Two comments per post anyone? March 13, 2002 9:27 PM Subscribe
Two comments per post anyone?
This post was deleted for the following reason: Poster's Request -- frimble
Admit is, skallas - you just want to see Miguel's head explode a la Scanners when he tries to keep himself bottled up :).
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:58 PM on March 13, 2002
posted by obiwanwasabi at 9:58 PM on March 13, 2002
I am certainly not fond of this idea. What is this place, if not dialogue? Time-limiting posts is a good idea, on comments its stifling.
posted by owillis at 10:58 PM on March 13, 2002
posted by owillis at 10:58 PM on March 13, 2002
Sounds like the perfect way to completely destroy the flow of conversation, because there wouldn't be any. Instead, every FPP would turn into an AA meeting, with every person saying their little piece for a few seconds and then having to pretend to listen to the next ten people in their little semicircle, while really not caring because they're not allowed to respond.
posted by aaron at 11:10 PM on March 13, 2002
posted by aaron at 11:10 PM on March 13, 2002
Aaron and Su, it sounds like you should change your attitudes towards your AA groups. You are not only there to get help for yourself, but to support others.
posted by sylloge at 12:00 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by sylloge at 12:00 AM on March 14, 2002
Every post would be three fucking King James bibles in length, because every thought that should drift past the transome of some posters minds must be typed out in excruciating detail.
posted by dong_resin at 12:03 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 12:03 AM on March 14, 2002
Because Miguel commented NINETEEN TIMES to his own MetaTalk post today?
posted by Mack Twain at 12:43 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 12:43 AM on March 14, 2002
Hey Mack, that's not the way it works. See, you have to divide the total number of posts(190) by my number of comments(19), which is 10, and then subtract the number of comments flaming me(12)so in the end(-2), not only did I not comment at all, but I refrained from doing so twice. :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:58 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:58 AM on March 14, 2002
Sounds really interesting, skallas. Matt - why not try out a two comment rule as "for one week only" experiment?
posted by dlewis at 4:25 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by dlewis at 4:25 AM on March 14, 2002
two posts? minimum? sure! sounds good to me.
posted by jcterminal at 4:36 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by jcterminal at 4:36 AM on March 14, 2002
Could I buy Miguel's -2 comments and use them to lower my total count?
*ponders black market trade in comment-budgets, discards as unworkable*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:40 AM on March 14, 2002
*ponders black market trade in comment-budgets, discards as unworkable*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:40 AM on March 14, 2002
anybody who wants to change anything round here is a witch and should be burned.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:02 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Frasermoo at 5:02 AM on March 14, 2002
I think if you make it three comments per thread, it's a great idea. But the masses will never accept it.
posted by anapestic at 5:28 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by anapestic at 5:28 AM on March 14, 2002
This would really work in favour of mob justice wouldn't it? If you've got 1 person championing an uncommon or unpopular viewpoint vs 20 or 30 people with the same kind of ideas then the minority is going to be drowned out, unable to cram all their refutations and explanations into 2 cogent comments.
It would probably kill off any group detective work as well.
posted by MUD at 5:58 AM on March 14, 2002
It would probably kill off any group detective work as well.
posted by MUD at 5:58 AM on March 14, 2002
This is most definitely a bad idea. Sometimes threads veer off into completely new directions, or a later post triggers some additional insight. Since you can't account for these things beforehand, an arbitrary limit on the number of posts seems ill-advised. Implementing such a rule would preclude a lot of good, thought-out posts.
posted by thewittyname at 5:58 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by thewittyname at 5:58 AM on March 14, 2002
This is not really a problem to me, as I am able to post under seventeen different screen names, but for you folks with only one or two, it could be bothersome.
posted by ColdChef at 6:10 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by ColdChef at 6:10 AM on March 14, 2002
Started this ColdChef onslaught has.
posted by dong_resin at 6:41 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by dong_resin at 6:41 AM on March 14, 2002
I'd like to see someone offer a discussion site under those rules, because I think it would lend itself to different kinds of conversation (less bombastic, less point/counterpoint, etc.). However, it would be too dramatic a change for MetaFilter.
posted by rcade at 6:44 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by rcade at 6:44 AM on March 14, 2002
I think the two comments per post limit should be applied to anyone with a user number over 600.
posted by rich at 6:52 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by rich at 6:52 AM on March 14, 2002
What owillis said. The reason I like this place is the dialogue. I'd much rather see longer comment threads than longer lists of front page posts that don't generate much discussion.
Mefi gets all kinds of threads - some short, some long, some factual and some opinionated. From this diverse collection everyone can self-filter what they're interested in. This comment limit doesn't seem like a rule that is necessary or warranted.
Alternative idea: What about a "sideblog" that doesn't fall under a topic or post heading, but is just a continuous stream of conversation, much like a chat room? It could hang out on the right side panel of MeTa, and users could collapse the panel if they aren't interested in reading/participating. That way, egos are well stoked while threads remain topical.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:56 AM on March 14, 2002
Mefi gets all kinds of threads - some short, some long, some factual and some opinionated. From this diverse collection everyone can self-filter what they're interested in. This comment limit doesn't seem like a rule that is necessary or warranted.
