Potential tool for newsy post obsessed Mefites... June 17, 2004 10:55 AM Subscribe
Obviously, given Seth's latest tirade, many of use are tired of the volume of newsy posts. Heck, even I've complained about it before, although I've long since given up on voicing my complaints. However, there is a new tool over at TodaysPapers.com that I think could be useful for diverting some of the discussion. Look, it even finds the news for you! No need to wait for a post, just jump straight to the discussion! It's also virtually empty, and ripe for a takeover by the MeFi newsies. Please?
I don't think they post news/politics links to MeFi for discussion, they post them to MeFi to get the rest of us to care about the news and to show that they're better people because they care.
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM on June 17, 2004
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM on June 17, 2004
What Stan said, although I'm sure people will say that the quality of the conversation here matters to them. Yahoo! has had commenting on news items forever, and the results are hilariously disastrous. Here are two in particular that I blogged, they were so bad:
Study: Light Speed May Have Changed - 08-15-2001
August 14th, 2003 Power Outage in New York
posted by scarabic at 11:37 AM on June 17, 2004
Study: Light Speed May Have Changed - 08-15-2001
August 14th, 2003 Power Outage in New York
posted by scarabic at 11:37 AM on June 17, 2004
I don't think they post news/politics links to MeFi for discussion, they post them to MeFi to get the rest of us to care about the news and to show that they're better people because they care.
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
I always love the ridiculous, high-handed approach people take to this topic. So they're trying to prove they're better than you, but you're better than them because you've sussed them out and generalized them into neat little packages already? Ace job, Stan.
If anything, I think the most reasonable accusation to be levelled against news-related posters is that they like the discussion more than they like the link, not that they'd forgo discussion entirely just to prove their worldliness.
posted by The God Complex at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2004
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
I always love the ridiculous, high-handed approach people take to this topic. So they're trying to prove they're better than you, but you're better than them because you've sussed them out and generalized them into neat little packages already? Ace job, Stan.
If anything, I think the most reasonable accusation to be levelled against news-related posters is that they like the discussion more than they like the link, not that they'd forgo discussion entirely just to prove their worldliness.
posted by The God Complex at 11:58 AM on June 17, 2004
If I can paraphrase, I believe the point was that newsfilter posters believe they're activists. And that's stupid.
posted by scarabic at 12:03 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by scarabic at 12:03 PM on June 17, 2004
They need an audience
unlike, one assumes, those who unleash posting marathons on the community's ass. it's not that they're craving attention.
posted by matteo at 12:17 PM on June 17, 2004
unlike, one assumes, those who unleash posting marathons on the community's ass. it's not that they're craving attention.
posted by matteo at 12:17 PM on June 17, 2004
Before this degenerates, I'll just add another "thanks" to monju for pointing this site out.
Unfortunately, I fear Stan's right - without the built-in audience of MetaFilter, the most frequent and worst abusers won't be happy there, at least not until they don't see so many "0 comments" attached to so many headlines... They seem to post all this crap here for the attention it brings 'em - with the shouting and the name-calling and the poo-poo-pee-pee-ka-ka level of the resulting discussions as an important by-product.
posted by JollyWanker at 12:18 PM on June 17, 2004
Unfortunately, I fear Stan's right - without the built-in audience of MetaFilter, the most frequent and worst abusers won't be happy there, at least not until they don't see so many "0 comments" attached to so many headlines... They seem to post all this crap here for the attention it brings 'em - with the shouting and the name-calling and the poo-poo-pee-pee-ka-ka level of the resulting discussions as an important by-product.
posted by JollyWanker at 12:18 PM on June 17, 2004
Well of course discussion factors into it, because you know you're going to get one here. And it's going to be predictable. You know what general reaction a particular topic is going to get and you know which people it's going to pull out of the woodwork. It's satisfying to post something knowing you'll get a response, and with MeFi's built-in audience, that's a given.
And yes I'm better than them. Did I say I wasn't trying to get attention? Of course I'm trying to get attention! I fucking rule!
posted by Stan Chin at 12:21 PM on June 17, 2004
And yes I'm better than them. Did I say I wasn't trying to get attention? Of course I'm trying to get attention! I fucking rule!
posted by Stan Chin at 12:21 PM on June 17, 2004
I don't think they post news/politics links to MeFi for discussion, they post them to MeFi to get the rest of us to care about the news and to show that they're better people because they care.
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM PST on June 17
Stan Chin is too insightful to be from Alabama.
posted by the fire you left me at 12:26 PM on June 17, 2004
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM PST on June 17
Stan Chin is too insightful to be from Alabama.
posted by the fire you left me at 12:26 PM on June 17, 2004
Stan Chin is too insightful to be from Alabama.
That's because he's from Georgia.
posted by hama7 at 1:51 PM on June 17, 2004
That's because he's from Georgia.
posted by hama7 at 1:51 PM on June 17, 2004
I don't think they post news/politics links to MeFi for discussion, they post them to MeFi to get the rest of us to care about the news and to show that they're better people because they care.
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM PST on June 17
You are correct.
But in case anyone doubts Stan Chin's observation, here it is straight from the horse's (ass) mouth:
The way I see it, there are enough unread blogs in the world already--I have no desire to get one.
posted by y2karl at 10:43 PM PST on June 15
posted by Seth at 2:01 PM on June 17, 2004
So a separate site for them isn't going to work. They need an audience.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:26 AM PST on June 17
You are correct.
But in case anyone doubts Stan Chin's observation, here it is straight from the horse's (ass) mouth:
The way I see it, there are enough unread blogs in the world already--I have no desire to get one.
posted by y2karl at 10:43 PM PST on June 15
posted by Seth at 2:01 PM on June 17, 2004
That's because he's from Georgia.
Well that makes even less sense.
posted by yerfatma at 2:21 PM on June 17, 2004
Well that makes even less sense.
posted by yerfatma at 2:21 PM on June 17, 2004
I don't understand.
clavdivs, Henry Ford was a damned Nazi. He sent Hitler money for Hitler's birthday. There's no contoversy over this, it is well-documented. No need to call trout names.
posted by Shane at 3:00 PM on June 17, 2004
clavdivs, Henry Ford was a damned Nazi. He sent Hitler money for Hitler's birthday. There's no contoversy over this, it is well-documented. No need to call trout names.
posted by Shane at 3:00 PM on June 17, 2004
I think it's clear from the bazillion discussions in this topic that most if not all of the newsfilter minority believe that newsfilter is what metafilter is, not that they're violating guidelines, even a little. This is what metafilter is to them That's why they come here. That's why, probably, a good portion of lurkers come here. Even if what Stan says is true about their motivations, that's okay too because this is what they think metafilter is for.
Matt deletes the most egregious offenses, but other than that, he doesn't take a strong enough stand on the matter to send a clear signal to all those folks who think metafilter is newsfilter. So, either way you look at it, whether the community determines the nature of the community or Matt determines the nature of the community, the newsfilter aspect of metafilter is implicitly sanctioned.
Only Matt has the power to change that, really; and I don't see why at this point all anti-newsfilter sentiments aren't directed to him, probably best in private.
I piss and moan about newsfilter like the rest of you who do because a) it's not what I thought MeFi was and what I thought MeFi was (and still at least half it) is part of why I come here, b) I sorta had the idea that pissing and moaning about it might help (because, I guess, maybe I thought the "offenders" just didn't understand that they were violating MeFi's charter), and c) I'm delusional.
I had read as a lurker most of the anti-newsfilter threads. But only after going through the grind personally in several of them do I finally understand that MeTa threads about it are not going to change anything at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:07 PM on June 17, 2004
Matt deletes the most egregious offenses, but other than that, he doesn't take a strong enough stand on the matter to send a clear signal to all those folks who think metafilter is newsfilter. So, either way you look at it, whether the community determines the nature of the community or Matt determines the nature of the community, the newsfilter aspect of metafilter is implicitly sanctioned.
Only Matt has the power to change that, really; and I don't see why at this point all anti-newsfilter sentiments aren't directed to him, probably best in private.
I piss and moan about newsfilter like the rest of you who do because a) it's not what I thought MeFi was and what I thought MeFi was (and still at least half it) is part of why I come here, b) I sorta had the idea that pissing and moaning about it might help (because, I guess, maybe I thought the "offenders" just didn't understand that they were violating MeFi's charter), and c) I'm delusional.
I had read as a lurker most of the anti-newsfilter threads. But only after going through the grind personally in several of them do I finally understand that MeTa threads about it are not going to change anything at all.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 3:07 PM on June 17, 2004
I am game. Hope to see some of you over there solving all of the world's problems. Sign up now before you are closed out like many of us were here.
Conversation is usually the goal. Here you used to find great conversation. As of late the bile has drowned out the conversation on many threads. TodaysPapers and The Agonist's new news commenting feature have too many stories and not enough discussion. The Freep works because the users select the stories, like here at MeFi, except there it is all politics and the average IQ is about half of what it is here. Are there really any good, intelligent political comment blogs where the users post the stories and then provide intelligent comments? I think that dearth is what drives so many to post politics here.
posted by caddis at 3:10 PM on June 17, 2004
Conversation is usually the goal. Here you used to find great conversation. As of late the bile has drowned out the conversation on many threads. TodaysPapers and The Agonist's new news commenting feature have too many stories and not enough discussion. The Freep works because the users select the stories, like here at MeFi, except there it is all politics and the average IQ is about half of what it is here. Are there really any good, intelligent political comment blogs where the users post the stories and then provide intelligent comments? I think that dearth is what drives so many to post politics here.
posted by caddis at 3:10 PM on June 17, 2004
You've got a point, caddis, but then, if the interested people would simply migrate to one of those sites you mentioned, en masse, everybody would be happy.
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by scarabic at 3:35 PM on June 17, 2004
EB: The only thing more useless than discussing something on MeTa is discussing how useless discussing things on MeTa is on MeTa.
posted by scarabic at 3:37 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by scarabic at 3:37 PM on June 17, 2004
No, I think discussing the relative uselessness of discussing something on MeTa versus discussing how useless discussing things on MeTa is on MeTa is even more useless. If you follow me.
posted by timeistight at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by timeistight at 3:42 PM on June 17, 2004
So let's start a street team to add a TodaysPapers link to each NewsFilter post. Maybe we can solve both site's problems.
posted by nicwolff at 3:43 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by nicwolff at 3:43 PM on June 17, 2004
Did I really just type that? Please, "both sites' problems", or "each site's problem".
posted by nicwolff at 3:45 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by nicwolff at 3:45 PM on June 17, 2004
Also, for the record, I too find my use of the marketing term "street team" icky. Shutting up now.
posted by nicwolff at 3:46 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by nicwolff at 3:46 PM on June 17, 2004
Good idea, nicwolff. I'm all for that.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:47 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 3:47 PM on June 17, 2004
You are correct.
But in case anyone doubts Stan Chin's observation, here it is straight from the horse's (ass) mouth:
The way I see it, there are enough unread blogs in the world already--I have no desire to get one.
posted by y2karl at 10:43 PM PST on June 15
Insults directed at people not even participating in the thread? Check. Boring summaries of previous boring points? Check. Ignoring responses you've already received on the same fucking point in a thread the day before? Check.
Seth, you've still got it, my man. So, tell me, who would you suggest we post for? You didn't bother answering yesterday. If not for the audience, then perhaps I was correct when I suggested it should be akin to a quivering dove exploring the outer reaches of space? Your obsession with "balance" is so banal it's almost frightening.
One is left to wonder if a man of your caliber has an opinion on anything but other people having opinions. So far, all indications are that you do not. Given a certain topic, most people have an opinion or a viewpoint--the one's I don't trust are those that hide behind "balance" and "objectivity" every time something comes up (except others opinions, of course).
posted by The God Complex at 3:52 PM on June 17, 2004
Only Matt has the power to change that, really; and I don't see why at this point all anti-newsfilter sentiments aren't directed to him, probably best in private.
