meaning of your metafilter to metatalk ratio

November 14, 2001 8:15 AM

A diversion: what is your MetaFilter to MetaTalk ratio? Linkwise and commentwise? And what does it say about you?
posted by MiguelCardoso to MetaFilter-Related at 8:15 AM (53 comments total)

In comments I'm 2 to 1; in links I'm 1 on 1. Either a balanced individual or real MeTa jerk.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:17 AM on November 14, 2001

You know you're just asking for it now.

You know that, don't you Miguel?

*get this man some cognac, stat!*
posted by Kafkaesque at 8:29 AM on November 14, 2001

Either a balanced individual or real MeTa jerk.

Miguel, my friend, sometimes you just make it too easy...
posted by ColdChef at 8:30 AM on November 14, 2001

*jinx*
posted by ColdChef at 8:30 AM on November 14, 2001

you talk too much, miguel.
posted by moz at 8:33 AM on November 14, 2001

Comments 3.49 MeFi : 1 MeTa
Threads 2.5 MeFi : 1 MeTa

I have no idea what this means.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:34 AM on November 14, 2001

Well, the Kottke degrees thread was fun!
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:36 AM on November 14, 2001

In comments I'm 2 to 1; in links I'm 1 on 1. Either a balanced individual or real MeTa jerk.

Lord, what have I done that you should tempt me so?

*leaves the room, having exhibited the patience of Job*
posted by anapestic at 8:41 AM on November 14, 2001

Well, Matt, you can take away my posting rights as well.

Please.
posted by Dean King at 8:51 AM on November 14, 2001

I've posted 10 times as many comments to filter as talk (700+ vs. 70+)

I've posted 3 times as many links to talk as meta (3 vs. 1)

Is that weird?
posted by UncleFes at 8:52 AM on November 14, 2001

A diversion from what?
posted by rodii at 9:04 AM on November 14, 2001

A diversion from what?

Counting our degrees of Kottke-ness, perhaps.
posted by iceberg273 at 9:13 AM on November 14, 2001

I just thought it was interesting to find out how much people participated in MeTa relative to MeFi. You know, what would a healthy, average ratio be? 5 to 1? 10 to 1? But I can see it just annoyed people so it was probably a stupid idea and I apologize for getting people's backs up.
It was a diversion in the same spirit as the Kottke thread was - from seriousness. Say for users without blogs who couldn't play the Kottke-ness game. Hey, if you were severe about that you could also argue it invited self-linking and isn't that important either. The MeFi/MeTa relationship might be more pertinent. But, hey, the thread didn't work - only two users actually replied - and that's the best proof it was a bad idea. Sorry, guys!
*searches frantically for original author of that "Delete Me, Please Delete Me" song, fails and leaves building in despair*

posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:52 AM on November 14, 2001

These days, Metatalk is actually closer to the original spirit of Metafilter than Metafilter. I think this place is more entertaining, too.
posted by ParisParamus at 10:23 AM on November 14, 2001

Thanks anyway, Miguel. For what its worth , it got me thinking about how I use Metafilter and Metatalk, how to best use the different views, how to put some discipline in my day, how to put some order in my life.
posted by Voyageman at 10:30 AM on November 14, 2001

I think my time allocation today has been: actual paid work 10 per cent, meaningless email banter 50 per cent, MeFi 40 per cent. But I'm writing an article about Competitive Local Exchange Carriers, so can you blame me?
posted by Summer at 10:49 AM on November 14, 2001

Hear, hear, Voyageman. What I think about everytime I shoot off my mouth...
posted by y2karl at 11:00 AM on November 14, 2001

I just thought it was interesting to find out how much people participated in MeTa relative to MeFi.

Then look around a few user profiles of people you recognize and figure it out on your own. There is no "correct" ratio or amount of participation.

Why start a metatalk thread whenever a thought crosses your mind?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:06 AM on November 14, 2001

*gulp*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:09 AM on November 14, 2001

And yea verily, it was seen throughout the land that Haughey had smacked his bitch up.

And we saw that it was good.
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:17 AM on November 14, 2001

If it was anyone but Matt, I'd be threatening an ass-kicking right now.

