Adding unsolicited, uninformed "via"s to other people's posts is the height of rudeness.

August 2, 2006 7:24 AM

Adding unsolicited, uninformed "via"s to other people's posts is the height of rudeness. And usually not even accurate.
posted by signal to Etiquette/Policy at 7:24 AM (42 comments total)

I concur.
posted by riotgrrl69 at 7:28 AM on August 2, 2006

That was very obnoxious. Just knock it off Strange.
posted by caddis at 7:29 AM on August 2, 2006

Word.
posted by cortex at 7:30 AM on August 2, 2006

via
posted by blue_beetle at 7:30 AM on August 2, 2006

sometimes, I dunno. It's presumptuous for sure.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:46 AM on August 2, 2006

seems lame, I agree. "height of rudeness" seems maybe overstating it a little.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:49 AM on August 2, 2006

Not to mention the fact that it can make you look like an ass.
posted by dseaton at 7:51 AM on August 2, 2006

It's presumptuous, sure. But if you're posting something that was just posted on SlashDot (or elsewhere), expect somebody to pipe in with a "I just saw that on Slashdot/BoingBoing/Some random blog" almost guaranteed. You gots ta be quick if you want your posts unsullied, and even then you're still likely to get sullied by somebody.

sullied!
posted by antifuse at 7:52 AM on August 2, 2006

yeah, I fucking hate it. people have done it to me numerous times even though if they view my posting history they'd see I do use via when it's appropriate.
posted by dobbs at 7:54 AM on August 2, 2006

Aaahhhh! This is my metafilter pet peeve. I agree one hunderd percent - it IS rude. Damn I hate that shit. MJJJ very diplomatically told someone off for doing this once.
posted by iconomy at 7:54 AM on August 2, 2006

Gets on my wick too, although it always makes th via-supplier look like a twerp, so I suppose that's punishment enough.
posted by jack_mo at 7:56 AM on August 2, 2006

Boo-hoo.
posted by Kwantsar at 8:04 AM on August 2, 2006

THIS IS OUTRAGEOUS. LET'S GET OUR MOB ON!
posted by keswick at 8:12 AM on August 2, 2006

Agreed.

Also, if it's good enough for a FPP who cares where the original poster found it? Unless it's a self-post, they must have seen it somewhere else first.
posted by justkevin at 8:20 AM on August 2, 2006

What are you people on about? I thought "via" was used simply to indicate where the poster found the item, not its original source. I guess I am wrong?
posted by LarryC at 8:23 AM on August 2, 2006

He's wrong! Burn him!
posted by marxchivist at 8:25 AM on August 2, 2006

Unless it's a self-post, they must have seen it somewhere else first.

Untrue. I spend the majority of my day trying to find cool websites at random. http://www.sjaeieafl.org/oe9/~j3i99.html? Crap. http://www1.kd90aaaa.net/ll.aw/%20sffASAS.cgi? Nope.
posted by Plutor at 8:31 AM on August 2, 2006 [4 favorites]

antifuse writes "..expect somebody to pipe in with a 'I just saw that on Slashdot/BoingBoing/Some random blog'.."

A different thing entirely.
posted by peacay at 8:34 AM on August 2, 2006

I get a lot of my information via.
posted by slimepuppy at 8:36 AM on August 2, 2006

VIA CORN DIOS
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:36 AM on August 2, 2006

I would have thought it was rude if he'd been rude about it but instead of he made an assumption about my source, which I refuted with the link from where I did get it and then he apologized.

I agree its not wholly tactful but there are plenty worse transgressions going on (like not reading the link before making a sweeping comment about the ridiculousness of a post).

But thanks for having my back, signal.
posted by fenriq at 8:39 AM on August 2, 2006

Oops, sorry, that should be sort of apologized.
posted by fenriq at 8:39 AM on August 2, 2006

LarryC-- that's when it's done by the original poster. When it's done by someone else, it's kinda presumptuous and annoying-geeky-- there's a subtext of, "I already knew that, it was on BoingBoing, you're dumb for posting it so late!" It's like finishing someone's sentence, wrongly.