You might try looking at Matt's own posting history which contains a decent chunk of news posts. NewsFilter ain't bad, it's badly constructed or inappropriate posts. You might also want to leave Matt inbox alone & allow him to have a life of his own with occasional breaks to code some more cool shit for us.
For all the bleating about agendas & activists, the bleaters are just as guilty of pissing up this site.
posted by i_cola at 3:53 PM on June 17, 2004
You might try looking at Matt's own posting history which contains a decent chunk of news posts. NewsFilter ain't bad, it's badly constructed or inappropriate posts. You might also want to leave Matt inbox alone & allow him to have a life of his own with occasional breaks to code some more cool shit for us.
For all the bleating about agendas & activists, the bleaters are just as guilty of pissing up this site.
posted by i_cola at 3:53 PM on June 17, 2004
So let's start a street team to add a TodaysPapers link to each NewsFilter post. Maybe we can solve both site's problems.
Good idea, nicwolff. I'm all for that.
People did that once. They put "newsfilter" in every thread and linked to some meta thread about it, as if their opinion on the matter was final. You know what it did?
I'll give you one clue: it didn't help.
Can you imagine what a fucked-out crater this place would look like if people ran around pulling off childish antics like that with everything they didn't agree with? I could do it in every thread I didn't like; you could do it in every thread you didn't like; and there are enough people here that we could fill literally every thread on the site with dozens of garbage one-offs linking to other sites where we'd prefer they posted. How cool would that be?
Flash link? Take it to flashtron3000.com, mother fucker!
Google has a new filter? Go to technewsevenyourmotherwilllove.com!
In fact, we could just turn this place into a giant hub, sending ants scurrying to all corners of the virtual world (anywhere but here!) where they could ply their trades. Miguel could reside permanently at upscalevilla.org ;)
At a certain point, our task complete, metafilter could shut down permanently, no longer relying on the tawdry devices of hyperlinking and metadiscourse.
Ok, I convinced myself. I'm in. Sign me up and put me on the team.
posted by The God Complex at 3:59 PM on June 17, 2004
Good idea, nicwolff. I'm all for that.
People did that once. They put "newsfilter" in every thread and linked to some meta thread about it, as if their opinion on the matter was final. You know what it did?
I'll give you one clue: it didn't help.
Can you imagine what a fucked-out crater this place would look like if people ran around pulling off childish antics like that with everything they didn't agree with? I could do it in every thread I didn't like; you could do it in every thread you didn't like; and there are enough people here that we could fill literally every thread on the site with dozens of garbage one-offs linking to other sites where we'd prefer they posted. How cool would that be?
Flash link? Take it to flashtron3000.com, mother fucker!
Google has a new filter? Go to technewsevenyourmotherwilllove.com!
In fact, we could just turn this place into a giant hub, sending ants scurrying to all corners of the virtual world (anywhere but here!) where they could ply their trades. Miguel could reside permanently at upscalevilla.org ;)
At a certain point, our task complete, metafilter could shut down permanently, no longer relying on the tawdry devices of hyperlinking and metadiscourse.
Ok, I convinced myself. I'm in. Sign me up and put me on the team.
posted by The God Complex at 3:59 PM on June 17, 2004
Insults directed at people not even participating in the thread? Check.
I very nearly posted that same karl quote (without any insults, in fact, with an apology for recrimination) because it is squarely germaine to this conversation, and says quite a bit. Ultimately, I decided not to post it at all, because the thread it comes from was very tiring and I don't want to revive it.
posted by scarabic at 4:00 PM on June 17, 2004
I very nearly posted that same karl quote (without any insults, in fact, with an apology for recrimination) because it is squarely germaine to this conversation, and says quite a bit. Ultimately, I decided not to post it at all, because the thread it comes from was very tiring and I don't want to revive it.
posted by scarabic at 4:00 PM on June 17, 2004
God Complex, "newsfilter" didn't work because it was a presumptuous directive to stop discussing the news and start discussing the crappiness of the post. "TodaysPapers" on the other hand is an invitation to discuss the story elsewhere, and might have a different and salutary effect.
posted by nicwolff at 4:16 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by nicwolff at 4:16 PM on June 17, 2004
scarabic, it was discussed at length and responded to multiple times. Audience is something everyone here wants. If they didn't, they'd be writing in a notebook.
posted by The God Complex at 4:17 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 4:17 PM on June 17, 2004
I always love the ridiculous, high-handed approach people take to this topic. So they're trying to prove they're better than you, but you're better than them because you've sussed them out and generalized them into neat little packages already? Ace job, Stan.
Enough, The God Complex. Are you so oblivious that you don't know the difference between posting a great, obscure link and posting a link about a topic that happens to be on your mind?
You're not that obtuse. So quit pretending like newsfilter posts don't carry an agenda. Fact is, there are some great news stories out there, and with the correct context, they make a great front page post. But what we primarily see here is either an agenda or a rush to post it first. Both ruin the front page, not because of their content, but because they aren't obscure, nor are they well supported with additional links.
THAT'S the point. News stories aren't inherently bad for the site; but when 10 posters a day decide to "enlighten" the community with their agenda of the day or latest headline, "best of the web" effectively becomes "just another personal blog". And both "sides of the fence" are guilty of this; it just happens more often with left-leaning links because they happened to be in the majority.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:27 PM on June 17, 2004
Enough, The God Complex. Are you so oblivious that you don't know the difference between posting a great, obscure link and posting a link about a topic that happens to be on your mind?
You're not that obtuse. So quit pretending like newsfilter posts don't carry an agenda. Fact is, there are some great news stories out there, and with the correct context, they make a great front page post. But what we primarily see here is either an agenda or a rush to post it first. Both ruin the front page, not because of their content, but because they aren't obscure, nor are they well supported with additional links.
THAT'S the point. News stories aren't inherently bad for the site; but when 10 posters a day decide to "enlighten" the community with their agenda of the day or latest headline, "best of the web" effectively becomes "just another personal blog". And both "sides of the fence" are guilty of this; it just happens more often with left-leaning links because they happened to be in the majority.
posted by BlueTrain at 4:27 PM on June 17, 2004
I believe the point was that newsfilter posters believe they're activists. And that's stupid.
No, but it is charmingly naive. From each according to his abilities....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on June 17, 2004
No, but it is charmingly naive. From each according to his abilities....
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:32 PM on June 17, 2004
So have the Todayspapers developers heard of Firefox?
Cause the comment pages look like crap. Everything in sight is in bold.
Plus, ratings are bad. And pointless when there's 6 comments on a story.
posted by smackfu at 4:35 PM on June 17, 2004
Cause the comment pages look like crap. Everything in sight is in bold.
Plus, ratings are bad. And pointless when there's 6 comments on a story.
posted by smackfu at 4:35 PM on June 17, 2004
From each according to his abilities....
Some of the newsfilterers here have the abilities to actually do good work somewhere where someone cares. They might even get paid. Who knows?
In all honestly, though, I'm not too sure many of them could cut it as journalists. The whole art of the "well-researched" newsfilter post is over-rated. The "well-researched post" poses as an article unto itself, but it always off-loads the hard work of argument and substantiation to a long list of linked-to material, which it assumes you will read. Typically, it also assumes you will draw the same conclusions as the author from those materials.
This goes way beyond the pale of citation/quotation, which, in all fairness, all writers rely on to some extent. In all other forms of writing, you have to generate a primary document. Quotations can serve as support, but you have to show your work, making your main argument in your document and dropping in the outside support, in context. You don't just make a claim and tell people to follow it up somewhere else. Here's the link. Bang! Consider my point proven!
And this isn't simply a matter of the "well-researched post" being an online entity. It's not the natural result of hypertext. Books and articles have biliographies, too. They're usually at the rear. But a "well-researched post" is nothing more than a biliography, plus a brief abstract where we're told what all those links add up to.
A well-researched post is perhaps a step up from some wild, unsupported assertion, but it's not to be compared with journalism. Slapping these things together does not make you some kind of hotshot, hard-boiled investigate reporter type. And spamming them to the homepage every day is no great gift to MetaFilter.
posted by scarabic at 5:02 PM on June 17, 2004
Some of the newsfilterers here have the abilities to actually do good work somewhere where someone cares. They might even get paid. Who knows?
In all honestly, though, I'm not too sure many of them could cut it as journalists. The whole art of the "well-researched" newsfilter post is over-rated. The "well-researched post" poses as an article unto itself, but it always off-loads the hard work of argument and substantiation to a long list of linked-to material, which it assumes you will read. Typically, it also assumes you will draw the same conclusions as the author from those materials.
This goes way beyond the pale of citation/quotation, which, in all fairness, all writers rely on to some extent. In all other forms of writing, you have to generate a primary document. Quotations can serve as support, but you have to show your work, making your main argument in your document and dropping in the outside support, in context. You don't just make a claim and tell people to follow it up somewhere else. Here's the link. Bang! Consider my point proven!
And this isn't simply a matter of the "well-researched post" being an online entity. It's not the natural result of hypertext. Books and articles have biliographies, too. They're usually at the rear. But a "well-researched post" is nothing more than a biliography, plus a brief abstract where we're told what all those links add up to.
A well-researched post is perhaps a step up from some wild, unsupported assertion, but it's not to be compared with journalism. Slapping these things together does not make you some kind of hotshot, hard-boiled investigate reporter type. And spamming them to the homepage every day is no great gift to MetaFilter.
posted by scarabic at 5:02 PM on June 17, 2004
But TGC, if it's the audience that's important, then the fact that the audience feels captive and restless is important too. Just because 70,000 people are attending that Rolling Stones concert doesn't make it a perfect opportunity for you to show off your l33t accordian skills, if you catch my drift.
posted by boaz at 5:05 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by boaz at 5:05 PM on June 17, 2004
scarbic : I'm no fan of endless political posts, of course, but I'd suggest that what you're arguing against above is the very thing that makes the internet, and the phenomenon of weblogging -- anyone remember the risibly utopian but not entirely inaccurate 'we can fact-check your asses!' line from a while back? -- truly useful and possibly even great. Nobody -- least of all me -- is saying anything about journalism here.
But that isn't my point. To say 'activism is stupid' about any kind of activism, even the admittedly lame kind that some (arguably) engage in in this community, is unworthy and untrue. I say this while agreeing with you and others that it may not have a place here, and also facing the obvious truth that's it's never entirely going to go away.
If you believe something and have what you believe are good reasons to believe it, you're going to talk about it if given the opportunity. No amount of Sethink is going to stop that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:11 PM on June 17, 2004
But that isn't my point. To say 'activism is stupid' about any kind of activism, even the admittedly lame kind that some (arguably) engage in in this community, is unworthy and untrue. I say this while agreeing with you and others that it may not have a place here, and also facing the obvious truth that's it's never entirely going to go away.
If you believe something and have what you believe are good reasons to believe it, you're going to talk about it if given the opportunity. No amount of Sethink is going to stop that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:11 PM on June 17, 2004
I'm probably alone among non-partakers, but I don't mind a certain amount of NewsFilter, especially when it means the people here who have cultured opinions actually get to have it out on a relatively level field.
There's a certain Queensbury-rules feel to debate here that actually serves some of the posts very well.
As long as people don't take big steaming dumps on the threads (which admittedly has been happening a bit more often this week, but these things go in waves; I've been hearing this same complaint for years here), I don't see a problem with a few NewsFilter posts in the landscape.
(This is where I begin my own self-flagellation and wait for everyone else to join in, right?)
posted by chicobangs at 5:34 PM on June 17, 2004
There's a certain Queensbury-rules feel to debate here that actually serves some of the posts very well.
As long as people don't take big steaming dumps on the threads (which admittedly has been happening a bit more often this week, but these things go in waves; I've been hearing this same complaint for years here), I don't see a problem with a few NewsFilter posts in the landscape.
