Are annual repostings of this nature acceptable? December 16, 2004 5:21 AM Subscribe
Annual repetition. This thread has begun a discussion on the MeFi acceptability of pages which change on an annual basis. Are annual repostings of this nature acceptable? [MI]
languagehat notes that we celebrate Pirate day, and of course there's World AIDS day, but are individual links which update wholesale on an annual basis (as the Bulwer-Lytton awards do in the linked thread) acceptable? I would argue that they are, annual changes are too slow to keep an eye on even after initial awareness of the site and the new material can be of interest. I have to confess that I've posted a link on the front page before that was an annual update of something that had gone before and that seemed to be acceptable to the membership. Obviously link quality still has to be taken into account.
posted by biffa at 5:30 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by biffa at 5:30 AM on December 16, 2004
Well, I don't really care if they show up or not; I was really just trying to head off a pileup. Unfortunately, it looks like I did just the opposite.
*pokes grumpyhat in his Bulwer-Lyttons with a sharpened pencil*
posted by taz at 5:34 AM on December 16, 2004
*pokes grumpyhat in his Bulwer-Lyttons with a sharpened pencil*
posted by taz at 5:34 AM on December 16, 2004
That's not a double-post. Alongwith the contest, what's being highlighted is this year's results. Ignore it if you don't like it.
posted by Gyan at 5:44 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by Gyan at 5:44 AM on December 16, 2004
from the thread...
ashbury - Get some skin, devils rancher.
devils rancher - "Not a concern. It just seems like so many electrons go to their deaths unnecessarily around here. It's the redundancy that gets me. I've been known to go out of my way to be rude and condescending on the net before, but the piling on has gotten as out of hand as the redundant FPPs."
rancher, it's been mentioned ad nauseum and thread after meta thread has been posted about it, with the latest asking us to be nice. One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice. We whine, we cry, we pile on, we flame, we troll, we don't give people a chance - except when we do, and there are plenty of examples of when we do act nice to each other. But anyway, as I mentioned above, I don't think anybody here was being piled on . . . just the opposite, actually.
posted by ashbury at 5:51 AM on December 16, 2004
ashbury - Get some skin, devils rancher.
devils rancher - "Not a concern. It just seems like so many electrons go to their deaths unnecessarily around here. It's the redundancy that gets me. I've been known to go out of my way to be rude and condescending on the net before, but the piling on has gotten as out of hand as the redundant FPPs."
rancher, it's been mentioned ad nauseum and thread after meta thread has been posted about it, with the latest asking us to be nice. One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice. We whine, we cry, we pile on, we flame, we troll, we don't give people a chance - except when we do, and there are plenty of examples of when we do act nice to each other. But anyway, as I mentioned above, I don't think anybody here was being piled on . . . just the opposite, actually.
posted by ashbury at 5:51 AM on December 16, 2004
The problem with rules is that you can't encode wiggle room into them, because doing so just shifts the location of the border. Saying "no double posts", with the tacit understanding that some things that change on a yearly basis are ok, or that something that got posted three years ago and attracted two comments, or other sorts of situations where playing it by ear is the best way to go, is better than saying "no double posts except these circumstances: *blah*", because then exceptions will be made for things that are sort of but not quite those circumstances.
You can't have a rule about when to apply the "no double posts" rule, you need discretion & judgment (and examples, which are its go-kart).
posted by kenko at 7:21 AM on December 16, 2004
You can't have a rule about when to apply the "no double posts" rule, you need discretion & judgment (and examples, which are its go-kart).
posted by kenko at 7:21 AM on December 16, 2004
Are annual repostings of this nature acceptable?
I vote Yea.
posted by Shane at 7:27 AM on December 16, 2004
I vote Yea.
posted by Shane at 7:27 AM on December 16, 2004
I don't think anybody here was being piled on . . . just the opposite, actually.
It wasn't just that particular FPP I was referring to, as there was really only one egregious redundancy there. It's kind of epidemic in newbie posts though, and that's what I was referring to. But hey, if that's the culture, then by all means, carry on. The world certainly doesn't owe me Nice, and I'm not in line waiting for it.
I suppose the piling on does have the positive effect of weeding out those who aren't able to take it. If I were so thin-skinned as to get upset about people trashing a post of mine that I had to go away forever in protest, I suspect that MeFi would be better off without me.
I regret to inform you however, that it won't be that easy with me-- I'm pretty dense. (insert emoticon of your choice here)
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:43 AM on December 16, 2004
It wasn't just that particular FPP I was referring to, as there was really only one egregious redundancy there. It's kind of epidemic in newbie posts though, and that's what I was referring to. But hey, if that's the culture, then by all means, carry on. The world certainly doesn't owe me Nice, and I'm not in line waiting for it.
I suppose the piling on does have the positive effect of weeding out those who aren't able to take it. If I were so thin-skinned as to get upset about people trashing a post of mine that I had to go away forever in protest, I suspect that MeFi would be better off without me.