Alternative idea: What about a "sideblog" that doesn't fall under a topic or post heading, but is just a continuous stream of conversation, much like a chat room? It could hang out on the right side panel of MeTa, and users could collapse the panel if they aren't interested in reading/participating. That way, egos are well stoked while threads remain topical.
posted by PrinceValium at 6:56 AM on March 14, 2002
How about instead of the 2 comment rule, we just post when we've got something that adds to the discussion?
posted by Hildago at 7:22 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by Hildago at 7:22 AM on March 14, 2002
I think the more lighthearted threads, such as this one, in which a few excited and enthusuastic people are just posting over and over again, would suffer with a comment limit. Those threads aren't everyone's cup of tea, but they're part of the Overall MetaFilter Experience, or as I like to call it, the OME.
posted by iconomy at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by iconomy at 7:24 AM on March 14, 2002
Hildago, WORD.
Rich, since I'm user 588, I would miss that limit by 12. That's cutting it too close for my taste. =)
PrinceValium: "Alternative idea: What about a "sideblog" that doesn't fall under a topic or post heading, but is just a continuous stream of conversation, much like a chat room?"
The slashdot inspired website everything (which apparently isn't there any longer) had something similar to that. On the right side of the page was a built-in chat forum for anyone logged in to particpate in the online project. Ultimately all it does is increase the censorship of the site overall, because a witchhunt-like mob mentality kicks in among the regulars, and if you don't play by their constantly changing cliquish rules you end up out in the cold. It's a good suggestion, but if Matt actually put it into action it would ultimately cause more harm than good among the MeFi community, and we'd end up where Everything2 apparently is now: deadlink limbo hell. If people wanna chat like that, we already got IRC.
Regarding Skallas' original consideration:
For the record, and I think I'm already on the record for this but just to be sure, I'm against not only the idea of only allowing each participant two comments per post, but also restricting MeTa to one comment per person per WEEK? I'd compromise and tolerate one Front Page Post (FPP) per day like MeFi because it seems to work there, but per week is too restrictive. I'm against any such restrictions, but I understand to a degree what this place puts Matt through. Okay. I don't fully understand it, having never walked in his shoes, but I try to empathize.
Also, by pure chance I think I proved yesterday that it is sometimes appropriate to post twice in one day in MeTa. I posted this thread about attempts to alleviate concerns of topic drift, and then less than 24 hours later I came up with this thread which discussed the recent server errors that many people are getting. One thread fell to the 'feature requests' subcategory and the other one better applied to 'bugs.' Perhaps Matt could limit it to one comment per subcategory per week, but I think that's being a bit too anal about the whole thing.
A better option would be to keep the community educated on what is mutually acceptable, and allow users to practice their own discretion. If individuals abuse their priviledges in here, the present self-policing techniques seem to be more than sufficient. I don't see how there's a problem here worthy of limiting everyone just because a few people are more hyperactive than others.
And also for the record: MiguelCardoso? I love ya man, and I may be one of the most liberal-minded people in here when it comes to embracing chaos over order, but posting to your own thread TWENTY TIMES? Even I am forced to admit that's a bit excessive. Please don't abuse your participation in the community. It's precisely such behavior which forces Mathowie's hand.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:28 AM on March 14, 2002
Rich, since I'm user 588, I would miss that limit by 12. That's cutting it too close for my taste. =)
PrinceValium: "Alternative idea: What about a "sideblog" that doesn't fall under a topic or post heading, but is just a continuous stream of conversation, much like a chat room?"
The slashdot inspired website everything (which apparently isn't there any longer) had something similar to that. On the right side of the page was a built-in chat forum for anyone logged in to particpate in the online project. Ultimately all it does is increase the censorship of the site overall, because a witchhunt-like mob mentality kicks in among the regulars, and if you don't play by their constantly changing cliquish rules you end up out in the cold. It's a good suggestion, but if Matt actually put it into action it would ultimately cause more harm than good among the MeFi community, and we'd end up where Everything2 apparently is now: deadlink limbo hell. If people wanna chat like that, we already got IRC.
Regarding Skallas' original consideration:
For the record, and I think I'm already on the record for this but just to be sure, I'm against not only the idea of only allowing each participant two comments per post, but also restricting MeTa to one comment per person per WEEK? I'd compromise and tolerate one Front Page Post (FPP) per day like MeFi because it seems to work there, but per week is too restrictive. I'm against any such restrictions, but I understand to a degree what this place puts Matt through. Okay. I don't fully understand it, having never walked in his shoes, but I try to empathize.
Also, by pure chance I think I proved yesterday that it is sometimes appropriate to post twice in one day in MeTa. I posted this thread about attempts to alleviate concerns of topic drift, and then less than 24 hours later I came up with this thread which discussed the recent server errors that many people are getting. One thread fell to the 'feature requests' subcategory and the other one better applied to 'bugs.' Perhaps Matt could limit it to one comment per subcategory per week, but I think that's being a bit too anal about the whole thing.
A better option would be to keep the community educated on what is mutually acceptable, and allow users to practice their own discretion. If individuals abuse their priviledges in here, the present self-policing techniques seem to be more than sufficient. I don't see how there's a problem here worthy of limiting everyone just because a few people are more hyperactive than others.