*punches Kafkaesque in the back of the head to alleviate empathy for Miguel*
posted by ColdChef at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2001

sorry, K.
posted by ColdChef at 11:27 AM on November 14, 2001

damn irascible professional writers. Now we all know why book editors are such miserable folk -- it's not just those god-awful years as assistants that does it to 'em, no sir. It's the agonizing, tedious, interminable hours of reading the ramblings and rantings and runnings-on of witty, happy, cheery prosers who've excised every ounce of self-censorship from their bodies, and their brains with it, til all that's left is witticisms and words and words and witticisms and, all too well-hid amid it all, the occasional, rarest and unlikeliest of gems, truth, a moment of purest clarity piercing the heart of life and world and eternity, blasting confusion off its kilter and raining sweet, milk-chocolatey goodness down on our very souls.

See what I mean? Nothing ever makes any sense.
posted by mattpfeff at 11:57 AM on November 14, 2001

"Why start a metatalk thread whenever a thought crosses your mind?"

To draw attention to himself? To invite attack and be able to wallow in martyrdom? To emphasize his posting volume? Some sort of virtual "tagging"? Poor social skills? Arrogance that people should care about his random thoughts? Filling time between bowel movements? Lack of a RandomChatterFilter.com site?

[long, tedious rant deleted]

[scowling, rolling eyes, shutting up and crawling back in my hole now]
posted by y6y6y6 at 12:02 PM on November 14, 2001

Pol Pot:Nuon Chea :: MiguelCardoso:ColdChef

Well, maybe not as e-vil.
posted by J. R. Hughto at 12:04 PM on November 14, 2001

“Maybe some people were killed, but they only died from starvation and illness. It was not our policy to kill the people,” he told the Review. “We never had a policy to kill people.”
posted by ColdChef at 12:14 PM on November 14, 2001

I went for supper last night and there was this loud guy next to me, going on and on and on about basically nothing.

I don't know what made me think of that.
posted by websavvy at 12:50 PM on November 14, 2001

Matt's point stands. Instead of being lazy and capricious, I could have easily looked up MeTa/MeFi ratios for a representative number of users; charted them in a useful way, though with no pretensions to waxpancake's standards, and then presented them. It would also have been apposite to check ParisParamus's feeling that MeTa is becoming more interesting as time goes on.. My hunch is that more people are using MeTa than before. There's no MeTa "a year/two years ago" feature; it's just a hunch; but it could be done.
That said, I still think that users' opinions are all-important and that what one person thinks is worth posting is no guide at all to how interesting it actually is. :(
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:33 PM on November 14, 2001

Filling time between bowel movements

Hmm, what a great tag line.
posted by justgary at 2:20 PM on November 14, 2001

I'm biting my tongue here. Can I let one thought escape? That as MeTa becomes more "interesting" it becomes less useful for its intended purpose? And that some restraint is called for? Was that non-jerky enough, marquis?
posted by rodii at 3:25 PM on November 14, 2001

i'm with rodii, i think MetaDiscuss seems like a better idea every day. or at least split MeTa up into idle chatter and "important stuff" sections.

or maybe there could be a new system of categories so that each post could be assigned into one of 5 or 6 categories, and then you could make it so you only saw one category at a time....wait a minute.

maybe we should rename the "metafilter specific" category as the "hey, a thought just crossed my mind" category.
posted by rorycberger at 3:55 PM on November 14, 2001

I think there is an important point to be made here regarding the recent shift in usage of MeTa in response to recent changes, real and/or perceived, in MeFi (and, probably, the restructuring of MeTa itself). I, for one, find that very relevant and interesting.

But of course, we talk about bowel movements and attack one another instead.
posted by rushmc at 4:44 PM on November 14, 2001

j.r. hughto:khieu samphan
posted by clavdivs at 7:52 PM on November 14, 2001

I don't see a lot of attacking one another, rushmc. We're attacking Miguel. I know he means well, but the constant wall of chatter is driving me bonkers. Somebody hold him down and I'll look for a brick.
posted by rcade at 8:10 PM on November 14, 2001

"I, for one, find that very relevant and interesting."

Well.... So do I. You have the floor, and a topic. Care to start the ball rolling?
posted by y6y6y6 at 8:12 PM on November 14, 2001

rcade - I don't see a lot of attacking one another, rushmc. We're attacking Miguel.


