CNN = BOTW? October 12, 2000 3:25 PM Subscribe
I'm just wondering if there should be something more explicit in the guidelines about posting stories from CNN et al. There seems to be some amount of consensus here that this kind of news can be found lots of places on the web and shouldn't be posted on MeFi. What to do?
Oh, and side note to Mo — not singling you out specifically, it was just the most recent example I saw before posting.
posted by raku at 3:43 PM on October 12, 2000
posted by raku at 3:43 PM on October 12, 2000
Over the past few months, the amount of posts that aren't from a "major news source" (CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, /., whatever) has slowly increased, and it irks some people. At times it irks me, especially when you get many postings of the same general news story (like oh, say, an election :-) that could probably be one thread with many sub-links and commentary revolving around those.
Really, I don't care too much. It's pretty easy for me to scroll through the comments to determine if there's anything interesting, or anything that prompts me to actually follow the link.
Some, like the "war" post from earlier today do generate interesting - if heated - discussions, and I think those are all good.
I've found that people who post something that doesn't catch tend not to post related material anymore. Sure, we end up with some "lame duck" threads, but I have no problems with that. I certainly didn't come here knowing what the other people at MeFi want to talk about, even after lurking for a while. I don't expect new users to know, and I really can't be bothered to let them know that what they're talking about is dull.
I don't know how other people determine what to link to, but speaking for myself, it's something I think is going to ferment discussion, which is what this place is all about. Even if it's something "Everybody knows about" it opens up the floor to different viewpoints, different thought processes and different opinions. All of which combine to make my worldview wider, which can only be a Good Thing.
posted by cCranium at 4:19 PM on October 12, 2000
Really, I don't care too much. It's pretty easy for me to scroll through the comments to determine if there's anything interesting, or anything that prompts me to actually follow the link.
Some, like the "war" post from earlier today do generate interesting - if heated - discussions, and I think those are all good.
I've found that people who post something that doesn't catch tend not to post related material anymore. Sure, we end up with some "lame duck" threads, but I have no problems with that. I certainly didn't come here knowing what the other people at MeFi want to talk about, even after lurking for a while. I don't expect new users to know, and I really can't be bothered to let them know that what they're talking about is dull.
I don't know how other people determine what to link to, but speaking for myself, it's something I think is going to ferment discussion, which is what this place is all about. Even if it's something "Everybody knows about" it opens up the floor to different viewpoints, different thought processes and different opinions. All of which combine to make my worldview wider, which can only be a Good Thing.
posted by cCranium at 4:19 PM on October 12, 2000
I tend to agree with cCranium, though I think that the argument that there are far too many wire service posts may be a valid one (along with News-of-the-Weird posts). But I wouldn't want to see another guideline, since more rules will tend to limit dialogue or even bring about arguments about the rules themselves [sorry cCranium. ;) ]. In the end, systems that tend to work least, work best.
(I must say though that I am looking forward to the end of the Gush/Bore campaign)
posted by Avogadro at 10:23 PM on October 12, 2000
(I must say though that I am looking forward to the end of the Gush/Bore campaign)
posted by Avogadro at 10:23 PM on October 12, 2000
Slowly MeFi is turning into more of a discussion forum than a community 'blog. People post big news stories because they want to discuss them with the other MetaFilterians, and I think there is often good discussion to be had here.
But I for one wish MeFi was more about being a "filter," more about people finding noteworthy, unique, and interesting content on the web, then posting it here to share the find with others. But I assume I am in the minority.
posted by ericost at 10:24 PM on October 12, 2000
But I for one wish MeFi was more about being a "filter," more about people finding noteworthy, unique, and interesting content on the web, then posting it here to share the find with others. But I assume I am in the minority.
posted by ericost at 10:24 PM on October 12, 2000
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end and links posted so the poster can pontificate. I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless. Most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites?
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:40 AM on October 13, 2000
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end and links posted so the poster can pontificate. I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless. Most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites?