(This is where I begin my own self-flagellation and wait for everyone else to join in, right?)
posted by chicobangs at 5:34 PM on June 17, 2004
Posting this here is one thing, but can we please stop harrassing people in every thread one considers Newsfiltery with "take it to TodaysPapers.com" comments? This is no less inappropriate (or obnoxious...or futile) than the old "Newsfilter" comments which mathowie is on record as opposing.
posted by rushmc at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by rushmc at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2004
[Oh, and boaz, I like the accordion, you -- what's the quote? Oh, right -- you smug little fuck. STFU!]
(*waves fist menacingly at screen*)
posted by chicobangs at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2004
(*waves fist menacingly at screen*)
posted by chicobangs at 5:36 PM on June 17, 2004
Only the first line or two of that was meant in response, stav. The rest was general anti-newsfilterness. I don't think activism is stupid at all. I just don't think that newsfilter posts constitute activism, as it seems some do.
I don't mind a certain amount of NewsFilter, especially when it means the people here who have cultured opinions actually get to have it out on a relatively level field.
I'd agree with this. The malfunction in NewsFilter is in the "filter" side of the word. If people were actually digging up really interesting and under-reported news, or at least filtering the major stories for intelligent discuss-ability (and away from right/left flamability) we might have something here.
Adding in interesting material around the news hook should also be required. Look at the Rumsfeld post today. It's got one MSNBC link. Despite the fact that this story broke yesterday, there's no link to any commentary, reaction from Rummy, nothing.
Day-old MSNBC headlines? Can we do no better than that?
posted by scarabic at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2004
I don't mind a certain amount of NewsFilter, especially when it means the people here who have cultured opinions actually get to have it out on a relatively level field.
I'd agree with this. The malfunction in NewsFilter is in the "filter" side of the word. If people were actually digging up really interesting and under-reported news, or at least filtering the major stories for intelligent discuss-ability (and away from right/left flamability) we might have something here.
Adding in interesting material around the news hook should also be required. Look at the Rumsfeld post today. It's got one MSNBC link. Despite the fact that this story broke yesterday, there's no link to any commentary, reaction from Rummy, nothing.
Day-old MSNBC headlines? Can we do no better than that?
posted by scarabic at 6:11 PM on June 17, 2004
I_cola, I didn't really intend that as an incitement to harass Matt, but just that ultimately he's the only person that matters in this argument and so arguing with him about it in MeTa, by proxy, seems silly, doesn't it? I'm well aware that Matt's posted some newsfilterish posts. He's also deleted lots of newsfiterish posts and the posting guildelines seem to dissuage them. He sets the rules, but he's a bit ambiguous on this one, and so we're sort of stuck until he clarifies or alters his message or whatever. The meta threads don't seem to be helping.
Scarabic, it's pretty depressing, then, isn't it that saying "hey, this discussion is unproductive" is actually even more unproductive than the unproductive discussion? What a nightmare vicious circle. We're trapped. Reading these meta threads through my lurkerdom and participating in them afterwards, I've always been quite annoyed at the "this is a waste of time" comments in them, so I know exactly (probably) where you're coming from. In my case, that point of view seems to always be put forward by those who either advocate for or at least don't mind newsfilter, so that point of view is self-serving, isn't it? But hate newsfilter. I just really think that meta discussions about newsfilter are at an impasse without some real, strong input from Matt.
It's also interesting, but inevitable, that the larger issue of "what is MeFi posting for?" is being discussed here. I really think my "is MeFi a content filtering or a content-creation site?" question hits the nail on the head. Newsfilter qualifies as filtering, but then we have the question of what it is that's we're trying to filter to. It seems to me that breaking news doesn't qualfy, but that's my opinion.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2004
Scarabic, it's pretty depressing, then, isn't it that saying "hey, this discussion is unproductive" is actually even more unproductive than the unproductive discussion? What a nightmare vicious circle. We're trapped. Reading these meta threads through my lurkerdom and participating in them afterwards, I've always been quite annoyed at the "this is a waste of time" comments in them, so I know exactly (probably) where you're coming from. In my case, that point of view seems to always be put forward by those who either advocate for or at least don't mind newsfilter, so that point of view is self-serving, isn't it? But hate newsfilter. I just really think that meta discussions about newsfilter are at an impasse without some real, strong input from Matt.
It's also interesting, but inevitable, that the larger issue of "what is MeFi posting for?" is being discussed here. I really think my "is MeFi a content filtering or a content-creation site?" question hits the nail on the head. Newsfilter qualifies as filtering, but then we have the question of what it is that's we're trying to filter to. It seems to me that breaking news doesn't qualfy, but that's my opinion.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:16 PM on June 17, 2004
The Smug Little Fucks would be a great name for a British punk band.
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by jonmc at 6:17 PM on June 17, 2004
I've always been quite annoyed at the "this is a waste of time" comments in them, so I know exactly (probably) where you're coming from.
Yeah, you may be right, though. I like to think that "self-policing" means something, and that MeTa is here for a purpose. But that purpose might just be as a giant shit-catch, to protect the Blue. Maybe I'll start a MeTa thread on that subject :P
posted by scarabic at 6:49 PM on June 17, 2004
Yeah, you may be right, though. I like to think that "self-policing" means something, and that MeTa is here for a purpose. But that purpose might just be as a giant shit-catch, to protect the Blue. Maybe I'll start a MeTa thread on that subject :P
posted by scarabic at 6:49 PM on June 17, 2004
The best part of MetaTalk is that 95% of the time, it accomplishes nothing. It's just a place (other than the threads themselves) for people to bitch.
(The other 5%, someone apologizes.)
posted by graventy at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2004
(The other 5%, someone apologizes.)
posted by graventy at 7:24 PM on June 17, 2004
Just to clear things up, I'm not interested in getting a weblog because they look like they are a lot of work and they're usually very boring. If you post what's interesting to you, that usually means about 70% of what you post is boring to anyone else. And the people who write well who have weblogs can end up writing the most god awful stuff and think it's such hot shit--it's like bronzing turds out of pride. I may be a narcissisist but I'm not that big of a narcissist. And I don't think this is my personal weblog. Seth does, but I don't.
But, different folks, different strokes. I used to do a radio show, and that was out of vanity. And it took an enormous amount of time. Then that got axed. Then I had a mailing list of mp3s but I quit that because that took an enormous amount of time and I got next to zero feedback. iconomy, madamejujujive and raysmj wrote me a couple of times each and that was about it. When I did the show, I got enough feedback that it was worth it. With the mailing list, it wasn't worth it because I didn't. It was too much work with no reward. A weblog would even be more work.
I came here via Salon 8 days after 9/11 because Salon said this was the place to find news the you couldn't find anywhere else. So, it was newsfilter as far as I knew from the git go. Then I realized I had found a little club where everyone was angry all the time at all the new people for not following the rules, starting with Miguel. He was too chatty and personable. I guess the people without personalities were jealous.
I realized pretty fast a whole lot of people were into making the rules for other people because they didn't want things to change plus it gave them an excuse to be nasty to the scapegoat du jour. But I liked Miguel, I liked the chatty and I didn't give a rat's ass about weblogs or computer stuff. I still don't. And this whole KayCee thing--give me a break.
I post the way I do because I'm obsessive about looking up anything I am interested in. I don't want to be a writer. I don't think I am a journalist. I don't think I am an activist. I don't think I care about attention any more than any other poster. Is hama7 posting out of some sort of personal vanity ? I suppose so, but that's a pretty demeaning way to look at it to my mind. He provides value to those who appreciate what he has to offer.
What I can't understand is when someone has a personal vendetta, such as Seth has with me, why he gets a pass. Both adamgreenfield and ignatius j. reilly said in that other thread, they come here less and less because of the personal attacks. And you anti-newsfilter types all are cool with that. So, you have a guy who cares so much about standards that he's driven two people away with his sheer nastiness.
Now, here's something I noticed today:
Ray Abeyta. "At first glance, many of Abeyta's works appear to be Spanish colonial paintings dating from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. However, the artist incorporates present-day imagery with Spanish colonial and indigenous elements." A short bio and history here. Here's one of my favorites.
posted by protocool at 10:15 AM PST - 2 comments - Post a Comment
Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.
posted by hipnerd at 9:32 AM PST - 52 comments (4 new) - Post a Comment
Go ahead, blame me or whoever else posts anything besides something on a Mongolian spittoon gallery. I mean, look at Seth's comments in the blue or grey. 90% of the timehe comments, he only has something nasty to say in the political threads in the blue and that's when he gets mad. Except in MetaTalk--then it's his vendetta against me, because I personify all that is evil to him, and because we've had words. It's personal for him, as much as he denies it. And that's his contribution to the site. He has standards, after all.
I can understand that--I used to think hama7 was the urn of all evil and I would hound him. Now, nothing he says bothers me. You can control other people or you can control your feelings. If you can't control your feelings. you end up saying ugly things about some people all the time and, in the process, driving other people away.
If I'm bothering people, then I'll cut back. I really don't want to belabor the issues or bother people. I'm sorry I have overdone it. I don't think I am an activist, it's just these are things in which I am interested. But if it bothers people, I won't do it as much. I want to stand my ground, and in fact I've kept it up of late out of sheer perversity, because it really bothers me that one or two people can hound other people off with your assistance.
You know, if you get attacked, you get your back up. Look at scarabic in the thread yesterday. He was dishing it out but, boy, when it got dished back--the outrage! Criticize stavros--the outrage! Ethereal Blight gets criticized--the outrage! Theyll keep coming back until the last dog dies. People like to call names a lot more than they like to be called names. Go figure.
I'm not that internet savvy. It still astounds me how mean people can be to people they have never seen. I am appalled at some of the things I have said. It is so easy to say something witty and devastating without ever thinking who's on the other end and what they are thinking and feeling at the time. I can get so irritated with Ethereal Bligh rewriting the Bible every other comment and then I see him and Beth as human beings after their blowout last night. What I think is we should all aspiere to be more like Matt and not get upset at every little thing. I bet he doesn't yell at people when he's driving, either. Fuck the rules--be like Matt.
So I'll cut back and you can post all the flash games and new server application threads you want and Stan Chin can make all the marginally racist jokes he wants, because, you know, it's funny when he says them. He says so. And, as mj says, everybody will be happy.
I'm happy to cut back on posting about current events. But it's not going to stop the next person and the next person and the next person from posting about what's in the news--that's what I think. And you all will be trying to control the next person until they get it or get lost, preaching and pontificating and doing drive by psychoanalysis for free. And thank god--think of the malpractice suits there'd be if you charged.
Ray Abeta- 2 comments. Ghost prisoner 52 comments--including Matt's. If we just get rid of the bad people, or control them, everything will be groovy. Right.
posted by y2karl at 7:31 PM on June 17, 2004
But, different folks, different strokes. I used to do a radio show, and that was out of vanity. And it took an enormous amount of time. Then that got axed. Then I had a mailing list of mp3s but I quit that because that took an enormous amount of time and I got next to zero feedback. iconomy, madamejujujive and raysmj wrote me a couple of times each and that was about it. When I did the show, I got enough feedback that it was worth it. With the mailing list, it wasn't worth it because I didn't. It was too much work with no reward. A weblog would even be more work.
I came here via Salon 8 days after 9/11 because Salon said this was the place to find news the you couldn't find anywhere else. So, it was newsfilter as far as I knew from the git go. Then I realized I had found a little club where everyone was angry all the time at all the new people for not following the rules, starting with Miguel. He was too chatty and personable. I guess the people without personalities were jealous.
I realized pretty fast a whole lot of people were into making the rules for other people because they didn't want things to change plus it gave them an excuse to be nasty to the scapegoat du jour. But I liked Miguel, I liked the chatty and I didn't give a rat's ass about weblogs or computer stuff. I still don't. And this whole KayCee thing--give me a break.