Whoa back there, a bit. There's a lotta folk 'round here that think of this as a community, Miguel and some of those rankin' on him included. If you're attacking Miguel, you're attacking "one another" just as rushmc said. I think that rushmc, and ParisParamis, and others have a great point: MeTa has changed in its use, and to try and force this worn round peg into its nice square hole is a) self-defeating and b) imposing a standard that defeats the role of "community". Rather than just whack on Miguel, why don't we try and cope with the change from MetaTalk to MetaYack. If there must be a different venue, than lets have some ideas and volunteers (no that wouldn't be me. I have no hosting opportunities and I'm busier than a three legged goat in coyote country). Please remember that change is inevitable, to struggle is an option.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:39 PM on November 14, 2001

Was that non-jerky enough, marquis?

Yeah, rodii; thank-you.
posted by Marquis at 10:02 PM on November 14, 2001

What Wulfgar! seems to be missing (I remembered the "!") is that a large component of this change to 'MetaYack' has been as a direct result of the activities of the aforementioned Mr Cardoso.

That's precisely the problem. (Keeping in mind me and my recent misadventures in hijacking the site for my own amusement, so grain of salt as always) it's just not on for one person to twist this place to his own not-necessarily nefarious, but certainly self-interested, ends as much as Miguel has. I'm not interested in dogpiles (unless they're sexy dogpiles mmmmhwah!), but you can't just say 'things are changing' when the greatest driver of change has been one person, and that person was not the moderator/owner of the place.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:03 PM on November 14, 2001

stavros said (emphasis added): it's just not on for one person to twist this place to his own not-necessarily nefarious, but certainly self-interested, ends as much as Miguel has.

I see two problems here (vis a vis the Miguel debate):

1) Miguel starts a MetaTalk thread whenever a thought crosses his mind.

2) Some people have been ceaselessly attaching motives to Miguel's actions. They are imperfectly playing at hermeneutics, making assumptions about Miguel's mental contents as he posts. Not everyone agrees that he's particularly "self-interested", or that he's "twist[ing]" MeFi/Ta. Rather than criticizing Miguel for what he's doing wrong (which matt did, albeit brusquely), I watch as people criticize him for why he's doing these things, regardless of the fact that these motives are invented, or at the very least, assumed. As one of your peers, stavros et al, I can say that I don't see the things that you're accusing Miguel of. I don't see the arrogance that you do, nor the smug self-confidence. If nothing else, please understand and accept that: I, another critical thinker, am not picking up the same vibes from Miguel as you are. At the very least, I'd hope that this makes you review the evidence that has pushed you to condemn.

With Miguel, I do see a culture gap (well, that's the only answer I can come up with for why many are interpreting his mannerisms in precisely the opposite way than I do); I do see a sometimes-infuriating garrulity; I do see big words and a Thurber-esque habit of inane, non sequitur asides. I also see that he wonders if everyone is against him, and, rather than simply swallowing his pride, he tests the waters to see if anyone cares. This is perhaps his biggest flaw (y6y6y6 saw it as "martyrdom"), but it does not imply that he is "twist[ing]" this place. It does mean that you should cut it out, Miguel.

Criticism of some of Miguel's actions is valid; but criticism of his "motives" is not, unless he's personally shared them with you. I feel he is being misread.

The Internet's not a vacuum; attacking someone has repercussions, and, as in 'real life', people can be wrong. If one is able, why not behave with civility, respect, and a touch of forgiveness, rather than reveling in snarky flames, condemnation, and assumed agendas.

Oh, and one more thing, I agree that MeTa's tone has changed in the past few weeks, but I would certainly not ascribe this shift to Miguel's stupid posts. To be perfectly honest, I think that the biggest factor in the current MetaDiscuss trend was Matt's sideblog comment lauding the beer/liquor threads. Not that it's to blame, but it certainly played a bigger role than an overly loquacious Portuguese cigar-smoker (Hi Miguel) did.
posted by Marquis at 10:48 PM on November 14, 2001

I think that the biggest factor in the current MetaDiscuss trend was Matt's sideblog comment lauding the beer/liquor threads. Not that it's to blame, but it certainly played a bigger role...

I didn't think about the repurcussions of linking those when I did. I just thought they were a refreshing breath of air in time of spotty quality, but I agree that it probably gave the stamp of approval on clubhouse-y kind of discussions. Threads like those two are great once every few months (like the annual $30 contest) but no one wants to see those all the time, or even weekly (how many threads have started recently with "I just heard/saw/bought this thing, what do you think?"

