New info: How long to wait before starting a new post rather than commenting on a recent post?

March 22, 2002 4:14 AM

First off, I'm not trying to be snarky or imply that anyone did anything wrong here. I just want clarification from the community on something I'm unsure about. This thread updates a previous thread with new information. However, the previous thread in question was started the day before, and already had this information added, 40 minutes before the new thread was started. Is there a decent period of grace before one can consider it worth posting an update thread rather than adding to the existing one, or is this always ok now?
posted by walrus to Etiquette/Policy at 4:14 AM (14 comments total)

I don't think a new thread should be started for something that's only a day old, especially when the first thread is still active.
posted by rcade at 5:53 AM on March 22, 2002

Like we'll ever come to a uniform consensus in MetaTalk? Sorry to be cynical, but this issue has been raised countless times, and it still happens. Anyone care to write out the formula for whether or not to create a new front page post for a followup?

Lurid sex value minus percentage Kottke divided by linked via Drudge plus not on FARK yet times original post amount of haikus is greater than 32 equals new front page post.
posted by machaus at 6:45 AM on March 22, 2002

I don't think a new thread should be started even for something that's three or four days old. But I have a habit of going back to old threads to update information or include an article I've recently read.
posted by Dean King at 6:54 AM on March 22, 2002

I thought the thread would be deleted, but then Matt himself posted to it, so I figured he thinks it's ok.
posted by riffola at 8:10 AM on March 22, 2002

Like we'll ever come to a uniform consensus in MetaTalk?

Well, I'm as cynical as anyone, but isn't Metatalk exactly about talking over things like this? If uniform consensus is the ultimate goal, then yeah, we're wasting our time, but I don't think anyone ever suggested that.
posted by Skot at 8:27 AM on March 22, 2002

skot, I see your point, but without these conversations being added to a guidelines document, we are doomed to have this conversation another twelve times. MetaTalk has no teeth, and very little memory effect.
posted by machaus at 8:44 AM on March 22, 2002

Machaus: discussion for discussion's sake is cool too. If MetaTalk had teeth and memory, it would be frightening.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:49 AM on March 22, 2002

No, it'd be my mother's vagina.

Whoa.. where'd that come from...

Clearly, dong_resin has to go away for a while, and get to know dong again...
posted by dong_resin at 8:55 AM on March 22, 2002

I was going to delete it, but figured it was borderline, as being new information. I hadn't noticed it was only a day old, I thought it was from a couple days back.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:01 AM on March 22, 2002

As a relative newcomer, I am really interested in this. This week alone I have found stuff that related (if only tenuosly) to several threads from a few days before. Chris Morris in particular springs to mind. Also, a week or so ago Miguel started a thread in meta about responding to responses to one of your own FPP's and I have been in a state of bewilderment and terror ever since.
Should one go all the way back in the near certain knowledge that no one will ever see it, or start a new thread?
Is the best policy, if in doubt keep your fingers to yourself? In which case I will never post again, Fridays excepted.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:11 PM on March 22, 2002

Fat Buddha: there's always the "sort by -> my comments" option, in the drop down list at the top right of the front page. The only shortcoming with this is that you miss threads you didn't add to, and it's hard on bandwidth. Bookmarking the interesting ones helps.

On the whole, my preference is for updating the original thread if it's not too old, or starting a new one if it's an interesting subject, or a really important update to the information. There's a fine line somewhere though, and I'm not entirely sure where it is.
posted by walrus at 12:22 PM on March 22, 2002

Some details: The first was posted at 4:55 pm, March 20, and the second at 11:35, March 21, a difference of about 30 1/2 hours, much longer than a day by about 25%. Saying it was posted "the day before" is subjective and technically inaccurate.

How many MeFiers revisit threads over 24 hours old? How many MeFiers revisit threads that had already been posted the last time they were on? How many MeFiers see the parallels between day-old bread and "The Langoliers"?



posted by mischief at 7:05 AM on March 24, 2002

No offense, mischief, but that's just dopey. March 20 is the day before March 21. That's not subjective or "technically inaccurate."
posted by rodii at 8:12 AM on March 24, 2002

There are still rules for Metafilter and MetaTalk? Seriously, I didn't think anyone cared much about the rules and guidelines anymore, and like walrus said, I too am not trying to be snarky. Possibly a wee bit disingenuous, but not snarky ;)

Does anyone remember when someone would be hauled into MetaTalk for posting to the front page more than 2x a week, and urged to get their own weblog? What happened to that? Seems like a million years ago, doesn't it? I remember when idle chit chat was frowned upon (waste of time and bandwidth), and when totally controlling a thread that you started was frowned upon, and when posting about the same thing 2x in one day (thing one and thing two) would have sent people throught the roof. God, I even remember when posting a comment that wasn't directly related to the subject would have garnered reprimands. Yikes.

I'm honestly not sure which I prefer - then or now. Not that it matters. I just go with the flow because I like it here.
posted by iconomy at 8:46 AM on March 24, 2002