And also for the record: MiguelCardoso? I love ya man, and I may be one of the most liberal-minded people in here when it comes to embracing chaos over order, but posting to your own thread TWENTY TIMES? Even I am forced to admit that's a bit excessive. Please don't abuse your participation in the community. It's precisely such behavior which forces Mathowie's hand.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:28 AM on March 14, 2002
Here's another idea, which is probably crap but I'm flingin' it anyway: on any given day, you can either post to the front page (including MeTa) or you can comment (on posts besides your own). If *that* doesn't cut down on the number of front-pagers, nothing will.
And now, I will light myself on fire. *fwoosh*
posted by darukaru at 7:31 AM on March 14, 2002
And now, I will light myself on fire. *fwoosh*
posted by darukaru at 7:31 AM on March 14, 2002
Zach, I was going to apply it to anyone over 150, but then it would just be me, matt, johnmc and maybe two others hanging out.
posted by rich at 7:58 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by rich at 7:58 AM on March 14, 2002
I think that posting contraints should be applied to only everyone whose user number is not divisible by eleven, and that "eleveners" (as I call them) should be given special privileges.
Creating ingroups by selecting all numbers less than x is so last century.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:29 AM on March 14, 2002
Creating ingroups by selecting all numbers less than x is so last century.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:29 AM on March 14, 2002
Aaron and Su, it sounds like you should change your attitudes towards your AA groups. You are not only there to get help for yourself, but to support others.
Well, I've never actually been to an AA meeting...But in the few support groups I ever have attended (only for academic purposes, thank God), the "sit in the semicircle and talk about your week" sessions were the worst part of the whole thing for everyone involved. They only did it because every "how to run a support group" handbook says to do so. It's the one-on-one contact before and after the sessions where the real support is.
I'd love to see a third component fulfilling the MeFi Trinity Prophesy, a board just like MeFi and MeTa where the FPP rules are relaxed. At least once a day I think of some question I could use help on, or discussion I'd like to start, that doesn't at all fit the MeFi format, but for which I'd love access to the MeFi crew.
posted by aaron at 8:31 AM on March 14, 2002
Well, I've never actually been to an AA meeting...But in the few support groups I ever have attended (only for academic purposes, thank God), the "sit in the semicircle and talk about your week" sessions were the worst part of the whole thing for everyone involved. They only did it because every "how to run a support group" handbook says to do so. It's the one-on-one contact before and after the sessions where the real support is.
I'd love to see a third component fulfilling the MeFi Trinity Prophesy, a board just like MeFi and MeTa where the FPP rules are relaxed. At least once a day I think of some question I could use help on, or discussion I'd like to start, that doesn't at all fit the MeFi format, but for which I'd love access to the MeFi crew.
posted by aaron at 8:31 AM on March 14, 2002
Also, by pure chance I think I proved yesterday that it is sometimes appropriate to post twice in one day in MeTa. I posted this thread about attempts to alleviate concerns of topic drift, and then less than 24 hours later I came up with this thread which discussed the recent server errors that many people are getting. One thread fell to the 'feature requests' subcategory and the other one better applied to 'bugs.'
I don't think that anything awful would have happened if one of those posts had had to wait for a week. I think the one post per week MeTa rule is a good one. Not everything that possibly could be posted needs to be posted. I think really serious bugs will come to Matt's attention without a MeTa post.
posted by anapestic at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
I don't think that anything awful would have happened if one of those posts had had to wait for a week. I think the one post per week MeTa rule is a good one. Not everything that possibly could be posted needs to be posted. I think really serious bugs will come to Matt's attention without a MeTa post.
posted by anapestic at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
Rich, at the risk of sounding like kissing ass, I am sincerely humbled and honored to be considered in your "number." =)
Aaron, I'd also like a third "MeXX" oriented forum built into MetaFilter which didn't have the FPP rules. Actually I'd like to see all the rules relaxed in a third forum. However, this would ultimately cause more harm than good.
1) People wouldn't need to worry about structure at all, since there would be no rules. At the slightest thought that maybe the post one is contemplating would be rejected by the MeFi community, they'd just go to the third forum. So, many threads that with a little tweaking could belong in MeFi or MeTa would end up there. Some people (myself possibly depending on how Matt handled the third forum) would just give up on MeFi entirely and spend all their time at MeXX.
2) The server load would increase, because people would inevitably use MeXX like it were a chat forum, posting whatever came to mind without reverence for the server load or community interaction. Matt's server's already suffering occasionally due to the load, which is one of the reasons no doubt he has been forced to restrict new users signing on.
3) Arguments would increase. Without any rules whatsoever, there would be more confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreements than what already occurs now. When MeFi first began, beyond the basic premise Matt had in mind, there were no real rules and everyone was assumed to behave appropriately based on their own discretion. Over the years Matt's been forced to place limits here and there to avoid misunderstandings and tension among the community as best he can. Ultimately MeXX would prove a need for such limitations too, or Matt would just have to shut the third forum down entirely, and realize that it just didn't work out.
4) Without rules, MeXX would not only have chat issues, but people would try to take advantage of the chaos by pushing their own selfish interests, like self-posting for example, which would derail threads and spend too much time with people trying to push their own projects. Spamming of links that are not interesting to the masses would become the norm, and eventually no one would go to the third forum because it would be a waste of everyone's time.