I post the way I do because I'm obsessive about looking up anything I am interested in. I don't want to be a writer. I don't think I am a journalist. I don't think I am an activist. I don't think I care about attention any more than any other poster. Is hama7 posting out of some sort of personal vanity ? I suppose so, but that's a pretty demeaning way to look at it to my mind. He provides value to those who appreciate what he has to offer.
What I can't understand is when someone has a personal vendetta, such as Seth has with me, why he gets a pass. Both adamgreenfield and ignatius j. reilly said in that other thread, they come here less and less because of the personal attacks. And you anti-newsfilter types all are cool with that. So, you have a guy who cares so much about standards that he's driven two people away with his sheer nastiness.
Now, here's something I noticed today:
Ray Abeyta. "At first glance, many of Abeyta's works appear to be Spanish colonial paintings dating from the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries. However, the artist incorporates present-day imagery with Spanish colonial and indigenous elements." A short bio and history here. Here's one of my favorites.
posted by protocool at 10:15 AM PST - 2 comments - Post a Comment
Pentagon officials tell NBC News that late last year, at the same time U.S. military police were allegedly abusing prisoners at Abu Ghraib prison, U.S. Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld ordered that one Iraqi prisoner be held “off the books” — hidden entirely from the International Red Cross and anyone else — in possible violation of international law.
posted by hipnerd at 9:32 AM PST - 52 comments (4 new) - Post a Comment
Go ahead, blame me or whoever else posts anything besides something on a Mongolian spittoon gallery. I mean, look at Seth's comments in the blue or grey. 90% of the timehe comments, he only has something nasty to say in the political threads in the blue and that's when he gets mad. Except in MetaTalk--then it's his vendetta against me, because I personify all that is evil to him, and because we've had words. It's personal for him, as much as he denies it. And that's his contribution to the site. He has standards, after all.
I can understand that--I used to think hama7 was the urn of all evil and I would hound him. Now, nothing he says bothers me. You can control other people or you can control your feelings. If you can't control your feelings. you end up saying ugly things about some people all the time and, in the process, driving other people away.
If I'm bothering people, then I'll cut back. I really don't want to belabor the issues or bother people. I'm sorry I have overdone it. I don't think I am an activist, it's just these are things in which I am interested. But if it bothers people, I won't do it as much. I want to stand my ground, and in fact I've kept it up of late out of sheer perversity, because it really bothers me that one or two people can hound other people off with your assistance.
You know, if you get attacked, you get your back up. Look at scarabic in the thread yesterday. He was dishing it out but, boy, when it got dished back--the outrage! Criticize stavros--the outrage! Ethereal Blight gets criticized--the outrage! Theyll keep coming back until the last dog dies. People like to call names a lot more than they like to be called names. Go figure.
I'm not that internet savvy. It still astounds me how mean people can be to people they have never seen. I am appalled at some of the things I have said. It is so easy to say something witty and devastating without ever thinking who's on the other end and what they are thinking and feeling at the time. I can get so irritated with Ethereal Bligh rewriting the Bible every other comment and then I see him and Beth as human beings after their blowout last night. What I think is we should all aspiere to be more like Matt and not get upset at every little thing. I bet he doesn't yell at people when he's driving, either. Fuck the rules--be like Matt.
So I'll cut back and you can post all the flash games and new server application threads you want and Stan Chin can make all the marginally racist jokes he wants, because, you know, it's funny when he says them. He says so. And, as mj says, everybody will be happy.
I'm happy to cut back on posting about current events. But it's not going to stop the next person and the next person and the next person from posting about what's in the news--that's what I think. And you all will be trying to control the next person until they get it or get lost, preaching and pontificating and doing drive by psychoanalysis for free. And thank god--think of the malpractice suits there'd be if you charged.
Ray Abeta- 2 comments. Ghost prisoner 52 comments--including Matt's. If we just get rid of the bad people, or control them, everything will be groovy. Right.
posted by y2karl at 7:31 PM on June 17, 2004
please keep on keeping on, y2k...many of us appreciate your posts, and the excerpting too (or maybe we're just too lazy to read all the articles linked). There are people here that add value of one sort or another, and there are people that just shit on what they don't like. I see you as adding value, and i hope that i'm one of those people too.
and thanks for reminding me to say something about that great work in protocool's link : >
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on June 17, 2004
and thanks for reminding me to say something about that great work in protocool's link : >
posted by amberglow at 7:43 PM on June 17, 2004
y2karl, I generally stay out of these pig-fight threads since I don't feel as though I have as much of my ego invested in my mefi personality as the usual suspects here do.
However, your long and thoughtful post requires a response.
I frequently enjoy your posts in the blue, even the ones based on current affairs, and I have to say that if you have stuff you feel deserves posting, go ahead and post it. "Newsfilter" exists and personally I doubt that it gnaws at the foundation of reality in the way that some suggest. Bad "newsfilter" posts are those which simply state a single, well known piece of information. Posts such as yours tend to be, that try to map out the rocky ground that surrounds those rapidly eroded peaks of undigested information we call news nowadays, are a Good Thing in my book. They may not be part of what the core of this site is supposed to be, but then a lot of stuff on here isn't and never has been. There's a lot of slipperyness inherent in whatever it is that metafilter does. There always has been.
So, please keep posting.
I have to say though, that your comparison of the two posts you quoted above (with the implication that the one with the more comments was more worthwhile in some sense) worried me. You see, the number of comments a post gets doesn't matter. Really, it doesn't. Some of the best regular posters on here frequently only get a handful of comments for the simple reason that their posts attract almost universal admiration, but to comment on them would require knowledge on the part of the commenter that most people simply don't have. Perhaps more of us should make little "Good Work!" comments to these people, but folks are more likely to comment on stuff they have knowledge of or a burning opinion on.
This happens to you all the time - your "newsfilter" posts get dozens of comment, your litererary ones considerably fewer. Everyone has an opinion on the mess-in-Iraq, rather fewer on centaurs.
I think this is something we need to remember - the central purpose of this site is the links. The comments and conversations beneath are useful, entertaining and in some way essential to keeping the wheel turning, but without that central core of cool-shit-found-yesterday metafilter would simply be another chat board.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:18 PM on June 17, 2004
However, your long and thoughtful post requires a response.
I frequently enjoy your posts in the blue, even the ones based on current affairs, and I have to say that if you have stuff you feel deserves posting, go ahead and post it. "Newsfilter" exists and personally I doubt that it gnaws at the foundation of reality in the way that some suggest. Bad "newsfilter" posts are those which simply state a single, well known piece of information. Posts such as yours tend to be, that try to map out the rocky ground that surrounds those rapidly eroded peaks of undigested information we call news nowadays, are a Good Thing in my book. They may not be part of what the core of this site is supposed to be, but then a lot of stuff on here isn't and never has been. There's a lot of slipperyness inherent in whatever it is that metafilter does. There always has been.
So, please keep posting.
I have to say though, that your comparison of the two posts you quoted above (with the implication that the one with the more comments was more worthwhile in some sense) worried me. You see, the number of comments a post gets doesn't matter. Really, it doesn't. Some of the best regular posters on here frequently only get a handful of comments for the simple reason that their posts attract almost universal admiration, but to comment on them would require knowledge on the part of the commenter that most people simply don't have. Perhaps more of us should make little "Good Work!" comments to these people, but folks are more likely to comment on stuff they have knowledge of or a burning opinion on.
This happens to you all the time - your "newsfilter" posts get dozens of comment, your litererary ones considerably fewer. Everyone has an opinion on the mess-in-Iraq, rather fewer on centaurs.
I think this is something we need to remember - the central purpose of this site is the links. The comments and conversations beneath are useful, entertaining and in some way essential to keeping the wheel turning, but without that central core of cool-shit-found-yesterday metafilter would simply be another chat board.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:18 PM on June 17, 2004
It seems to me, Karl, that your allegiance and even duty should be to those who enjoy your posts, rather than to those who clearly don't. It's a rule of life: 10% like; 10% hate; 80% couldn't care less. Haters are, by definition, noisier than likers.
It's a great mistake to try and convert the haters into likers. Just accept what you have already - starting with your healthy, often fascinating curiosity - and get on with it. The haters aren't worse people than the likers and have every right to protest and despair at your posts. Leave them be, will you? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:30 PM on June 17, 2004
It's a great mistake to try and convert the haters into likers. Just accept what you have already - starting with your healthy, often fascinating curiosity - and get on with it. The haters aren't worse people than the likers and have every right to protest and despair at your posts. Leave them be, will you? :)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:30 PM on June 17, 2004
I'd have to say - I accept many more personal attacks than I give out, by a ratio of 1/10 to 1/20 .
Then again, I often have a dry style of attack. But - to compensate - I am also very charitable to my foes (examples upon request).
Here is a standard method of (mostly authoritarian) political attack written all over Metafilter :
Piss in the well, then call the cops screaming :
"Somebody has pissed in the well !"
it's usually very effective.
Bets ?
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2004
Then again, I often have a dry style of attack. But - to compensate - I am also very charitable to my foes (examples upon request).
Here is a standard method of (mostly authoritarian) political attack written all over Metafilter :
Piss in the well, then call the cops screaming :
"Somebody has pissed in the well !"
it's usually very effective.
Bets ?
posted by troutfishing at 8:32 PM on June 17, 2004
This is no less inappropriate (or obnoxious...or futile) than the old "Newsfilter" comments - rushmc
"NewsFilter" is not linked (or is linked to MetaTalk), and just means "don't discuss this here". "TodaysPapers" means "here's where this news may alternatively be discussed on TodaysPapers". Which is only obnoxious if it is futile, and that hasn't been established yet.
posted by nicwolff at 8:47 PM on June 17, 2004
"NewsFilter" is not linked (or is linked to MetaTalk), and just means "don't discuss this here". "TodaysPapers" means "here's where this news may alternatively be discussed on TodaysPapers". Which is only obnoxious if it is futile, and that hasn't been established yet.
posted by nicwolff at 8:47 PM on June 17, 2004
I have to say though, that your comparison of the two posts you quoted above (with the implication that the one with the more comments was more worthwhile in some sense) worried me.
Oh, I don't think posts that get more comments are more worthwhile--just that they are the flashpoints. Posts that get more comments are usually on hot button issues in which people have an emotional investment. Which is why Seth comments by far for the most part in the political threads. But if you go by comments, you get the impression that it's the topical posts that get the most eyes even if they are drawn only by curiousity about the discussion. It's the venom in those that distresses people so much when they click on--but they click on them all the same.
And thank you, Miguel, I will take that to heart. It's good advice.
posted by y2karl at 8:56 PM on June 17, 2004
Oh, I don't think posts that get more comments are more worthwhile--just that they are the flashpoints. Posts that get more comments are usually on hot button issues in which people have an emotional investment. Which is why Seth comments by far for the most part in the political threads. But if you go by comments, you get the impression that it's the topical posts that get the most eyes even if they are drawn only by curiousity about the discussion. It's the venom in those that distresses people so much when they click on--but they click on them all the same.
And thank you, Miguel, I will take that to heart. It's good advice.
posted by y2karl at 8:56 PM on June 17, 2004
Fair enough.
I bet that the none-newsfilter links get more clickthroughs than the "newsfilter" ones though.
They're two different animals really and serve different purposes. It's just some people think mefi isn't big enough to support both species, other people think otherwise.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:02 PM on June 17, 2004
I bet that the none-newsfilter links get more clickthroughs than the "newsfilter" ones though.
They're two different animals really and serve different purposes. It's just some people think mefi isn't big enough to support both species, other people think otherwise.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 9:02 PM on June 17, 2004
"NewsFilter" is not linked (or is linked to MetaTalk), and just means "don't discuss this here". "TodaysPapers" means "here's where this news may alternatively be discussed on TodaysPapers". Which is only obnoxious if it is futile, and that hasn't been established yet.