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:40 AM on October 13, 2000
Over the past few months, the amount of posts that aren't from a "major news source" (CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, /., whatever) has slowly increased.
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless. Most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. There're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:45 AM on October 13, 2000
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless. Most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. There're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:45 AM on October 13, 2000
Over the past few months, the amount of posts that aren't from a "major news source" (CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, /., whatever) has slowly increased.
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. There're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:47 AM on October 13, 2000
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. There're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:47 AM on October 13, 2000
Over the past few months, the amount of posts that aren't from a "major news source" (CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, /., whatever) has slowly increased.
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. They're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:48 AM on October 13, 2000
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. They're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of the normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:48 AM on October 13, 2000
Over the past few months, the amount of posts that aren't from a "major news source" (CNN, MSNBC, Reuters, /., whatever) has slowly increased.
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. They're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of their normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little compared to the vastness available.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:49 AM on October 13, 2000
Didn't you mean to say are from a "major news source"?
I apologize a little bit because I was cranky last night.
But maybe I should have added BBC, MSNBC, Yahoo! and CNET. I don't do a lot of web browsing but it seems like again and again I see stories elsewhere and then I see them on Metafilter. It takes a lot of the charm away from Metafilter. I might as well read Moreover or Jorn Barger's hideous crapola.
It's like reading the Slashdot quickies which always seem to have shown up the week before in the Need To Know newsletter. Nothing is original, I guess.
Maybe you all and I just have the same web habits. Maybe I'm just being selfish.
It's almost like there are two separate things happening on Metafilter: links posted for the content on the other end (informational links) and links posted so the poster can pontificate (editorial links). I never thought of Metafilter as primarily a discussion forum, but as a meme exploiter, link provider, idea generator. A large part of the comments are predictable and worthless; most of them seem to be made by people trying to dominate rather than discuss. There are a lot of rhetorical, grammatical and syntactic red flags, anyway, that clue me into to the content-less, value-less nature of many of the comments.
The idea that certain posts don't "catch" is not altogether fair. I see from my page that my Clandestine Radio link did not "catch." I don't imagine there's any value in discussing such a link because it's an *informational* link, not an *editorial* link. They're different.
Then there are the wacky, zany, tiresome links that just need to go away. Dressing Jesus. Woop-ti-doo-ding-dong. How many times last month did I see *that* link on various web sites? Sorry, Rebecca. Nothing personal.
People need to step out of their normal web browsing habits and live a little. They surf narrow channels and then act like Prometheus bringing us fire when they post. There's no freshness, no primacy, with these links.
Of course, maybe I need to do less surfing. But it seems like so little compared to the vastness available.
PS: Oh yeah. Lay off of Apple. Yawn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:49 AM on October 13, 2000
Christ. I'm sorry. I thought that was a preview button. Damn.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:50 AM on October 13, 2000
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:50 AM on October 13, 2000
Cranky one night, tired the next? :-) Been there. And yes, I meant to say are, thank you. :-)
posted by cCranium at 7:14 AM on October 13, 2000
posted by cCranium at 7:14 AM on October 13, 2000
Actually, just in a hurry this morning. I'm in Paris, six hours ahead of the east coast, nine hours ahead of the west.
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:56 AM on October 13, 2000
posted by Mo Nickels at 7:56 AM on October 13, 2000
I think it probably depends just how much surfing you do. When I first came across Metafilter I was online a heck of a lot, there were links to places I'd never have discovered which is what attracted me to the site in the first place along with the intelligent, incisive and often witty discussions which followed.
The place has changed over time, but as I've cut down my online time it's still the place I come to first every day - it saves a lot of time as there is usually something worth seeing (usually....) and there are still some good discussions. However I think you have some valid points Mo, especially about judging the worthiness of links on the number of comments. I also think that several front page posts in a day on the same bloody topic is going too far, why not put the link in the comments of the first post (can I mention vanity?).