We already know this is going to happen because it already has. Not just in MeFi but elsewhere. It's rather academic that without some rules of order, any online forum eventually gives way to chaos. I submit Usenet as one of the more obvious examples.
I really wish it could happen, Aaron. It can't.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
Aaron, I'd also like a third "MeXX" oriented forum built into MetaFilter which didn't have the FPP rules. Actually I'd like to see all the rules relaxed in a third forum. However, this would ultimately cause more harm than good.
1) People wouldn't need to worry about structure at all, since there would be no rules. At the slightest thought that maybe the post one is contemplating would be rejected by the MeFi community, they'd just go to the third forum. So, many threads that with a little tweaking could belong in MeFi or MeTa would end up there. Some people (myself possibly depending on how Matt handled the third forum) would just give up on MeFi entirely and spend all their time at MeXX.
2) The server load would increase, because people would inevitably use MeXX like it were a chat forum, posting whatever came to mind without reverence for the server load or community interaction. Matt's server's already suffering occasionally due to the load, which is one of the reasons no doubt he has been forced to restrict new users signing on.
3) Arguments would increase. Without any rules whatsoever, there would be more confusion, misunderstanding, and disagreements than what already occurs now. When MeFi first began, beyond the basic premise Matt had in mind, there were no real rules and everyone was assumed to behave appropriately based on their own discretion. Over the years Matt's been forced to place limits here and there to avoid misunderstandings and tension among the community as best he can. Ultimately MeXX would prove a need for such limitations too, or Matt would just have to shut the third forum down entirely, and realize that it just didn't work out.
4) Without rules, MeXX would not only have chat issues, but people would try to take advantage of the chaos by pushing their own selfish interests, like self-posting for example, which would derail threads and spend too much time with people trying to push their own projects. Spamming of links that are not interesting to the masses would become the norm, and eventually no one would go to the third forum because it would be a waste of everyone's time.
We already know this is going to happen because it already has. Not just in MeFi but elsewhere. It's rather academic that without some rules of order, any online forum eventually gives way to chaos. I submit Usenet as one of the more obvious examples.
I really wish it could happen, Aaron. It can't.
posted by ZachsMind at 8:48 AM on March 14, 2002
I was going to apply it to anyone over 150, but then it would just be me, matt, johnmc and maybe two others hanging out.
The Ancient-List?
Darukaru's idea is brilliant. It'd be very interesting to see it trialled (with, perhaps, a slight modification to allow a 'more inside' post within the first five minutes). Give it twenty-four hours to see if the rest of MeFi finds the topic interesting, or if it's just one desperate poster stoking the fires.
Been thinking about this problem of threads dying... there have been some fascinating ones around here lately that fizzle out as soon as it hits midnight on the west coast, which makes any later responses by Aussies and Europeans fairly pointless... and I'm wondering: how about replacing the sidebar with three or four, below each other, with the top one showing the last few threads with recent comments, the next showing recent threads with the most comments, the next showing 'my threads with recent comments', and then the traditional Matt news-bar. Might encourage some quality threads to last longer than twelve hours.
The usual caveats about not wanting to impose on Matt's time and server load apply; just flying a kite.
posted by rory at 8:51 AM on March 14, 2002
The Ancient-List?
Darukaru's idea is brilliant. It'd be very interesting to see it trialled (with, perhaps, a slight modification to allow a 'more inside' post within the first five minutes). Give it twenty-four hours to see if the rest of MeFi finds the topic interesting, or if it's just one desperate poster stoking the fires.
Been thinking about this problem of threads dying... there have been some fascinating ones around here lately that fizzle out as soon as it hits midnight on the west coast, which makes any later responses by Aussies and Europeans fairly pointless... and I'm wondering: how about replacing the sidebar with three or four, below each other, with the top one showing the last few threads with recent comments, the next showing recent threads with the most comments, the next showing 'my threads with recent comments', and then the traditional Matt news-bar. Might encourage some quality threads to last longer than twelve hours.
The usual caveats about not wanting to impose on Matt's time and server load apply; just flying a kite.
posted by rory at 8:51 AM on March 14, 2002
Alas, ZachsMind, you are probably 100% correct. But I can dream...
posted by aaron at 8:56 AM on March 14, 2002
posted by aaron at 8:56 AM on March 14, 2002
Why do we need a third Meta-something?
The purpose of MetaTalk was always to be able to pose linkless questions for discussion, etc. That is the point of the categories.
posted by rich at 9:02 AM on March 14, 2002
The purpose of MetaTalk was always to be able to pose linkless questions for discussion, etc. That is the point of the categories.
posted by rich at 9:02 AM on March 14, 2002
I'd like to see all the rules relaxed in a third forum.
That's easy, then: MetaBaby.
posted by rory at 9:04 AM on March 14, 2002
That's easy, then: MetaBaby.
posted by rory at 9:04 AM on March 14, 2002
I'd love to see a third component fulfilling the MeFi Trinity Prophesy, a board just like MeFi and MeTa where the FPP rules are relaxed. At least once a day I think of some question I could use help on, or discussion I'd like to start, that doesn't at all fit the MeFi format, but for which I'd love access to the MeFi crew.
