *then* we need to have a discussion about it.
What I'm saying is:
it's how you know that it's not okay to just link to a picture of a portabello mushroom and then rant for 3 paragraphs about a sales clerk. it's how the site works.
We also know it's not OK to do that because those posts get deleted, with reasons listed for the deletion.
And for the community feedback thing, what I was trying to say (apparently badly) was that flags add an order of escalation that I like.
1. I see an offending comment.
2. I flag it.
3. If it goes away, then it's been recognized as obviously breaking the existing guidelines; the end.
4. If it doesn't go away, and it's really horrendously offensive to me, *then* I take it to MetaTalk and we create new guidelines about whether those types of comments should stay.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the flagging system seems totally appropriate for deciding whether individual comments and posts follow the guidlelines; MetaTalk then becomes a place to decide whether types of posts or comments are within the guidelines, and in that way for creating/expanding the guidelines themselves.
And I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented you, it certainly wasn't my intent. Nor was I trying to address everything you brought up, just the idea that site-wide discussion of every about-to-be-deleted post and comment was a universal good.
posted by occhiblu at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2006
In those cases where a post or comment is borderline, *then* we need to have a discussion about it.
What I'm saying is:
it's how you know that it's not okay to just link to a picture of a portabello mushroom and then rant for 3 paragraphs about a sales clerk. it's how the site works.
We also know it's not OK to do that because those posts get deleted, with reasons listed for the deletion.
And for the community feedback thing, what I was trying to say (apparently badly) was that flags add an order of escalation that I like.
1. I see an offending comment.
2. I flag it.
3. If it goes away, then it's been recognized as obviously breaking the existing guidelines; the end.
4. If it doesn't go away, and it's really horrendously offensive to me, *then* I take it to MetaTalk and we create new guidelines about whether those types of comments should stay.
I guess what I'm getting at is that the flagging system seems totally appropriate for deciding whether individual comments and posts follow the guidlelines; MetaTalk then becomes a place to decide whether types of posts or comments are within the guidelines, and in that way for creating/expanding the guidelines themselves.
And I'm sorry you feel I misrepresented you, it certainly wasn't my intent. Nor was I trying to address everything you brought up, just the idea that site-wide discussion of every about-to-be-deleted post and comment was a universal good.
posted by occhiblu at 7:06 PM on May 3, 2006
mathowie has taken the time, in the past, to listen to people's objections and defenses of posts (in the blue, mind you. i'm not just talking about MeTa) before making his final decision on whether or not to delete something. now, all we're supposed to do is leave a non-descript note
shmegegge, you do realize if I took this advice to heart, we should have 30-40 metatalk posts per day where we all debate whether or not a comment in ask mefi was off topic or unplesant enough to be deleted?
The flags have descriptions on them -- in ask mefi it's super easy to see five people flag a comment as offensive and you go to read it and it's like "DUDE YOU ARE FUCKING FAT, LOSE SOME WEIGHT" and discussion about what to do to that comment is largely pointless. A metatalk thread about a single comment like that would be a bunch of people going "hey, delete it and make that guy play nice" but instead I see five flags, I delete it, and I send an email to the guy asking him to cool out.
I don't want to have a metatalk thread about every questionable contribution to metafilter. The flagging works great for excessively lame, off topic, derails, and double posts. I know it doesn't have the same voyueristic bent that everyone reporting stuff in metatalk might have, but it works and helps keep the site sane for everyone involved.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:05 PM on May 3, 2006
shmegegge, you do realize if I took this advice to heart, we should have 30-40 metatalk posts per day where we all debate whether or not a comment in ask mefi was off topic or unplesant enough to be deleted?
The flags have descriptions on them -- in ask mefi it's super easy to see five people flag a comment as offensive and you go to read it and it's like "DUDE YOU ARE FUCKING FAT, LOSE SOME WEIGHT" and discussion about what to do to that comment is largely pointless. A metatalk thread about a single comment like that would be a bunch of people going "hey, delete it and make that guy play nice" but instead I see five flags, I delete it, and I send an email to the guy asking him to cool out.
