Spiderman Deletion May 3, 2002 6:46 AM Subscribe
Why is it okay for MetaFilter to have numerous threads on LOTR, Star Wars, Harry Potter, etc including a thread dedicated to the news that there are new scenes added to LOTR: FOTR, but a Spider-man thread results in guidelines and waffles being mentioned? I understand that the initial post could have been slighty better framed, but apart from that it is following precedents that have already been set. If this thread is deleted, does it imply we no longer discuss movies that a bunch of people here can't wait to see? If so will threads for upcoming Harry Potter, Star Wars, LOTR movies be deleted too?
OK, that was trollish, sorry.
But it is germane perhaps to discuss what Metafilter is, was, has become, and potentially will be in the future, and to bash this one around, perhaps. Me, I don't mind, but hell, I'd never have the goolies to post a front page link to the fucking (thanks Anil) corporate movie site just to ask what someone thinks of a new flick....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:58 AM on May 3, 2002
But it is germane perhaps to discuss what Metafilter is, was, has become, and potentially will be in the future, and to bash this one around, perhaps. Me, I don't mind, but hell, I'd never have the goolies to post a front page link to the fucking (thanks Anil) corporate movie site just to ask what someone thinks of a new flick....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:58 AM on May 3, 2002
I know what the problems with that post are, I know it is just a thread to discuss the movie, I know the link has been around, and people who are interested in seeing the movie may have already been to the site before. I get that part.
I am just asking how is it any different from what's happened before, and if this one gets axed, would it be reasonable to expect that all other such movie threads will be axed too?
posted by riffola at 7:02 AM on May 3, 2002
I am just asking how is it any different from what's happened before, and if this one gets axed, would it be reasonable to expect that all other such movie threads will be axed too?
posted by riffola at 7:02 AM on May 3, 2002
I don't get riled about this type of post, but it is tiresome. There are dozens of Spiderman-specific sites, boards, mailing lists, I'm sure. It seems that this post was born out of excitement and enthusiasm, and that's nice and all... but it seems lately that there are too many "What did you think?" and "What's your favorite..." posts. I think one of the differences between this post and many of the LOTR posts is that this particular one just links to a boring, corporate site. Why not something on the history of Spiderman? A clever review? Something to make a reader think.
posted by acornface at 7:33 AM on May 3, 2002
posted by acornface at 7:33 AM on May 3, 2002
Oh, fer chrissakes, live a little, stavros & acorn... It's not like it's an every day thing, first of all. Second of all, matt will start killing them if it becomes an every day thing. Third of all, it's freakin Spiderman, and a lot of people are exited about the movie enough to want to talk about it on the front page, proper fpp or not.
posted by SpecialK at 7:54 AM on May 3, 2002
posted by SpecialK at 7:54 AM on May 3, 2002
Get off your soapbox, stavros. I don't see anything wrong whatsoever with numerous posts about movies that I don't like. This one is being released, so it's not like there isn't an event related to it. Live and let live.
[call this trollish, you started it]
posted by azazello at 8:40 AM on May 3, 2002
[call this trollish, you started it]
posted by azazello at 8:40 AM on May 3, 2002
It isn't the greatest link ever posted, but jumping in with guideline quotes and obnoxious pancake comments seem like overkill, considering the tolerance around here for the other new film links.
I'm extremely tired of Star Wars hype in all of its forms, but I'm not going to torpedo new discussions of it here among the sick and sad little freaks who still pretend the films are interesting or noteworthy in any way other than synergistic corporate excess.
(I kid because I care. But you have to admit there's something disturbing about people in their 30s and beyond who still get as worked up about Star Wars as they did when they were 10. Your Garanimals have worn out, buddy. You're an adult now. Come out back with the rest of us, smoke a cigar, drink some brandy, and share your advice on mutual funds and cholesterol reduction.)
posted by rcade at 8:46 AM on May 3, 2002
I'm extremely tired of Star Wars hype in all of its forms, but I'm not going to torpedo new discussions of it here among the sick and sad little freaks who still pretend the films are interesting or noteworthy in any way other than synergistic corporate excess.
(I kid because I care. But you have to admit there's something disturbing about people in their 30s and beyond who still get as worked up about Star Wars as they did when they were 10. Your Garanimals have worn out, buddy. You're an adult now. Come out back with the rest of us, smoke a cigar, drink some brandy, and share your advice on mutual funds and cholesterol reduction.)
posted by rcade at 8:46 AM on May 3, 2002
i wouldn't be surprised to see it yanked. it wouldn't be the first time.
i only posted it because there's a lot in the film to talk about. yes, i KNOW the link has been posted twice before, but you can't really discuss a film that hasn't been released. now that it's out, i felt a lot of folks would perhaps like to compare notes based on what they grew up with.
as for the snide remark about my spoilers comment, there are a few things that can be spoiled, hence the request. i also KNEW someone was going to make a smart-ass pancake remark. it was inevitable.
this is why i generally have stayed away from metafilter, (though i have recently made more comments) and why in general i don't bother to make posts.
it's just to much damned trouble.
posted by bwg at 8:56 AM on May 3, 2002
i only posted it because there's a lot in the film to talk about. yes, i KNOW the link has been posted twice before, but you can't really discuss a film that hasn't been released. now that it's out, i felt a lot of folks would perhaps like to compare notes based on what they grew up with.