I think this would be a good idea, but Matt has shown no interest in creating or maintaining it in the past. On the other hand, he might be willing to share login info to trusted people (as with the5k), or you could rent his servicesXaviera Holland- SportsFilter-style to get it moving.
The purpose of MetaTalk was always to be able to pose linkless questions for discussion, etc. That is the point of the categories.
If I understand Aaron correctly, it's for things like "Hey, so who do you have picked for your NCAA bracket?" or "Hey, does anyone have any suggestions for a digital camera?" or "Hey, what do people think will happen next on Alias?" All of which would get you (properly) beaned if you posted them to MeTa and none of which are really appropriate for a MeFi post (although I can certainly imagine people posting any of them, and perhaps reference to the Googlebot bracket might make the first one feasible).
posted by snarkout at 9:06 AM on March 14, 2002
I think this would be a good idea, but Matt has shown no interest in creating or maintaining it in the past. On the other hand, he might be willing to share login info to trusted people (as with the5k), or you could rent his services
The purpose of MetaTalk was always to be able to pose linkless questions for discussion, etc. That is the point of the categories.
If I understand Aaron correctly, it's for things like "Hey, so who do you have picked for your NCAA bracket?" or "Hey, does anyone have any suggestions for a digital camera?" or "Hey, what do people think will happen next on Alias?" All of which would get you (properly) beaned if you posted them to MeTa and none of which are really appropriate for a MeFi post (although I can certainly imagine people posting any of them, and perhaps reference to the Googlebot bracket might make the first one feasible).
posted by snarkout at 9:06 AM on March 14, 2002
At least once a day I think of some question I could use help on, or discussion I'd like to start, that doesn't at all fit the MeFi format, but for which I'd love access to the MeFi crew.
For those of you who have browsers that rigged to only come here to Mefi, I'd thought I should tell you that there are hundreds, nay, thousands, of thriving communities out on the internet that aren't restrictive based on content or posting frequency and style. And some of these communities are frequented by some of the very same people who post here. There are others that contain very smart, brilliant and talented people who have never set foot here on Metafilter, despite its close proximity to the center of the universe.
And one or two of them don't even suffer from server timeouts, either!
posted by crunchland at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2002
For those of you who have browsers that rigged to only come here to Mefi, I'd thought I should tell you that there are hundreds, nay, thousands, of thriving communities out on the internet that aren't restrictive based on content or posting frequency and style. And some of these communities are frequented by some of the very same people who post here. There are others that contain very smart, brilliant and talented people who have never set foot here on Metafilter, despite its close proximity to the center of the universe.
And one or two of them don't even suffer from server timeouts, either!
posted by crunchland at 9:32 AM on March 14, 2002
Yes, snarkout groks my idea.
crunch: Recommendations? I can think of many such communities, but a) all of them are pay-to-play and b) there are only so many communities where one can be a regular. And if you're not a regular, you tend to get lost in the shuffle/cliques/what have you.
posted by aaron at 10:13 AM on March 14, 2002
crunch: Recommendations? I can think of many such communities, but a) all of them are pay-to-play and b) there are only so many communities where one can be a regular. And if you're not a regular, you tend to get lost in the shuffle/cliques/what have you.
posted by aaron at 10:13 AM on March 14, 2002
Well, I know of one, but modesty and community-preservation forbids ...
They are out there. And for me to tell you where to go would probably be futile anyway since the best alternative community -- one that you'll stick with and invest yourself in -- would probably be one that you discovered on your own.
Short of that, find someone here on metafilter whom you respect, and ask them (probably privately) if they hang out anywhere else online. Chances are, they do and would be glad to introduce you to it.
I realize that it takes blood, sweat and tears to work your way into a community, and once you're there, you've got a lot invested in that one community. But just like it's a pain in the ass to move your posessions to a new place, the benefits usually outweigh the problems and the hassles. And in this instance, you can have your cake and eat it, too. And as far as being a regular or not being a regular in a new place, I'm positive that if you picked two online communities -- metafilter and some other place -- and you split your time equally between them, you'd be able to be loved as much on the new place as you are here. In fact, I maintain that the amount of effort required to be active here on metafilter is probably way way more than you have to devote to a smaller, less frenetic online community just because of the huge number of messages and voices you have to slog through here.
That, and you possibly have the opportunity to be in a place that currently is as good as Metafilter supposedly used to be before it got famous and the newbies came and ruined it!
posted by crunchland at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2002
They are out there. And for me to tell you where to go would probably be futile anyway since the best alternative community -- one that you'll stick with and invest yourself in -- would probably be one that you discovered on your own.
Short of that, find someone here on metafilter whom you respect, and ask them (probably privately) if they hang out anywhere else online. Chances are, they do and would be glad to introduce you to it.
I realize that it takes blood, sweat and tears to work your way into a community, and once you're there, you've got a lot invested in that one community. But just like it's a pain in the ass to move your posessions to a new place, the benefits usually outweigh the problems and the hassles. And in this instance, you can have your cake and eat it, too. And as far as being a regular or not being a regular in a new place, I'm positive that if you picked two online communities -- metafilter and some other place -- and you split your time equally between them, you'd be able to be loved as much on the new place as you are here. In fact, I maintain that the amount of effort required to be active here on metafilter is probably way way more than you have to devote to a smaller, less frenetic online community just because of the huge number of messages and voices you have to slog through here.