I don't want to have a metatalk thread about every questionable contribution to metafilter. The flagging works great for excessively lame, off topic, derails, and double posts. I know it doesn't have the same voyueristic bent that everyone reporting stuff in metatalk might have, but it works and helps keep the site sane for everyone involved.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:05 PM on May 3, 2006
I just flagged jonmc's pants as "offensive content".
posted by loquacious at 8:43 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by loquacious at 8:43 PM on May 3, 2006
I never said we need more metatalk comments. I didn't even imply it.
do I really have to go and reiterate all that again? here's a summary instead:
we don't need to eliminate in thread commentary on the blue any further than we already have, and flags are not a capable substitute for that in thread commentary. there's nothing wrong with saying a post sucks if it does, so long as you're not offensive. saying "i'm flagging this" is neither offensive, nor unnecessary.
but hey, you go ahead and worry about whether or not someone mentions a double post on the blue. that's clearly a big deal. heaven forbid anyone should know what other mefites think around here.
posted by shmegegge at 8:46 PM on May 3, 2006
do I really have to go and reiterate all that again? here's a summary instead:
we don't need to eliminate in thread commentary on the blue any further than we already have, and flags are not a capable substitute for that in thread commentary. there's nothing wrong with saying a post sucks if it does, so long as you're not offensive. saying "i'm flagging this" is neither offensive, nor unnecessary.
but hey, you go ahead and worry about whether or not someone mentions a double post on the blue. that's clearly a big deal. heaven forbid anyone should know what other mefites think around here.
posted by shmegegge at 8:46 PM on May 3, 2006
I hope I'm understanding you correctly; we do seem to have been talking past each other.
We'll take AskMe out of it. On just Metafilter proper, I think my objection is to any comment that *just* says "this sucks" because it's not really a discussion of the quality of the post. I read it as just noise; there's nothing substantive there. "This post misses points X, Y, and Z" or "This post is totally biased and here's why" is, in my mind, a discussion of the quality of the post that obviously belongs in the thread. "Your post sucks" is like sticking your tongue out and running away -- it doesn't contribute anything, it leaves nothing to discuss or refute or explore (you just get stuck in a "Does not!" "Does to!" match), and it's reasonably rude.
"Flagged as [bad]" seems to do the exact same thing. Again, there's no substance. It's a way to say "This post sucks" without using the phrase "this post sucks."
And if the only thing you have to offer is "this post is bad," without further discussion, then you can say that by clicking the flag.
The comments that I've seen that say "I flagged this post" have not said anything else. Maybe I've missed more substantive posts that mention flagging. But the ones I've seen certainly just fall into the "you suck" category.
I understand your and amberglow's objection that there's then no feedback, but I'm not sure how much feedback you get from posting "I flagged your post," either. If you have an actual objection that you want to discuss, then discuss it. "I flagged your post," though, is not a discussion.
Which is why I think I'm confused as to your claims that discouraging people from pointing out that they've flagged something somehow limits our discussions.
posted by occhiblu at 9:36 PM on May 3, 2006
We'll take AskMe out of it. On just Metafilter proper, I think my objection is to any comment that *just* says "this sucks" because it's not really a discussion of the quality of the post. I read it as just noise; there's nothing substantive there. "This post misses points X, Y, and Z" or "This post is totally biased and here's why" is, in my mind, a discussion of the quality of the post that obviously belongs in the thread. "Your post sucks" is like sticking your tongue out and running away -- it doesn't contribute anything, it leaves nothing to discuss or refute or explore (you just get stuck in a "Does not!" "Does to!" match), and it's reasonably rude.
"Flagged as [bad]" seems to do the exact same thing. Again, there's no substance. It's a way to say "This post sucks" without using the phrase "this post sucks."
And if the only thing you have to offer is "this post is bad," without further discussion, then you can say that by clicking the flag.
The comments that I've seen that say "I flagged this post" have not said anything else. Maybe I've missed more substantive posts that mention flagging. But the ones I've seen certainly just fall into the "you suck" category.
I understand your and amberglow's objection that there's then no feedback, but I'm not sure how much feedback you get from posting "I flagged your post," either. If you have an actual objection that you want to discuss, then discuss it. "I flagged your post," though, is not a discussion.
Which is why I think I'm confused as to your claims that discouraging people from pointing out that they've flagged something somehow limits our discussions.
posted by occhiblu at 9:36 PM on May 3, 2006
So whatever happened to the idea of each blue thread getting it's own 'talk' thread ala wikipedia.
posted by delmoi at 9:55 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by delmoi at 9:55 PM on May 3, 2006
delmoi, I am still thinking about it because it dawned on me that it would increase my moderation workload to have to watch a zillion talk threads. So I never unleashed it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:21 PM on May 3, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:21 PM on May 3, 2006
I wonder if it would help complaints like amberglow's to have something on the interstitial page (the one that says 'Redirecting...' (which may be going away for all I know) that tells the flagger if that item has been flagged before and why and how many times. It might reduce or at least shape expectations about possible moderation action a bit. Nothing on the page itself, just that temp page...