as for the snide remark about my spoilers comment, there are a few things that can be spoiled, hence the request. i also KNEW someone was going to make a smart-ass pancake remark. it was inevitable.
this is why i generally have stayed away from metafilter, (though i have recently made more comments) and why in general i don't bother to make posts.
it's just to much damned trouble.
posted by bwg at 8:56 AM on May 3, 2002
Oh, look, yet more unfunny references to pancakes and waffles. For fuck's sake, it wasn't funny the first time.
posted by solistrato at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2002
posted by solistrato at 9:02 AM on May 3, 2002
Eh, maybe if there had been a slightly different link (like to an article covering the opening in Hong Kong or something). I think a lot of the LOTR threads started like that (tatoos, etc.) and then drited into the fanboy zone we all really wanted to be in. I have to admit that fired up metafilter with the expectation of seeing a spiderman thread today (yeah, I know, I am sad for me, too).
Your Garanimals have worn out, buddy.
Heh, rcade, have you never been to a haggar store? The first time I went into one, I thought, hey this is a Garanimals store for grown-ups. Everything was set up in a way that said, "no, look, these match, ok?" Hmn, I see that they think so
too.
posted by eckeric at 9:30 AM on May 3, 2002
Your Garanimals have worn out, buddy.
Heh, rcade, have you never been to a haggar store? The first time I went into one, I thought, hey this is a Garanimals store for grown-ups. Everything was set up in a way that said, "no, look, these match, ok?" Hmn, I see that they think so
too.
posted by eckeric at 9:30 AM on May 3, 2002
I just did some light pruning.
I don't like when people take it upon themselves to heckle a thread. Posting the guidelines was exactly the kind of editorial, meta type talk I don't want to see in comments. The waffle/pancake heckling on top was also pointless.
Despite what the guidelines say, people are going to talk about what they want to talk about. There have been threads for almost every >$100 million movie released, so just let them be and let the people interested in them speak freely.
Now, if you don't mind, I've got an early spiderman show to catch.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:35 AM on May 3, 2002
I don't like when people take it upon themselves to heckle a thread. Posting the guidelines was exactly the kind of editorial, meta type talk I don't want to see in comments. The waffle/pancake heckling on top was also pointless.
Despite what the guidelines say, people are going to talk about what they want to talk about. There have been threads for almost every >$100 million movie released, so just let them be and let the people interested in them speak freely.
Now, if you don't mind, I've got an early spiderman show to catch.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:35 AM on May 3, 2002
btw, the GAP is grananimals for adults. Go into a gap store and try it. The khakis match with any shirt, and shirt with match any cargo pants. All the cargo pants match the sweaters. You can't get more grananimal-like than that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:37 AM on May 3, 2002
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:37 AM on May 3, 2002
whoever said pancake and waffle references were supposed to be funny?
i KNOW the link has been posted twice before...i also KNEW someone was going to make a smart-ass pancake remark
so you knew it was a bad post, but you put it up there anyway?
it's just to much damned trouble.
Well, then don't bother. It's not easy to come up with a quality post. It takes effort. If you don't want to put in the effort, then don't waste my time, or the site's resources.
obnoxious pancake comments
yeah it was. it was stupid, unoriginal, obnoxious. It looks like matt killed it too, presumably because pancake comments rub him personally the wrong way.
considering the tolerance around here for the other new film links.
This kind of criticism shows up a lot, and I really don't get it. There is no "we" only a bunch of "I"s. Are you saying that someone should have bitched about the LOTR post? I thought we complained to much? Should I, for example, have said "well, I didn't complain about the LOTR post, so I shouldn't complain about this?" Maybe I was out sick that day. Maybe I was in a forgiving mood. Maybe I felt the link in that thread was more interesting. Or maybe I'm a LOTR geek. Whatever the reason, you can't say that the "cops" criticize too much, then criticize them for showing restraint.
posted by jpoulos at 9:40 AM on May 3, 2002
i KNOW the link has been posted twice before...i also KNEW someone was going to make a smart-ass pancake remark
so you knew it was a bad post, but you put it up there anyway?
it's just to much damned trouble.
Well, then don't bother. It's not easy to come up with a quality post. It takes effort. If you don't want to put in the effort, then don't waste my time, or the site's resources.
obnoxious pancake comments
yeah it was. it was stupid, unoriginal, obnoxious. It looks like matt killed it too, presumably because pancake comments rub him personally the wrong way.
considering the tolerance around here for the other new film links.
This kind of criticism shows up a lot, and I really don't get it. There is no "we" only a bunch of "I"s. Are you saying that someone should have bitched about the LOTR post? I thought we complained to much? Should I, for example, have said "well, I didn't complain about the LOTR post, so I shouldn't complain about this?" Maybe I was out sick that day. Maybe I was in a forgiving mood. Maybe I felt the link in that thread was more interesting. Or maybe I'm a LOTR geek. Whatever the reason, you can't say that the "cops" criticize too much, then criticize them for showing restraint.
posted by jpoulos at 9:40 AM on May 3, 2002
One other thing, if you see a thread with a weak link, or lackluster description, before you attempt to doom it to deletion, how about trying to make it better?
There have been countless posts with generic links made good by 5-10 comments filled with juicier links to more specific and/or interesting things. The corporate movie site was kind of lame, but if you don't feel it is up to snuff, why not try posting something better?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:44 AM on May 3, 2002
There have been countless posts with generic links made good by 5-10 comments filled with juicier links to more specific and/or interesting things. The corporate movie site was kind of lame, but if you don't feel it is up to snuff, why not try posting something better?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:44 AM on May 3, 2002
Posting the guidelines was exactly the kind of editorial, meta type talk I don't want to see in comments.