That, and you possibly have the opportunity to be in a place that currently is as good as Metafilter supposedly used to be before it got famous and the newbies came and ruined it!
posted by crunchland at 10:50 AM on March 14, 2002
I think the two post limit should be imposed just on people whose user numbers are odd, on Mondays, Wednesdays, Fridays and alternating Sundays, but only for the first half of the year, using the lunar calendar. Then we switch for the rest of the year. Solstices will henceforth be free-for-all days, and on the equinoxes everybody gets only one FPP or comment on either MeFi or MeTa, but not both.
If your user number is a perfect number, you can do whatever the hell you want.
posted by Su at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2002
If your user number is a perfect number, you can do whatever the hell you want.
posted by Su at 11:23 AM on March 14, 2002
Here's an idea: how about penalty limits? For example, Matt could put limits on people who abuse posting comments (think 10 or more by the same poster in the same thread). That might work.
posted by Kafei at 1:24 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by Kafei at 1:24 PM on March 14, 2002
I'm really not in the mood to go begging for acceptance any more. If anyone wants me to be part of their community, my email's on my user page.
(Not a slam at you, crunch; your explanation is quite right. I've just been ostracized out of too many places in the past, and I'm tired of the painful emotional toll it takes on me.)
posted by aaron at 1:40 PM on March 14, 2002
(Not a slam at you, crunch; your explanation is quite right. I've just been ostracized out of too many places in the past, and I'm tired of the painful emotional toll it takes on me.)
posted by aaron at 1:40 PM on March 14, 2002
I would be interested in seeing how something like this would play out on MeFi. Not necessarily two comments per post but some kind of restriction. I for one would like to keep things pretty open, I just think it would be an illuminating experiment for a day or some other term, just to see how things might change.
posted by anathema at 2:10 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by anathema at 2:10 PM on March 14, 2002
Nothing ventured, nothing gained, aaron.
posted by crunchland at 2:20 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by crunchland at 2:20 PM on March 14, 2002
"eleveners" (as I call them) should be given special privileges.
I'm all for moderator privs for users with prime numbers for user ids. There's only 1400-odd of us...I mean, them.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:41 PM on March 14, 2002
I'm all for moderator privs for users with prime numbers for user ids. There's only 1400-odd of us...I mean, them.
posted by obiwanwasabi at 3:41 PM on March 14, 2002
I'm tired of the painful emotional toll it takes on me.
I hear ya, aaron. Isn't it astonishing (well, it is to me) how much emotional investment we can end up putting into these virtual places, and how draining and upsetting it can be when things go astray? It's much much easier to walk away from, of course, to switch off the computer and go for a walk, but day-amn it can be discombobulating sometimes.
Good thing I'm a wonderchicken, is all I can say.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2002
I hear ya, aaron. Isn't it astonishing (well, it is to me) how much emotional investment we can end up putting into these virtual places, and how draining and upsetting it can be when things go astray? It's much much easier to walk away from, of course, to switch off the computer and go for a walk, but day-amn it can be discombobulating sometimes.
Good thing I'm a wonderchicken, is all I can say.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on March 14, 2002
Re: The metababy link.
That was not very work fit. A warning would of been nice.
posted by Neale at 6:36 PM on March 14, 2002
That was not very work fit. A warning would of been nice.
posted by Neale at 6:36 PM on March 14, 2002
Neale: If you're talking about the gay porn picture current up, that wasn't up there a while back. When I clicked several hours ago, it was just a whole bunch of text. Dunno exactly what's happened, but notice the URL you end up at isn't the one actually linked.
As for not work fit, wherever you're working probably has a policy against personal surfing anyway, no? You take risks.
posted by Su at 6:42 PM on March 14, 2002
As for not work fit, wherever you're working probably has a policy against personal surfing anyway, no? You take risks.
posted by Su at 6:42 PM on March 14, 2002
I think aaron's idea is a great one. A lot of people seem to want to use the Mefi community to ask questions because this is a relatively small group of people we trust to know about certain things. The Ask Mefi idea has been around for ages (check the MeTa archives), and this is just a slight variation of it.
Of course, I'm not going to ask Matt to come up with such a board, but it sounds appealing.
posted by daveadams at 6:49 PM on March 14, 2002
Of course, I'm not going to ask Matt to come up with such a board, but it sounds appealing.
posted by daveadams at 6:49 PM on March 14, 2002
I hear ya, aaron. Isn't it astonishing (well, it is to me) how much emotional investment we can end up putting into these virtual places, and how draining and upsetting it can be when things go astray?