We're not talking about whether it's going to work. Of course if you hound people about something they'll eventually get fet up and leave; that, at least to me, doesn't qualify as working. rushmc is right--and it was my earlier point--it's extremely obnoxious and counter-productive. Either people will leave or get pissed off.
It's only a good idea if the majority of people here don't want any news posts. Who decides which posts aren't good enough? As I said earlier, can I do it to people who post flash if I find a website dedicated to flash and a dozen other people here don't like flash (y2karl and matteo don't, if I recall).
I vote bad, annoying idea.
posted by The God Complex at 9:05 PM on June 17, 2004
We're not talking about whether it's going to work. Of course if you hound people about something they'll eventually get fet up and leave; that, at least to me, doesn't qualify as working. rushmc is right--and it was my earlier point--it's extremely obnoxious and counter-productive. Either people will leave or get pissed off.
It's only a good idea if the majority of people here don't want any news posts. Who decides which posts aren't good enough? As I said earlier, can I do it to people who post flash if I find a website dedicated to flash and a dozen other people here don't like flash (y2karl and matteo don't, if I recall).
I vote bad, annoying idea.
posted by The God Complex at 9:05 PM on June 17, 2004
fed up.
posted by The God Complex at 9:07 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by The God Complex at 9:07 PM on June 17, 2004
that most if not all of the newsfilter minority - Ethereal BlightWhat makes you think the newsfilter types are the minority? The same two dozen (conservative estimate) people bitching about newsfilter today are pretty much the same people who bitched about newsfilter three years ago. That is hardly a majority. ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:16 PM on June 17, 2004
They need an audience.
They seem to post all this crap here for the attention it brings 'em - with the shouting and the name-calling and the poo-poo-pee-pee-ka-ka level of the resulting discussions as an important by-product.
This is why election2004.metafilter.com will not work.
Many of the members who have turned MetaFitler in to their own agenda, do so because of the thousands of people who view MeFi everyday. Move the political Front Page Posts, off the Front Page, and out of the limelight, and they will decrease sharply.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:28 PM on June 17, 2004
They seem to post all this crap here for the attention it brings 'em - with the shouting and the name-calling and the poo-poo-pee-pee-ka-ka level of the resulting discussions as an important by-product.
This is why election2004.metafilter.com will not work.
Many of the members who have turned MetaFitler in to their own agenda, do so because of the thousands of people who view MeFi everyday. Move the political Front Page Posts, off the Front Page, and out of the limelight, and they will decrease sharply.
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 9:28 PM on June 17, 2004
I'd just like to say one word here if I may.
Fuck.
Thank you. That's all.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 PM on June 17, 2004
Fuck.
Thank you. That's all.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:36 PM on June 17, 2004
This is why election2004.metafilter.com will not work.
Well, presumably if Matt puts the time into creating such a thing, he will begin enforcing it's use in some way, even if that just means moving election-ish posts off MeFi and onto ElectionFilter. If there's a way to set that up so it's easy for him to do, it's totally the way to go.
Why are you so angry, TGC?
posted by scarabic at 9:52 PM on June 17, 2004
Well, presumably if Matt puts the time into creating such a thing, he will begin enforcing it's use in some way, even if that just means moving election-ish posts off MeFi and onto ElectionFilter. If there's a way to set that up so it's easy for him to do, it's totally the way to go.
Why are you so angry, TGC?
posted by scarabic at 9:52 PM on June 17, 2004
When I comment, although I really do mostly want a conversation, the scale is definitely tilted in the "I'm writing this because I have something to say and I want other people to read it" direction. However, my view of FPPs, and what I've had in mind when I've made posts, is "I'm posting this because I think that other people want to read it." This opinion on the difference between posts and comments is, I think, possibly at the core of a lot of disagreements. Sure, most everyone agrees that posts and comments are different. But I wonder if many people, unlike me, think that posts and comments are essentially the same things, except that posts are much more rarified than comments.
It's interesting what Karl thinks about blogs because my own experience is different. Firstly, I was never interested in just keeping a journal, in public, in the assumption that other people would be interested in reading it. Instead, my intent was to occasionally write things worth writing and worth reading. Which I did, not as frequently as I expected. Then Josh Marshall linked to me, which blew my mind and vastly increased my readership, and instead of going, "woohoo! I have a substantial audience", instead I started to scrutinize my potential posts even more critically in terms of "is this worth writing and worth reading?" And I posted less. I don't have stage fright, and I'm not shy. I just though, well, that blog is like a podium with a bunch of people in the audience, and if I am going to think that what I say is important enough for me to be at the podium and they in the audience, then what I say had damn well better be important.
I feel exactly the same way about FPPs. Why am I prolific in comments? Because, although I completely admit that within the context of a conversation one person dominating it is quite a bit more like being at a podium than I want to admit, it's also true that I have a very different mindset about being at the podium and about being around a seminar table. To me, this here is a seminar table where everyone gets to express their ideas, some more seriously and some more frivolously, it's much more democratic. And a comment doesn't shout "read me" the way a post does.
This is why, for all Karl's virtues, which are considerable, I've always had the feeling about him that he and many people have about me. That his FPPs are about him, and not the rest of MeFi. But, if I can assert that this same perception about my commenting is wrong, or at least far from as true as many people think, I think I have to consider the possibility that this perception about Karl is wrong, as well. Maybe I (and anyone else) shouldn't be making assumptions about his intent and psychology when we think about or argue about the value of his FPP. Maybe that kind of thinking deeply poisons our reasoning.
Maybe we can't solve the newsfilter problem. Maybe we can't—as people have said here and to me privately—solve anything on MetaTalk. But it'd be nice, really nice, if those of us who lurk and post on MeTa could come to agree on what, if anything, is the essential difference between a FPP and a comment. Maybe this is trivial. But, what is the purpose of a FPP? Can we figure that out?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:55 PM on June 17, 2004
It's interesting what Karl thinks about blogs because my own experience is different. Firstly, I was never interested in just keeping a journal, in public, in the assumption that other people would be interested in reading it. Instead, my intent was to occasionally write things worth writing and worth reading. Which I did, not as frequently as I expected. Then Josh Marshall linked to me, which blew my mind and vastly increased my readership, and instead of going, "woohoo! I have a substantial audience", instead I started to scrutinize my potential posts even more critically in terms of "is this worth writing and worth reading?" And I posted less. I don't have stage fright, and I'm not shy. I just though, well, that blog is like a podium with a bunch of people in the audience, and if I am going to think that what I say is important enough for me to be at the podium and they in the audience, then what I say had damn well better be important.
I feel exactly the same way about FPPs. Why am I prolific in comments? Because, although I completely admit that within the context of a conversation one person dominating it is quite a bit more like being at a podium than I want to admit, it's also true that I have a very different mindset about being at the podium and about being around a seminar table. To me, this here is a seminar table where everyone gets to express their ideas, some more seriously and some more frivolously, it's much more democratic. And a comment doesn't shout "read me" the way a post does.
This is why, for all Karl's virtues, which are considerable, I've always had the feeling about him that he and many people have about me. That his FPPs are about him, and not the rest of MeFi. But, if I can assert that this same perception about my commenting is wrong, or at least far from as true as many people think, I think I have to consider the possibility that this perception about Karl is wrong, as well. Maybe I (and anyone else) shouldn't be making assumptions about his intent and psychology when we think about or argue about the value of his FPP. Maybe that kind of thinking deeply poisons our reasoning.
Maybe we can't solve the newsfilter problem. Maybe we can't—as people have said here and to me privately—solve anything on MetaTalk. But it'd be nice, really nice, if those of us who lurk and post on MeTa could come to agree on what, if anything, is the essential difference between a FPP and a comment. Maybe this is trivial. But, what is the purpose of a FPP? Can we figure that out?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:55 PM on June 17, 2004
I thought we were doing great when karl said he wouldn't mind cutting back on the current events. Then Miguel flew in to say "don't listen to the hatahs playa," and that all went to hell.
posted by scarabic at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:25 PM on June 17, 2004
I'm not angry. I just get tired of hearing the same eight-twelve people claim they're speaking for the majority of people here. Clearly there is a number of really fucking boring news posts that end up on the front page. There are also a number of boring other posts on the front page. The problem is that some people find certain things interesting that others do not.
Even some single-link op-ed pieces are interesting--or I think they are--if it's actually a good op-ed. Some people hate all op-eds and prefer to write their own in comments.
The point, however, is that a "street team" of overzealous do-gooders ostensibly acting on behalf of metafilter (to better it in some way) going around to threads posting link to another site and basically saying "go do this here--all of us don't want it" is A) obnoxious, and B) not representitive of what everyone actually wants.
As I said, how would people react if I got some people together and did this for all the flash posts, good or bad, because I think most of them suck? It would be stupid, which is why I don't do it. When there's a bad post, point it out in the grey and request a deletion, just as we've been doing for years. No blanket treatment is required because each post is an individual, not a set "type" that can be either dismissed or lauded because of what it is.
In sum, stay out of a thread unless you have something to say about the thread. This suggestion is akin to what witty did to amberglow's post, only the aggression is much more passive and obviously less serious in degree.
I thought we were doing great when karl said he wouldn't mind cutting back on the current events. Then Miguel flew in to say "don't listen to the hatahs playa," and that all went to hell.
I liked Miguel's advice. My only problem with Miguel is he's not rough enough around the eges ;)
posted by The God Complex at 10:47 PM on June 17, 2004
Even some single-link op-ed pieces are interesting--or I think they are--if it's actually a good op-ed. Some people hate all op-eds and prefer to write their own in comments.
The point, however, is that a "street team" of overzealous do-gooders ostensibly acting on behalf of metafilter (to better it in some way) going around to threads posting link to another site and basically saying "go do this here--all of us don't want it" is A) obnoxious, and B) not representitive of what everyone actually wants.
As I said, how would people react if I got some people together and did this for all the flash posts, good or bad, because I think most of them suck? It would be stupid, which is why I don't do it. When there's a bad post, point it out in the grey and request a deletion, just as we've been doing for years. No blanket treatment is required because each post is an individual, not a set "type" that can be either dismissed or lauded because of what it is.
In sum, stay out of a thread unless you have something to say about the thread. This suggestion is akin to what witty did to amberglow's post, only the aggression is much more passive and obviously less serious in degree.
I thought we were doing great when karl said he wouldn't mind cutting back on the current events. Then Miguel flew in to say "don't listen to the hatahs playa," and that all went to hell.
I liked Miguel's advice. My only problem with Miguel is he's not rough enough around the eges ;)
posted by The God Complex at 10:47 PM on June 17, 2004
I'm outraged! You hear me? Outraged!
No, I'm not, actually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on June 17, 2004
No, I'm not, actually.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:47 PM on June 17, 2004
MeFi means different things to different people. However, some here cannot tolerate others having different interests than themselves. For an overwhelmingly liberal userbase, a few conformist control-freaks sure like to make a lot of noise about what is 'acceptable'.
NewsFilter is here to stay because a very large segment of the MeFi population enjoys it, despite the naysayers' allegation that quantity of comments does not equal quality. So, continue with your noses in the air as you cast aspersions on the hoi polloi. The NewsFites don't give fuck one about your pretensions.
posted by mischief at 10:51 PM on June 17, 2004
NewsFilter is here to stay because a very large segment of the MeFi population enjoys it, despite the naysayers' allegation that quantity of comments does not equal quality. So, continue with your noses in the air as you cast aspersions on the hoi polloi. The NewsFites don't give fuck one about your pretensions.
posted by mischief at 10:51 PM on June 17, 2004
I agree that 'tagging' posts in that way would be stupid and ineffective. I still don't understand why you're so upset. All I can pull out is some outrage that 8 or 12 people think they speak for everyone when they express their opinions.
posted by scarabic at 10:55 PM on June 17, 2004
posted by scarabic at 10:55 PM on June 17, 2004
I like the way posters here have what you call an "agenda", which could easily be translated to principles or a well-defined stand on contemporary affairs. I think their up-front prejudices are stated clearly, making their contributions all the more understandable.