While I admitted above that my waffle line was obviously stupid, I think quoting the guidelines should be acceptable. How else is someone supposed to back up their claim? This site is supposed to self-policed based on the guidelines established by Our Leader. That's exactly what happened in that thread, and I think it was wrong to delete the guidelines comment.
The post itself, which still stands, goes directly against those guidelines. No wonder there's so much conflict and so little direction around here, when no one is clear on what that direction is supposed to be.
posted by jpoulos at 9:57 AM on May 3, 2002
While I admitted above that my waffle line was obviously stupid, I think quoting the guidelines should be acceptable. How else is someone supposed to back up their claim? This site is supposed to self-policed based on the guidelines established by Our Leader. That's exactly what happened in that thread, and I think it was wrong to delete the guidelines comment.
The post itself, which still stands, goes directly against those guidelines. No wonder there's so much conflict and so little direction around here, when no one is clear on what that direction is supposed to be.
posted by jpoulos at 9:57 AM on May 3, 2002
If you don't want to put in the effort, then don't waste my time, or the site's resources.
pretty goddamned arrogant, considering that there are a lot of people who are genuinely excited about the film, and also that mefi wasn't created solely for your gratification.
posted by bwg at 10:01 AM on May 3, 2002
pretty goddamned arrogant, considering that there are a lot of people who are genuinely excited about the film, and also that mefi wasn't created solely for your gratification.
posted by bwg at 10:01 AM on May 3, 2002
Posting the guidelines in a thread, or saying "I think this thread sucks" are both comments more suited for metatalk. Starvos could have created a metatalk thread saying "this doesn't really meet the guidelines, eh?" and put a comment to that in the thread, instead of mucking up the thread with editorial. That's why I built metatalk, to take those types of comments out of metafilter into someplace else.
o wonder there's so much conflict and so little direction around here, when no one is clear on what that direction is supposed to be.
And that is largely the point, that the site is what you make it. It can be about any subject on earth, and cover links to anything on the web. As long as someone isn't hogging the spotlight, a member can go in any direction they like.
The rudderless ship has sailed for almost three years now, and I think it's doing ok. The guidelines are loose because I didn't feel like systematically breaking down all the hundreds of rules of what is and isn't allowed. I would hope that simply being here, one would pick up the community vibe of what is and isn't acceptable. Social cues have been sufficient for quite a while now, and I don't feel like we are in a downward trend.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on May 3, 2002
o wonder there's so much conflict and so little direction around here, when no one is clear on what that direction is supposed to be.
And that is largely the point, that the site is what you make it. It can be about any subject on earth, and cover links to anything on the web. As long as someone isn't hogging the spotlight, a member can go in any direction they like.
The rudderless ship has sailed for almost three years now, and I think it's doing ok. The guidelines are loose because I didn't feel like systematically breaking down all the hundreds of rules of what is and isn't allowed. I would hope that simply being here, one would pick up the community vibe of what is and isn't acceptable. Social cues have been sufficient for quite a while now, and I don't feel like we are in a downward trend.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on May 3, 2002
whoever said pancake and waffle references were supposed to be funny?
and just what the hell ARE they supposed to be?!?
posted by rushmc at 10:15 AM on May 3, 2002
and just what the hell ARE they supposed to be?!?
posted by rushmc at 10:15 AM on May 3, 2002
One other thing, if you see a thread with a weak link, or lackluster description, before you attempt to doom it to deletion, how about trying to make it better?
There have been countless posts with generic links made good by 5-10 comments filled with juicier links to more specific and/or interesting things. The corporate movie site was kind of lame, but if you don't feel it is up to snuff, why not try posting something better?
Best. Post. Ever.
The answer, however is, because it is easier to destroy than to create.
posted by rushmc at 10:17 AM on May 3, 2002
There have been countless posts with generic links made good by 5-10 comments filled with juicier links to more specific and/or interesting things. The corporate movie site was kind of lame, but if you don't feel it is up to snuff, why not try posting something better?
Best. Post. Ever.
The answer, however is, because it is easier to destroy than to create.
posted by rushmc at 10:17 AM on May 3, 2002
The answer, however is, because it is easier to destroy than to create.
This is true. All I could find were a bunch of lame cnn links. (Malibu Stacy voice: "posting is hard!") Hats off to Gael for the poptart link. They look absolutely wild.
posted by eckeric at 11:29 AM on May 3, 2002
This is true. All I could find were a bunch of lame cnn links. (Malibu Stacy voice: "posting is hard!") Hats off to Gael for the poptart link. They look absolutely wild.
posted by eckeric at 11:29 AM on May 3, 2002
...obnoxious pancake comments...
yeah it was. it was stupid, unoriginal, obnoxious. It looks like matt killed it too, presumably because pancake comments rub him personally the wrong way.
No jpoulos, pancake comments and heckling don't just "bother Matt personally", they bother the rest of us, ALL 14000 OF US, so swallow your pride, swallow your arrogance, think before posting, and keep the inane pancake bullshit to yourself.
posted by Karl at 11:58 AM on May 3, 2002
yeah it was. it was stupid, unoriginal, obnoxious. It looks like matt killed it too, presumably because pancake comments rub him personally the wrong way.