Probably not worth the database hit, although I don't guess it would be happening all that often.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:36 PM on May 3, 2006
Probably not worth the database hit, although I don't guess it would be happening all that often.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:36 PM on May 3, 2006
I had a comment deleted by Jessamyn last night due to flagging, and she wrote me to tell me about it. I think that people find out when flags lead to deletions.
Putting a notification in the thread is kind of like crapping in it.
"[flagged]" is less disruptive than "what the fuck is this shit?" but it's still disruptive. I take it as a sign of someone who can't just play by the rules but has to be SURE that their little opinion gets SPAMMED to the world so that their point of view gets the attention it DESERVES.
posted by scarabic at 10:44 PM on May 3, 2006
Putting a notification in the thread is kind of like crapping in it.
"[flagged]" is less disruptive than "what the fuck is this shit?" but it's still disruptive. I take it as a sign of someone who can't just play by the rules but has to be SURE that their little opinion gets SPAMMED to the world so that their point of view gets the attention it DESERVES.
posted by scarabic at 10:44 PM on May 3, 2006
personally, i think people should only be able to say "flagged as X" if they incorporate it into a transitive sentence. witness:
haters will at least be amused by the flag-announcer's attempt to construct a coherent idea around their announcement
folks won't announce so much. that was really hard to do. i am still not sure it meets my own strict guidelines.
everyone else can have fun searching for these tender nuggets.
i think everybody wins. pony this on up.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:58 PM on May 3, 2006
a new feature of TiVO version 4 is the ability to block access to programs flagged as offensive.i think this will prove threefold beneficial:
i think everybody wins. pony this on up.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 10:58 PM on May 3, 2006
is it appropriate for him to put a note in the thread indicating as much?
Of course not. Sure, it can be frustrating when you flag something that obviously should be deleted but stays, but that's the system we have. Be an adult and accept it. Flagging it and telling everyone about it is simply childish.
posted by justgary at 1:02 AM on May 4, 2006
Of course not. Sure, it can be frustrating when you flag something that obviously should be deleted but stays, but that's the system we have. Be an adult and accept it. Flagging it and telling everyone about it is simply childish.
posted by justgary at 1:02 AM on May 4, 2006
The comments that I've seen that say "I flagged this post" have not said anything else.
I don't have any statistics on this, and I can't even begin to guess what percentage of the ones I've seen fit your description, but in the bolivia thread, again, for example, all of the flagged comments give a reason why: the OP's mother. (she's a troublemaker, I suppose.) there was even a discussion on why the OP put his mother in the post and what people thought of that, because people mentioned it.
there's nothing wrong with deleting useless snarking, and people just going "flagged" without explaining why fit that category, but that doesn't mean that we should never mention when we've flagged something. again, it's just a different terminology for commenting on the quality of a post. people are free to think we shouldn't ever comment on a post's quality if they want, but I disagree and I think eliminating that commentary erodes at our ability to self-police.
posted by shmegegge at 4:08 AM on May 4, 2006
I don't have any statistics on this, and I can't even begin to guess what percentage of the ones I've seen fit your description, but in the bolivia thread, again, for example, all of the flagged comments give a reason why: the OP's mother. (she's a troublemaker, I suppose.) there was even a discussion on why the OP put his mother in the post and what people thought of that, because people mentioned it.
there's nothing wrong with deleting useless snarking, and people just going "flagged" without explaining why fit that category, but that doesn't mean that we should never mention when we've flagged something. again, it's just a different terminology for commenting on the quality of a post. people are free to think we shouldn't ever comment on a post's quality if they want, but I disagree and I think eliminating that commentary erodes at our ability to self-police.
posted by shmegegge at 4:08 AM on May 4, 2006
which is to say "yes, I agree, if you're just objecting to snarky 'flagged,' comments that don't elaborate at all. i just hope that's ALL we're talking about."
posted by shmegegge at 4:17 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 4:17 AM on May 4, 2006
"I have a flag in my pants.
What country?"
