triple post May 16, 2002 10:55 AM   Subscribe

Kudos on the Intentional triple post.
posted by rcade to Etiquette/Policy at 10:55 AM (46 comments total)

MetaFilter Wouldn't Be MetaFilter Without Me! Me! Me!! I was obsessively poring over this site when I came across an old post. In case you haven't read it, it's about a site that was (mostly) interesting to us in the past. And after I decided to post it again, I found a two month old news story on the same topic. [Gasp] So does anyone know of any other similarly old posts I can post again when another day is passing without an entry from me on my weblog? [On preview: my old posts might be worth reading again.]

posted by rcade at 11:04 AM on May 16, 2002


You sir, are cynical and yet brilliant.
posted by Apoch at 11:09 AM on May 16, 2002


Come on, rcade. Popbitch keeps getting better and better but there's a chance its editor will be leaving soon. Surely that's newsworthy. A year has passed since the last popbitch post and a lot of us have joined since then, including me. Though a lot of new members won't have heard of popbitch, I wouldn't have updated holgate's post if the Guardian hadn't reported Stevenson's defection to The Face, an important British magazine.

But yes, it was funny.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:17 AM on May 16, 2002


I had never heard of Popbitch until now. This is true. *shrugs* The whole double post thing might need some serious redefining if you look at the current state of metatalk.
posted by Apoch at 11:20 AM on May 16, 2002


Miguel, is internal consistency entirely alien to you?
posted by NortonDC at 11:27 AM on May 16, 2002


"So does anyone know of any other similarly outspoken and irreverent webby gossip sheets?"

In light of Miguel's recent comments about being paid for his weblog and having a link quota to fulfill, etc. - I wonder if we're being pumped to provide him with with linkage and fodder for his real weblog. Call me cynical and/or suspicious, but now that he's let that particular cat out of the bag (apologies to remora) I don't feel inclined to help his cause. Sorry, Miguel.
posted by iconomy at 11:33 AM on May 16, 2002


Well, that sure turned ugly fast.
posted by yhbc at 11:38 AM on May 16, 2002


*checks calendar*

Yes, it has been a while since the last lovefest. So I'll leave you all to it, then.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:25 PM on May 16, 2002


I think that very uncharitable, iconomy. I've seen plenty of weblogs that swipe content from Metafilter. Just because he happens to be lucky enough to get paid to keep a blog doesn't have any bearing on it. Furthermore, many of Miguel's front page posts are interesting, novel and thought provoking.

granted, when he makes front page posts over here on metatalk, things do take a turn for the worse...
posted by crunchland at 1:23 PM on May 16, 2002


Miguel is a lot more subtle than he is being given credit for.
posted by Mack Twain at 1:27 PM on May 16, 2002


I believe Miguel is really a sociologist, posing as a Portuguese journalist, and studying the effects of longterm (yet subtle) absurdity on unsuspecting Internet users. He may be paid $8000/month, but $6500 of that sum is for stirring up shit on MetaFilter. I can just see him, sitting in front of a computer in a lab coat, jotting down notes about particularly violent reactions to his posts.

Miguel has, thus far, been a nine-month Monty Python sketch of the most obscure sort, being broadcast directly to our subconscious minds.

...

I need a drink.
posted by Danelope at 1:47 PM on May 16, 2002


Danelope: I wouldn't want to imagine the Skinner Box Miguel is using.....
posted by mkelley at 1:57 PM on May 16, 2002


You don't own the links you post to metafilter you know.
posted by Spoon at 2:11 PM on May 16, 2002


You don't own the links you post to metafilter you know.

I patent all the links I post to MeFi, so if you reuse a link, please send me $1.00USD per click-thru.

posted by patrickje at 2:30 PM on May 16, 2002


I suppose you could have just looked him up. Granted, this is a Google translation of a German web page, but I have no doubt that our MiguelCardoso is the Miguel Esteves Cardoso who is "to the most important and also most successful Portuguese writers of the present" - and also a cult unto himself. He's an insightful and important literary figure - why shouldn't he be well compensated to do what he does?

