"Humorous" titles give no clue on content by rss August 3, 2006 11:46 AM Subscribe
I find the MetaFilter font page unreadable. And I mean that in the best possible way. I joined MetaFilter so I could participate in its well-above-average discussions that kept turning up in my Google searches. But now that I'm here, I can't find posts I'm interested in on the front page.
I use an RSS reader, and often the jokey headlines give no clue of the post's content. This is just a bad idea. And I understand that links are encouraged, but the visual distraction of link-overloaded posts, compounded with the 15 minutes minimum it would take me to digest them all, leads me to move on before I'm even sure what the post was about. If I only want to click on few, how do I know which of the ten are the best? And where are they going?
Maybe this is just my problem. I'm not dedicated enough to enjoy M.F. But I think it would be better to have a style guide that encourages clarity.
I use an RSS reader, and often the jokey headlines give no clue of the post's content. This is just a bad idea. And I understand that links are encouraged, but the visual distraction of link-overloaded posts, compounded with the 15 minutes minimum it would take me to digest them all, leads me to move on before I'm even sure what the post was about. If I only want to click on few, how do I know which of the ten are the best? And where are they going?
Maybe this is just my problem. I'm not dedicated enough to enjoy M.F. But I think it would be better to have a style guide that encourages clarity.
Doctor Barnett, while I understand where you're coming from (and I empathize with you re: the title field), you've also provided the most taglines in a single post, evar:
Metafilter: often the jokey headlines give no clue of the post's content
Metafilter: now that I'm here, I can't find posts I'm interested in on the front page
Metafilter: This is just a bad idea
Metafilter: I understand that links are encouraged
Metafilter: Maybe this is just my problem
Metafilter: I think it would be better to have a style guide that encourages clarity
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:50 AM on August 3, 2006
Metafilter: often the jokey headlines give no clue of the post's content
Metafilter: now that I'm here, I can't find posts I'm interested in on the front page
Metafilter: This is just a bad idea
Metafilter: I understand that links are encouraged
Metafilter: Maybe this is just my problem
Metafilter: I think it would be better to have a style guide that encourages clarity
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:50 AM on August 3, 2006
But I just skip those.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:51 AM on August 3, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 11:51 AM on August 3, 2006
Doctor Barnett
MetaFilter: no posts and no comments
MetaTalk: 1 post and no comments
Awfully brazen, my friend.
posted by shoepal at 11:52 AM on August 3, 2006
MetaFilter: no posts and no comments
MetaTalk: 1 post and no comments
Awfully brazen, my friend.
posted by shoepal at 11:52 AM on August 3, 2006
Oh, and if you're looking for the cliff notes version, check the favorites page or some permutation thereof.
posted by shoepal at 11:53 AM on August 3, 2006
posted by shoepal at 11:53 AM on August 3, 2006
Shape up people. Doctor Barnett requires easily accessible entertainment. Also, see the Crunchland Method (scroll down).
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Roger Dodger at 12:00 PM on August 3, 2006
I can never understand the mentality of new users who show up and immediately begin complaining and asking for ponies and changes to the community. This happens far more frequently that I would have imagined.
On the other hand, he's right about the overloaded posts. There's been waaaay too much padding since this fershlinger contest started.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:03 PM on August 3, 2006
On the other hand, he's right about the overloaded posts. There's been waaaay too much padding since this fershlinger contest started.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:03 PM on August 3, 2006
Which is ironic, because I imagine padding is the one way not to win. Unless they're giving out awards for effort, I guess.
posted by reklaw at 12:06 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by reklaw at 12:06 PM on August 3, 2006
I wish I had that popcorn and soda eating emoticon. This is gonna be a bumpy ride!
posted by sugarfish at 12:07 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by sugarfish at 12:07 PM on August 3, 2006
I agree with the title field. Too many people use it as opportunity to snark. For instance, this post. The title is so contrived and doesn't tell anything about the post. It was just an attempt to make some unfunny political snark.
The Title page should be as useful as reasonable. But there are limitations due to the space and the nature of the title. Posts are supposed to be things that "most people haven't seen before." And so the title should be something that you are unfamiliar with to a degree. For instance, in Matt's most recent post, he links to cortex's laundryroom swapmeet. The title of the post is laundryroom swapmeet. That title is accurate. Of course, not knowning exactly what laundryroom swapmeet is, you still have to guess. And it turns out in that case you may be able to do so relying on ly on the denotation of the words. But look at my last post. I chose the title Charles Whitman and the UT Tower. I thought that was as descriptive I could be in that context. Obviously some people may not know who Whitman was or what UT is and can't guess based on the denotation of the words. Those people will find it incomprehensible. But some people will know what it is. But there reaslly isn't anything more than can be done.
So if you are reading only through a reader, you have to accept some level of not being able to understand the post from the title.
But you are right that people shouldn't use it as a space to make snark-y lame jokes that don't tell the reader what it is.
As to the rest of your post, I disagree completely. The length of the post should be as long as it should be. No more, no less. People shouldn't artificially contrive links to make posts longer. People shouldn't leave out useful information just to be short. Some posts will aim to share a lot of information on a topic. Some links are to a webpage that needs no more context. Posts should be as long as they need to be to deliver the substance of what is being shared. And, there has to be some provision in allowing art in the crafting a post.
Serious question: you say you are here for discussion and want to find posts that you are interested in. What are you interested in? I pray that you don't say political discussion.
posted by dios at 12:10 PM on August 3, 2006
The Title page should be as useful as reasonable. But there are limitations due to the space and the nature of the title. Posts are supposed to be things that "most people haven't seen before." And so the title should be something that you are unfamiliar with to a degree. For instance, in Matt's most recent post, he links to cortex's laundryroom swapmeet. The title of the post is laundryroom swapmeet. That title is accurate. Of course, not knowning exactly what laundryroom swapmeet is, you still have to guess. And it turns out in that case you may be able to do so relying on ly on the denotation of the words. But look at my last post. I chose the title Charles Whitman and the UT Tower. I thought that was as descriptive I could be in that context. Obviously some people may not know who Whitman was or what UT is and can't guess based on the denotation of the words. Those people will find it incomprehensible. But some people will know what it is. But there reaslly isn't anything more than can be done.
So if you are reading only through a reader, you have to accept some level of not being able to understand the post from the title.
But you are right that people shouldn't use it as a space to make snark-y lame jokes that don't tell the reader what it is.
As to the rest of your post, I disagree completely. The length of the post should be as long as it should be. No more, no less. People shouldn't artificially contrive links to make posts longer. People shouldn't leave out useful information just to be short. Some posts will aim to share a lot of information on a topic. Some links are to a webpage that needs no more context. Posts should be as long as they need to be to deliver the substance of what is being shared. And, there has to be some provision in allowing art in the crafting a post.