Poleland.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2006
What country?"
Poleland.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2006
Pantsgaea.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 AM on May 4, 2006
In a double post thread, it's invaluable if people at least include a link to wherever the original post was. Similarly for self-links, it's good if people "show their work." I don't see much of a difference between saying "I flagged this" and "this post sucks" and probably both types of comments should be kept to a minimum in a thread that isn't going to be deleted.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:47 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:47 AM on May 4, 2006
there's nothing wrong with saying a post sucks if it does, so long as you're not offensive. saying "i'm flagging this" is neither offensive, nor unnecessary.
I agree with shmegegge on this. I don't understand why the mention of flagging is some sort of, er, red flag to Matt. I think jessamyn has the right perspective:
I don't see much of a difference between saying "I flagged this" and "this post sucks" and probably both types of comments should be kept to a minimum in a thread that isn't going to be deleted.
Exactly. "Kept to a minimum" is one thing; "OMG you're destroying MetaFilter by mentioning flags!!" is another.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on May 4, 2006
I agree with shmegegge on this. I don't understand why the mention of flagging is some sort of, er, red flag to Matt. I think jessamyn has the right perspective:
I don't see much of a difference between saying "I flagged this" and "this post sucks" and probably both types of comments should be kept to a minimum in a thread that isn't going to be deleted.
Exactly. "Kept to a minimum" is one thing; "OMG you're destroying MetaFilter by mentioning flags!!" is another.
posted by languagehat at 6:59 AM on May 4, 2006
I love this interstitial idea of the wonderchicken's. I flag stuff. Sometimes it disappears; sometimes it doesn't and I am sometimes curious why. Is it because the thread has only four comments anyway and no-one is bothering to flag the derail? Is it because I'm the only person who thinks this sort of question is useless? How many people really think this comment is offensive?
I am curious green. or blue. or whatever.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:00 AM on May 4, 2006
I am curious green. or blue. or whatever.
posted by crush-onastick at 7:00 AM on May 4, 2006
I had a comment deleted by Jessamyn last night due to flagging, and she wrote me to tell me about it.
Really? She's never done that for me.
posted by timeistight at 8:45 AM on May 4, 2006
Really? She's never done that for me.
posted by timeistight at 8:45 AM on May 4, 2006
I don't think I've ever gotten an email either; but then, I don't think I've ever been surprised by a deletion. Make jokey, contentless comment in AskMe—deleted. Make snarky, contentless jibe in the blue—deleted. Comment tied only to likely-to-be-deleted comment in a thread—deleted.
Moral of the story is I'm getting better at just not hitting "Post Comment" in the first place when my Useless Sense starts tingling.
posted by cortex at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2006
Moral of the story is I'm getting better at just not hitting "Post Comment" in the first place when my Useless Sense starts tingling.
posted by cortex at 8:49 AM on May 4, 2006
*so wants a sock-puppet account called resparkler's mom, but resists*
posted by penguin pie at 10:52 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by penguin pie at 10:52 AM on May 4, 2006
redsparkler's mom.
posted by penguin pie at 10:54 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by penguin pie at 10:54 AM on May 4, 2006
Really? She's never done that for me.
posted by timeistight at 8:45 AM PST on May 4 [!]
You're just not pretty enough.
posted by dazed_one at 10:59 AM on May 4, 2006
posted by timeistight at 8:45 AM PST on May 4 [!]
You're just not pretty enough.
posted by dazed_one at 10:59 AM on May 4, 2006
Personally, the whole "flagged as (reason)" bothers me. It smacks of wanna-be-moderator syndrome. Congratulations man, you flagged a post; I'm certain you're going to have the same effect whether you announce it to the world or not.
I find it arrogant at best. If everyone else was supposed to care how you flag posts, then I'm fairly certain Matt would have coded a feature for this.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:30 PM on May 4, 2006
I find it arrogant at best. If everyone else was supposed to care how you flag posts, then I'm fairly certain Matt would have coded a feature for this.
posted by Dark Messiah at 12:30 PM on May 4, 2006
You're just not pretty enough.
~Flees, weeping hysterically.~
posted by timeistight at 1:02 PM on May 4, 2006
~Flees, weeping hysterically.~
posted by timeistight at 1:02 PM on May 4, 2006
« Older Boston hasn't had a meetup in ages | Why does the link search find things the site... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Kwantsar at 12:09 PM on May 3, 2006