I regret to inform you however, that it won't be that easy with me-- I'm pretty dense. (insert emoticon of your choice here)
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:43 AM on December 16, 2004
rancher baby, be as dense as you need to be. If you've got the mettle then you'll do just fine here at the 'filter, and I certainly don't want you or anybody else to leave out of pique, and I'm sure I'm speaking for just about everybody when I say that. That said, I don't agree with the piling on, the meanness, etc and yada yada. If it could be done away with, I'd be pretty happy.
posted by ashbury at 7:54 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by ashbury at 7:54 AM on December 16, 2004
Don't worry-- you're stuck with me. I'm gonna wring every last drop of blood out of that 5 dollar bill.
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:58 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by Devils Rancher at 7:58 AM on December 16, 2004
I don't mind links to updated material, if it is, in fact, something that stands on its own. That is, if the new material is wholly different then the previous post, then there is value in linking to it. If it is merely a slight play on something previously posted or just an addition, then I wouldn't support its posting. The key is discretion. People have to use good discretion in choosing what to post. And the post at issue here was a double post of the 2004 B-L winners, so the use of discretion was lacking.
One cannot possibly keep an eye on every website that has been linked on Metafilter to check and see if something new has been put up. There are over 37,000 links here. So, if one site has something new, I support its posting. But discretion is the key. This site would be trash if we had a post for every new Strongbad email---if I liked Strongbad I would check it often since there are frequent updates. Of course, the same logic can be applied to the Bulwer-Lytton contest. But I find the annual nature to be a distinguishing fact that makes the annual B-L post more acceptable.
posted by Seth at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2004
One cannot possibly keep an eye on every website that has been linked on Metafilter to check and see if something new has been put up. There are over 37,000 links here. So, if one site has something new, I support its posting. But discretion is the key. This site would be trash if we had a post for every new Strongbad email---if I liked Strongbad I would check it often since there are frequent updates. Of course, the same logic can be applied to the Bulwer-Lytton contest. But I find the annual nature to be a distinguishing fact that makes the annual B-L post more acceptable.
posted by Seth at 8:02 AM on December 16, 2004
Are annual repostings of this nature acceptable?
Yes. Also, what Gyan said. Next question, please.
posted by mojohand at 8:04 AM on December 16, 2004
Yes. Also, what Gyan said. Next question, please.
posted by mojohand at 8:04 AM on December 16, 2004
I don't think the rule should be written in stone with your blood.
No, no...see, if you write IN stone...oh, nevermind.
posted by rushmc at 8:07 AM on December 16, 2004
No, no...see, if you write IN stone...oh, nevermind.
posted by rushmc at 8:07 AM on December 16, 2004
From the thread..
"One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice."
.."except for the other newbies who chime in to defend it because - gasp - they haven't seen it before! well, no duh! They're n00bs!"...
"No, the purpose of the site is to find new, interesting links that most people haven't seen before. The Bulwer-Lytton contest is most definitely not new to most, at least on this site"
Dudes, really. As I've said before, it's not YOUR site. It's not here to find new and interesting links FOR YOU. You and your opinions are just as important as of the rest of 20000 members.
On the other hand, it's not that unexpected that in such a large population there are a handful of pompous clowns that have a somewhat possessive view of a common enterprise.
I guess I apologize for stating the obvious.
posted by c13 at 8:08 AM on December 16, 2004
"One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice."
.."except for the other newbies who chime in to defend it because - gasp - they haven't seen it before! well, no duh! They're n00bs!"...
"No, the purpose of the site is to find new, interesting links that most people haven't seen before. The Bulwer-Lytton contest is most definitely not new to most, at least on this site"
Dudes, really. As I've said before, it's not YOUR site. It's not here to find new and interesting links FOR YOU. You and your opinions are just as important as of the rest of 20000 members.
On the other hand, it's not that unexpected that in such a large population there are a handful of pompous clowns that have a somewhat possessive view of a common enterprise.
I guess I apologize for stating the obvious.
posted by c13 at 8:08 AM on December 16, 2004
Sorry, one more thing:
Ignore it if you don't like it.
posted by Gyan at 5:44 AM PST on December 16
NO!
NO! NO! NO!
That is a despicable attitude. I don't mean to pile on you Gyan, but this attitude keeps recurring and must be stopped. "If you don't like it, skip it" is not the moderation rule here at Metafilter. The site is a self-moderated site. That means, among other things, that the individual poster needs to moderate himself in choosing what to post. And then the readers of Metafilter have a duty to help establish the proper framework of what is an acceptable post and identify when a post falls outside of that framework.
"Skip it" is a call for a standard-less pile of trash. I strongly recommend considering what can occur if we operate under that principle. "What? You don't like this picture of a prolapsed anus? Then skip it." I am reasonably certain you don't want to go there.
So please, everyone, stop defending posts with the weak and short-sighted defense of "If you don't like it, skip it." It is an abhorrent suggestion.
posted by Seth at 8:11 AM on December 16, 2004
Ignore it if you don't like it.
posted by Gyan at 5:44 AM PST on December 16
NO!
NO! NO! NO!
That is a despicable attitude. I don't mean to pile on you Gyan, but this attitude keeps recurring and must be stopped. "If you don't like it, skip it" is not the moderation rule here at Metafilter. The site is a self-moderated site. That means, among other things, that the individual poster needs to moderate himself in choosing what to post. And then the readers of Metafilter have a duty to help establish the proper framework of what is an acceptable post and identify when a post falls outside of that framework.
"Skip it" is a call for a standard-less pile of trash. I strongly recommend considering what can occur if we operate under that principle. "What? You don't like this picture of a prolapsed anus? Then skip it." I am reasonably certain you don't want to go there.
So please, everyone, stop defending posts with the weak and short-sighted defense of "If you don't like it, skip it." It is an abhorrent suggestion.
posted by Seth at 8:11 AM on December 16, 2004
I am fine with this being posted annually. I don't check the site(s) with any frequency, so I don't know when the award comes out, so it's nice to see it pop up here.
posted by xmutex at 8:14 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by xmutex at 8:14 AM on December 16, 2004
Some annual updates I look forward too. Mostly because I can't remember the site until it shows up again. There's one site that listed the top ten or twenty-five news stories from the year buried for one reason or another, and all I can remember of the site is that part of the url contains the word censored. But given enough time, I'm sure it will show up here eventually.
posted by FunkyHelix at 8:15 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by FunkyHelix at 8:15 AM on December 16, 2004
I'm with seth, here. "If you don't like it, skip it" is a reasonable response when the complaint is about the content of the links, not the quality. But when the complaint is that we're getting too many one-link FPPs or poor links or dupes, telling people to just skip bad posts is eliminating the semi-natural selection thing we have going on here.
posted by Plutor at 8:16 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by Plutor at 8:16 AM on December 16, 2004
Of course, some annual posts are absolutely essential.
posted by gramschmidt at 8:17 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by gramschmidt at 8:17 AM on December 16, 2004
What about sites that the roll out new content, but not necessarily on a yearly basis... such as, oh, the one discussed in this FPP?
If something is updated yearly, it seems like there is some tolerance for a reminder when it's updated. What about if it's updated every 6 months? 2 months? Obviously, posting frequently about sites that update daily constitutes frivolous double posting.
As far as the annual stuff goes, though, one thing that can be used by all MeFites to catch that stuff is the feature in the sidebar for 1, 2, and 3 year ago MeFi posts. If people scan those, the annual content stuff is covered. For instance that provides more coverage for gramschmidt's site than is necessary.
posted by Doohickie at 8:23 AM on December 16, 2004
If something is updated yearly, it seems like there is some tolerance for a reminder when it's updated. What about if it's updated every 6 months? 2 months? Obviously, posting frequently about sites that update daily constitutes frivolous double posting.
As far as the annual stuff goes, though, one thing that can be used by all MeFites to catch that stuff is the feature in the sidebar for 1, 2, and 3 year ago MeFi posts. If people scan those, the annual content stuff is covered. For instance that provides more coverage for gramschmidt's site than is necessary.
posted by Doohickie at 8:23 AM on December 16, 2004
Seth: That is a despicable attitude. I don't mean to pile on you Gyan, but this attitude keeps recurring and must be stopped. "If you don't like it, skip it" is not the moderation rule here at Metafilter. The site is a self-moderated site. That means, among other things, that the individual poster needs to moderate himself in choosing what to post. And then the readers of Metafilter have a duty to help establish the proper framework of what is an acceptable post and identify when a post falls outside of that framework.
Hopefully, this 'framework' is fluid, not rigid. As I noted, this post wasn't, strictly speaking, a double post. Hence, the 'ignore it' was advice meant for such ambigious examples, not egregious violations.
posted by Gyan at 8:33 AM on December 16, 2004
Hopefully, this 'framework' is fluid, not rigid. As I noted, this post wasn't, strictly speaking, a double post. Hence, the 'ignore it' was advice meant for such ambigious examples, not egregious violations.
posted by Gyan at 8:33 AM on December 16, 2004
Actually, it was a double post. The 2004 results had already appeared at Metafilter. Note the discussion in the thread.
I stand by my previous comment regarding the "ignore it" attitude.
posted by Seth at 8:37 AM on December 16, 2004
I stand by my previous comment regarding the "ignore it" attitude.
posted by Seth at 8:37 AM on December 16, 2004
Not only were this year's results posted months ago and next year's not out yet, but the person that posted it mentioned that he didn't post because of new results, he posted because he didn't see anything in search.
It was an accidental double post if you do like annually repetitive posts, or a quadruple post if you don't.
posted by mendel at 8:47 AM on December 16, 2004
It was an accidental double post if you do like annually repetitive posts, or a quadruple post if you don't.
posted by mendel at 8:47 AM on December 16, 2004
from the thread in question: c13 - Oh, I see, it's acceptable to derail the thread here, but only if you're an old-timer. Well, that's fine.
c13, you are sooooooo attractive with that beautiful chip on your shoulder.
You and your opinions are just as important as of the rest of 20000 members.
I completely agree with this statement, it's unfortunate that you have to pair it with your shitty attitude, which makes your opinion hard to digest.
My apparent pompousness is just a hair's breadth away from your sneering tone of word.
posted by ashbury at 8:58 AM on December 16, 2004
c13, you are sooooooo attractive with that beautiful chip on your shoulder.
You and your opinions are just as important as of the rest of 20000 members.
I completely agree with this statement, it's unfortunate that you have to pair it with your shitty attitude, which makes your opinion hard to digest.
My apparent pompousness is just a hair's breadth away from your sneering tone of word.
posted by ashbury at 8:58 AM on December 16, 2004
But ashbury, you just explained to us n00bs that "One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice."
I don't think you can blame c13 for taking you at your word.
posted by naomi at 9:02 AM on December 16, 2004
I don't think you can blame c13 for taking you at your word.
posted by naomi at 9:02 AM on December 16, 2004
I don't think the rule should be written in stone with your blood.
Human blood isn't acidic enough to dissolve stone. Remember: we're trying to blend in here. You almost blew your cover there. Be extra careful when you talk about human anatomy.
I don't think the Bulwer-Lytton thing deserves an annual post, but it's just a matter of taste. It'd be more fun if the awards went to bad opening sentences from serious published novels.
posted by sfenders at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2004
Human blood isn't acidic enough to dissolve stone. Remember: we're trying to blend in here. You almost blew your cover there. Be extra careful when you talk about human anatomy.
I don't think the Bulwer-Lytton thing deserves an annual post, but it's just a matter of taste. It'd be more fun if the awards went to bad opening sentences from serious published novels.
posted by sfenders at 9:04 AM on December 16, 2004
But ashbury, you just explained to us n00bs that "One of metafilter's characteristics is that it's NOT nice."
There's more in that context, naomi. The next sentence goes on to say: We whine, we cry, we pile on, we flame, we troll, we don't give people a chance - except when we do, and there are plenty of examples of when we do act nice to each other.
Well, Devils Rancher, you know what happens to old people. If they don't whine and bitch and complain all the time, they tend to be forgotten. And they love attention.
Based on this statement from c13, which I think is not only unfair but unprovoked , I would say that c13 belongs automatically in the NOT NICE category, which is more than fine. He can join in with the illustrious and infamous people who make metafilter so colourful and enjoyable.
sfenders, thanks for not informing High Command of my small faux pas. I'll buy you a drink next time I see you.
posted by ashbury at 9:19 AM on December 16, 2004
There's more in that context, naomi. The next sentence goes on to say: We whine, we cry, we pile on, we flame, we troll, we don't give people a chance - except when we do, and there are plenty of examples of when we do act nice to each other.
Well, Devils Rancher, you know what happens to old people. If they don't whine and bitch and complain all the time, they tend to be forgotten. And they love attention.
Based on this statement from c13, which I think is not only unfair but unprovoked , I would say that c13 belongs automatically in the NOT NICE category, which is more than fine. He can join in with the illustrious and infamous people who make metafilter so colourful and enjoyable.
sfenders, thanks for not informing High Command of my small faux pas. I'll buy you a drink next time I see you.
posted by ashbury at 9:19 AM on December 16, 2004
Mathowie himself posted a link to the contest earlier this year, and noted that previous results had been posted before. Good enough for you?
posted by vito90 at 9:27 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by vito90 at 9:27 AM on December 16, 2004
Not only were this year's results posted months ago and next year's not out yet, but the person that posted it mentioned that he didn't post because of new results, he posted because he didn't see anything in search.
See, here's what galls me and sets me in crotchety-curmudgeon mode: The lack of common sense, which is not necessarily newbie-related, but which I keep seeing in some of these redundant posts. If you're posting something that has been covered at all in mainstream culture, and you're hoping you're the first person to introduce Mefites to it, the burden of proof is on you to determine it hasn't been posted, not on the MeFi search engine to prove it has. If it's something like this and you get no results (because, as usual, you didn't happen to try the most basic and obvious search term), try e-mailing some of the old-timers who have volunteered for mentoring and ask, hey, do you remember seeing this? And: Ya think it would make a good post?
And yeah, one double (or quintuple) post is no big deal to the site - right, but if >17Kers keep doing this, it simply increases the oldie-newbie culture gap we want to close, by conveying, among other things, the appearance that many of the latter "don't give a shit" about the quality of the links.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on December 16, 2004
See, here's what galls me and sets me in crotchety-curmudgeon mode: The lack of common sense, which is not necessarily newbie-related, but which I keep seeing in some of these redundant posts. If you're posting something that has been covered at all in mainstream culture, and you're hoping you're the first person to introduce Mefites to it, the burden of proof is on you to determine it hasn't been posted, not on the MeFi search engine to prove it has. If it's something like this and you get no results (because, as usual, you didn't happen to try the most basic and obvious search term), try e-mailing some of the old-timers who have volunteered for mentoring and ask, hey, do you remember seeing this? And: Ya think it would make a good post?
And yeah, one double (or quintuple) post is no big deal to the site - right, but if >17Kers keep doing this, it simply increases the oldie-newbie culture gap we want to close, by conveying, among other things, the appearance that many of the latter "don't give a shit" about the quality of the links.
posted by soyjoy at 9:30 AM on December 16, 2004
Mathowie himself posted a link to the contest earlier this year, and noted that previous results had been posted before. Good enough for you?
posted by vito90 at 9:27 AM PST on December 16
vito, I think Matt did it the right way. If you are publishing an annual update, then you don't have toreintroduce reinvent the wheel. Just say, like Matt did, "here are the new winners, old winners previously discussed here." The poster that brought on this thread didn't bother noting that it had previously been discussed and decided we need a long disquistion on what B-L is all about. That is unnecessary.
posted by Seth at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2004
posted by vito90 at 9:27 AM PST on December 16
vito, I think Matt did it the right way. If you are publishing an annual update, then you don't have to
posted by Seth at 9:36 AM on December 16, 2004
Are annual repostings of this nature acceptable?
Yes. I don't mind annual updates to content that can stand on its own, like that contest, which I look forward to hearing about every year. I think people need to relax.
Mathowie himself posted a link to the contest earlier this year
Actually I posted links to a copycat contest, not the real one, the one posted today was the real thing, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2004
Yes. I don't mind annual updates to content that can stand on its own, like that contest, which I look forward to hearing about every year. I think people need to relax.
Mathowie himself posted a link to the contest earlier this year
Actually I posted links to a copycat contest, not the real one, the one posted today was the real thing, right?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:41 AM on December 16, 2004
"If you don't like it, skip it" is a reasonable response when the complaint is about the content of the links, not the quality.
The problem is that appreciation of content AND assessment of quality are both subjective determinations.
And Seth is wrong (because he overstates his case). But if you don't like him, just ignore him.
posted by rushmc at 10:00 AM on December 16, 2004
The problem is that appreciation of content AND assessment of quality are both subjective determinations.
And Seth is wrong (because he overstates his case). But if you don't like him, just ignore him.
posted by rushmc at 10:00 AM on December 16, 2004
And Seth is wrong (because he overstates his case).
Seth is right. He just overstates his case. Just because Seth has been wrong many, many times in the past (too many to count, really. I mean, whew! Like, he's usually *wicked* wrong! How much "wrong" can one man carry? Just ask Seth.) doesn't mean he's always wrong. (Seth, I kid.) "Don't like it, ignore it" is horrible advice. Seth is dead-on with that.
posted by jpoulos at 10:22 AM on December 16, 2004
Seth is right. He just overstates his case. Just because Seth has been wrong many, many times in the past (too many to count, really. I mean, whew! Like, he's usually *wicked* wrong! How much "wrong" can one man carry? Just ask Seth.) doesn't mean he's always wrong. (Seth, I kid.) "Don't like it, ignore it" is horrible advice. Seth is dead-on with that.
posted by jpoulos at 10:22 AM on December 16, 2004
But by pointing out when things are inappropriate and why, we can (can we...?) shape that subjective perspective to at least provide a reasonable facsimile of mutual criteria.
I find myself in agreement with most of what Seth has said in this thread.
posted by biffa at 10:23 AM on December 16, 2004
I find myself in agreement with most of what Seth has said in this thread.
posted by biffa at 10:23 AM on December 16, 2004
I'm sure there's a happy median somewhere between "if you don't like it just ignore it" and calling out every. single. little. fucking. thing.
Some folks need to think things through a bit more and some folks need to unclench.
posted by Cyrano at 11:11 AM on December 16, 2004
Some folks need to think things through a bit more and some folks need to unclench.
posted by Cyrano at 11:11 AM on December 16, 2004
Too bad, because any annual prize which contains the phrase she received a small specimen jar containing the faeces of the judging panel must be worth a double-post.
posted by Rumple at 12:14 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by Rumple at 12:14 PM on December 16, 2004
.
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 12:25 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 12:25 PM on December 16, 2004
i love seth
posted by puke & cry at 12:39 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by puke & cry at 12:39 PM on December 16, 2004
Just because Seth has been wrong many, many times in the past...doesn't mean he's always wrong.
Of course it doesn't. Did someone suggest that it did?
Self-policing is supposed to be for egregious cases, not an ongoing challenge to find something to critique in every single post. Therefore he is wrong, because the predominant and most often appropriate response to a post that doesn't interest or otherwise agree with you is to ignore it and let those who can get something out of it do so without having to wade through your bitching.
posted by rushmc at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2004
Of course it doesn't. Did someone suggest that it did?
Self-policing is supposed to be for egregious cases, not an ongoing challenge to find something to critique in every single post. Therefore he is wrong, because the predominant and most often appropriate response to a post that doesn't interest or otherwise agree with you is to ignore it and let those who can get something out of it do so without having to wade through your bitching.
posted by rushmc at 1:05 PM on December 16, 2004
See rush, the thing you are missing is the motivation. You read my comment above to say "Anytime you don't like what you see or it doesn't interest you, then make a callout." That isn't what I was saying. When something clearly runs afoul of the set of standards for the post, there is an obligation for a self-policing community to try to make it clear that deviant posts are not normalized as acceptable posts.
So, in other words, I am not saying, "I don't like Japanese Art, so all Japanese Art should be called out" which is what you seem to be attributing to me. But a post which doesn't meet the standards as described (i.e. a double post, single link op/ed for the NYT, self-linking, an ask/convo post) should be called out so that standards are enforced. Perhaps you think the objection in this post (which wasn't originally levied by me) was because the reader didn't care for the B-L contest. And that isn't so. It was because it was a double post.
Any long time reader of Metafilter was encountered the "if you don't like it, skip it" argument. Hell, for the three months before the elections that was half of the front page. But that is an inappropriate and deleterious defense for posts which run afoul of standards. Posts that are inapposite to the goal of Metafilter ought to be called out. "That is bad, but not bad enough for a callout" is an argument that will lead to defining deviancy down.
posted by Seth at 1:35 PM on December 16, 2004
So, in other words, I am not saying, "I don't like Japanese Art, so all Japanese Art should be called out" which is what you seem to be attributing to me. But a post which doesn't meet the standards as described (i.e. a double post, single link op/ed for the NYT, self-linking, an ask/convo post) should be called out so that standards are enforced. Perhaps you think the objection in this post (which wasn't originally levied by me) was because the reader didn't care for the B-L contest. And that isn't so. It was because it was a double post.
Any long time reader of Metafilter was encountered the "if you don't like it, skip it" argument. Hell, for the three months before the elections that was half of the front page. But that is an inappropriate and deleterious defense for posts which run afoul of standards. Posts that are inapposite to the goal of Metafilter ought to be called out. "That is bad, but not bad enough for a callout" is an argument that will lead to defining deviancy down.
posted by Seth at 1:35 PM on December 16, 2004
And for what it is worth, I wonder if this is the only time that Matt has allowed someone to explicity troll or try insult a user. It is clear it is a second account of someone who plans to use it for no other purpose than to flame me. I wonder why Matt would allow such behavior. I also wonder if that person thinks that it would somehow effect me or my likelihood to post.
posted by Seth at 1:42 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by Seth at 1:42 PM on December 16, 2004
It's been a long time since I've come to MeTa and not said this to myself, but:
Oh, for god's sake.
We're pushing 40,000 threads on this site. The interweb (especially the interesting, or "best" part of it) isn't that huge in comparison, and doesn't change nearly enough from year to year. Semi-doubleposty things like this are going to happen every once in a while.
I understand Seth's point about "skip it, then" being not the best solution, but -- you're wasting writing on a post about wasted writing.
zardoz (and anyone considering an FPP, old or new) should get a tutorial on how the Search function works, but aside from that, this sure seems like a lot of sound and fury signifying not all that much at all.
posted by chicobangs at 1:47 PM on December 16, 2004
Oh, for god's sake.
We're pushing 40,000 threads on this site. The interweb (especially the interesting, or "best" part of it) isn't that huge in comparison, and doesn't change nearly enough from year to year. Semi-doubleposty things like this are going to happen every once in a while.
I understand Seth's point about "skip it, then" being not the best solution, but -- you're wasting writing on a post about wasted writing.
zardoz (and anyone considering an FPP, old or new) should get a tutorial on how the Search function works, but aside from that, this sure seems like a lot of sound and fury signifying not all that much at all.
posted by chicobangs at 1:47 PM on December 16, 2004
When something clearly runs afoul of the set of standards for the post, there is an obligation for a self-policing community to try to make it clear that deviant posts are not normalized as acceptable posts.
And it is your contention that that is a fair and accurate description of what has been occurring in MetaTalk over the past several weeks?
There are two kinds of posting transgressions: the overt (double-posts, self-links) and the relative (the ones that get all the argument, because people disagree about what constitutes "running afoul of the site standards," which have been intentionally left vague and flexible). Type 1 transgressions are pretty easy—mathowie should and usually does delete them forthwith. Type 2 transgressions require debate, which will in many cases (but not all) produce a rough consensus (but only a consensus, never a hard-and-fast rule) over time. What comes across as arrogance and offends many people is when someone tries to treat Type 2 transgressions as Type 1, because that is in effect saying "My opinion is the only one that matters and should be imposed upon the rest of you." I'm sure you can see why people wouldn't like that.
And for what it's worth, I agree that the username you link is inappropriate.
posted by rushmc at 1:52 PM on December 16, 2004
And it is your contention that that is a fair and accurate description of what has been occurring in MetaTalk over the past several weeks?
There are two kinds of posting transgressions: the overt (double-posts, self-links) and the relative (the ones that get all the argument, because people disagree about what constitutes "running afoul of the site standards," which have been intentionally left vague and flexible). Type 1 transgressions are pretty easy—mathowie should and usually does delete them forthwith. Type 2 transgressions require debate, which will in many cases (but not all) produce a rough consensus (but only a consensus, never a hard-and-fast rule) over time. What comes across as arrogance and offends many people is when someone tries to treat Type 2 transgressions as Type 1, because that is in effect saying "My opinion is the only one that matters and should be imposed upon the rest of you." I'm sure you can see why people wouldn't like that.
And for what it's worth, I agree that the username you link is inappropriate.
posted by rushmc at 1:52 PM on December 16, 2004
rushmc,
I agree that, as of late, the callouts have gotten ridiculous. And you will see that I didn't participate in any of them (that I can recall... well, maybe 1). But this is the "growing pains" stage that we have to go through. It is a reason we had to close memberships before. There will be a time period when newer people learn how to comply with the standards. I deeply regret the newbie/oldie clash and the pettiness of the ensuing dialogue. We should appreciate a lot of the newer people's contributions. But inappropriate behavior which appears to be redundant from some users needs to have some sort of indication of why it isn't correct.
So, I share your analysis that the callouts have become too numerous in the Grey. Of course, I would say that "mini" callouts/constructive criticism is appropriate in the Blue such as, "this is a double post" or the like (and I am sure some people would disagree with me there). Callouts in the grey should be more "Meta"... that is, "there appears to be a trend to post ____ and I think it should be noted that ____ isn't appropriate." Or callouts in the grey should be for egregious behavior that needs Matt's attention immediately. But callouts need to be constructive: there needs to be an explanation of how to avoid the problem. It shouldn't just be "this is wrong."
And, I agree and concede the point you make about Type 1 and Type 2 and the problem of conflatin the two.
posted by Seth at 2:05 PM on December 16, 2004
I agree that, as of late, the callouts have gotten ridiculous. And you will see that I didn't participate in any of them (that I can recall... well, maybe 1). But this is the "growing pains" stage that we have to go through. It is a reason we had to close memberships before. There will be a time period when newer people learn how to comply with the standards. I deeply regret the newbie/oldie clash and the pettiness of the ensuing dialogue. We should appreciate a lot of the newer people's contributions. But inappropriate behavior which appears to be redundant from some users needs to have some sort of indication of why it isn't correct.
So, I share your analysis that the callouts have become too numerous in the Grey. Of course, I would say that "mini" callouts/constructive criticism is appropriate in the Blue such as, "this is a double post" or the like (and I am sure some people would disagree with me there). Callouts in the grey should be more "Meta"... that is, "there appears to be a trend to post ____ and I think it should be noted that ____ isn't appropriate." Or callouts in the grey should be for egregious behavior that needs Matt's attention immediately. But callouts need to be constructive: there needs to be an explanation of how to avoid the problem. It shouldn't just be "this is wrong."
And, I agree and concede the point you make about Type 1 and Type 2 and the problem of conflatin the two.
posted by Seth at 2:05 PM on December 16, 2004
I deeply regret the newbie/oldie clash and the pettiness of the ensuing dialogue.
Seems we are mostly in agreement then. What I react negatively to (and I suspect others do as well) is the seemingly blanket dismissal of a "live and let live" attitude, which in most cases is how adults should treat one another, on Metafilter as elsewhere in the world, and which, in most cases, I think is what people mean when they say "just ignore it." But obviously that doesn't translate into "anything goes."
There is obviously a subset of members who enjoy "schooling" others, and I happen to think that they are more a part of the problem than the solution. New members at least have their newness as an excuse for their missteps. But I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who ever tries to help "self-police" the site falls into this category.
posted by rushmc at 2:28 PM on December 16, 2004
Seems we are mostly in agreement then. What I react negatively to (and I suspect others do as well) is the seemingly blanket dismissal of a "live and let live" attitude, which in most cases is how adults should treat one another, on Metafilter as elsewhere in the world, and which, in most cases, I think is what people mean when they say "just ignore it." But obviously that doesn't translate into "anything goes."
There is obviously a subset of members who enjoy "schooling" others, and I happen to think that they are more a part of the problem than the solution. New members at least have their newness as an excuse for their missteps. But I'm certainly not suggesting that everyone who ever tries to help "self-police" the site falls into this category.
posted by rushmc at 2:28 PM on December 16, 2004
I think if #1 spent one day deleting especially abusive and snarky "educational" or "policing" posts and only left the constructive ones behind, and in the afternoon announced that he was doing so to stop the abuse, I think the abuse would, to a large degree, stop. I have no problem with something I posted being called out as subpar (in fact, I've come to expect it). But there's no reason to become verbally abusive and personal about it. The oldbies say, "oh, don't take it personal" and then they proceed to make the most personal slams they can imagine, and the piling on begins.
For whatever reason, Matt doesn't seem too bothered by the current state of affairs, and I guess it's incumbent on newer posters to either sink or swim. This site is rather unique in the hands-off approach of the administration. It may be easier to get used to it if one hasn't posted extensively elsewhere, but unfortunately I've learned too many good habits in about 13,000 posts elsewhere.
posted by Doohickie at 2:55 PM on December 16, 2004
For whatever reason, Matt doesn't seem too bothered by the current state of affairs, and I guess it's incumbent on newer posters to either sink or swim. This site is rather unique in the hands-off approach of the administration. It may be easier to get used to it if one hasn't posted extensively elsewhere, but unfortunately I've learned too many good habits in about 13,000 posts elsewhere.
posted by Doohickie at 2:55 PM on December 16, 2004
I think the 'ignore it' attitude invites the degradation of signal integrity to a dangerous degree, but from what I've witnessed on this site (& other community-type situations), schooling with love is much more effective than schooling with flame.
*rubs hands in sweet anticipation of a quadruple post announcing the Darwin Awards and more quarterly Oxford English Dictionary updates* </sarcasm>
posted by cosmonik at 3:03 PM on December 16, 2004
*rubs hands in sweet anticipation of a quadruple post announcing the Darwin Awards and more quarterly Oxford English Dictionary updates* </sarcasm>
posted by cosmonik at 3:03 PM on December 16, 2004
It is clear it is a second account of someone who plans to use it for no other purpose than to flame me. I wonder why Matt would allow such behavior.
matt gets $5, you get mocked, i'm having difficulty seeing a downside here...
posted by quonsar at 4:02 PM on December 16, 2004
matt gets $5, you get mocked, i'm having difficulty seeing a downside here...
posted by quonsar at 4:02 PM on December 16, 2004
I wonder if this is the only time that Matt has allowed someone to explicity troll or try insult a user
Seth, as usual, you are being overserious. It's obvious that you are fascinated by the development and maintenance of community standards here, and that your lasting contribution to the site may well be the application of Moynihan's social theory to explain why the approach to self-moderation supported by a number of regular Metatalk participants may have the net effect of eroding community standards. It is also obvious that you are a total nerdface who wakes up every day to a big bowl of dorkflakes and is a nerd.
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 4:33 PM on December 16, 2004
Seth, as usual, you are being overserious. It's obvious that you are fascinated by the development and maintenance of community standards here, and that your lasting contribution to the site may well be the application of Moynihan's social theory to explain why the approach to self-moderation supported by a number of regular Metatalk participants may have the net effect of eroding community standards. It is also obvious that you are a total nerdface who wakes up every day to a big bowl of dorkflakes and is a nerd.
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 4:33 PM on December 16, 2004
Also, there is no cabal.
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 4:39 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by we heard you the first time, Seth at 4:39 PM on December 16, 2004
MetaFilter: you are a total nerdface who wakes up every day to a big bowl of dorkflakes and is a nerd.
posted by tristeza at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by tristeza at 4:45 PM on December 16, 2004
Mmmm, dorkflakes!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:04 PM on December 16, 2004
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:04 PM on December 16, 2004
Ahm.. ".. you are a total nerdface who wakes up every day to a big bowl of dorkflakes and ARE a nerd"...
I'll go away now.
posted by c13 at 8:05 PM on December 16, 2004
I'll go away now.
posted by c13 at 8:05 PM on December 16, 2004
No, "is a nerd" is right in this case. You don't say "You are someone who are a nerd".
*goes back to dorkflakes*
posted by cosmonik at 8:47 PM on December 16, 2004
*goes back to dorkflakes*
posted by cosmonik at 8:47 PM on December 16, 2004
I've got my new scanner in one hand and my cat in the other.
posted by jeblis at 1:36 AM on December 17, 2004
posted by jeblis at 1:36 AM on December 17, 2004
But a post which doesn't meet the standards as described (i.e. a double post, single link op/ed for the NYT, self-linking, an ask/convo post) should be called out so that standards are enforced.
You're one of those kids who played with the weapon speed rules in Dungeons & Dragons, arent you? I kid...
But whoever bothered to pay $5 just so they could anonymously shout down another user should 1) really, seriously, want to get a life and try to meet a non-1024X768 woman/man/potted plant and 2) get some fucking balls. The value of your cause increases exponentially if you put your name behind it.
posted by Cyrano at 9:23 AM on December 17, 2004
You're one of those kids who played with the weapon speed rules in Dungeons & Dragons, arent you? I kid...
But whoever bothered to pay $5 just so they could anonymously shout down another user should 1) really, seriously, want to get a life and try to meet a non-1024X768 woman/man/potted plant and 2) get some fucking balls. The value of your cause increases exponentially if you put your name behind it.
posted by Cyrano at 9:23 AM on December 17, 2004
*rubs hands in sweet anticipation of a quadruple post announcing the Darwin Awards and more quarterly Oxford English Dictionary updates*
Well, mateys, looks like that's fine with Cap'n Matt, so... it's fine with me! Post away! Arr!
posted by languagehat at 1:02 PM on December 17, 2004
Well, mateys, looks like that's fine with Cap'n Matt, so... it's fine with me! Post away! Arr!
posted by languagehat at 1:02 PM on December 17, 2004
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Anyway, to answer the question, I don't think the rule should be written in stone with your blood. Sometimes yes, sometimes no - but in this case, I wouldn't consider it reposting-worthy.
posted by ashbury at 5:28 AM on December 16, 2004