Of course, the thing that really gets my goat is those people who post 4 'work in progress' versions of their post in MetaTalk.....;-)
posted by Markb at 8:12 AM on October 13, 2000
The place has changed over time, but as I've cut down my online time it's still the place I come to first every day - it saves a lot of time as there is usually something worth seeing (usually....) and there are still some good discussions. However I think you have some valid points Mo, especially about judging the worthiness of links on the number of comments. I also think that several front page posts in a day on the same bloody topic is going too far, why not put the link in the comments of the first post (can I mention vanity?).
Of course, the thing that really gets my goat is those people who post 4 'work in progress' versions of their post in MetaTalk.....;-)
posted by Markb at 8:12 AM on October 13, 2000
Yeah, I apologize for the dupe posts. I'd also like to apologize for mentioning Steven in my original snide comment. Unfair and uncalled for, for sure.
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:24 PM on October 13, 2000
posted by Mo Nickels at 12:24 PM on October 13, 2000
It's an interesting problem.
On one hand, I don't have much time to surf news sites during the day anymore, so MetaFilter as CNN/nytimes/msnbc reflector is fine with me.
-BUT-
I find it's only good if it creates discussion. How someone creates discussion about a standard chunk of news is usually in the wording of their post. Yesterday, someone pointed out that scour.net went bankrupt, but the description didn't contain a question about the future of P2P companies, or wonder about the ethics of the business. That could have created interesting discussion. But it didn't.
Posting news stories to discuss here is easy - we can all relate, and among the 1700+ members, at least 10-20 will want to state their opinion on the matter.
As for being a "filter," I think that obviously requires more work on the part of the thread starter. They essentially have to stumble across some obscure nugget. My original vision for the site was this exactly. I thought, with a large enough participating audience, it would spread out the hard work to a bunch of individuals. If you or I find 1 or 2 amazing things a week on our own, having hundreds of others participate would mean maybe 10 amazing things could be found each day.
That's sort of how memepool works, as I see it. They consistently find the most obscure shit out there. I'd say 75% of the links they post look entirely original to me. How they do this, I don't know.
- BUT -
trying to make MetaFilter a memepool-esque place has a few drawbacks. You have to really dig to find the weird or out-of-the-way links and news. If you found one thing that would amaze everyone and be new to everyone in the span of a week, I'd be amazed. I probably find one really interesting thing every 2-4 weeks, if that. The other thing is that it doesn't necessarily spark discussion. I've had people email me and say something I found a while ago was amazing and how did I find it, but there were zero comments on the thread.
It's an interesting balance between current events discussion and true weblog. I don't know what the happy medium is, but it does feel like we're almost entirely on the news discussion end lately.
This site started out sort of like memepool, and when it gained an eventual participating audience, I think a lot of people wondered "gee, here's what they think of the hamster dance, Microsoft, and Napster, I wonder what they think of today's fighting in Bosnia." Sometimes that leads to interesting stuff, because the type of people here seem more civil and informed than your average news site's "discuss this story NOW!" link.
News stories are certainly easy to find and easy to goad people into talking about them. Frankly, if I participate in a news thread or two, I'm usually too tired/lazy/exhausted to pay attention to any more than that. I'm sure that happens to others here. I can take only so many political stories before I just stop reading them, much less commenting on them.
I think it would be nice to swing the pendulum back to webloggy find-obscure-interesting-stuff content, but I don't know exactly how to do that. How could we reduce the number of news stories posted? Should we reduce the number of news stories posted?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:35 AM on October 14, 2000
On one hand, I don't have much time to surf news sites during the day anymore, so MetaFilter as CNN/nytimes/msnbc reflector is fine with me.
-BUT-
I find it's only good if it creates discussion. How someone creates discussion about a standard chunk of news is usually in the wording of their post. Yesterday, someone pointed out that scour.net went bankrupt, but the description didn't contain a question about the future of P2P companies, or wonder about the ethics of the business. That could have created interesting discussion. But it didn't.