Moderation is the key with posts about sharing recipies or favorite beers, just as they are with "what do you think?" posts and posting frivolous things in MetaTalk.

I've never thought about Miguel's motives for posting so much, I just think he's quite enthusiastic and needs to consider the term "moderation" more often. There are two speeds of Miguel, full-bore 2 threads a day in metatalk and one in metafilter, 20-30 comments in each section with generous use of the <small> tag to pass in-jokes with his commrades, and dead silent Miguel.

All I'm saying is pick something in the middle Miguel. You're posting a bit much, even after you've tried to cut back a little.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:07 PM on November 14, 2001

stavrosthewonderchicken,
I'm really not that taken with the "!" and I'm thinking of killing "Wulfgar!". (I really would if I could log in otherwise but new user signups are blah, blah, blah). Thank you for remembering, however.

I would like to point out that the change from MetaTalk to MetaYack is not all together reviled. If MiguelCardoso is responsable (which I don't believe) than fey on him, but thanks as well. Every community is bound to get "chummy" after a time. Strangely, you are as much evidence of this as Mr. Cardoso is.
posted by Wulfgar! at 11:12 PM on November 14, 2001

I will put Chaos into fourteen lines
And keep him there; and let him thence escape
If he be lucky; let him twist, and ape
Flood, fire, and demon --- his adroit designs
Will strain to nothing in the strict confines
Of this sweet order, where, in pious rape,
I hold his essence and amorphous shape,
Till he with Order mingles and combines.
Past are the hours, the years of our duress,
His arrogance, our awful servitude:
I have him. He is nothing more nor less
Than something simple not yet understood;
I shall not even force him to confess;
Or answer. I will only make him good.

-- Edna St. Vincent Millay
posted by y2karl at 11:18 PM on November 14, 2001

Thanks all. Specially Marquis and Matt. Ouch but touché. Extreme as it'll be for me, Mr.Moderation coming up, even as we speak. Promise. Wouldn't do it for anyone else, though. Now please move along, nothing to see here. :-)
*horrendous sound of pride flushing down antique Portuguese toilet*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:55 PM on November 14, 2001

Moderation is the key with posts about sharing recipies or favorite beers, just as they are with "what do you think?" posts and posting frivolous things in MetaTalk.

And it is this attitude, I believe, which is the recipe for disaster. Not because I disagree with it, but because in its ill-defined state, it can do more harm than good.

When there were a few hundred regulars and a dozen or so core contributors, it was probably possible to share a similar concept of what constituted "moderation." Not so anymore. One man's moderation is another man's excess, and clearly what it comes down to on MetaFilter is MATT's definition, which in the interest of not squelching the site, he tends to be too reticent about. If he wants to enforce the parameters that suit him (and why wouldn't he?), then he needs to make an effort to be clearer in explicating what he deems to be excessive and inappropriate and unwanted, because contrary to what some people around here seem to think, it is NOT always obvious or inevitable. There is nothing inherently better about having/encouraging/permitting a "favorite beer" thread one every few months over once a month or once a week. It's a matter of personal preference, and if we are expected to conform to Matt's preferences, then it is not unreasonable that we should ask to be informed of them. Slamming someone after the fact for a perceived transgression (a perception not necessarily shared by all) of vague, often unstated, inconsistently enforced preferences/guidelines can come across as unfair, heavyhanded, and even meanspirited (I know, Matt, it's a thankless job).
posted by rushmc at 7:32 AM on November 15, 2001

If he wants to enforce the parameters that suit him (and why wouldn't he?), then he needs to make an effort to be clearer in explicating what he deems to be excessive and inappropriate and unwanted, because contrary to what some people around here seem to think, it is NOT always obvious or inevitable.

...It's a matter of personal preference, and if we are expected to conform to Matt's preferences, then it is not unreasonable that we should ask to be informed of them

So the solution is having very strict rules spelling out exactly what I mean by the vague description of "moderation?"

This is what I would hate to do, to say that "moderation" in link posting means only (and exactly because I say so!) posting once per week, unless something interesting comes up. To ask users to look at every thread and make sure the topic hasn't been posted about in the previous 7 days, and that one metatalk thread per month should be user's personal limits. Doing something like that gives the message to users that I don't think they are capable of controlling themselves, and instead they must follow the exact 200 rules I have set up for them. Can you think of any other successful community that does this?