No jpoulos, pancake comments and heckling don't just "bother Matt personally", they bother the rest of us, ALL 14000 OF US, so swallow your pride, swallow your arrogance, think before posting, and keep the inane pancake bullshit to yourself.
posted by Karl at 11:58 AM on May 3, 2002
what the hell? jpoulos is rarely if ever one of the pancake offenders. i'm unclear as to why everyone is jumping down his throat. take one look at his posting history and tell me he's a spouter of "inane pancake bullshit".
it's interesting how metatalk threads always end in someone getting blamed for the overall deterioration of mefi. if it's not the person/phenomenon the meta thread was about, then it's whoever pointed out the person/phenomenon. for chrissake, people can be concerned about mefi without being the bane of its existence.
nobody has brought up the regular posters of inane bullshit, you've just pinned it on a guy who hardly ever does it. i'd suggest trying to check out a person's history before you start attacking them. a one-time transgression does not necessitate that kind of abuse, and it really saddens me to see it.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:59 PM on May 3, 2002
it's interesting how metatalk threads always end in someone getting blamed for the overall deterioration of mefi. if it's not the person/phenomenon the meta thread was about, then it's whoever pointed out the person/phenomenon. for chrissake, people can be concerned about mefi without being the bane of its existence.
nobody has brought up the regular posters of inane bullshit, you've just pinned it on a guy who hardly ever does it. i'd suggest trying to check out a person's history before you start attacking them. a one-time transgression does not necessitate that kind of abuse, and it really saddens me to see it.
posted by pikachulolita at 1:59 PM on May 3, 2002
The Pancake Defense:
I'll go out on a limb here...but every once in a while, in an otherwise decent but lackluster thread, I'll run smack dab into a waffle/pancake remark, and lo & behold, it brightens my day. Some of us find it funny, others don't. It's not the end of the world, just harmless (if often pointless) fun. I'm glad that Our Fearless Leader continues to let us use these simple diversionary tactics to harmlessly amuse, pointedly deflate, or otherwise entertain.
posted by davidmsc at 2:04 PM on May 3, 2002
I'll go out on a limb here...but every once in a while, in an otherwise decent but lackluster thread, I'll run smack dab into a waffle/pancake remark, and lo & behold, it brightens my day. Some of us find it funny, others don't. It's not the end of the world, just harmless (if often pointless) fun. I'm glad that Our Fearless Leader continues to let us use these simple diversionary tactics to harmlessly amuse, pointedly deflate, or otherwise entertain.
posted by davidmsc at 2:04 PM on May 3, 2002
as for posting better links to the comments to make the site better, i don't think anyone could argue that that's the only thing to do once bad threads are started. but come on, if people are allowed to keep doing it, and no one says anything about it, then there will STILL be a ton of crappy links on the front page. i'm not saying there should be a mass deletion of unoriginal links, but the "if you don't like it so much, post a better link" thing only carries so much water.
for one thing, i've seen a couple of times where someone's posted an unoriginal link, followed by someone posting a better link on the same subject to the main page. instead of being rewarded for a good link, and showing that the earlier link wasn't all it could be, the person gets called out for a fucking double post. that's ridiculous, if you ask me.
people are going to keep posting really obvious links unless someone says "hey, it's cool if that's ALL you could find, but please, check around a little more beforehand, huh?" and no one's going to listen to me, just like every time i post anything. the only person they're going to really listen to is matt.
as far as i'm concerned, blatantly obvious newsfeed links do NOT meet the posting guidelines. if they do and i'm just not seeing it, let me know, but they are not something most people haven't seen before. to me, this is as much of a no-brainer as not posting onion links, for chrissake. if something goes against the only guidelines we've been given, it seems kind of odd to me for matt to say "yeah, okay, but make the post better".
matt, i can see where you're coming from -- everyone bitches about the front page without doing much to help. i'm super-guilty of that myself, i know. but at the same time, in order for the really quality links to BE on the front page, there needs to be some sort general admonishment if you don't want people posting cnn pages. if you do, then by all means, Please Change The Posting Guidelines. the seeming contradiction between your words here and the posting guidelines will only fuel a whole lot more infighting, and will also alienate a whole lot of people who really care about the site.
the attacks on stavros and jpoulos are indicative of just that. they are going by what the posting guidelines say, and others are going by what you've said here. if what you've said here is everything you have to say on the subject, then please change the guidelines. it's not fair to any of the users of this site to have to argue about whether your word here or your word there is the real sticking point.
posted by pikachulolita at 2:23 PM on May 3, 2002
for one thing, i've seen a couple of times where someone's posted an unoriginal link, followed by someone posting a better link on the same subject to the main page. instead of being rewarded for a good link, and showing that the earlier link wasn't all it could be, the person gets called out for a fucking double post. that's ridiculous, if you ask me.
people are going to keep posting really obvious links unless someone says "hey, it's cool if that's ALL you could find, but please, check around a little more beforehand, huh?" and no one's going to listen to me, just like every time i post anything. the only person they're going to really listen to is matt.
as far as i'm concerned, blatantly obvious newsfeed links do NOT meet the posting guidelines. if they do and i'm just not seeing it, let me know, but they are not something most people haven't seen before. to me, this is as much of a no-brainer as not posting onion links, for chrissake. if something goes against the only guidelines we've been given, it seems kind of odd to me for matt to say "yeah, okay, but make the post better".