MetaFilter is great because it's undefined, misty, sort of "could go one way or the other" with a clear preference for humane and civilized attitudes which, although I'm a conservative, are far better represented by self-doubting, sceptical and even downright suspicious lefties.
Newsfilter posts can be very good. Classification is an enemy of thought. Some items are very well chosen; indicative; representative; challenging. I think it mainly depends on those who choose to contribute. Comments, rather than posts, are the soul of MetaFilter. Posts are very overrated. Thing is: it takes a goodish (or a very bad) link to elicit a good discussion. I would go so far as to say that really good posts are self-effacing and open, even sacrificing themselves to the fray.
Denying discussion, interaction and the healthy exchange of ideas seems to be a bad idea. Live and let live. Everyone who posts takes a chance but, at the same time, proposes a topic and brings it to our discussion. Some (few) are fertile but I think all but a few egregious examples are to be thanked. For trying, at least.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:28 PM on June 17, 2004
MetaFilter is great because it's undefined, misty, sort of "could go one way or the other" with a clear preference for humane and civilized attitudes which, although I'm a conservative, are far better represented by self-doubting, sceptical and even downright suspicious lefties.
Newsfilter posts can be very good. Classification is an enemy of thought. Some items are very well chosen; indicative; representative; challenging. I think it mainly depends on those who choose to contribute. Comments, rather than posts, are the soul of MetaFilter. Posts are very overrated. Thing is: it takes a goodish (or a very bad) link to elicit a good discussion. I would go so far as to say that really good posts are self-effacing and open, even sacrificing themselves to the fray.
Denying discussion, interaction and the healthy exchange of ideas seems to be a bad idea. Live and let live. Everyone who posts takes a chance but, at the same time, proposes a topic and brings it to our discussion. Some (few) are fertile but I think all but a few egregious examples are to be thanked. For trying, at least.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:28 PM on June 17, 2004
I've always had the sense that the comments were the guilty pleasure of MeFi. Yeah, obviously, for me. (You know you want to say it.) But I mean everyone. That's the impression I've always gotten from Matt about the point of MeFi—it's not a chat site. It's not a chat site. I mean, it is a chat site, but that's not it's raison d'etre.
I knew that my main interest and contribution to MeFi would be in commenting; and, of course, that's what I was interested and eager to be a part of. But I really took it to heart when Matt wrote in a "open the gates" thread that he really wants to select for new members who will make good posts and not people who just want to "shoot the shit". And so, all that time I was lurking and hanging out on #mefi, I restrained myself from asking someone to lobby Matt on my behalf, or whatever. It's also why I feel a responsibility to make the FPPs I do post pretty good.
But see, you think completely differently about MeFi. It's all about the discussion. In practice, yes, it is. But I worry that if Matt and the whole community embraced that ethos wholeheartedly without at least giving some lip-service to the other view, then MeFi would turn into something very not like what it is now. Something much less unique, something much more banal.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:37 PM on June 17, 2004
I knew that my main interest and contribution to MeFi would be in commenting; and, of course, that's what I was interested and eager to be a part of. But I really took it to heart when Matt wrote in a "open the gates" thread that he really wants to select for new members who will make good posts and not people who just want to "shoot the shit". And so, all that time I was lurking and hanging out on #mefi, I restrained myself from asking someone to lobby Matt on my behalf, or whatever. It's also why I feel a responsibility to make the FPPs I do post pretty good.
But see, you think completely differently about MeFi. It's all about the discussion. In practice, yes, it is. But I worry that if Matt and the whole community embraced that ethos wholeheartedly without at least giving some lip-service to the other view, then MeFi would turn into something very not like what it is now. Something much less unique, something much more banal.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:37 PM on June 17, 2004
Maybe that kind of thinking deeply poisons our reasoning.
Seth was like a kid bringing home his first fingerpainting with is little post. I can't say I was so impressed but, you know, I'm perhaps biased. An Amazon link and Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night ? And he was just a wee little put out when Joe Keefe put him ever so gently through the wringer on his post's light in the loafers aspects. He even explained it to everyone. That cracked me up.
People have such exalted opinions of their good intentions and finer points and such debased ones of those who irritate them. People tend to personify all that is wrong into one person and scapegoat them--mostly because they're lazy or have a personal grudge or just get irritated from bumping into the same people on this bus. That's human nature. So there are these screaming fits every so often. It's hard enough for people to get off their egos and talk to each other more on the for real side in real life--online it's just about impossible because there's always going to be someone who wants to roll a grenade into the trench no matter how mellow everyone else gets. Schrodinger's weblog.
posted by y2karl at 11:58 PM on June 17, 2004
Seth was like a kid bringing home his first fingerpainting with is little post. I can't say I was so impressed but, you know, I'm perhaps biased. An Amazon link and Do Not Go Gentle Into That Good Night ? And he was just a wee little put out when Joe Keefe put him ever so gently through the wringer on his post's light in the loafers aspects. He even explained it to everyone. That cracked me up.
People have such exalted opinions of their good intentions and finer points and such debased ones of those who irritate them. People tend to personify all that is wrong into one person and scapegoat them--mostly because they're lazy or have a personal grudge or just get irritated from bumping into the same people on this bus. That's human nature. So there are these screaming fits every so often. It's hard enough for people to get off their egos and talk to each other more on the for real side in real life--online it's just about impossible because there's always going to be someone who wants to roll a grenade into the trench no matter how mellow everyone else gets. Schrodinger's weblog.
posted by y2karl at 11:58 PM on June 17, 2004
Well, presumably if Matt puts the time into creating such a thing, he will begin enforcing it's use in some way, even if that just means moving election-ish posts off MeFi and onto ElectionFilter.
I understand that, my point in saying it will not work, is that once the IraqFilter and such are no longer on the FrontPage, I am sure that they will slow in pace, and maybe come to stop, since they are not going to get the attention that the front page draws.
It is one thing to be posting your highly charged posts to site where it will get nearly 1.5 million pageviews a month. You are making a post to one of the most influential and most linked weblogs on the net, one that many in the major media read. You are setting the tone, you bringing up important issues, and more importantly you are changing minds! (so these people think)
It is quite another thing to be one of hundreds of bland partisans out there blogging away on some remote BlogSpot site that only your cat and your mother reads.
The difference is publishing your own newsletter in your basement vs. writing front page stories for The New York Times. If election2004.metafilter.com (when? please!) happens, it will be like getting moved from page A1 to the obituaries page.
Then again, if election2004.metafilter.com accomplishes a decline in PartisanFilter.... maybe it is indeed "working."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:10 AM on June 18, 2004
I understand that, my point in saying it will not work, is that once the IraqFilter and such are no longer on the FrontPage, I am sure that they will slow in pace, and maybe come to stop, since they are not going to get the attention that the front page draws.
It is one thing to be posting your highly charged posts to site where it will get nearly 1.5 million pageviews a month. You are making a post to one of the most influential and most linked weblogs on the net, one that many in the major media read. You are setting the tone, you bringing up important issues, and more importantly you are changing minds! (so these people think)
It is quite another thing to be one of hundreds of bland partisans out there blogging away on some remote BlogSpot site that only your cat and your mother reads.
The difference is publishing your own newsletter in your basement vs. writing front page stories for The New York Times. If election2004.metafilter.com (when? please!) happens, it will be like getting moved from page A1 to the obituaries page.
Then again, if election2004.metafilter.com accomplishes a decline in PartisanFilter.... maybe it is indeed "working."
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:10 AM on June 18, 2004
Yeah, I think you're calling it correctly. There was an IraqFilter set up, and people did post to it, but I think it was very minimally visited, and ultimately the Iraq posts migrated back here.
It all hinges on one thing. If Matt's electionfilter site is some competely different entity, and he doesn't have the power to simply slide posts from the MeFi homepage over to it, then he will have no choice but to delete them. And he will be soft about doing that. And so they will persist in the Blue.
So basically, they will persist in the Blue or vanish. Seems like maybe electionfilter isn't worth coding.
posted by scarabic at 12:50 AM on June 18, 2004
It all hinges on one thing. If Matt's electionfilter site is some competely different entity, and he doesn't have the power to simply slide posts from the MeFi homepage over to it, then he will have no choice but to delete them. And he will be soft about doing that. And so they will persist in the Blue.
So basically, they will persist in the Blue or vanish. Seems like maybe electionfilter isn't worth coding.
posted by scarabic at 12:50 AM on June 18, 2004
How cutely pink! Your environment, not the cat. That cat is cutely calico! My cat's a calico1, but with gray instead of black. I like that black. Calicos are very pretty, I think.
So, what did the cat think of Steve's blog?
1 Thanks so much for the web card, tracy and zarah! Simone is apparently on the mend after me syringe feeding her for several weeks. She's much more lively, seeminly heathy (though skeletal, still) and just recently eating on her own. Picky about regular cat foods, but she's eager to eat human-quality tuna, which I'll gladly feed her for a little while, anyway.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:35 AM on June 18, 2004
So, what did the cat think of Steve's blog?
1 Thanks so much for the web card, tracy and zarah! Simone is apparently on the mend after me syringe feeding her for several weeks. She's much more lively, seeminly heathy (though skeletal, still) and just recently eating on her own. Picky about regular cat foods, but she's eager to eat human-quality tuna, which I'll gladly feed her for a little while, anyway.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:35 AM on June 18, 2004
Mildred: You're welcome to disagree with me. There's a thriving stream of news items here to discuss, too, so don't panic if some people complain about them. I can't really convey the full depth of this longstanding debate for you, but in a nutshell, there are 2 points.
A)This place has, historically, been a good spot to find interesting things you wouldn't have found otherwise. We don't need MetaFilter to bring our CNN headlines to us. CNN has a massive media machine in place to do that.
B)The guy that runs this place has taken an ambivalent stance on the news posts, because sometimes good discussions do come of them. But he has stated pretty clearly that he doesn't want MetaFilter to be just another message board where people discuss things. Those are a dime a dozen, and there's no need for him to custom code another and host it out of a closet as a labor of love. There's something a little more special going on here than "let's talk about the news." People who protest the newsy posts feel that the high volume of them is choking out the true hidden-treasure posts, and that the front page of MeFi is starting to look like Yahoo News. You say "but metafilter also discusses current events" but it wasn't always so. 911 and Iraq did us in. If I discourage people from posting even more newsy links, it's partly because their doing so will influence newcomers like yourself, who will think that's what this place is about, and it will devolve further away from what it used to be.
It's not a question of censoring debate on Iraq. I guarantee you I am really concerned about what goes on there, I protest, I donate, I write, I volunteer, etc. It's just a question of the role of this site, and if tacking up the worlds biggest headlines is really appropriate for a place that got its start ferreting out hidden treasures.
Please don't take my comments as some kind of rule. I won't tell you what to do. But I'm not the only person who feels this way, and I think almost everyone is sick of the bickering that the newsy posts create, be it bickering about the news itself, or bickering about the newsy posts, or bickering about the bickering.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 AM on June 18, 2004
A)This place has, historically, been a good spot to find interesting things you wouldn't have found otherwise. We don't need MetaFilter to bring our CNN headlines to us. CNN has a massive media machine in place to do that.
B)The guy that runs this place has taken an ambivalent stance on the news posts, because sometimes good discussions do come of them. But he has stated pretty clearly that he doesn't want MetaFilter to be just another message board where people discuss things. Those are a dime a dozen, and there's no need for him to custom code another and host it out of a closet as a labor of love. There's something a little more special going on here than "let's talk about the news." People who protest the newsy posts feel that the high volume of them is choking out the true hidden-treasure posts, and that the front page of MeFi is starting to look like Yahoo News. You say "but metafilter also discusses current events" but it wasn't always so. 911 and Iraq did us in. If I discourage people from posting even more newsy links, it's partly because their doing so will influence newcomers like yourself, who will think that's what this place is about, and it will devolve further away from what it used to be.