Yes, I do not come to bury Caesar, but to praise him.

Miguel is also sui generis. If you can't appreciate him, don't bother trying - he is one of a kind, so if you choose to ignore him, you will not have to deal with anyone else like him. There are plenty of other individuals, and groups of individuals who are all indistinguishable from one another, within this big happy family that you can hang with if that is more comfortable. I, and no doubt many other active participants, inside lurkers, and outside observers, will continue to eagerly anticipate and cherish Miguel's views, insights, wit and cheer.

I am also well aware that the man can defend himself far better than I can - he is an incredible writer, after all - but often chooses not to. For every Miguel-bashing that warrants a response, there are surely three that do not. Miguel, I hope I have not offended you by speaking up in this instance, but I felt the need to out of selfishness. My own view of the world would become much smaller if your sight were taken from me, and I fear that if the bashing continues you will one day just throw up your hands and leave. Please do not let that happen, my friend.
posted by yhbc at 2:31 PM on May 16, 2002


I like Miguel. He's a great writer and I'm glad to read his contributions to metafilter. That doesn't change the fact that he knowingly triple posted a site.

It may be new to some, but it's still a double post. Miguel is such a presence here he shouldn't need to be reminded of the guidelines.
posted by Apoch at 2:34 PM on May 16, 2002


Hm.. having just reread the guidelines, there is nothing in there about it never having been on Metafilter before, just that it's new to most people. My apologies Miguel.
posted by Apoch at 2:42 PM on May 16, 2002


...many of Miguel's front page posts are interesting, novel and thought provoking.

Thought-provoking: Our Conscious Mind Could Be An Electromagnetic Field

Not thought-provoking: "Here's my favorite [newspaper, magazine, liquor, nut, annoying song, pop composer, Flash/Shockwave animation, samba, online quiz, webby gossip sheet], what's yours?"
posted by Dean King at 3:12 PM on May 16, 2002


Well, you're entitled to your opinion, Dean, but you must agree that people do have different writing and posting styles, right?

If his front page posts are so awful, why do they tend to get dozens and dozens of replies? Obviously Miguel has his finger on some sort of pulse, even if it may not be as erudite or metaphysical as what others might post.
posted by crunchland at 3:19 PM on May 16, 2002


If his front page posts are so awful, why do they tend to get dozens and dozens of replies?

Yeesh, surely you can't be serious...The reason why, "what's your favorite beer" threads get so many results, as opposed to this thread, is because surveys, scores, and headlines don't require thinking, only an opinion. I'm not going to quote any cliches, but let's just leave it at this: thinking, and creating comments of substance, are few and far between in "beer/cocktail/blah blah" threads.
posted by BlueTrain at 3:26 PM on May 16, 2002


Oh, BTW, before I jump on the bandwagon of Miguel-bashing, which I oh so love, I want Miguel to clear something up. Why would you intentionally triple post? Why not just post it and take your chances with the Double Post police? Or link your article, and the mainpage as an aside?
posted by BlueTrain at 3:30 PM on May 16, 2002


Not to stir up any shit, or anything, but why does a famous Portuguese writer, with a blog that looks like an MSN portal circa 1998, have an e-mail address in his profile that resolves to Bayinsider.com, a San Francisco city guide .com?

I'm just saying is all... That's kinda strange.
posted by SweetJesus at 3:31 PM on May 16, 2002


Bluetrain, I respectfully disagree.

While it's true that posts about what your favorite beer/cocktail/gossip page/whatever probably don't require as many brain cells as, say, the introduction of Vanilla Coke, or the release of the new Matrix trailer, I submit that the impromptu opinion polls, like the kind Miguel sometimes posts, do give Metafilter an acceptable form of community building.