Yup. Especially since I never fit in anywhere anyway, and am tired of being eventually rejected/run out of town everywhere I go. That's one of the reasons I'd prefer a third MeFi board: The way this place is structured, it provides a "community," but one where everyone generally stays at arms length from each other. Not many real friendships are formed (most of the friends generally knew each other pre-MeFi), so no cliques form; the lack of a free-for-all environment prevents a truly strong cohesion ... it's a community, but a fluid one. It's safer emotionally, more open to new people, etc. Perhaps a third board would cause all those things ZachsMind it mentioned, but who knows, maybe it would still retain enough of the general openness and mutability to make it more accepting of those who aren't perfect Stepford automatons.
posted by aaron at 7:51 PM on March 14, 2002
Yup. Especially since I never fit in anywhere anyway, and am tired of being eventually rejected/run out of town everywhere I go. That's one of the reasons I'd prefer a third MeFi board: The way this place is structured, it provides a "community," but one where everyone generally stays at arms length from each other. Not many real friendships are formed (most of the friends generally knew each other pre-MeFi), so no cliques form; the lack of a free-for-all environment prevents a truly strong cohesion ... it's a community, but a fluid one. It's safer emotionally, more open to new people, etc. Perhaps a third board would cause all those things ZachsMind it mentioned, but who knows, maybe it would still retain enough of the general openness and mutability to make it more accepting of those who aren't perfect Stepford automatons.
posted by aaron at 7:51 PM on March 14, 2002
*starts warming to aaron's idea*
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:17 PM on March 14, 2002
I like Aaron's idea as well. A lot of the people I encounter here, even ones I disagree with seem like they'd be great people to have a beer with. It wouldn't have to be official or done by Matt or anything. I just like the idea of having a less structured hangout full of people I'm already familiar with and know are fairly intelligent and interested in some of the same things I am.
posted by jonmc at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by jonmc at 8:21 PM on March 14, 2002
I have an old dormant LISTSERV® mailing list we could use. Not one of those shitty Yahoo or Topica lists, but a real live LISTSERV® list. If any critical mass of people would be interested. Mailing lists with five people on them aren't much fun.
posted by aaron at 8:25 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by aaron at 8:25 PM on March 14, 2002
I'm in, aaron. I'd love the opportunity, if it's OK with you.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:17 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:17 PM on March 14, 2002
This is how Jones town happened, you know. And Disney.
"Hey, I like you, you like me.... let's go burn some Jews. Let's burn Jews for Gandhi."
Maybe I'm confusing my history. Whatever.
It seems like the effort put into online socializing with MetaFilter people outside of MetaFilter could be better spent here, making this the sort of place you'd like, but then perhaps I'm missing the whole point of your suggestion.
Half the fun of MetaFilter for me is squeezing in a little parallel to topic noise that bothers the sort of people who are bothered by such things, and seems to amuse others. Without the structure of MetaFilter to play off, I'd just be typing crap.
Would your LISTSERV® thing have topics, or what? I don't see how'd it be much more fun than simply emailing each other, or IRCing, but then I've never done mailing list stuff.
posted by dong_resin at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2002
"Hey, I like you, you like me.... let's go burn some Jews. Let's burn Jews for Gandhi."
Maybe I'm confusing my history. Whatever.
It seems like the effort put into online socializing with MetaFilter people outside of MetaFilter could be better spent here, making this the sort of place you'd like, but then perhaps I'm missing the whole point of your suggestion.
Half the fun of MetaFilter for me is squeezing in a little parallel to topic noise that bothers the sort of people who are bothered by such things, and seems to amuse others. Without the structure of MetaFilter to play off, I'd just be typing crap.
Would your LISTSERV® thing have topics, or what? I don't see how'd it be much more fun than simply emailing each other, or IRCing, but then I've never done mailing list stuff.
posted by dong_resin at 9:22 PM on March 14, 2002
Is Coldchef really Bunnyfire? Or is Bunnyfire really Coldchef? Wait a minute. I am Coldchef.
posted by keithl at 10:29 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by keithl at 10:29 PM on March 14, 2002
Well, I know of one, but modesty and community-preservation forbids ...
Yes, there are really good communities out there. I'm priviledged to be in one of them. It's like finding a really, -really- good bar.
Personally, I think a good idea would be to form a Moderator Corps of people who have been known to quietly take part in a discussion without mudslinging, ranting, raving, breaking things, etc. and with high-quality, logical posts. That's how another community I'm a part of is run, and that community has been around as long as MeFi has... without all of the instability that MeFi has.
posted by SpecialK at 11:48 PM on March 14, 2002
Yes, there are really good communities out there. I'm priviledged to be in one of them. It's like finding a really, -really- good bar.
Personally, I think a good idea would be to form a Moderator Corps of people who have been known to quietly take part in a discussion without mudslinging, ranting, raving, breaking things, etc. and with high-quality, logical posts. That's how another community I'm a part of is run, and that community has been around as long as MeFi has... without all of the instability that MeFi has.
posted by SpecialK at 11:48 PM on March 14, 2002
That's how another community I'm a part of is run, and that community has been around as long as MeFi has... without all of the instability that MeFi has.