It's not a question of censoring debate on Iraq. I guarantee you I am really concerned about what goes on there, I protest, I donate, I write, I volunteer, etc. It's just a question of the role of this site, and if tacking up the worlds biggest headlines is really appropriate for a place that got its start ferreting out hidden treasures.
Please don't take my comments as some kind of rule. I won't tell you what to do. But I'm not the only person who feels this way, and I think almost everyone is sick of the bickering that the newsy posts create, be it bickering about the news itself, or bickering about the newsy posts, or bickering about the bickering.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 AM on June 18, 2004
Or just bickering.
I thought Mildred's comment very well summed up the well-meaning pro-newsfilter point of view (or at least frame of mind). She seems very nice.
It's been a weird week.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:40 AM on June 18, 2004
I thought Mildred's comment very well summed up the well-meaning pro-newsfilter point of view (or at least frame of mind). She seems very nice.
It's been a weird week.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:40 AM on June 18, 2004
Steve@L:
If election2004.metafilter.com turned out, by some fluke, to
- be more Democratic than Republican, in a ratio of say 10:1, and
- got more pageviews than www.metafilter.com, evolving into a news portal or something (some shout god forbid!),
what makes me think you'd be pleading for some other tech solution to your percieved problem?
Is it not enough for you that the Republicans have the first three estates, they must also possess the fourth and fifth?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:55 AM on June 18, 2004
If election2004.metafilter.com turned out, by some fluke, to
- be more Democratic than Republican, in a ratio of say 10:1, and
- got more pageviews than www.metafilter.com, evolving into a news portal or something (some shout god forbid!),
what makes me think you'd be pleading for some other tech solution to your percieved problem?
Is it not enough for you that the Republicans have the first three estates, they must also possess the fourth and fifth?
posted by dash_slot- at 1:55 AM on June 18, 2004
The essential problem with any of these "solutions" to the NewsFilter "problem" is that they make the common - but no less inaccurate for it - mistake of confusing locality with context.
posted by freebird at 2:12 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by freebird at 2:12 AM on June 18, 2004
The medium is the message, freebird. :)
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:13 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:13 AM on June 18, 2004
The medium is the message
While there are some deep truths to this oft-referenced phrase, it is mistaken in the sense that a "message" is a reference while a medium is a "referent". To confound the two is to mistake the territitory for the map, a grave mistake for any erstwhile explorer of regions discursive.
To think that the divisive issues over various canonical posting behaviors will go away if another venue is provided is to think that moving a compass across a map blindfolded in a soundproof room somehow affects the location of the north pole.
posted by freebird at 2:34 AM on June 18, 2004
While there are some deep truths to this oft-referenced phrase, it is mistaken in the sense that a "message" is a reference while a medium is a "referent". To confound the two is to mistake the territitory for the map, a grave mistake for any erstwhile explorer of regions discursive.
To think that the divisive issues over various canonical posting behaviors will go away if another venue is provided is to think that moving a compass across a map blindfolded in a soundproof room somehow affects the location of the north pole.
posted by freebird at 2:34 AM on June 18, 2004
One small point, there has been some discussion about whether the number of comments equates to the quality of the post. I believe it does not. A typical best of web type post, even the very best ones, often does not garner too many comments other than a bunch of "great post" comments. If the posters share similar interests they may chime in with supporting links.
posted by caddis at 4:50 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by caddis at 4:50 AM on June 18, 2004
You say "but metafilter also discusses current events" but it wasn't always so. 911 and Iraq did us in.
But wasn't it I/P posts before that? And the 2000 Election/Naderfilter too? etc?
I'm thinking that maybe we need more posts (of all types) and we should be making more of a concerted effort to encourage those folks that rarely post to do so, so that the "usual suspects" which are causing totally undeserved enmity are part of a larger whole, with something for everyone (even tho many of us find something for each of us now, i believe).
In my 2 years as a member, i've never seen that happen.
posted by amberglow at 5:03 AM on June 18, 2004
But wasn't it I/P posts before that? And the 2000 Election/Naderfilter too? etc?
I'm thinking that maybe we need more posts (of all types) and we should be making more of a concerted effort to encourage those folks that rarely post to do so, so that the "usual suspects" which are causing totally undeserved enmity are part of a larger whole, with something for everyone (even tho many of us find something for each of us now, i believe).
In my 2 years as a member, i've never seen that happen.
posted by amberglow at 5:03 AM on June 18, 2004
Alsop, people rant about politicsfilter and newsfilter, but they usually don't ever flip that around and actually support existing posts they like and approve of.
This has been an ugly week here--very ugly. I could just blame the 3 or 4 people that have been vocally spreading bile and insults (which i am doing), but I think something good can come out of this too.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 AM on June 18, 2004
This has been an ugly week here--very ugly. I could just blame the 3 or 4 people that have been vocally spreading bile and insults (which i am doing), but I think something good can come out of this too.
posted by amberglow at 5:10 AM on June 18, 2004
I came here via Salon 8 days after 9/11 because Salon said this was the place to find news the you couldn't find anywhere else. So, it was newsfilter as far as I knew from the git go. Then I realized I had found a little club where everyone was angry all the time at all the new people for not following the rules, starting with Miguel. He was too chatty and personable. I guess the people without personalities were jealous.
Allow me to be a contradictory voice, just to provide history from another standpoint.
When you first came here, you and Miguel (and others) blatantly ignored what existing members first suggested, then shouted, the purpose of the site was. MetaFilter to you was defined before you got here as you say, and you ddin't give a rat's ass that it was defined by the people here as something else long before your arrival. You came in, you ignored what existing users were saying and did whatever you felt like.
Miguel was criticized because he was all over the place, not a thread would go by (or so it seemed) without everyone's pal and gregarious buddy Miguel contributing. He had absolutely no concept of the purpose of MetaTalk, and repeatedly posted threads devoted to chatting. Rather than listen to people who cried, then shouted, then raved, then threatened, that MetaTalk was not for chatting, he blithly and arrogantly posted what he knew was best for the site.
And in fairness, there are threads from back when I was a site-crowding newbie, bblithly adding my two cents here and there and everywhere and not comprehending what the elitist old bastards were rambling on about how we were ruining the site and the brimstone was haling down upon us and blah blah blah.
Regarding blogging, it really isn't that hard. You can setup a blogspot site for free, in mere minutes, and posting to it is almost identical to posting to MeFi. Blogspot's had a more recent interface overhaul, but way back when Matt's work on MeFi was very much related to the work done at Pyra.
(no longer talking to y2k at this point)
As for NewsFilter and all that shit, well, one thing I finally got around to cluing in to (and it certainly took me a while) was that MetaFilter's still a kickass site when you don't give a damn about what's on the front page.
Sure, it'd be great to have whichever version of the old days you like back, where every post sang and danced and gave us head three times before bringing us a beer and a fried egg, but those days never existed.
Some days will bring about some news, and some days won't. Some days will bring about some great projects on the web, and some days won't. MetaFilter's not a fractal, you can't take a small subsection and expect it to be representative of the whole. Some times there's just not much good happening on the web or in the world and it's all ass. On those days you just have to accept that MeFi isn't going to kill three hours of your day and you have to find somewhere else to go.
posted by cCranium at 5:11 AM on June 18, 2004
Allow me to be a contradictory voice, just to provide history from another standpoint.
When you first came here, you and Miguel (and others) blatantly ignored what existing members first suggested, then shouted, the purpose of the site was. MetaFilter to you was defined before you got here as you say, and you ddin't give a rat's ass that it was defined by the people here as something else long before your arrival. You came in, you ignored what existing users were saying and did whatever you felt like.
Miguel was criticized because he was all over the place, not a thread would go by (or so it seemed) without everyone's pal and gregarious buddy Miguel contributing. He had absolutely no concept of the purpose of MetaTalk, and repeatedly posted threads devoted to chatting. Rather than listen to people who cried, then shouted, then raved, then threatened, that MetaTalk was not for chatting, he blithly and arrogantly posted what he knew was best for the site.
And in fairness, there are threads from back when I was a site-crowding newbie, bblithly adding my two cents here and there and everywhere and not comprehending what the elitist old bastards were rambling on about how we were ruining the site and the brimstone was haling down upon us and blah blah blah.
Regarding blogging, it really isn't that hard. You can setup a blogspot site for free, in mere minutes, and posting to it is almost identical to posting to MeFi. Blogspot's had a more recent interface overhaul, but way back when Matt's work on MeFi was very much related to the work done at Pyra.
(no longer talking to y2k at this point)
As for NewsFilter and all that shit, well, one thing I finally got around to cluing in to (and it certainly took me a while) was that MetaFilter's still a kickass site when you don't give a damn about what's on the front page.
Sure, it'd be great to have whichever version of the old days you like back, where every post sang and danced and gave us head three times before bringing us a beer and a fried egg, but those days never existed.
Some days will bring about some news, and some days won't. Some days will bring about some great projects on the web, and some days won't. MetaFilter's not a fractal, you can't take a small subsection and expect it to be representative of the whole. Some times there's just not much good happening on the web or in the world and it's all ass. On those days you just have to accept that MeFi isn't going to kill three hours of your day and you have to find somewhere else to go.
posted by cCranium at 5:11 AM on June 18, 2004
Ray Abeta- 2 comments. Ghost prisoner 52 comments
Seth's latest Metatalk post - 287 comments. Just sayin'
posted by boaz at 6:03 AM on June 18, 2004
Seth's latest Metatalk post - 287 comments. Just sayin'
posted by boaz at 6:03 AM on June 18, 2004
You are setting the tone, you bringing up important issues, and more importantly you are changing minds! (so these people think)
Bullshit--this is just demonization and projection. Did you think you were setting the tone, bringing up an important issue or changing any minds with your Michael Moore or Howard Dean exposes ? I think not.
Oh, well, that's different, when I did it, it was for the following reasons, blah blah woof woof...
Not much point in ascribing ill intent on the part of other people for doing the same thing you have done, is there ?
posted by y2karl at 6:15 AM on June 18, 2004
Bullshit--this is just demonization and projection. Did you think you were setting the tone, bringing up an important issue or changing any minds with your Michael Moore or Howard Dean exposes ? I think not.
Oh, well, that's different, when I did it, it was for the following reasons, blah blah woof woof...
Not much point in ascribing ill intent on the part of other people for doing the same thing you have done, is there ?
posted by y2karl at 6:15 AM on June 18, 2004
Thanks for the realistic pov, cC. It's quite refreshing.
posted by dash_slot- at 6:16 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by dash_slot- at 6:16 AM on June 18, 2004
Seth's latest Metatalk post - 287 comments. Just sayin'
When people start shouting, there are more comments--that was my point. Just sayin'
posted by y2karl at 6:18 AM on June 18, 2004
When people start shouting, there are more comments--that was my point. Just sayin'
posted by y2karl at 6:18 AM on June 18, 2004
When people start shouting, there are more comments--that was my point. Just sayin'
Now keep thinking along those lines. You almost got it.
Hint: "Both adamgreenfield and ignatius j. reilly said in that other thread, they come here less and less because of the personal attacks."
posted by boaz at 6:28 AM on June 18, 2004
Now keep thinking along those lines. You almost got it.
Hint: "Both adamgreenfield and ignatius j. reilly said in that other thread, they come here less and less because of the personal attacks."
posted by boaz at 6:28 AM on June 18, 2004
Rereading my post, I want to be clear about something. I'm not suggesting that people stop talking about the things that bother them in MetaTalk, that's the the point of the place after all, and it's good to learn what we all expect from the site.