With all the talk about how wonderful the cult threads are at building comaraderie, I suggest that the opinion polls that come up from posts like Miguel's give even newbies, unaware of all the inside jokes, a way to feel like a part of the Metafilter Mob. They also bring an acceptable form of brevity to the site. They rarely erupt into flamewars, and you might actually learn some new wrinkle about a particular subject.

Not all discussions have to be deep.
posted by crunchland at 3:48 PM on May 16, 2002


er... LEVITY, not brevity.
posted by crunchland at 3:55 PM on May 16, 2002


BlueTrain, go look at the posting guidelines. Where does it say it can't have been mentioned on Metafilter ever before? Where?

I don't agree with Miguel posting what he did, but looking at the guidelines, the only thing to complain about is how many people have seen it. And there is no real way to gauge that as far as I know.
posted by Apoch at 4:02 PM on May 16, 2002


Go read the Bible, Constitution, etc. and find the exact phrasing, right? I don't buy that argument. When Matt created those guidelines, as when the Framers created the Constitution, etc, the writers obviously couldn't write in every damn technicality. It's not possible, as has already been made clear.

The guidelines are just that...good advice from the owner of this site. Over time, unpublished rules were established. Nowhere in the guidelines does it say that I can't publish this comment fifty times in a row, all over the site. Nowhere does it say that I can't create dozens of accounts and argue with myself (which has always been a dream of mine (maybe one day Matt?)).

My point is that inherent rules exist, and of all people, Miguel should know them best because of all the times he was blasted during the first few months posting to this site. I'm not even roasting him; I honestly want to know his rationality for triple posting.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:12 PM on May 16, 2002


Yeah, it is an unwritten rule that you should search before posting, which Miguel obviously did. He even linked to them himself, which I find curious. I honestly don't understand why he posted it. That's for him to explain. Scream and bitch and moan about how it's an intentional triple post all you want. Just because it's behavior that isn't liked by most of the community doesn't mean that it's banned.
posted by Apoch at 4:27 PM on May 16, 2002


Amazingly, I agree with Bluetrain. The question here is not whether 'what is your favorite x' posts do good, for example, by building cameraderie. The question is whether building cameraderie is something that posts should be trying to do. The community spirit of Metafilter doesn't come from having these love-ins where we all get together and find out what each of our favorite cartoons was, it comes from the long and ultimately more fulfilling process of learning each others views on interesting and complex subjects.

It's wonderful if posts build community while principally being interesting and intellectually stimulating, but shallow opinion polls (or triple posts) cannot be justified simply because they build community.
posted by adrianhon at 4:30 PM on May 16, 2002


Miguel never said he did it to build community. He posted it because "Popbitch keeps getting better and better but there's a chance its editor will be leaving soon. Surely that's newsworthy. A year has passed since the last popbitch post and a lot of us have joined since then, including me. Though a lot of new members won't have heard of popbitch, I wouldn't have updated holgate's post if the Guardian hadn't reported Stevenson's defection to The Face, an important British magazine."

Hm. He thought it was worthy of a front page post. Whether or not you agree with his reasons is one thing. But lets not attack him for posting for reasons other then what he did.
posted by Apoch at 4:37 PM on May 16, 2002


Oh, and I guess you guys are right. I forgot that you are tied down, toothpicks holding your eyelids open, and forced to read every thread on Metafilter, no matter how awful it may or may not be.

I keep forgetting that.
posted by crunchland at 4:43 PM on May 16, 2002


I am not attacking Miguel (why does everything here have to be an attack, anyway?). I am addressing the issues brought up in Crunchland's post. But since you ask...

I'm sure that many people on Metafilter haven't heard of Popbitch. But everyone who signed up before the first Popbitch post was made (approximately 5000 people) will definitely have heard of it. Personally, I believe that all things being equal, posts that will be new to the entire Mefi membership are more valuable than those that are not.