matt, i can see where you're coming from -- everyone bitches about the front page without doing much to help. i'm super-guilty of that myself, i know. but at the same time, in order for the really quality links to BE on the front page, there needs to be some sort general admonishment if you don't want people posting cnn pages. if you do, then by all means, Please Change The Posting Guidelines. the seeming contradiction between your words here and the posting guidelines will only fuel a whole lot more infighting, and will also alienate a whole lot of people who really care about the site.
the attacks on stavros and jpoulos are indicative of just that. they are going by what the posting guidelines say, and others are going by what you've said here. if what you've said here is everything you have to say on the subject, then please change the guidelines. it's not fair to any of the users of this site to have to argue about whether your word here or your word there is the real sticking point.
posted by pikachulolita at 2:23 PM on May 3, 2002
heh. stavros told to lighten up and jpoulos to lay off the pancakes in the same thread.
posted by modofo at 2:44 PM on May 3, 2002
posted by modofo at 2:44 PM on May 3, 2002
Pikachulolita - I read Matt to be saying don't bitch or make obnoxious noises in the thread. If you want to bitch take it to MetaTalk. If you're going to post a comment in the thread, then post one that improves the thread rather than derails or anticipates its deletion (or worse tries to ensure its deletion). It seems to make perfect sense to me.
posted by willnot at 2:49 PM on May 3, 2002
posted by willnot at 2:49 PM on May 3, 2002
And that is largely the point, that the site is what you make it. It can be about any subject on earth, and cover links to anything on the web. As long as someone isn't hogging the spotlight, a member can go in any direction they like.
while i definitely agree with the spirit of what matt said above, i would say that it is in disharmony with the posting guidelines. saying "it can cover links to anything on the web" seems to be a broader umbrella than "things most people haven't seen before".
posted by pikachulolita at 2:53 PM on May 3, 2002
while i definitely agree with the spirit of what matt said above, i would say that it is in disharmony with the posting guidelines. saying "it can cover links to anything on the web" seems to be a broader umbrella than "things most people haven't seen before".
posted by pikachulolita at 2:53 PM on May 3, 2002
Starvos could have created a metatalk thread saying "this doesn't really meet the guidelines, eh?" and put a comment to that in the thread, instead of mucking up the thread with editorial.
I hear you Matt, and if I'm really feeling itchy to put on the MeFi Cop badge again, I'll keep that in mind. I will say in my defense, though, that there was already a MeTa thread in existence, the one previous to this one in fact, that was about (more or less) this very issue. I consciously did not start another MeTa thread for that very reason. In that situation, perhaps, the best thing would have been to just find a better link and post it in the thread, sans admonishment, but dammit, I was cranky, and by anyone's standards, that was a pretty crappy post (no offense bwg, but it was!). I'm somewhat at a loss about what I ought to have done in that situation.
I would agree with pikachulolota above, Matt - what you've said above sounds a little bit like the goalposts are changing here, at least as far as you're concerned.
And you wonderchicken admonishers above : soapbox? Hardly.
/me gets off soapbox
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2002
I hear you Matt, and if I'm really feeling itchy to put on the MeFi Cop badge again, I'll keep that in mind. I will say in my defense, though, that there was already a MeTa thread in existence, the one previous to this one in fact, that was about (more or less) this very issue. I consciously did not start another MeTa thread for that very reason. In that situation, perhaps, the best thing would have been to just find a better link and post it in the thread, sans admonishment, but dammit, I was cranky, and by anyone's standards, that was a pretty crappy post (no offense bwg, but it was!). I'm somewhat at a loss about what I ought to have done in that situation.
I would agree with pikachulolota above, Matt - what you've said above sounds a little bit like the goalposts are changing here, at least as far as you're concerned.
And you wonderchicken admonishers above : soapbox? Hardly.
/me gets off soapbox
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:12 PM on May 3, 2002
Also : Starvos could have created a metatalk thread saying "this doesn't really meet the guidelines, eh?"
Cool - you got my Canadian accent down to a T!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2002
Cool - you got my Canadian accent down to a T!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2002
but at the same time, in order for the really quality links to BE on the front page, there needs to be some sort general admonishment if you don't want people posting cnn pages. if you do, then by all means, Please Change The Posting Guidelines
it seems as if everyone is getting caught up in this one clause of the posting guidelines. doesn't it basically come down to this: its matt's site. if he says it is ok, than it is. why get so hung up on this one clause, especially if the post meets all the other requirements. it seems that most people don't have a huge problem with cnn/nytimes/etc. links (and i'm simply basing that on the number of comments these posts get) if the story is especially interesting or news worthy.
also, something i was wondering for those who don't like news links. granted 9.11 was a very very rare situation, but the story being posted on that day does officially break the posting criterion, but i would find it hard to argue that those posts/comments weren't an incredibly valuable and interesting use of this site.
posted by m@L at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2002
it seems as if everyone is getting caught up in this one clause of the posting guidelines. doesn't it basically come down to this: its matt's site. if he says it is ok, than it is. why get so hung up on this one clause, especially if the post meets all the other requirements. it seems that most people don't have a huge problem with cnn/nytimes/etc. links (and i'm simply basing that on the number of comments these posts get) if the story is especially interesting or news worthy.
also, something i was wondering for those who don't like news links. granted 9.11 was a very very rare situation, but the story being posted on that day does officially break the posting criterion, but i would find it hard to argue that those posts/comments weren't an incredibly valuable and interesting use of this site.