Instability? I have no idea what you're referring to...with the exception of server outages and Matt's vacation, MeFi has been a consistent and, dare I say, blue chip performer of the internet community. What type of instability do you see?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:54 PM on March 14, 2002
Instability? I have no idea what you're referring to...with the exception of server outages and Matt's vacation, MeFi has been a consistent and, dare I say, blue chip performer of the internet community. What type of instability do you see?
posted by BlueTrain at 11:54 PM on March 14, 2002
Miguel, I think that list would just be you and me and jonmc. Everyone else seems to have already been invited elsewhere. I guess I could call the list OUTCASTS.
posted by aaron at 11:54 PM on March 14, 2002
posted by aaron at 11:54 PM on March 14, 2002
...and the violin music swells...
posted by crunchland at 5:01 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by crunchland at 5:01 AM on March 15, 2002
Aaron - this is not a new idea, although I think it's a really good one. Instead of a mailing list, have you ever thought about hosting a chatroom-type app, which is a lot more spontaneous? I know there are some really nice ones out there, and more than a few are a snap to set up. I came across this one (it's a down and dirty perl demo you can all try right now) yesterday when I was looking for a script for something entirely different. The immediate feedback and response that you get in a chatroom makes it that much more like a face to face conversation, don't you think? Maybe a few of you could set up a time to all meet in some chat room demos to put them through their paces - I know of a few of you who could crash any chat app in a matter of minutes. Not naming any names, mind you... ;)
More scripts in case anyone wants to take a look:
chat
discussion boards
posted by iconomy at 5:05 AM on March 15, 2002
More scripts in case anyone wants to take a look:
chat
discussion boards
posted by iconomy at 5:05 AM on March 15, 2002
Just sayin' : I loathe large volumes of email. No matter how much I'd want to be part of a Swell Pal's Club with Delightful Cucumber Sandwiches and Quench, I'd not do a mailing-list thing. Stone knives and bearskins.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:53 AM on March 15, 2002
Count me in, too...although I'd prefer a chat room of some kind to a mailing list (unless we did one of those egroups sorts of mailing lists), I'm already on one with high enough volume that I couldn't join another.
posted by biscotti at 7:03 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by biscotti at 7:03 AM on March 15, 2002
Neale, I'm surprised that you don't know metababy (programmed by Greg Knauss), but I agree that I should have considered that not everyone does. The point about mb is that it allows anyone to edit the HTML of the main frame of the page. So when I linked to it I dumped my blog links bookmarks in there to give everyone something interesting to look at. And by the time I got home a few hours later, it was already pr0n (and spam, and more spam, etc.).
(Greg Knauss fans may like to know that his complete writing archives are now lurking behind EOD's new front-page book ad. And hey, a book by Greg Knauss!)
posted by rory at 8:20 AM on March 15, 2002
(Greg Knauss fans may like to know that his complete writing archives are now lurking behind EOD's new front-page book ad. And hey, a book by Greg Knauss!)
posted by rory at 8:20 AM on March 15, 2002
I've been thinking and I'm prepared to agree with skallas if comments not made on each day's posts are transferable. So if there are 15 posts, that would be 30 posts to distribute at will, as long as they didn't exceed 10% of the total number of comments and each same poster's comment appeared with an interval of at least six other comments. And very easy to enforce, too. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:30 AM on March 15, 2002
its the Sirens Dong, you were to late, look how they droll, wont even whey(way, hue...) ancor....well, thats salvage. ok, bring here around starboard, this, this is HUGE.
posted by clavdivs at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2002
posted by clavdivs at 8:39 AM on March 15, 2002
iconomy: Yeah, I've thought about it, but I have no place to host a web site. All I could possibly do is mailing lists. And (obviously, judging from the posts above) prople have been indoctrinated to dislike mailing lists since the late 90s.
All I can say is, if 30 people agree to start a mailing list (about the critical mass you need to get actual conversation going; trust me on this, I have almost 10 years of experience on it), then I'll start it. Otherwise, it dies.
posted by aaron at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2002
All I can say is, if 30 people agree to start a mailing list (about the critical mass you need to get actual conversation going; trust me on this, I have almost 10 years of experience on it), then I'll start it. Otherwise, it dies.
posted by aaron at 1:04 PM on March 15, 2002
You all sure you want the two-posting limit, people? You would use up all your postings in a minute with the constant posts about double posts, self-links, pancakes, trolls, and all the other thing people jump down people's throats about.
And as for applying it to people over a certain number, I hope that's a joke.
Yes, I know I haven't been here long. I know I have a "high number." But I get really sick of all the self-rightousness of the mefi-police that appear to be watching out for any little mistake or infraction, aching to be the first to post the nastiest and snarkiest "you screwed up" post to humiliate the person who made the mistake.
I think everyone should just chill out a bit.
posted by aacheson at 3:46 PM on March 15, 2002
And as for applying it to people over a certain number, I hope that's a joke.
Yes, I know I haven't been here long. I know I have a "high number." But I get really sick of all the self-rightousness of the mefi-police that appear to be watching out for any little mistake or infraction, aching to be the first to post the nastiest and snarkiest "you screwed up" post to humiliate the person who made the mistake.
I think everyone should just chill out a bit.
posted by aacheson at 3:46 PM on March 15, 2002
Actually, I am quite familiar with metababy, but at the time of posting, forgot that anyone could have changed it from when I posted that comment.
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 9:23 PM on March 15, 2002
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 9:23 PM on March 15, 2002
Z'oh!
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 9:25 PM on March 15, 2002
posted by Zora Neale Hurston at 9:25 PM on March 15, 2002
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
posted by riffola at 9:36 PM on March 13, 2002