I'll agree it's not 100% obvious to everyone, but most people seem to be in agreement about what is too much and not enough when discussing posting frequency and topic frequency. Usual metatalk threads about those two topics are usually "hey there is too much of X, isn't there?" followed by responses in communal agreement with a few dissenters. Everyone is human here, and I know there is a vast range of tolerances one way and the other with regards to what is "good behavior" but I also feel it's best to acknowledge that and let people be relatively free to use their own judgement. When someone's judgement is a bit out of whack with the majority, we'll hear about it here and react accordingly.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:49 AM on November 15, 2001

rushmc: I don't think it's that tough to figure out the standards of the place. If something (or someone) strays too far out of line, they're dragged off to MetaTalk and thrashed.

Considering the fact that people can't seem to follow the small number of rules that are written down, what's the benefit of stating every one of Matt's "preferences" in the guidelines? The loose "meanspirited" style hasn't stopped you, me, or hundreds of others from turning this place into our online opium den.

I would like to point out that the change from MetaTalk to MetaYack is not all together reviled.

I think it's a strong turn for the worse. Why is misusing MetaTalk a sign of community, when it's clear the host of the community has said at least a dozen times he doesn't want it to be a discussion board?
posted by rcade at 7:54 AM on November 15, 2001

the problem doesn't seem to be a lack of rules. It seems to be that people feel all too free to post comments and links that violate the spirit of the site. This is occasionally done out of ignorance of the guidelines or of past posts on the site, but it is more often done out of that typical, lazy, unthinking attitude that many people everywhere sometimes assume -- the attitude that they can get away with something "just this once" -- or out of the poster's losing touch with what the site is supposed to be in the first place (something they would know, if they stopped to think about it).

You can't just write a rule that says, "All members of the community must be good members of the community."

That said, I think firing off a templated email to any poster who posts a comment or link that hurts the spirit of the community could help, especially over time. (Right now I'm pissed about some jokey comments in the very beginning of an otherwise very good thread and almost want to suggest taking a freer hand with the Nuke button, but that would have other, less desirable consequences.) Everyone here responds extraordinarily well to the expressed standards of the site and its proprietor; we just need to be brought back in line once in a while.
posted by mattpfeff at 8:16 AM on November 15, 2001

Que algeria, Miguel!/Tu me preguntas donde estoy? Te contare/ dando solo detalles utiles al Gobierno- que en esta costa llena de piedras salvajes/ se unen el mar y el campo, olas y pinos, aguilas y petreles, espumas y praderas. Has visto desde muy cerca y todo el dia/
como vuelan los pajaros del mar? Parece que llevaran la cartas del mundo a sus destinos.

-Neruda
posted by clavdivs at 8:39 AM on November 15, 2001

i hope you speak spanish Miguel:)
posted by clavdivs at 8:40 AM on November 15, 2001

He got the usual Tyrrell Corp Gift o' Tongues Pack universal translator before being beamed back to here for not finishing his thesis on Monkeyboys of the XXIth Century. Oh, and the unpaid overdue fees on his library books...
posted by y2karl at 9:01 AM on November 15, 2001

...32 million dinars from the library of alexandria...they want to talk to him about an overdue papayrus...something about..."Crito II: they smuggled him out in a fashionable urn"
posted by clavdivs at 9:09 AM on November 15, 2001

I agree with rushmc. But the fact that Matt is now posting a lot more than he has done for a while, making his views known, is surely reason to rejoice. Hey, he's a great poster - glad you got back in, Matt! (big smiley, no HTML showing-off or small tags) If he is a bleeding-heart liberal, as someone said, he's still in a minority and it's great to have those values, which benefit us all, known and expressed in definite, thread-by-thread ways.
He's never been mean-spirited, though. I hope I'm not out of line or anything but, way back, when I emailed him about something, he'd already given me the advice he now gave publicly: "conserve your points; pace yourself; think twice before posting". If he was a bit brusque it was, er, because I was a bit slow following his friendly recommendations...
But, that said, it's wonderful to have him back! :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:42 PM on November 15, 2001

Then look around a few user profiles of people you recognize and figure it out on your own.

If everybody went around figuring things out on their own and keeping them to themselves, MetaFilter wouldn't exist.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 8:44 PM on November 15, 2001