Just don't view it as the end of the world or the impending doom of MetaFilter when we slip into a subjectively crappy spin of the cycle. The good will return.
posted by cCranium at 7:05 AM on June 18, 2004
Just don't view it as the end of the world or the impending doom of MetaFilter when we slip into a subjectively crappy spin of the cycle. The good will return.
posted by cCranium at 7:05 AM on June 18, 2004
I'm pretty sure I got at least one fried egg out of a thread, but it was a struggle, by god.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:17 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:17 AM on June 18, 2004
Bastard.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:50 AM on June 18, 2004
The good will return.
Very wise words from cCranium.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:42 AM on June 18, 2004
Very wise words from cCranium.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 8:42 AM on June 18, 2004
FOUR YEARS AGO TODAY.
12 posts: 6 news, 6 'other'.
THREE YEARS AGO TODAY.
29 posts: 19 news, 10 'other'.
TWO YEARS AGO TODAY.
31 posts: 16 news (inc. 2 World Cup (soccer)), 15 'other'.
NewsFilter has always been part of MetaFilter. Since day two. Let's just encourage good posting...for example, this was a corker.
posted by i_cola at 8:44 AM on June 18, 2004
12 posts: 6 news, 6 'other'.
THREE YEARS AGO TODAY.
29 posts: 19 news, 10 'other'.
TWO YEARS AGO TODAY.
31 posts: 16 news (inc. 2 World Cup (soccer)), 15 'other'.
NewsFilter has always been part of MetaFilter. Since day two. Let's just encourage good posting...for example, this was a corker.
posted by i_cola at 8:44 AM on June 18, 2004
For what it might be worth at this point in the thread, I agree with i_cola. I do not anticipate, nor do I desire the complete excision of current events from the front page. Rather, I would simply like to see the death of the one-link-to-cnn-posts. I know Matt deletes a lot of them, but many still appear in the blue. Of course we've always had news here, and of course we've always had bad posts--even from, dare I say, Matt--but that doesn't mean we should accept them as business as usual.
I think there should be a constant effort to keep the level of discourse relatively high. That doesn't mean rejecting fun posts or the latest widget post or even political posts, but it does mean taking a little bit of extra effort in posting. Discussion about single news stories from widely circulated sources really should be had over at TodaysPapers; it's a better tool for that kind of thing and a more appropriate place, in my opinion. That being said, I'll stop putting the comments in the news threads.
Question: How do we encourage good posting on current events or political topics?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:04 AM on June 18, 2004
I think there should be a constant effort to keep the level of discourse relatively high. That doesn't mean rejecting fun posts or the latest widget post or even political posts, but it does mean taking a little bit of extra effort in posting. Discussion about single news stories from widely circulated sources really should be had over at TodaysPapers; it's a better tool for that kind of thing and a more appropriate place, in my opinion. That being said, I'll stop putting the comments in the news threads.
Question: How do we encourage good posting on current events or political topics?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:04 AM on June 18, 2004
Then Miguel flew in to say "don't listen to the hatahs playa," and that all went to hell.
Miguel loves everything. He's the Anti-Mikey.
posted by darukaru at 9:05 AM on June 18, 2004
Miguel loves everything. He's the Anti-Mikey.
posted by darukaru at 9:05 AM on June 18, 2004
please keep on keeping on, y2k...many of us appreciate your posts, and the excerpting too
I second the motion. And what Miguel said. (Welcome back, Miguel! You're being paged in a Martini thread.) And I'm glad this thread is so civil. Maybe we're stepping back from the brink?
*does jig, falls over edge of cliff*
posted by languagehat at 9:15 AM on June 18, 2004
I second the motion. And what Miguel said. (Welcome back, Miguel! You're being paged in a Martini thread.) And I'm glad this thread is so civil. Maybe we're stepping back from the brink?
*does jig, falls over edge of cliff*
posted by languagehat at 9:15 AM on June 18, 2004
hi.
i like newsfilter posts.
and i agree with miguel.
and tracy, HA!
posted by Stynxno at 9:24 AM on June 18, 2004
i like newsfilter posts.
and i agree with miguel.
and tracy, HA!
posted by Stynxno at 9:24 AM on June 18, 2004
You can lead 17,000 horses to water but you can't make them drink.
posted by rushmc at 9:40 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by rushmc at 9:40 AM on June 18, 2004
Question: How do we encourage good posting on current events or political topics?
Answer: NOT by cut-and-pasting obnoxious demands to take the discussion elsewhere into every thread you feel doesn't happen to meet your standards.
posted by rushmc at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2004
Answer: NOT by cut-and-pasting obnoxious demands to take the discussion elsewhere into every thread you feel doesn't happen to meet your standards.
posted by rushmc at 9:42 AM on June 18, 2004
NOT by cut-and-pasting obnoxious demands...
Um, right. Which is why I said above that I wasn't going to do it anymore. What I was asking for, however, was alternatives. I can you've got that handled, though, so nevermind.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2004
Um, right. Which is why I said above that I wasn't going to do it anymore. What I was asking for, however, was alternatives. I can you've got that handled, though, so nevermind.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:50 AM on June 18, 2004
Your presumption that there is a problem is the problem, IMO. And my only advice to containing that problem is that you stop trying to unilaterally impose your vigilante solutions. If you have agreed to do that, then the problem is contained, so far as I'm concerned.
posted by rushmc at 10:31 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by rushmc at 10:31 AM on June 18, 2004
So your solution is to simply let whatever gets posted to the front page stay there, regardless of quality, regardless of source? Your solution is that we should simply ignore anything we don't like, despite the tremendous volume of crap posts? Your solution is that community self-policing is ineffectual and we should, well, give up? Really?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2004
posted by monju_bosatsu at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2004
I still don't understand why you're so upset
i'm pretty sure you're misreading his tone, 'cause at the time he was playing a winning hand of poker and not really putting that much emotion into this flaming car wreck of an issue.
So, what did the cat think of Steve's blog?
while she sensed there was a dog in the vicinity and his audio post made her backflip off the desk (taking most of my paperwork with her), she gave it 2 claws up for a nice layout and is anxiously awaiting new content.
posted by t r a c y at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2004
i'm pretty sure you're misreading his tone, 'cause at the time he was playing a winning hand of poker and not really putting that much emotion into this flaming car wreck of an issue.
So, what did the cat think of Steve's blog?
while she sensed there was a dog in the vicinity and his audio post made her backflip off the desk (taking most of my paperwork with her), she gave it 2 claws up for a nice layout and is anxiously awaiting new content.
posted by t r a c y at 10:57 AM on June 18, 2004
haha
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:43 PM on June 18, 2004
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 12:43 PM on June 18, 2004
I don't think the solution is to change MeFi. I think the solution is to, um, filter it.
There are a couple of ways to do this:
MFDistilled and Metafilter Remixed, which both rely on human input. [The list of links down the site of MFDistilled is not to be missed, by the way, especially Genefilter.]
Metrolike: This is a self-link, not quite perfect, and ugly, but I like to think of it as proof of concept. It takes the MeFi xml feed and weeds out any posts that contain a lengthy list of both domains of news sites [like "nytimes.com"] and a couple of custom page names used by common newspaper story servers [like "index.ssf"]. It doesn't get all, but it gets most, news posts. I would not be opposed to an option that filtered even further by maybe checking against the last couple of days of /. or k5, but that appears to be beyond the capabilities of the free-ish script I used to kludge this up.
If I had the time to learn some code-fu and html technique I would make it faster, better looking, and able to spit out its own syndie feed. [The work of a Two-Legged Ass Kicking Machine, amazingly, is never done.] Also note that, in its present form, I could change part of one line of code and make it spit out only the news items.
Please don't hit it too hard, it's on a cable modem and right now it's polling the MeFi XML feed every time it gets loaded, because I can't get the caching to work properly right now and only, like, three people use it.
posted by britain at 3:09 PM on June 18, 2004
There are a couple of ways to do this:
MFDistilled and Metafilter Remixed, which both rely on human input. [The list of links down the site of MFDistilled is not to be missed, by the way, especially Genefilter.]
Metrolike: This is a self-link, not quite perfect, and ugly, but I like to think of it as proof of concept. It takes the MeFi xml feed and weeds out any posts that contain a lengthy list of both domains of news sites [like "nytimes.com"] and a couple of custom page names used by common newspaper story servers [like "index.ssf"]. It doesn't get all, but it gets most, news posts. I would not be opposed to an option that filtered even further by maybe checking against the last couple of days of /. or k5, but that appears to be beyond the capabilities of the free-ish script I used to kludge this up.
If I had the time to learn some code-fu and html technique I would make it faster, better looking, and able to spit out its own syndie feed. [The work of a Two-Legged Ass Kicking Machine, amazingly, is never done.] Also note that, in its present form, I could change part of one line of code and make it spit out only the news items.
Please don't hit it too hard, it's on a cable modem and right now it's polling the MeFi XML feed every time it gets loaded, because I can't get the caching to work properly right now and only, like, three people use it.
posted by britain at 3:09 PM on June 18, 2004
Your solution is that community self-policing is ineffectual and we should, well, give up? Really?
To whatever degree there IS a problem--and certainly no one could dispute the occasional presentation of "crap posts" on the front page (which may but do not necessarily align with "newsfiltery posts")--the version of self-policing that is permitted on this site cannot cure it. It may diminish it, to the degree that it encourages good posting and discourages bad ("good" and "bad" determined by rough consensus), but there will always be a significant number of posters who don't know or don't care about the community vote on what should be posted and what shouldn't. And posting by committee is certain to water down the interest value of the site, anyway.
What IS certain to damage the community, and thus the site, however, is constant sniping between the pro-filtering faction and the pro-community faction. As we've been reminded yet again this week. Tempers will heat, ill-advised actions will be taken, grudges will grow...but nothing will be accomplished. We have years of evidence to show this. Lacking a better solution to offer, I support the traditional don't click on links that don't interest you/deletion of the most egregious transgressions of site policy procedure that we've been using all this time. I see at least 10 links posted a day that I think are boring, stupid, or inappropriate for the site, but unless they involve personal attacks on fellow members, I just walk away and let them rest in peace.
Unfortunately, they all-too-often rise from the dead in MeTa.
posted by rushmc at 5:08 PM on June 18, 2004
To whatever degree there IS a problem--and certainly no one could dispute the occasional presentation of "crap posts" on the front page (which may but do not necessarily align with "newsfiltery posts")--the version of self-policing that is permitted on this site cannot cure it. It may diminish it, to the degree that it encourages good posting and discourages bad ("good" and "bad" determined by rough consensus), but there will always be a significant number of posters who don't know or don't care about the community vote on what should be posted and what shouldn't. And posting by committee is certain to water down the interest value of the site, anyway.
What IS certain to damage the community, and thus the site, however, is constant sniping between the pro-filtering faction and the pro-community faction. As we've been reminded yet again this week. Tempers will heat, ill-advised actions will be taken, grudges will grow...but nothing will be accomplished. We have years of evidence to show this. Lacking a better solution to offer, I support the traditional don't click on links that don't interest you/deletion of the most egregious transgressions of site policy procedure that we've been using all this time. I see at least 10 links posted a day that I think are boring, stupid, or inappropriate for the site, but unless they involve personal attacks on fellow members, I just walk away and let them rest in peace.
Unfortunately, they all-too-often rise from the dead in MeTa.
posted by rushmc at 5:08 PM on June 18, 2004
I like it, but I don't think this solution will take. I suspect the news posters either don't see it as news or see it as *important enough* news.
posted by rudyfink at 3:06 AM on June 19, 2004
posted by rudyfink at 3:06 AM on June 19, 2004
One suspects members who comment in news threads far more often than non-news threads will continue to do so despite disapproving such posts.
posted by y2karl at 5:39 AM on June 19, 2004
posted by y2karl at 5:39 AM on June 19, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Thanks for the info though.
posted by The God Complex at 11:18 AM on June 17, 2004