Now, saying s'tg like, "Also featured on Blog X" will introduce people to other fun sites on the internet, which is a good thing about MeFi. It's the presumptuousness and snotiness of saying "via," when you don't friggin know how the OP found it, that drives people up a wall.
posted by ibmcginty at 8:40 AM on August 2, 2006

Untrue. I spend the majority of my day trying to find cool websites at random. http://www.sjaeieafl.org/oe9/~j3i99.html? Crap. http://www1.kd90aaaa.net/ll.aw/%20sffASAS.cgi? Nope.

That explains this post. Zing!
posted by justkevin at 9:07 AM on August 2, 2006

...the height of rudeness...

Do you only read MeFi/MeTa threads with numbers divisible by 3 and never go outside? ;-)
posted by i_cola at 9:18 AM on August 2, 2006

The uninvited via is one of the few things on this site that really bugs the shit out of me.
posted by eyeballkid at 9:21 AM on August 2, 2006

I agree too, and every time I see it I think to myself "this person is an asshole."

and then he apologized.
...Oops, sorry, that should be sort of apologized.

Huh? Are you talking about this?

The interwebs are stuck in reverse tonight. Everything Ive read in the last hour is a repost.

That was just another asshole comment to follow up on his presumptuous and erroneous "via." Look at the posting times: he clearly hadn't seen your refutation. Notice that he hasn't shown up here, so he presumably didn't even see the MeTa link. He just shat and ran.
posted by languagehat at 9:30 AM on August 2, 2006

yeah.
posted by cellphone at 9:38 AM on August 2, 2006

*adds shit-and-run to high-priority vocabulary*
posted by Krrrlson at 9:59 AM on August 2, 2006

*starts working on shit-and-run greasemonkey script*

I agree the uninvited via sucks, shits and runs.
posted by taz at 10:58 AM on August 2, 2006

via
posted by Smart Dalek at 11:40 AM on August 2, 2006

sucks, shits and runs.

I am thinking of a panda joke....
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:54 AM on August 2, 2006 [1 favorite]

No chickens, I hope.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:02 PM on August 2, 2006

via
posted by mendel at 12:07 PM on August 2, 2006

+1
posted by bshort at 12:30 PM on August 2, 2006

so what's one to do when they notice a post is taken word for word from digg? flag it? comment so others can see where else it's being discussed?
posted by bigdave at 1:27 PM on August 2, 2006

bigdave: "so what's one to do when they notice a post is taken word for word from digg? flag it? comment so others can see where else it's being discussed?"

Now, saying s'tg like, "Also featured on Blog X" will introduce people to other fun sites on the internet, which is a good thing about MeFi. It's the presumptuousness and snotiness of saying "via," when you don't friggin know how the OP found it, that drives people up a wall.
posted by ibmcginty at 1:42 PM on August 2, 2006

languagehat, well it felt like an apology then but you're right it is more of an explanation. Oh well.

It really doesn't get under my skin, not today (or yesterday) at least. But if he'd caught me at a bad time, I'd be handing out torches and pitchforks. As it is, Meh. Whatever. It may not have been cool but it certainly didn't get me aggravated at all.
posted by fenriq at 3:35 PM on August 2, 2006

I knew [via slashdot], I worked with [via slashdot], and this, Senator, was no [via slashdot].
posted by cortex at 3:52 PM on August 2, 2006

The only times I've done this was specifically to be rude, in a way, by pointing out that someone was spreading a right wing brain virus originating from Michelle Malkin.
posted by Space Coyote at 6:18 PM on August 2, 2006

Is it just me, or is "Try going outside" and its assorted variants the new patronizing catch-phrase? I swear I've seen it at least five times in the last day or so.
I've been outside.
It's overrated.
Stop it.

Also, can anyone point me towards the Greasemonkey script that conjures up the complete comment when you mouse-over a linked quote?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:05 PM on August 17, 2006

Talk about something worth getting upset about. Try going outside.
posted by AspectRatio at 10:16 AM on August 22, 2006