posted by m@L at 3:18 PM on May 3, 2002
no one argued against the posting of the 9.11 news as it happened, at the time of the tragedy or after. some might have taken issue with the number of threads. you're right to say that it's ok to break the guidelines sometimes. but, as you might guess, those are in extreme emergencies such as:
The Big Earthquake is Hitting California, my house is sliding into the ocean and I'm posting this why?? Yow!
posted by moz at 3:30 PM on May 3, 2002
The Big Earthquake is Hitting California, my house is sliding into the ocean and I'm posting this why?? Yow!
posted by moz at 3:30 PM on May 3, 2002
doesn't it basically come down to this: its matt's site. if he says it is ok, than it is.
m@L : If you read upthread, it seems to some of us that Matt has now publicly said two different things about this, and some clarification has been requested.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:32 PM on May 3, 2002
m@L : If you read upthread, it seems to some of us that Matt has now publicly said two different things about this, and some clarification has been requested.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:32 PM on May 3, 2002
everyone is getting caught up on the guidelines because they are the only guidelines we have. if matt says it's okay, then he needs to change the guidelines to not be contradictory with what he says. not everyone reads metatalk, not everyone is going to see what he said, not everyone is as clear as you are on the fact that what he says in a meta post is more important than what he says on the page everyone sees.
i don't mind news links, per se. the current events threads can be really interesting. but the links that are posted are usually unoriginal, uncreative, and unworthy of mefi, in my opinion. people can discuss things in threads with good links better than they can with a vague "this happened" link. just because a link gets a lot of discussion does not mean that it is Good discussion. a lot of the noise in those threads is unbearable.
but - this is only my opinion. if matt wants those links and i'm wrong, then by all means, link away. but PLEASE change the posting guidelines to be less contradictory with what has been said in metatalk.
posted by pikachulolita at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2002
i don't mind news links, per se. the current events threads can be really interesting. but the links that are posted are usually unoriginal, uncreative, and unworthy of mefi, in my opinion. people can discuss things in threads with good links better than they can with a vague "this happened" link. just because a link gets a lot of discussion does not mean that it is Good discussion. a lot of the noise in those threads is unbearable.
but - this is only my opinion. if matt wants those links and i'm wrong, then by all means, link away. but PLEASE change the posting guidelines to be less contradictory with what has been said in metatalk.
posted by pikachulolita at 3:37 PM on May 3, 2002
everyone is getting caught up on the guidelines because they are the only guidelines we have. if matt says it's okay, then he needs to change the guidelines to not be contradictory with what he says. not everyone reads metatalk, not everyone is going to see what he said
that makes sense to me. orginally it seemed (to me, anyway) that people were just getting pissed about "metafilter-worthiness" of posts or something along those lines. but i fully understand what you are saying.
posted by m@L at 3:50 PM on May 3, 2002
that makes sense to me. orginally it seemed (to me, anyway) that people were just getting pissed about "metafilter-worthiness" of posts or something along those lines. but i fully understand what you are saying.
posted by m@L at 3:50 PM on May 3, 2002
while i definitely agree with the spirit of what matt said above, i would say that it is in disharmony with the posting guidelines.
You have to understand that the guidelines are purposely vague and just the start of describing how someone should behave, act, and participate here. Put yourself in my shoes for a second here. I am mildly annoyed that people post boring and/or topical links on metafilter. I was two years ago when people were doing it, but largely the comments were either non-existent (to demonstrate how uninteresting they are) or they were pretty good. Now, I can't call for the demise of any news-related post, because people are constantly posting them. I've strived to not make this site all about me, and not to act as an ever-present editor, but to be a participant that simply admins from time to time.
I made the guidelines because people weren't getting what the site was about so I roughed in some rules, but I hate making rules. Once you make a rule, you have to make a million more to combat all the people trying to break rules. Then there are the exceptions, which have to also be written down, and lastly, you have us all here arguing over the rules. I'm about argued out, and I know everyone is waiting for the grand statement of what to do about this but I don't know.
The facts are the spiderman link was weak, and pretty lame, but the post could have also been perfectly fine if someone found an interesting link to marry it to. If I deleted it five minutes after it went up, someone else would have posted about spiderman because it's the first movie of the big blockbuster movie summer and people want to discuss that (they create threads similar to this over at plastic, because people are dying to gab about it).
So say you're in my shoes, and people want to post about the latest craptacular from hollywood (I just came back from a showing and was disappointed, it was pretty bad all around). Do you tell people to shut up and take it elsewhere? Do you welcome it with open arms? Do you ask that people try to do the best they can with it?
The answer is I don't know.
I'm sorry to name any names here, or point out any single person's wrongdoing. I think some of the self-policing here can be heavy handed at times, and that is what I dislike, not the person doing it. Same goes for heckling a post with whatever someone wants to post. I don't like the heckle, it's not that I aim to villify the person doing it.
I don't think I've given mixed signals on this, there are three years worth of sporadic news postings here, lately it's gotten to be a bit much, but I hope it swings away from news a bit without ever losing some discussions of newsworthy events, because there is some value in them.
Now how on earth do you make that a neat and tidy guideline that everyone understands?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:14 PM on May 3, 2002
You have to understand that the guidelines are purposely vague and just the start of describing how someone should behave, act, and participate here. Put yourself in my shoes for a second here. I am mildly annoyed that people post boring and/or topical links on metafilter. I was two years ago when people were doing it, but largely the comments were either non-existent (to demonstrate how uninteresting they are) or they were pretty good. Now, I can't call for the demise of any news-related post, because people are constantly posting them. I've strived to not make this site all about me, and not to act as an ever-present editor, but to be a participant that simply admins from time to time.
I made the guidelines because people weren't getting what the site was about so I roughed in some rules, but I hate making rules. Once you make a rule, you have to make a million more to combat all the people trying to break rules. Then there are the exceptions, which have to also be written down, and lastly, you have us all here arguing over the rules. I'm about argued out, and I know everyone is waiting for the grand statement of what to do about this but I don't know.
The facts are the spiderman link was weak, and pretty lame, but the post could have also been perfectly fine if someone found an interesting link to marry it to. If I deleted it five minutes after it went up, someone else would have posted about spiderman because it's the first movie of the big blockbuster movie summer and people want to discuss that (they create threads similar to this over at plastic, because people are dying to gab about it).
So say you're in my shoes, and people want to post about the latest craptacular from hollywood (I just came back from a showing and was disappointed, it was pretty bad all around). Do you tell people to shut up and take it elsewhere? Do you welcome it with open arms? Do you ask that people try to do the best they can with it?
The answer is I don't know.
I'm sorry to name any names here, or point out any single person's wrongdoing. I think some of the self-policing here can be heavy handed at times, and that is what I dislike, not the person doing it. Same goes for heckling a post with whatever someone wants to post. I don't like the heckle, it's not that I aim to villify the person doing it.
I don't think I've given mixed signals on this, there are three years worth of sporadic news postings here, lately it's gotten to be a bit much, but I hope it swings away from news a bit without ever losing some discussions of newsworthy events, because there is some value in them.
Now how on earth do you make that a neat and tidy guideline that everyone understands?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:14 PM on May 3, 2002
Hey, you're doin' a hell of a job keeping this place on an even keel, boss-guy.
I, for one, sometimes forget how much stress and strain that must actually be.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:23 PM on May 3, 2002
I, for one, sometimes forget how much stress and strain that must actually be.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:23 PM on May 3, 2002
when I'm on metatalk I feel like I'm hanging out with a bunch of hugely opinionated, cranky constitutional law scholars, who love just going round and round about what the rules are and what they mean.
I love you guys.
posted by rebeccablood at 5:41 PM on May 3, 2002
I love you guys.
posted by rebeccablood at 5:41 PM on May 3, 2002
i'm interested in what you guys think were some of best quality posts that you've seen in your time at metafilter. i think it would helpful for newbies (like me) to see what the metafilter community feels are some of the best representations of what exactly this site is.
posted by m@L at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2002
posted by m@L at 7:07 PM on May 3, 2002
What a good question. I have to think about that for a little while and try to find links to the threads.
"see what the metafilter community feels are some of the best"
Don't forget that you're part of the community too, m@L ;)
posted by iconomy at 7:18 PM on May 3, 2002
"see what the metafilter community feels are some of the best"
Don't forget that you're part of the community too, m@L ;)
posted by iconomy at 7:18 PM on May 3, 2002
I can't add any "classic" threads at the moment, but I'll think about it. I do want to say thank you, Matt - for both the review and the reassurance.
Good place, good people.
posted by yhbc at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2002
Good place, good people.
posted by yhbc at 8:31 PM on May 3, 2002
Yeah, thanks Matt and everyone else for sorting this matter out.
posted by riffola at 8:37 PM on May 3, 2002
posted by riffola at 8:37 PM on May 3, 2002
when I'm on metatalk I feel like I'm hanging out with a bunch of hugely opinionated, cranky constitutional law scholars, who love just going round and round about what the rules are and what they mean.
Replace "constitutional law" with "Talmudic" and I agree completely.
posted by rcade at 5:24 AM on May 4, 2002
Replace "constitutional law" with "Talmudic" and I agree completely.
posted by rcade at 5:24 AM on May 4, 2002
rcade: "Talmudic" is right. The attention to detail, the ability to present several opinions at the same time, on the same page, while keeping a running, never-ending commentary and paying respect to the primordial scholars; not to mention the refusal to consider any matter too trivial for discussion - this is indeed MetaTalk at its best.
And Matt is very much the much more human god - if not the "angry and jealous God" which God declared Himself to be - of the Torah/Old Testament. He is honest; he loves his people; he sometimes goes overboard. Jpoulos is quite right about the guidelines and fits the heroic figure of Job very well. It's all very well for Matt to say that he hates rules - and it's true than each one begets a hundred more - but it's disheartening to learn that those who follow and stand up for his three guidelines are deleted for their troubles.
I'd suggest abolishing the guidelines altogether and letting the self-policing, which works very well in conjunction with Matt's liberal principles, do all the work. Pikachulolita is absolutely right and enough of us have been confused by double standards.
I think Matt is right - and his flexibility and openness to others are his greatest qualities, in almost everyone's opinion - about judging each post(and poster) according to its/his/her's merits. How could you avoid, without undue totalitarianism, a discussion about the Spiderman movie?
But, in that case, take the guidelines down and limit it to the "found something cool on the Web you want to share, that might engender an interesting discussion?" principle which is at the heart of MetaFilter. Let bad posts and good posts be decided by the users. That way we'd all be comfortable. I mean a lot of posts which fulfill the guidelines are bad all the same. This way we'd avoid unfairly victimizing those of us who stick up for the "old" guidelines and stop the incessant bringing-to-Meta which centers round the guidelines.