Serious question: you say you are here for discussion and want to find posts that you are interested in. What are you interested in? I pray that you don't say political discussion.
posted by dios at 12:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Well, the reason for the 15 link posts lately is because everyone wants to win that 30 bucks and they think that will help them. Personally, I can't stand it. But I just those.
Some of us just like the big link-filled posts. I have several planned posts that will be about the same (if not linkier) than the last two that I made.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:11 PM on August 3, 2006
Some of us just like the big link-filled posts. I have several planned posts that will be about the same (if not linkier) than the last two that I made.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 12:11 PM on August 3, 2006
I'm not dedicated enough to enjoy M.F.
There's dedication involved? Just check a few times a day. Do a quick cursory look through a few links and/or comments and if something seems interesting, follow-up some more. It's really not that difficult.
I never realized that this was a day job. I agree that the titles could be a little more informative but the space limitation could be a significant detractor given specific posts and content.
You're new. Stick with it for a week or so, check out the posts that generate a lot of discussion and read some of the MetaTalk archives. You'll figure it out.
posted by purephase at 12:17 PM on August 3, 2006
There's dedication involved? Just check a few times a day. Do a quick cursory look through a few links and/or comments and if something seems interesting, follow-up some more. It's really not that difficult.
I never realized that this was a day job. I agree that the titles could be a little more informative but the space limitation could be a significant detractor given specific posts and content.
You're new. Stick with it for a week or so, check out the posts that generate a lot of discussion and read some of the MetaTalk archives. You'll figure it out.
posted by purephase at 12:17 PM on August 3, 2006
Ok, after looking at Doctor Barnett's personal blog, I think I may have figured out a potential source of his problem. It appears he is the kind of person who wants the Metafilter of amberglow, not all these new and interesting links that have been up the last 3 days.
posted by dios at 12:23 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by dios at 12:23 PM on August 3, 2006
Hey, I know what this thread was missing! Snotty personal attacks on members who aren't even participating.
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:33 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 12:33 PM on August 3, 2006
I came here & joined to tell you what's wrong with this place!
posted by jonson at 12:36 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by jonson at 12:36 PM on August 3, 2006
Yes, we went down the checklist, and it stopped at "Snotty personal attacks on members who are participating", so we had to do something, you see.
posted by boo_radley at 12:37 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 12:37 PM on August 3, 2006
"visual distraction of link-overloaded posts" -- You are not required by law to read all the links and you can choose a CSS that de-emphasizes the links.
posted by ?! at 12:39 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by ?! at 12:39 PM on August 3, 2006
Doctor Barnett, you have to learn to embrace the chaos. There are thousands of authors here making front page posts and they vary wildly in content, context, and clarity with no way to sway or standardize everyone making posts. You see this as a bad thing while others see it as a positive. There's a certain level of churn on the site you have to learn to deal with. Pass over the really confusing stuff and enjoy the stuff that does catch your eye. No one has to read every single post on the site.
Also, here's a prescription for the good doctor.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:40 PM on August 3, 2006
Also, here's a prescription for the good doctor.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:40 PM on August 3, 2006
Hmm. I suppose CunningLinguist is suggesting that I made a snotty personal attack on amberglow. I don't think that I did. Or, at least I hadn't intended to do so. I was interested in what this guy said he can't find at Metafilter that he used to and that he was interested in. So, I checked out his blog. It reads like amberglow's posting history to me. So I was trying to take a guess as to what this guy is looking for: posts like the one's amberglow makes. {if it was all I-P stuff, I might say he wants Hama7's Metafilter; if it was all nerdy legal stuff, I might say he wants monju's metafilter). If that is an attack on amberglow, my apologies to him. That wasn't my intent. I was just trying to figure out what this guy is looking for that he used to see but can't find anymore.
posted by dios at 12:41 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by dios at 12:41 PM on August 3, 2006
Are you calling me nerdy? You bastard!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2006
Well, it's no diosland, I'll give you that.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:25 PM CST on August 3
Not many things can be...
posted by dios at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:25 PM CST on August 3
Not many things can be...
posted by dios at 12:42 PM on August 3, 2006
Look ma, I can google!
*types furiously*
Cracked me up! So true.
posted by ericb at 12:48 PM on August 3, 2006
*types furiously*
Cracked me up! So true.
posted by ericb at 12:48 PM on August 3, 2006
Grough: Doc, it hurts when I do this."I use an RSS reader, and often the jokey headlines ..."
Doctor: Den don' do dat!
posted by mischief at 1:03 PM on August 3, 2006
Doc, just point your RSS reader at this link for nothing but the best quality content. MeFi Platinum, Ultra... it has many names.
posted by Eideteker at 1:03 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 1:03 PM on August 3, 2006
crash, you forgot...
Metafilter: font page unreadable.
posted by karmaville at 1:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Metafilter: font page unreadable.
posted by karmaville at 1:10 PM on August 3, 2006
I use an RSS reader, and often the jokey headlines give no clue of the post's content.
I use an RSS reader too, and if the headline is jokey or incomprehensible, I take the three whole milliseconds required to view the whole post in my RSS reader to see whether I want to click on the links in the post or not.
Also, you could always just grab the feeds of users and tags you like, then roll them up into one feed with something like Feedshake.
posted by jack_mo at 1:14 PM on August 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
I use an RSS reader too, and if the headline is jokey or incomprehensible, I take the three whole milliseconds required to view the whole post in my RSS reader to see whether I want to click on the links in the post or not.
Also, you could always just grab the feeds of users and tags you like, then roll them up into one feed with something like Feedshake.
posted by jack_mo at 1:14 PM on August 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
I really need to learn WTF rss is and how to use it.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:19 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 1:19 PM on August 3, 2006
Mathowie said: "No one has to read every single post on the site." NOW you tell me! Shouldn't this be in the FAQ?
posted by Cranberry at 1:23 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 1:23 PM on August 3, 2006
Don't worry weretable, it's just a fad.
posted by bob sarabia at 1:26 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 1:26 PM on August 3, 2006
I feel you Dr. B. I find that I enjoy Metafilter much more when I don't read, or even click on, the links. Newsflash jerks! I came to Metafilter to read Metafilter, not a bunch of other sites that you happen to have found. I don't like other sites. I like Metafilter. Why would I click on something that is just going to take me away from the site that I do like, to some site that I don't know if I like or not. I also don't care much for the comments. The words in the posts aren't really for me either. What I like, what keeps me coming back day after day, hour after hour, is the contrast of yellow on blue. I like pulling up the Metafilter front page, and just scrolling down with my eyes not really focusing on any words in particular. Just taking it in as it is, without all the links to other sites. I suggest you try this, and you can appreciate Metafilter as it is meant to be appreciated. Enjoy!
posted by ND¢ at 1:28 PM on August 3, 2006 [3 favorites]
posted by ND¢ at 1:28 PM on August 3, 2006 [3 favorites]
So, do I finally get a flameout? Please, God, please. I'll never ask for anything again. Just give me a flameout so bright I can read by it.
posted by absalom at 1:34 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by absalom at 1:34 PM on August 3, 2006
fuck all y'all, i've been making a solid $30 a day since this thing started.
i rule.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:42 PM on August 3, 2006
i rule.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 1:42 PM on August 3, 2006
Well, the reason for the 15 link posts lately is because everyone wants to win that 30 bucks
Personally, I think people who do this should be beaten with very heavy, robust, and angry badgers. It's the Best Of The Web, not the Best Of These Obscure Links That I've Hoarded For Four Months And Then Strung Together With Bad Editorializing. But I digress. I think it'll die down -- it was the main problem with previous single-day contests, but they can't keep it up all month, right?