Posting news stories to discuss here is easy - we can all relate, and among the 1700+ members, at least 10-20 will want to state their opinion on the matter.
As for being a "filter," I think that obviously requires more work on the part of the thread starter. They essentially have to stumble across some obscure nugget. My original vision for the site was this exactly. I thought, with a large enough participating audience, it would spread out the hard work to a bunch of individuals. If you or I find 1 or 2 amazing things a week on our own, having hundreds of others participate would mean maybe 10 amazing things could be found each day.
That's sort of how memepool works, as I see it. They consistently find the most obscure shit out there. I'd say 75% of the links they post look entirely original to me. How they do this, I don't know.
- BUT -
trying to make MetaFilter a memepool-esque place has a few drawbacks. You have to really dig to find the weird or out-of-the-way links and news. If you found one thing that would amaze everyone and be new to everyone in the span of a week, I'd be amazed. I probably find one really interesting thing every 2-4 weeks, if that. The other thing is that it doesn't necessarily spark discussion. I've had people email me and say something I found a while ago was amazing and how did I find it, but there were zero comments on the thread.
It's an interesting balance between current events discussion and true weblog. I don't know what the happy medium is, but it does feel like we're almost entirely on the news discussion end lately.
This site started out sort of like memepool, and when it gained an eventual participating audience, I think a lot of people wondered "gee, here's what they think of the hamster dance, Microsoft, and Napster, I wonder what they think of today's fighting in Bosnia." Sometimes that leads to interesting stuff, because the type of people here seem more civil and informed than your average news site's "discuss this story NOW!" link.
News stories are certainly easy to find and easy to goad people into talking about them. Frankly, if I participate in a news thread or two, I'm usually too tired/lazy/exhausted to pay attention to any more than that. I'm sure that happens to others here. I can take only so many political stories before I just stop reading them, much less commenting on them.
I think it would be nice to swing the pendulum back to webloggy find-obscure-interesting-stuff content, but I don't know exactly how to do that. How could we reduce the number of news stories posted? Should we reduce the number of news stories posted?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:35 AM on October 14, 2000
I don't think we should reduce the number of news stories posted: I think that people are realy interested in discussing current events with an intelligent group of people. especially in the last two weeks, with belgrade and jerusalem....
it's easy for me to filter out what's not interesting to me. I look at the link text, check the URL to see if it looks promising, and often read the discussion before I decide whether or not to read the article.
I see any reason that metafilter can't serve a variety of functions: discussion forum, meme generator (whatever that is), or unique link repository.
fwiw, when I post something here as opposed to my website, it's because I think a) the community here would be interested in it or b) it has potential for generating an interesting discussion.
I don't quite see the point of the discussion function if it's all about the unique link (I suppose that depends on the link, but you know what I mean).
rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:23 AM on October 14, 2000
it's easy for me to filter out what's not interesting to me. I look at the link text, check the URL to see if it looks promising, and often read the discussion before I decide whether or not to read the article.
I see any reason that metafilter can't serve a variety of functions: discussion forum, meme generator (whatever that is), or unique link repository.
fwiw, when I post something here as opposed to my website, it's because I think a) the community here would be interested in it or b) it has potential for generating an interesting discussion.
I don't quite see the point of the discussion function if it's all about the unique link (I suppose that depends on the link, but you know what I mean).
rcb
posted by rebeccablood at 11:23 AM on October 14, 2000
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
While posting from CNN et al probably doesn't fall within the "most people haven't seen it before" guideline, most of the ones I've seen did do pretty well on the "might warrant discussion from others" criterion. So is it just that there have been a lot of these types of links lately that has folks riled up, or do we want to say that linking from fill-in-the-blank news source is inappropriate? I'm hoping for the former, personally.
posted by raku at 3:31 PM on October 12, 2000