Crunch: I don't think that's a particularly fair argument, and it's been used too many times. The front page cannot go on increasing in length indefinitely, and I don't think people want to have to spend increasing amounts of time sifting through it. I don't read every thread on Metafilter, but yesterday there were 34 posts and it does take time to check whether they are interesting, or whether they are community building opinion posts.
posted by adrianhon at 4:50 PM on May 16, 2002


Whatever Matt's original intent was for creating MetaTalk, this area has become a cesspool that siphons off the rants of the anally correct, minimizing the noise pollution in the front page threads.

No wonder the overwhelming majority of regular MeFites ignore this area altogether.

posted by mischief at 6:04 PM on May 16, 2002


I'm not ignoring you. I'm not ignoring you. I'm not ignoring you.
posted by dangerman at 6:45 PM on May 16, 2002


I see nothing wrong with the post, but geez, people, haven't you caught on yet?? There IS no Miguel...it's Kaycee's mom's latest netart project.

Not that there's anything wrong with that....
posted by rushmc at 7:51 PM on May 16, 2002


I don't know why I bother.
posted by yhbc at 8:03 PM on May 16, 2002


anally correct

I'm not sure what that means, but way to contribute!
posted by zzero at 8:19 PM on May 16, 2002


mischief:

::winks::

you rock. HARD.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:20 PM on May 16, 2002


Sorry I was out all day, but I think rcade has a point with this post. The linked post is acutely self-aware, showing Miguel's deep knowledge of the community, and its previous posting patterns, then he goes on to post anyway because the list is just so good. I would agree with rcade that it's a substandard post. I've said it a million times before, but posts on the front page of metafilter that mention metafilter-specific things and previous metafilter discussions are things I don't care for. It's a bad idea for a whole host of reasons, the most obvious of which is that it makes the membership appear almost cult-like, in how closely they follow the site as they demonstrate their awareness of all things MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:30 PM on May 16, 2002


Hang in, Miguel. MeFi is a far better place due to your presence. Thanks for your great effort.
posted by fold_and_mutilate at 12:53 AM on May 17, 2002


The post referenced a popular online publication, cited an interesting fact about it, demonstrated awareness that it was new information about an old topic.. Displayed resources...

posts that will be new to the entire Mefi membership are more valuable than those that are not.

I challenge you to find a post that is new to the entire MeFi membership. I don't want to be accused of following the letter of your law and not the spirit (even if, as in the other case, the spirit is stated inside the wording and is difficult and reduces to absurdity when read in that manner), but if it's new to nearly ten thousand people, who will find it interesting.. And those other 5000 probably don't come here anymore, anyways, right?

a bad idea for a whole host of reasons, the most obvious of which is that it makes the membership appear almost cult-like

Two things: One, for gosh sakes, he was going through an archive and then did a search and found another post! How does that display an intimate knowledge of the system?
And second... Membership (especially participation) is cult-like, no two ways about it. Not because of the FPP, or the MeFi-referential double posts (or even the snarkiness). Hell, none of the ... well, for lack of a better term, I'll call them "community-generated ideas that catch on and a large enough percentage of users are aware of in order to make them standard but still suppressed, allowing a newbie something to stick onto and when they figure it out they'll be more integrated than had it not been there in the first place and they had just joined the conversation..." Well, anyways, none of them dramatically increase the cultishness of membership so much as that it's a closed community operating within a certain system that has contradictory and arbitrarily enforced unwritten polices.
posted by j.edwards at 1:21 AM on May 17, 2002


j.edwards: No, I can't find a post that is new to the entire Mefi membership. But that isn't the point. If someone makes a post, then it is assumed that everyone on Mefi at that moment has seen it. And it's very presumptive to say that probably the first 5000 people don't come here any more - no-one knows how Mefi time of registration correlates with activity.