Doc B, don't worry about it too much. Most posts to metafilter suck. Don't read them. Skimming is your friend. Open up the things you find interesting, and if you still like them after you follow the link, check out the comment thread, maybe leave one. Our "well-above-average discussions" (thank you, by the way, on behalf of people who have been here discussing) don't happen every day, for every link. I'm sure the average Mefite ignores at least half of the links. They just sort of happen.
It gets better once you are checking regularly; you see what new posts have been made since you last looked, and there's often only five or six. Although maybe I'm a bit addicted.
posted by blacklite at 1:47 PM on August 3, 2006
Personally, I think people who do this should be beaten with very heavy, robust, and angry badgers. It's the Best Of The Web, not the Best Of These Obscure Links That I've Hoarded For Four Months And Then Strung Together With Bad Editorializing. But I digress. I think it'll die down -- it was the main problem with previous single-day contests, but they can't keep it up all month, right?
Doc B, don't worry about it too much. Most posts to metafilter suck. Don't read them. Skimming is your friend. Open up the things you find interesting, and if you still like them after you follow the link, check out the comment thread, maybe leave one. Our "well-above-average discussions" (thank you, by the way, on behalf of people who have been here discussing) don't happen every day, for every link. I'm sure the average Mefite ignores at least half of the links. They just sort of happen.
It gets better once you are checking regularly; you see what new posts have been made since you last looked, and there's often only five or six. Although maybe I'm a bit addicted.
posted by blacklite at 1:47 PM on August 3, 2006
dios writes "For instance, this post. The title is so contrived and doesn't tell anything about the post. It was just an attempt to make some unfunny political snark."
dfios is joking here, right? He didn't actually miss the obvious pun of the title, right?
posted by orthogonality at 1:51 PM on August 3, 2006
dfios is joking here, right? He didn't actually miss the obvious pun of the title, right?
posted by orthogonality at 1:51 PM on August 3, 2006
Is this 'pun' something I'd have to have an American citizenship to get?
posted by blacklite at 2:07 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by blacklite at 2:07 PM on August 3, 2006
Who is MetaFilter and why is he saying these horrible things about me in his RSS feed?
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:10 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:10 PM on August 3, 2006
orthogonality: It's a pun which is hilarious if you know what the post's about. If start with the pun it tells you nothing about the post at all.
This issue keeps coming up because people are using limited RSS services, like Google's personalised homepage, which only show the RSS Titles.
Their choice and their problem yeah? Well as long as everyone making a post knows what the Headline/Title field actually does - or positively doesn't care. The problem is that the posting page is out of date and doesn't tell you. Matt said he'd fix it but he's obviously changed his mind.
posted by grahamwell at 2:15 PM on August 3, 2006
This issue keeps coming up because people are using limited RSS services, like Google's personalised homepage, which only show the RSS Titles.
Their choice and their problem yeah? Well as long as everyone making a post knows what the Headline/Title field actually does - or positively doesn't care. The problem is that the posting page is out of date and doesn't tell you. Matt said he'd fix it but he's obviously changed his mind.
posted by grahamwell at 2:15 PM on August 3, 2006
I suppose CunningLinguist is suggesting that I made a snotty personal attack on amberglow. I don't think that I did.
well, it's certainly better than the time you told amberglow to stop sucking y2karl's cock and you got banned for it, so you're getting better.
baby steps and all.
posted by matteo at 2:18 PM on August 3, 2006
well, it's certainly better than the time you told amberglow to stop sucking y2karl's cock and you got banned for it, so you're getting better.
baby steps and all.
posted by matteo at 2:18 PM on August 3, 2006
What's the big deal about the titles? You can't see them on the front page (although I think they ought to be there), so they don't help you choose posts to read. They don't have to be bland descriptions of the subject; turning them into puns, jokes, literary allusions is just fine.
posted by beagle at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by beagle at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
I'd definitely read this thread if I saw that title in my rss feed.
posted by ninjew at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by ninjew at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
I'd prefer if Metafilter read itself and I could just sit here chillaxin'
posted by rollbiz at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by rollbiz at 2:24 PM on August 3, 2006
dfios is joking here, right? He didn't actually miss the obvious pun of the title, right?
I think the point is that when you're viewing the title of a post in a headline reader, you would have no way of knowing that post was about photography. (I hadn't actually read that post until dios linked it above because I'd assumed from the title that it was some news about your man who fucked up with the New Orleans business...)
posted by jack_mo at 2:25 PM on August 3, 2006
I think the point is that when you're viewing the title of a post in a headline reader, you would have no way of knowing that post was about photography. (I hadn't actually read that post until dios linked it above because I'd assumed from the title that it was some news about your man who fucked up with the New Orleans business...)
posted by jack_mo at 2:25 PM on August 3, 2006
I joined MetaFilter so I could participate in its well-above-average discussions that kept turning up in my Google searches.
Then maybe you should just filter the site through Google. Everybody wins that way.
Don't feel too bad, though - many of us have gone to much greater effort to look like an idiot on MeTa before figuring out how the site really works.
posted by dg at 2:26 PM on August 3, 2006
Then maybe you should just filter the site through Google. Everybody wins that way.
Don't feel too bad, though - many of us have gone to much greater effort to look like an idiot on MeTa before figuring out how the site really works.
posted by dg at 2:26 PM on August 3, 2006
well, it's certainly better than the time you told amberglow to stop sucking y2karl's cock and you got banned for it, so you're getting better.
baby steps and all.
posted by matteo at 4:18 PM CST on August 3
You would think that after making that same allusions 10-20 times, you would remember that I wasn't banned for it and didn't say "sucking y2karl's cock." I told him to get off y2karl's nuts. Granted your a foreigner, so you don't really understand regional colloquial expressions. But 'round these parts, we use a phrase of "being on someone's nuts" or "riding someone's jock" to indicate a person who is a sychophant of another person. It has nothing to do with gayness (which I take it is the fact that makes this porcelain fragile for you, despite it being something I don't give a shit about) and everything to do with being a sychophant of someone else.
Was it crude and did I abstain from being so crude again? Yes, as I admitted at the time.
But don't let that keep you from bringing it up another couple dozen of times. It makes me happy to know that my presence is so offensive to you. I'd be concerned otherwise.
posted by dios at 2:33 PM on August 3, 2006
baby steps and all.
posted by matteo at 4:18 PM CST on August 3
You would think that after making that same allusions 10-20 times, you would remember that I wasn't banned for it and didn't say "sucking y2karl's cock." I told him to get off y2karl's nuts. Granted your a foreigner, so you don't really understand regional colloquial expressions. But 'round these parts, we use a phrase of "being on someone's nuts" or "riding someone's jock" to indicate a person who is a sychophant of another person. It has nothing to do with gayness (which I take it is the fact that makes this porcelain fragile for you, despite it being something I don't give a shit about) and everything to do with being a sychophant of someone else.
Was it crude and did I abstain from being so crude again? Yes, as I admitted at the time.
But don't let that keep you from bringing it up another couple dozen of times. It makes me happy to know that my presence is so offensive to you. I'd be concerned otherwise.
posted by dios at 2:33 PM on August 3, 2006
And if you respond here in a bit, and I don't get back to you, don't take offense. It's merely because I'm busy combing your previous posting history keeping a log of all the ill-considered shitty bon mots you have dropped so that I can bring them up over and over for you too. It should be a long a list, so it may take me a while.
posted by dios at 2:36 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by dios at 2:36 PM on August 3, 2006
See Doc-- this is the stuff you miss if you don't read everything!
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:41 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by InfidelZombie at 2:41 PM on August 3, 2006
Dios and Matteo make a good case for grudge.metafilter.com. Take it to the Red, boys!
posted by shoepal at 2:51 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by shoepal at 2:51 PM on August 3, 2006
Metafilter: It makes me happy to know that my presence is so offensive to you.
posted by Duncan at 3:23 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Duncan at 3:23 PM on August 3, 2006
I find the whole gosh darn Internet unreadable.
That's why I only look at pictures of naked people.
posted by milquetoast at 3:27 PM on August 3, 2006
That's why I only look at pictures of naked people.
posted by milquetoast at 3:27 PM on August 3, 2006
Shoepal, you wonder why I haven't posted here yet? Because I wanted to feel things out. As this, my first post in any of the filters shows, that was a good idea. If even asking a question about the content (in the correct place) elicits this response, I'm not sure there's much for me here. (Please, instantly post your "good riddance", etc messages.) Also, you forgot to tally my incredibly helpful comments in Ask MeFi.
I'm glad to have some support for the idea that headlines should be useful, but I'm surprised at the knee-jerk reactions that I "don't get" links. I'd say that people who link every other word don't understand linking. It's a question density, and useful information.
Have fun eating each other alive, kids!
posted by Doctor Barnett at 3:53 PM on August 3, 2006
I'm glad to have some support for the idea that headlines should be useful, but I'm surprised at the knee-jerk reactions that I "don't get" links. I'd say that people who link every other word don't understand linking. It's a question density, and useful information.
Have fun eating each other alive, kids!
posted by Doctor Barnett at 3:53 PM on August 3, 2006
If even asking a question about the content (in the correct place) elicits this response, I'm not sure there's much for me here.
Well, you rightly identify metafilter-as-gestalt as having distinct sections. Metatalk is the one section that could have a sign on the lawn saying "Beware Of Regulars". The blue is more carefree, and the green is just downright civil, but tread thee into the grey at great personal risk.
It's a varied world out there on the blue, and different folks read the site for different reasons. I don't think you "don't get" links—I think you don't get that there is such a broadly satisfied existing userbase that your proposal comes off as presumptuous. That's okay, though; we've all been there, and as you say, you're feeling things out.
So know this: Metatalk will eat you alive unless you put on your cup and smile your way through. Nobody likes a quitter.
posted by cortex at 4:01 PM on August 3, 2006
Well, you rightly identify metafilter-as-gestalt as having distinct sections. Metatalk is the one section that could have a sign on the lawn saying "Beware Of Regulars". The blue is more carefree, and the green is just downright civil, but tread thee into the grey at great personal risk.
It's a varied world out there on the blue, and different folks read the site for different reasons. I don't think you "don't get" links—I think you don't get that there is such a broadly satisfied existing userbase that your proposal comes off as presumptuous. That's okay, though; we've all been there, and as you say, you're feeling things out.
So know this: Metatalk will eat you alive unless you put on your cup and smile your way through. Nobody likes a quitter.
posted by cortex at 4:01 PM on August 3, 2006
I only eat two things alive and they both smell like oysters.
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:08 PM on August 3, 2006
All right guys, I'll let the cat out of the bag: dios, matteo, y2karl, and I are all one person.
posted by Krrrlson at 4:15 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Krrrlson at 4:15 PM on August 3, 2006
Yeah right, Krrrlson, what about monju_bosatsu? I suppose he is someone else?
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:19 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Roger Dodger at 4:19 PM on August 3, 2006
You had an odd method of "feeling things out", doc.
posted by boo_radley at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 4:40 PM on August 3, 2006
Don't feel too bad, though - many of us have gone to much greater effort to look like an idiot on MeTa before figuring out how the site really works. - dg
How many people do you suppose read that and then immediately delved into your MeTa posting history?
posted by raedyn at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2006
How many people do you suppose read that and then immediately delved into your MeTa posting history?
posted by raedyn at 4:41 PM on August 3, 2006
unless you put on your cup
But do so with caution!
Why is everybody mad about the cups?
posted by ericb at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2006
But do so with caution!
Why is everybody mad about the cups?
posted by ericb at 4:46 PM on August 3, 2006
Thanks for the reply, cortex. I would question (if I were still in the business of questioning MetaFilter) having the one place where users might ask for help, or dare to question the site, also be the one designated for unmoderated blowing off of steam. I did come here straight form the prairies of Ask, with no reason to think the tone would be any different.
It's not like I haven't shared forum space with 13 year-olds. I spent half my adolescence fending off ANSI art from the Simpsons. I survived Wikipedia (where, incidentally, asking questions in the right place is a fairly safe endeavor). Had I bothered to check for foulness in MetaTalk threads, I would have known better than to couch my criticism in naivete. Or criticise at all.
My famous "Google searches," by the way, consistently pointed to Ask. I should have taken the hint.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 5:01 PM on August 3, 2006
It's not like I haven't shared forum space with 13 year-olds. I spent half my adolescence fending off ANSI art from the Simpsons. I survived Wikipedia (where, incidentally, asking questions in the right place is a fairly safe endeavor). Had I bothered to check for foulness in MetaTalk threads, I would have known better than to couch my criticism in naivete. Or criticise at all.
My famous "Google searches," by the way, consistently pointed to Ask. I should have taken the hint.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 5:01 PM on August 3, 2006
AskMetafilter: Safe and civil.
Metafilter: Don the Asbestos.
MetaTalk: Abandon All Hope, Thar Be Dragons.
posted by Balisong at 5:07 PM on August 3, 2006
Metafilter: Don the Asbestos.
MetaTalk: Abandon All Hope, Thar Be Dragons.
posted by Balisong at 5:07 PM on August 3, 2006
I hope you stick around Doc B, AskMe can alway use thoughful intelligent people even if you never post in the blue or the Gray
posted by Megafly at 5:11 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Megafly at 5:11 PM on August 3, 2006
Krrrlson writes "All right guys, I'll let the cat out of the bag: dios, matteo, y2karl, and I are all one person."
Wait, matteo and y2karl and, yes, dios make serious, well-informed posts and cogent, thoughtful comments. This is really one of those kindergarteners' "one of these things is not like the others" puzzles , right?
posted by orthogonality at 6:08 PM on August 3, 2006
Wait, matteo and y2karl and, yes, dios make serious, well-informed posts and cogent, thoughtful comments. This is really one of those kindergarteners' "one of these things is not like the others" puzzles , right?
posted by orthogonality at 6:08 PM on August 3, 2006
doctor barnett:
the problem is that you posted a question that's been asked before, for one thing. a bunch of times. and the answer is always the only reasonable one: metafilter doesn't and shouldn't enforce format and style guidelines. we're sorry if some posts confuse you, some of them confuse me, too. such is life. a simple search of the site would have yielded these older threads, as the page for posting a new metatalk post suggests. people get irate when a simple answer is available to you and you've ignored the avenues for retreiving it. as for why people get so uppity about that? eh, metatalk will eat you alive, as cortex said.
the other reason people don't like your post is that it's difficult to imagine what you could possibly have wanted to happen here, if not some obnoxious site-wide ban on certain styles of post. I mean, what kind of style guide are you implying, if it's not mandated at the admin level? we already have crunchland's guide, and many many threads have gone into post style far more fruitfully and less whiningly than this one in the past. what more could you possibly be asking for if not an admin-level ban on "posts i don't like?"
of course, if that's not what you're asking for, then we're back to square one: a user who hasn't spent any time in the community he wants to correct making a post he shouldn't have made because he hadn't spent enough time in the blue/gray to know he shouldn't make it.
either way, there isn't a whole lot to like in your post. sure people could have been nicer in telling you that, but we live here. you just stopped by for a second to tell us how wrong we are to live this way. seems to me like you're the one out of line, however innocently you may have intended this whiney post to be taken.
posted by shmegegge at 7:04 PM on August 3, 2006
the problem is that you posted a question that's been asked before, for one thing. a bunch of times. and the answer is always the only reasonable one: metafilter doesn't and shouldn't enforce format and style guidelines. we're sorry if some posts confuse you, some of them confuse me, too. such is life. a simple search of the site would have yielded these older threads, as the page for posting a new metatalk post suggests. people get irate when a simple answer is available to you and you've ignored the avenues for retreiving it. as for why people get so uppity about that? eh, metatalk will eat you alive, as cortex said.
the other reason people don't like your post is that it's difficult to imagine what you could possibly have wanted to happen here, if not some obnoxious site-wide ban on certain styles of post. I mean, what kind of style guide are you implying, if it's not mandated at the admin level? we already have crunchland's guide, and many many threads have gone into post style far more fruitfully and less whiningly than this one in the past. what more could you possibly be asking for if not an admin-level ban on "posts i don't like?"
of course, if that's not what you're asking for, then we're back to square one: a user who hasn't spent any time in the community he wants to correct making a post he shouldn't have made because he hadn't spent enough time in the blue/gray to know he shouldn't make it.
either way, there isn't a whole lot to like in your post. sure people could have been nicer in telling you that, but we live here. you just stopped by for a second to tell us how wrong we are to live this way. seems to me like you're the one out of line, however innocently you may have intended this whiney post to be taken.
posted by shmegegge at 7:04 PM on August 3, 2006
dios : "So if you are reading only through a reader, you have to accept some level of not being able to understand the post from the title.
But you are right that people shouldn't use it as a space to make snark-y lame jokes that don't tell the reader what it is."
I'd say the rule of thumb for good titleing is: If your title is unclear because it can't be helped, well, then, it can't be helped. If it's unclear even though it could've been clear, because you wanted to be clever, then it's a bad title.
bob sarabia : "Well, the reason for the 15 link posts lately is because everyone wants to win that 30 bucks and they think that will help them."
weretable and the undead chairs : "Some of us just like the big link-filled posts."
Yes, but that number stays relatively constant. bob sarabia is just saying that the reason there is a spike right now is the contest.
orthogonality : "dfios is joking here, right? He didn't actually miss the obvious pun of the title, right?"
Wouldn't you have to read the contents of the post to get the pun? And isn't a title supposed to work in the reverse? If someone posts a Dr. Seuss article where the good doctor writes at length about how he actually fucking HATES ham, and titles the post "I do not like them, Sam I am", everyone will get the pun, but it does make for a useless rss title. Not the end of the world, by any means, but "It's an obvious pun" isn't really a counterargument for "It isn't clear from the title what the contents are about".
beagle : "You can't see them on the front page (although I think they ought to be there), so they don't help you choose posts to read."
No, but they do show up in the RSS feeder, and, if you use a sidebarred rss feeder, they are all that show up unless you hover your mouse over each one to see the contents.
dios : "But 'round these parts, we use a phrase of "being on someone's nuts" or "riding someone's jock" to indicate a person who is a sychophant of another person. It has nothing to do with gayness"
To be fair, so does "sucking one's cock", which also has nothing to do with gayness, so that isn't much of an argument about how "riding his nuts" is somehow better than "sucking his cock".
dios : "It's merely because I'm busy combing your previous posting history keeping a log of all the ill-considered shitty bon mots you have dropped so that I can bring them up over and over for you too."
And when you finish doing that, please send a strongly worded email to matteo about it. And, matteo, when you get it, please send a strongly worded email back about it. There's no need that y'all's personal feuds take place in public here on MeFi.
Doctor Barnett : "I would question (if I were still in the business of questioning MetaFilter) having the one place where users might ask for help, or dare to question the site, also be the one designated for unmoderated blowing off of steam."
It's not unmoderated. The moderation rules are just different. Quick rundown:
Blue: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten. Long complaining discussions about the posts are verboten, because they are supposed to go in MeTa.
Green: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten. Long complaining discussions about the posts are verboten, because they are supposed to go in MeTa. Comments which don't answer the question are verboten.
Grey: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten.
So the grey comes off as much more aggressive, not because it's unmoderated, but because it's set up for disagreements about the site, behaviour, and the like. In the end, it all comes down to which thread you're reading. Threads on the blue about, for example, photography, are generally civil, because there's little to be uncivil about. Threads on the blue about politics, for example, are often uncivil, because people have extremely strong and opposed opinions. Threads on the grey about meetups are generally civil, because there's little to be uncivil about. Threads on the grey about user behavior, for example, are often uncivil, because people have extremely strong and opposed opinions. So you just had the bad luck of going from the discussions on the blue that happened to be civil to a discussion on the grey that happened to be uncivil. The reason people are saying "You have to wear kevlar to visit the grey" is because, since the grey is the dedicated area for discussion about the site (not the topics of links themselves), and discussion about the site includes disagreements about posts, comments, user behavior, and the like, you're more statistically likely to encounter an angry thread. It's not that it's unmoderated, or absolutely uncivil: a post on the grey congratulating two MeFi users on getting married will be, for example, WAY more civil than a post on the blue about obese Israelis.
Doctor Barnett : "Had I bothered to check for foulness in MetaTalk threads, I would have known better than to couch my criticism in naivete. Or criticise at all."
Nah, you would have just phrased it better. There would still have been a little bile (people are mighty attached to MetaFilter, so any criticism is bound to result in some friction), but much less than in this post.
posted by Bugbread at 7:38 PM on August 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
But you are right that people shouldn't use it as a space to make snark-y lame jokes that don't tell the reader what it is."
I'd say the rule of thumb for good titleing is: If your title is unclear because it can't be helped, well, then, it can't be helped. If it's unclear even though it could've been clear, because you wanted to be clever, then it's a bad title.
bob sarabia : "Well, the reason for the 15 link posts lately is because everyone wants to win that 30 bucks and they think that will help them."
weretable and the undead chairs : "Some of us just like the big link-filled posts."
Yes, but that number stays relatively constant. bob sarabia is just saying that the reason there is a spike right now is the contest.
orthogonality : "dfios is joking here, right? He didn't actually miss the obvious pun of the title, right?"
Wouldn't you have to read the contents of the post to get the pun? And isn't a title supposed to work in the reverse? If someone posts a Dr. Seuss article where the good doctor writes at length about how he actually fucking HATES ham, and titles the post "I do not like them, Sam I am", everyone will get the pun, but it does make for a useless rss title. Not the end of the world, by any means, but "It's an obvious pun" isn't really a counterargument for "It isn't clear from the title what the contents are about".
beagle : "You can't see them on the front page (although I think they ought to be there), so they don't help you choose posts to read."
No, but they do show up in the RSS feeder, and, if you use a sidebarred rss feeder, they are all that show up unless you hover your mouse over each one to see the contents.
dios : "But 'round these parts, we use a phrase of "being on someone's nuts" or "riding someone's jock" to indicate a person who is a sychophant of another person. It has nothing to do with gayness"
To be fair, so does "sucking one's cock", which also has nothing to do with gayness, so that isn't much of an argument about how "riding his nuts" is somehow better than "sucking his cock".
dios : "It's merely because I'm busy combing your previous posting history keeping a log of all the ill-considered shitty bon mots you have dropped so that I can bring them up over and over for you too."
And when you finish doing that, please send a strongly worded email to matteo about it. And, matteo, when you get it, please send a strongly worded email back about it. There's no need that y'all's personal feuds take place in public here on MeFi.
Doctor Barnett : "I would question (if I were still in the business of questioning MetaFilter) having the one place where users might ask for help, or dare to question the site, also be the one designated for unmoderated blowing off of steam."
It's not unmoderated. The moderation rules are just different. Quick rundown:
Blue: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten. Long complaining discussions about the posts are verboten, because they are supposed to go in MeTa.
Green: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten. Long complaining discussions about the posts are verboten, because they are supposed to go in MeTa. Comments which don't answer the question are verboten.
Grey: Offensive, blatantly attacking stuff is verboten.
So the grey comes off as much more aggressive, not because it's unmoderated, but because it's set up for disagreements about the site, behaviour, and the like. In the end, it all comes down to which thread you're reading. Threads on the blue about, for example, photography, are generally civil, because there's little to be uncivil about. Threads on the blue about politics, for example, are often uncivil, because people have extremely strong and opposed opinions. Threads on the grey about meetups are generally civil, because there's little to be uncivil about. Threads on the grey about user behavior, for example, are often uncivil, because people have extremely strong and opposed opinions. So you just had the bad luck of going from the discussions on the blue that happened to be civil to a discussion on the grey that happened to be uncivil. The reason people are saying "You have to wear kevlar to visit the grey" is because, since the grey is the dedicated area for discussion about the site (not the topics of links themselves), and discussion about the site includes disagreements about posts, comments, user behavior, and the like, you're more statistically likely to encounter an angry thread. It's not that it's unmoderated, or absolutely uncivil: a post on the grey congratulating two MeFi users on getting married will be, for example, WAY more civil than a post on the blue about obese Israelis.
Doctor Barnett : "Had I bothered to check for foulness in MetaTalk threads, I would have known better than to couch my criticism in naivete. Or criticise at all."
Nah, you would have just phrased it better. There would still have been a little bile (people are mighty attached to MetaFilter, so any criticism is bound to result in some friction), but much less than in this post.
posted by Bugbread at 7:38 PM on August 3, 2006 [1 favorite]
shmegegge : "sure people could have been nicer in telling you that, but we live here. you just stopped by for a second to tell us how wrong we are to live this way."
This is pretty harshly phrased, but it's true. It's not so much "we live here, and therefore we're right and you're wrong", but...Well, for example, let's say that someone has a skin condition, for which a popular remedy is peanut butter. Now let's say that person has a peanut allergy. Every once in a while, someone will say "You should eat peanut butter, your skin will clear right up." The first time it happens, the person will say "I'm allergic to peanut butter". Now, imagine that every few weeks someone pops in and says "You should eat peanut butter". After a while, Mr. Peanut Allergy is going to get pissed. And, for the person recommending it, it will come off as really aggressive and horrible. But from Mr. Peanut Allergy's point of view, it's someone coming to him again, for the 50 billionth time, telling him the same damn thing, again. So we're the folks who live with the peanut allergy, and you're the visitor who doesn't know that yet because you haven't gotten to know us well enough yet.
So the rule of thumb is "lurk and read a lot before making a suggestion, so that you avoid being the 50 billionth person to recommend peanut butter".
posted by Bugbread at 7:55 PM on August 3, 2006
This is pretty harshly phrased, but it's true. It's not so much "we live here, and therefore we're right and you're wrong", but...Well, for example, let's say that someone has a skin condition, for which a popular remedy is peanut butter. Now let's say that person has a peanut allergy. Every once in a while, someone will say "You should eat peanut butter, your skin will clear right up." The first time it happens, the person will say "I'm allergic to peanut butter". Now, imagine that every few weeks someone pops in and says "You should eat peanut butter". After a while, Mr. Peanut Allergy is going to get pissed. And, for the person recommending it, it will come off as really aggressive and horrible. But from Mr. Peanut Allergy's point of view, it's someone coming to him again, for the 50 billionth time, telling him the same damn thing, again. So we're the folks who live with the peanut allergy, and you're the visitor who doesn't know that yet because you haven't gotten to know us well enough yet.
So the rule of thumb is "lurk and read a lot before making a suggestion, so that you avoid being the 50 billionth person to recommend peanut butter".
posted by Bugbread at 7:55 PM on August 3, 2006
shmegegge, what I wanted was a discussion. What I got was about 5% discussion and 95% childish insults. I did search the archive, but as you can imagine this isn't something that boils down easily to search terms. I would counsel those who are utterly bored with the discussion, because they have seen it so many times before, to just move right along.
what more could you possibly be asking for if not an admin-level ban on "posts i don't like?"
of course, if that's not what you're asking for...
Yes, it must be exactly that or else I'm an asshole who made no effort whatsoever to find the answer to his question. See, it's hard to get to the discussion with everyone so cheerfully putting me down. A good starting point would be to stop rewarding excessive links. That could be debated, or you could just go back to insulting me.
either way, there isn't a whole lot to like in your post.
Okay, I see where your priorities lie.
I am sorry, as I said, that I didn't case M.F. Talk. I am sorry for "stopping by" this part of the site after inhabiting another part for only a few weeks. I am sorry for logging a common complaint that's unmentioned in the FAQ.
But I think that's a rather ridiculous thing to go all apeshit over.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 8:35 PM on August 3, 2006
what more could you possibly be asking for if not an admin-level ban on "posts i don't like?"
of course, if that's not what you're asking for...
Yes, it must be exactly that or else I'm an asshole who made no effort whatsoever to find the answer to his question. See, it's hard to get to the discussion with everyone so cheerfully putting me down. A good starting point would be to stop rewarding excessive links. That could be debated, or you could just go back to insulting me.
either way, there isn't a whole lot to like in your post.
Okay, I see where your priorities lie.
I am sorry, as I said, that I didn't case M.F. Talk. I am sorry for "stopping by" this part of the site after inhabiting another part for only a few weeks. I am sorry for logging a common complaint that's unmentioned in the FAQ.
But I think that's a rather ridiculous thing to go all apeshit over.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 8:35 PM on August 3, 2006
"...I didn't case M.F. Talk..."
Actually, there's no 'F' in Metatalk. That's because we don't filter this shit at all.
posted by graventy at 8:45 PM on August 3, 2006
Actually, there's no 'F' in Metatalk. That's because we don't filter this shit at all.
posted by graventy at 8:45 PM on August 3, 2006
Noted. This is so much fun!
posted by Doctor Barnett at 8:47 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Doctor Barnett at 8:47 PM on August 3, 2006
Doctor Barnett, I sincerely apologise for the snark. I was simply trying to point out that you were complaining about something you hadn't participated in. Consider how your post came across. Imagine having walked into a bar or classroom of people talking in small groups discussing various topics and asking them to be more uniform in their manners and conversation styles.
They'd show you the door right quick, would they not?
Stick around! I have a feeling you'll like it here after a spell.
(and there's no shame sticking to ask.mefi, a lot of folks avoid the blue and grey!)
posted by shoepal at 9:02 PM on August 3, 2006
They'd show you the door right quick, would they not?
Stick around! I have a feeling you'll like it here after a spell.
(and there's no shame sticking to ask.mefi, a lot of folks avoid the blue and grey!)
posted by shoepal at 9:02 PM on August 3, 2006
Doctor Barnett, keep in mind that MetaFilter has a history. For years, membership was closed, so one could only lurk. Many of us did lurk during that time, and spent much time observing and trying to absorb the culture.
(Or, you were a member before signups were closed, and felt like you belonged to a private club, and the nouveax riche should learn their place before speaking up.)
Only relatively recently has one been able to pay five bucks and have a voice. Many "mefites" have a higher expectation that new members have grokked that culture than you might expect at most sites.
PS: Around here, it's "mefi", not M.F. -- I keep reading that as "motherfucker". Tee hee.
(Note that there is not yet a community consensus on how to refer to MetaFilter Music. Apparently consensus on trivial things is important in small communities. Hence the responses to your post here. Oh, and also the peanut butter thing.)
posted by bigbigdog at 9:07 PM on August 3, 2006
(Or, you were a member before signups were closed, and felt like you belonged to a private club, and the nouveax riche should learn their place before speaking up.)
Only relatively recently has one been able to pay five bucks and have a voice. Many "mefites" have a higher expectation that new members have grokked that culture than you might expect at most sites.
PS: Around here, it's "mefi", not M.F. -- I keep reading that as "motherfucker". Tee hee.
(Note that there is not yet a community consensus on how to refer to MetaFilter Music. Apparently consensus on trivial things is important in small communities. Hence the responses to your post here. Oh, and also the peanut butter thing.)
posted by bigbigdog at 9:07 PM on August 3, 2006
Seriously Ballsong, be careful with the repeated exclamation points. You just might hurt yourself.
Shoepal, well, this is starting to feel warm, but not quite fuzzy. I've never heard of such a distinctly partitioned community under root domain, but hey, if that's the way you guys like it.
And I will be sure to stick to the other side of the fence. Except for this thread. Which I will continue to append to for as long as others do. I think that given it's all about how much most of you hate me, you owe me that much.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Shoepal, well, this is starting to feel warm, but not quite fuzzy. I've never heard of such a distinctly partitioned community under root domain, but hey, if that's the way you guys like it.
And I will be sure to stick to the other side of the fence. Except for this thread. Which I will continue to append to for as long as others do. I think that given it's all about how much most of you hate me, you owe me that much.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Oh, and also the peanut butter thing
Is that the peanut butter thing I'm thinking of?
posted by Balisong at 9:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Is that the peanut butter thing I'm thinking of?
posted by Balisong at 9:10 PM on August 3, 2006
Seriously Ballsong, be careful with the repeated exclamation points. You just might hurt yourself.
That to tell you how serious I am!!!one!!111!!
posted by Balisong at 9:11 PM on August 3, 2006
P.S. We don't hate you...
Consider it a rite of passage, like being spanked by Geronimo's skull when you enter the Second Tier of the Skull and Bones society at Yale.
posted by Balisong at 9:13 PM on August 3, 2006
Consider it a rite of passage, like being spanked by Geronimo's skull when you enter the Second Tier of the Skull and Bones society at Yale.
posted by Balisong at 9:13 PM on August 3, 2006
Oh no, we don't hate you. You just haven't received your secret decoder ring in the mail yet.
(Yes, I'm still waiting for mine. Damn that M.F. cabal!@!@!)
posted by bigbigdog at 9:19 PM on August 3, 2006
(Yes, I'm still waiting for mine. Damn that M.F. cabal!@!@!)
posted by bigbigdog at 9:19 PM on August 3, 2006
No way, when I want to say motherfucker I just motherfucking say it. And if I want to abbreviate MetaFilter as "M.F.," I'll just motherfucking do that too.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:25 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:25 PM on August 3, 2006
If he doesn't fucking flame out, I'm going to have to do it. I haven't come THIS far to see it end on a good note.
Dammit, people, get with the program.
posted by disclaimer at 9:31 PM on August 3, 2006
Dammit, people, get with the program.
posted by disclaimer at 9:31 PM on August 3, 2006
Forget it, I am more relaxed now than you can possibly imagine.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:36 PM on August 3, 2006
posted by Doctor Barnett at 9:36 PM on August 3, 2006
... or else I'm an asshole who made no effort whatsoever to find the answer to his question.
Now you're starting to make sense ;-)
Seriously, though, MeTa is not a place for the faint of heart. You have made it this far into a thread that you started by pointing out your own ignorance about the way things work here in flaming 50-foot letters and are still around, so you may well last where others have run away screaming (or sobbing). If so, welcome. If not, don't let the door hit you in the arse of the way out. At this stage, I vote that you'll stay and one day be just like us. Only if you are seriously unlucky and/or already lobotomised, though.
posted by dg at 10:32 PM on August 3, 2006
Now you're starting to make sense ;-)
Seriously, though, MeTa is not a place for the faint of heart. You have made it this far into a thread that you started by pointing out your own ignorance about the way things work here in flaming 50-foot letters and are still around, so you may well last where others have run away screaming (or sobbing). If so, welcome. If not, don't let the door hit you in the arse of the way out. At this stage, I vote that you'll stay and one day be just like us. Only if you are seriously unlucky and/or already lobotomised, though.
posted by dg at 10:32 PM on August 3, 2006
If the door DOES hit you in the ass on the way out, be sure and wipe off your butt print.
It's more sanitary that way.
(We still love you, tho.. You are a special, unique snowflake.)
posted by Balisong at 10:38 PM on August 3, 2006
It's more sanitary that way.
(We still love you, tho.. You are a special, unique snowflake.)
posted by Balisong at 10:38 PM on August 3, 2006
Doctor Barnett : "I am more relaxed now than you can possibly imagine."
I imagine this being in the voice of Sir Alec Guiness.
posted by Bugbread at 3:39 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
I imagine this being in the voice of Sir Alec Guiness.
posted by Bugbread at 3:39 AM on August 4, 2006 [1 favorite]
One man's ignorance in flaming 50-foot letters is another man's simple question, but hey, I see how you guys roll now. The truth is I probably won't be spending much time outside of Ask, for the reasons stated in the 50-foot letters, but I'll know better than to bring that up here again.
This was Thursday's most commented post, side-wide. You're all welcome.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 5:32 AM on August 4, 2006
This was Thursday's most commented post, side-wide. You're all welcome.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 5:32 AM on August 4, 2006
Dammit, and I so wanted a flameout...
Seriously, though, well played. You mistook the lay of the land, caught some flak, retrieved your balance, and danced the MeTa jig with aplomb. No need to hide in AskMe; anyone who can say "Forget it, I am more relaxed now than you can possibly imagine" (and I love the Alec Guinness suggestion) will do just fine in any province of this online equivalent of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Oh, and I imagine you've figured this out by now, but no one hates you or was flaming you. I'd link to some fondly remembered threads where people were hated and did get flamed to a fare-thee-well, but it's too darn hot.
posted by languagehat at 5:54 AM on August 4, 2006
Seriously, though, well played. You mistook the lay of the land, caught some flak, retrieved your balance, and danced the MeTa jig with aplomb. No need to hide in AskMe; anyone who can say "Forget it, I am more relaxed now than you can possibly imagine" (and I love the Alec Guinness suggestion) will do just fine in any province of this online equivalent of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.
Oh, and I imagine you've figured this out by now, but no one hates you or was flaming you. I'd link to some fondly remembered threads where people were hated and did get flamed to a fare-thee-well, but it's too darn hot.
posted by languagehat at 5:54 AM on August 4, 2006
plus it's hard to use the computer with your right hand missing and all
posted by cortex at 6:40 AM on August 4, 2006
posted by cortex at 6:40 AM on August 4, 2006
I've never heard of such a distinctly partitioned community under root domain, but hey, if that's the way you guys like it.
This community is a little more unique than most (IMO). I rarely post on the gray, but it is some of the more interesting reading available on the site.
I stick primarily with AskMe since I believe that's where this particular community goes miles above the rest.
posted by purephase at 7:15 AM on August 4, 2006
This community is a little more unique than most (IMO). I rarely post on the gray, but it is some of the more interesting reading available on the site.
I stick primarily with AskMe since I believe that's where this particular community goes miles above the rest.
posted by purephase at 7:15 AM on August 4, 2006
As noted, this thread did not really achieve the critical mass necessary for a flame out. Several comments were actually intended to be helpful rather than abusive. Call it a rather mild pile on. MellowFilter?
posted by Cranberry at 12:52 PM on August 4, 2006
posted by Cranberry at 12:52 PM on August 4, 2006
dr b, you're right. it's not something to go all apeshit over. very little on the internet is. on the other hand, one man's apeshit is another man's mild annoyance. really, if it's not worth getting worked up about, that's true on both ends. either way, i think it's a bad idea to lump all users into the "going apeshit and being insulting" group. if you think i particularly insulted you, then hey, i apologize. but really, i was just trying to tell you what was bothering folks. you can take that information and be a better member of the community for it, or get irate and defensive.
posted by shmegegge at 3:43 PM on August 4, 2006
posted by shmegegge at 3:43 PM on August 4, 2006
Uh, if anyone got "irate and defensive" ... yeah, nevermind.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 7:00 PM on August 4, 2006
posted by Doctor Barnett at 7:00 PM on August 4, 2006
That did go surprisingly well, odd.
In any case, D.B. says he'll continue posting until we stop. Let's test that theory. Dr. still there?
posted by oddman at 1:12 PM on August 9, 2006
In any case, D.B. says he'll continue posting until we stop. Let's test that theory. Dr. still there?
posted by oddman at 1:12 PM on August 9, 2006
The good doctor may not use, or even know about, My Comments.
posted by cortex at 2:05 PM on August 9, 2006
posted by cortex at 2:05 PM on August 9, 2006
Oh please. I'll be here until the day this smoldering pile of dog shit is technologically snuffed out. It's on my calendar. I sit here, refreshing My Comments every thirty seconds, just grittin' my teeth.
posted by Doctor Barnett at 10:55 AM on August 10, 2006
posted by Doctor Barnett at 10:55 AM on August 10, 2006
Really?
posted by boo_radley at 11:52 AM on August 14, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 11:52 AM on August 14, 2006
Wow, your version of thirty seconds is way longer than mine.
posted by oddman at 11:01 PM on August 16, 2006
posted by oddman at 11:01 PM on August 16, 2006
he's stuck in a time warp!
posted by boo_radley at 8:21 PM on August 17, 2006
posted by boo_radley at 8:21 PM on August 17, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by bob sarabia at 11:50 AM on August 3, 2006