Matt behaves like one of us - and expresses himself as such - and hates being the figure of authority that some users would like him to be. This is good and fresh and open to the future. I suggest, therefore, that the guidelines be even more simplified, so that all us Talmudists can get down to the business of commenting endlessly on every quirk, without being able to appeal to scripture, double standards and contradiction.
Sorry for going on a bit...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2002
And Matt is very much the much more human god - if not the "angry and jealous God" which God declared Himself to be - of the Torah/Old Testament. He is honest; he loves his people; he sometimes goes overboard. Jpoulos is quite right about the guidelines and fits the heroic figure of Job very well. It's all very well for Matt to say that he hates rules - and it's true than each one begets a hundred more - but it's disheartening to learn that those who follow and stand up for his three guidelines are deleted for their troubles.
I'd suggest abolishing the guidelines altogether and letting the self-policing, which works very well in conjunction with Matt's liberal principles, do all the work. Pikachulolita is absolutely right and enough of us have been confused by double standards.
I think Matt is right - and his flexibility and openness to others are his greatest qualities, in almost everyone's opinion - about judging each post(and poster) according to its/his/her's merits. How could you avoid, without undue totalitarianism, a discussion about the Spiderman movie?
But, in that case, take the guidelines down and limit it to the "found something cool on the Web you want to share, that might engender an interesting discussion?" principle which is at the heart of MetaFilter. Let bad posts and good posts be decided by the users. That way we'd all be comfortable. I mean a lot of posts which fulfill the guidelines are bad all the same. This way we'd avoid unfairly victimizing those of us who stick up for the "old" guidelines and stop the incessant bringing-to-Meta which centers round the guidelines.
Matt behaves like one of us - and expresses himself as such - and hates being the figure of authority that some users would like him to be. This is good and fresh and open to the future. I suggest, therefore, that the guidelines be even more simplified, so that all us Talmudists can get down to the business of commenting endlessly on every quirk, without being able to appeal to scripture, double standards and contradiction.
Sorry for going on a bit...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:12 AM on May 4, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 9:00 AM on May 4, 2002
"No jpoulos, pancake comments and heckling don't just "bother Matt personally", they bother the rest of us, ALL 14000 OF US, so swallow your pride, swallow your arrogance, think before posting, and keep the inane pancake bullshit to yourself."
that's a LOT of tapeworms.
posted by jcterminal at 9:45 AM on May 4, 2002
that's a LOT of tapeworms.
posted by jcterminal at 9:45 AM on May 4, 2002
Karl:
. . . , pancake comments and heckling don't just "bother Matt personally", they bother the rest of us, ALL 14000 OF US, so swallow your pride, swallow your arrogance, think before posting, and keep the inane pancake bullshit to yourself.
First of all, don't you dare try to speak for me. I'm capable of having and acting on my own opinions, thank you very much.
I've got a wild idea! If you don't like a thread, ignore it.
You don't speak for Matt either. It's his site and he can do exactly as he pleases. He's a pretty fair reasonable guy and I can live with his decisions. It's not like any of us are paying for the privilege to post. If you claim to be paying for it, you better be on the list!
rebeccablood:
when I'm on metatalk I feel like I'm hanging out with a bunch of hugely opinionated, cranky constitutional law scholars, who love just going round and round about what the rules are and what they mean.
That's what makes it fun, doesn't it?
posted by mark13 at 11:52 AM on May 4, 2002
. . . , pancake comments and heckling don't just "bother Matt personally", they bother the rest of us, ALL 14000 OF US, so swallow your pride, swallow your arrogance, think before posting, and keep the inane pancake bullshit to yourself.
First of all, don't you dare try to speak for me. I'm capable of having and acting on my own opinions, thank you very much.
I've got a wild idea! If you don't like a thread, ignore it.
You don't speak for Matt either. It's his site and he can do exactly as he pleases. He's a pretty fair reasonable guy and I can live with his decisions. It's not like any of us are paying for the privilege to post. If you claim to be paying for it, you better be on the list!
rebeccablood:
when I'm on metatalk I feel like I'm hanging out with a bunch of hugely opinionated, cranky constitutional law scholars, who love just going round and round about what the rules are and what they mean.
That's what makes it fun, doesn't it?
posted by mark13 at 11:52 AM on May 4, 2002
I've got a wild idea! If you don't like a thread, ignore it.
That was exactly my f___ing point about the pancake posters and hecklers in the original thread in the first place!! Ignore it, or suggest a better way to post, but don't fill the screen with your 'clever' and snide jokes.
It's his site and he can do exactly as he pleases.
And on several occasions he's pleased to call out the pancake people and ask they don't treat the thread like an in-joke party, and yet they still do.
So for the record, mark13, I stand by what I said.
posted by Karl at 5:09 PM on May 5, 2002
That was exactly my f___ing point about the pancake posters and hecklers in the original thread in the first place!! Ignore it, or suggest a better way to post, but don't fill the screen with your 'clever' and snide jokes.
It's his site and he can do exactly as he pleases.
And on several occasions he's pleased to call out the pancake people and ask they don't treat the thread like an in-joke party, and yet they still do.
So for the record, mark13, I stand by what I said.
posted by Karl at 5:09 PM on May 5, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:52 AM on May 3, 2002