If a post is new to 10,000 people, it's not bad, but it isn't as good as a post which is new to 15,000 people. I think Miguel could have done better, and I know he has done so in the past.
posted by adrianhon at 2:16 AM on May 17, 2002


Whatever Matt's original intent was for creating MetaTalk, this area has become a cesspool that siphons off the rants of the anally correct, minimizing the noise pollution in the front page threads. No wonder the overwhelming majority of regular MeFites ignore this area altogether.

That's always been the purpose, mischief. When I make a complaint here, I usually don't reference it at all in MetaFilter. Etiquette discussions should be conducted only by those of us who are sick enough to show up here.

As for the post, there was nothing new about it -- the news story was two months old and it wasn't even news -- just speculation about a hiring that might happen. If Miguel had spent as much time looking for a good link as he had poring over old stuff on MetaFilter, he might've found a more recent story on the same site that confirm's Stevenson's hiring.

Also, the stuff about "nostalgically going over holgate's archive" and finding an old post is way too inside baseball. For the future benefit of the pride of Lisbon, does anyone care about the details of how he found Popbitch in an old post? "I was biting into a sandwich today -- a reuben on toasted rye -- when I was reminded of the wry humor of Tim Cavanaugh, author of Simpleton and this biting parody of warblogs. What's your favorite corned-beef dish or Internet humorist? [As for me, I love spicy cider corned beef and dong_resin with a level of passionate conviction that's only attainable by a European.]"
posted by rcade at 5:56 AM on May 17, 2002


I daresay, fellows, my amicable endeavor has been misconstrued as nefarious! Perchance my imperfect english skills bear the culpability.
posted by zzero at 7:14 AM on May 17, 2002


For a contrasting attitude, I post the following blogger's farewell, a classic of the genre, in its entirety, for the site may soon vanish:

"I started this blog at the beginning of the year without a specific purpose other than to sharpen a mind grown dull. Daily obligations and routine have made an imprint on me for the past three years, and not for the better. I find I'm not as good as I should be at fatherhood or marriage, the quality of my work has suffered, and I'm enduring rather than really living. I had hopes that the blog, by forcing my thoughts out in public, would infuse new clarity into my thinking and raise the level of my game. (I don't know whether or not it actually has.)

"My mood has also veered from grim to melancholy ever since the September 11 massacre, waiting for an unspecified Other Shoe to drop. This was never intended to be a war blog, but it became a way to vent my opinions without inflicting them upon my family. There was also a personal conceit involved, that by my own stand on Speaker's Corner I could somehow atone for my complete irrelevance to the great and urgent mission (dare I say crusade?) of our time.

"I never expected (or cared) to earn anything other than the occasional intangible reward for blogging effort -- a permalink here, an argument or attaboy there. They're nice when they happen. Still, I have come to the realization that here I am redundant. The blogosphere is full of better, smarter, wittier, and more sensible minds than mine (many of whom were linked here), and anything I might say has already been said better elsewhere. It's time to redirect my own efforts back into the business of life."

Criticism is important, but at the same time, how do we encourage our fellow bloggers so they don't give up?

posted by sheauga at 7:44 AM on May 17, 2002


Thanks for the link that confirms the hiring, rcade. It's not every day - and it's certainly news and relevant to those interested in the Internet - that an amateur blogger such as Stevenson becomes the editor of the best-selling monthly youth magazine in the UK. Which is good for The Face(specially now that he's poached MixMag's editor as well)but probably means curtains for popbitch.

Btw, nitpicking-wise, interesting little apostrophe that one you inserted in the middle of a verb - confirm's. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:53 AM on May 17, 2002


Crunchland is right - my post in this thread was uncharitable. Double and triple posts aside, I had no business speculating as to the motives behind Miguel's post, or for making it personal, and for that I apologize. That was unfair. I'll end my second comment in this thread with the same sentence I ended the first comment with - "Sorry, Miguel."
posted by iconomy at 3:07 PM on May 19, 2002


« Older Chatfilter posts are bad posts.   |   The guy at Suburban Limbo had a great idea for a... Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments