Comments on 9131 | MetaTalk

There are probably dozens of ways y2karl is deficient as a mefi, as a man, as a writer, as an employee, as a Rotarian, and as a member of the Columbia Record and Tape Club.

I look forward to seeing them all catalogued here in the gray over the coming days.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 9:29 AM on February 25, 2005

what realm are we in now? I'm confused.
posted by mr.marx at 9:34 AM on February 25, 2005

He has let his CRTC membership lapse. As acting chairman of the CRTC, I find this disappointing and would like it reflected on his official record. In very small text.
posted by cortex at 9:35 AM on February 25, 2005

Also - isn't everything good here "courtesy of Google?" So what?

I think the "courtesy of Google" point is something along the lines of: "taking the filter out of Metafilter." Obviously Google plays a role in finding cool links for lots of posters; but I don't love the feeling that a post is essentially the result of coming up with a topic, ("hm... how about... cane toads?") doing a search, and then importing the results wholesale. After a point, it seems to me, the post might as well just say, "Hey, I recommend that you do a Google search on x. You'll wind up with some cool stuff."

Obviously, many people disagree this assessment.
posted by redfoxtail at 9:36 AM on February 25, 2005

Should we assemble all of this for the y2karl entry on Discover the Network?
posted by COBRA! at 9:44 AM on February 25, 2005

All of us who post new links to the front page get them from somewhere. Some of us get them from boing boing. Some of us get them from cnn. Karl gets them from google. In fact, he goes one better than the boingboing swipers because he actually chooses the topic, instead of mindlessly parroting another site.

I think y2karl would do very well to start his own blog, but I don't condemn him for preferring the eyeballs and exposure that Metafilter provides instead.
posted by crunchland at 9:52 AM on February 25, 2005

obviously Google plays a role in finding cool links for lots of posters; but I don't love the feeling that a post is essentially the result of coming up with a topic, ("hm... how about... cane toads?") doing a search, and then importing the results wholesale.

Google Search: Masks
Results: 5,280,000
Links in post: 28

It's pretty clear that he took some time in constructing a good post by picking good links (if the links were actually read?).

I don't love the feeling that a post is essentially the result of coming up with a topic, ("hm... how about... cane toads?") doing a search, and then importing the results wholesale. After a point, it seems to me, the post might as well just say, "Hey, I recommend that you do a Google search on x. You'll wind up with some cool stuff."

Come on, there is a lot more to it than that. No? And, you know, I think a lot of posts are constructed in that way. For some reason, X idea for a post comes up because of X (link, radio, tv, book etc. etc.), and google helps one research for more relevant links.
posted by Quartermass at 9:53 AM on February 25, 2005

There are probably dozens of ways y2karl is deficient as a mefi, as a man, as a writer, as an employee, as a Rotarian, and as a member of the Columbia Record and Tape Club.

Who's next?
posted by Quartermass at 9:55 AM on February 25, 2005

I'm getting a major Stephen Den Beste flashback here.

Also, I think in general that no user should ever post something because they just feel like posting. There is no need. There are plenty of other posters who just come across an awesome link; I assert that it is normatively bad for the community to go fishing for compliments or validation or "eyeballs and exposure." If that is why you are posting, get your own damn blog. Seriously.
posted by norm at 9:56 AM on February 25, 2005

Fuck y2karl. Let's see if he has anything to say for himself in THIS thread. Doubt it.
posted by Witty at 9:56 AM on February 25, 2005

Commenters may also wish to add to the y2karl entry on Wikipedia.
posted by spock at 10:04 AM on February 25, 2005

I've never been a big fan of Karl's posting style (so I'm sure I, too, will get called a McCarthyite), but do people honestly think that his masks post is up to the quality of his (imho excellent) post on the political topography of the West Bank?

Karl was upset at me a long time ago when I referred to the style of many of his posts as "Googledumps", but simply googling for "masks" with various adjectives and posting twenty-eight links just doesn't do it for me, any more than posting two dozen links resulting from a search on SCO or Bessie Smith or the Rape of Nanking would be, as interesting as those topics might be. I understand the temptation to load in a lot of links and I've done it myself when I was a more frequent MeFi poster (so please feel free to call me a hypocritical McCarthyite), but that West Bank post represents something a lot closer to the my conception of MetaFilter when it's really on its game because it seems to work much more as a filter of the best of the Web. Whether Karl used Google as a tool for putting it together isn't relevant; it's just a good post.

It's not my MetaFilter any more than Karl's or Quartermass's, though, and Karl has shown that he's going to do what he feels like as long as it attracts an appreciative audience. (Possibly longer.)
posted by snarkout at 10:07 AM on February 25, 2005

Avogadro, geez. He got called out unnecessarily just the other day, and here you are doing it again.

I've consistently seen y2karl post interesting, inventive, useful things on the front page. I've also seen him engage in meaningful discussions with calm and care, thoughtfully and helpfully. Not only that, but, although I don't want to put words in karl's mouth, "masks" was a particularly relevant topic considering the way and the reason he was hauled in here last time: on account of posting style.

Can we put this shit to rest? Or does this stupid trashing of other people have to go on? Because, if it's going to go on, I have some things to say about the format of this post, as I don't like the way it was written, and found the grammar somewhat awkward; also, you seem to have forgotten to put the quotation marks after the period, rather than before. That's a banning offense, right?

Here's for immediate deletion of this thread. It wouldn't hurt anything. It would help a lot.
posted by koeselitz at 10:08 AM on February 25, 2005

y2karl has posted 284 links and 5926 comments to MetaFilter

Is it really that surprising that with this kind of posting history that karl would have a proportionally larger number of Meta issues? (As it were.)

I really, really don't get the free pass people are willing to give him, considering that for any other member the "GYOBFW" comments would be flying hard. "I've been thinking about masks lately"? Come on. He admits that he's just manufacturing a post for posting's sake. Which is great . . . for your own blog.
posted by Skot at 10:09 AM on February 25, 2005

I think y2karl's endured enough greif lately. I'm sitting this one out.
posted by jonmc at 10:09 AM on February 25, 2005

i before e except after jonmc
posted by breezeway at 10:12 AM on February 25, 2005

Go fly a kite, breezeway.
posted by jonmc at 10:12 AM on February 25, 2005

I really, really don't get the free pass people are willing to give him

I thought it was because he was dying. Something about eagles.
posted by thirteen at 10:12 AM on February 25, 2005

I think y2karl's endured enough greif lately. I'm sitting this one out.
posted by jonmc at 10:09 AM PST on February 25 [!]

You do realize that posting here does not qualify as 'sitting this one out'?

y2karl has posted 284 links and 5926 comments to MetaFilter

Christ on a crutch.
posted by norm at 10:15 AM on February 25, 2005

Can we put this shit to rest? Or does this stupid trashing of other people have to go on? Because, if it's going to go on, I have some things to say about the format of this post, as I don't like the way it was written, and found the grammar somewhat awkward; also, you seem to have forgotten to put the quotation marks after the period, rather than before. That's a banning offense, right?

Ban away, amigo. For the record, I was not aware of the previous thread (which was off in archives), nor do I read/load/reload MeFi compulsively, but that's neither here nor there. I have, however, seen over three years of these posts and others posts that seem to draw from the search engine well, and am tired of drinking that brackish water. Know, though, that I do not have an issue with y2karl the person, just these types of posts.

I'm not expecting everyone to agree with me, but folks, let's be a bit more discerning in what we post.
posted by Avogadro at 10:17 AM on February 25, 2005

to the grey, too?
posted by crunchland at 10:19 AM on February 25, 2005

I assert that it is normatively bad for the community to go fishing for compliments or validation or "eyeballs and exposure." If that is why you are posting, get your own damn blog. Seriously.

I have to agree with norm. It always feels a little...artificial when it's clear someone's just Googled a general topic rather than stumbled on something cool. Great MeFi posts are usually not composed in a lab, they come naturally, sometimes accidentally--just like with music. If people began thinking random Google searches made great FPPs, it'd be a pretty tedious place.

I'm convinced that in his own mind, karl sees his posting style as "art", which would be a lot easier to appreciate...on his own blog. At MeFi, it can come off kind of ostentatious.
posted by dhoyt at 10:21 AM on February 25, 2005

There are plenty of other posters who just come across an awesome link; I assert that it is normatively bad for the community to go fishing for compliments or validation or "eyeballs and exposure." If that is why you are posting, get your own damn blog. Seriously.

I agree with this wholeheartedly, but a large contingent of mefites sees things exactly the opposite. It bothers me, too, when it looks like someone has manufactured another post on their assembly line. But we've gone over this all before, and with regard to y2karl, too. I don't think that metafilter is a platform for publication, I think it's a filter of the web.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:24 AM on February 25, 2005

Helluva day for kite-flying, jonmc. I've got a Diverman. You wanna trade?

What kind of kite you got?
posted by breezeway at 10:25 AM on February 25, 2005

"I've been thinking about masks lately"?

At least he did not end his post with a "?."
posted by thomcatspike at 10:27 AM on February 25, 2005

What kind of kite you got?

A For The Benefit Of Mr. Kite.
posted by jonmc at 10:29 AM on February 25, 2005

ooooh, skot vs. snarkout! and thirteen resurfaced! And Avogadro!

So many old-timers, you'd think Kottke did something.
posted by mathowie at 10:31 AM on February 25, 2005

that I do not have an issue with y2karl the person, just these types of posts.

end his post with a "?.".
Since this thread is critiquing a post not a member, please change "his" to "the."
posted by thomcatspike at 10:34 AM on February 25, 2005

I've been thinking about kites.
posted by Wolfdog at 10:35 AM on February 25, 2005

Someone should post a picture of Pablo Fanques' fair.
posted by breezeway at 10:36 AM on February 25, 2005

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking crutch. I cannot believe the animus some people have against y2karl. Go read down the front page and then tell me his post is among the worst things there. You may not consider it among the best, as I do, but that's because tastes differ. I personally could do without all the techie, flash, and pop-trivia posts, but do I come here and whine about them in a totally useless MeTa post? No, I accept that other people like them and I don't, and that's life.

It's pretty clear that he took some time in constructing a good post by picking good links

Bingo. You try "googling masks" and constructing a post from the first random hits you get. This post was the product of a lot of effort and taught me stuff I didn't know about ancient Greek theater, and I've read a lot about ancient Greece. If you don't care about Greece, or Africa, or theater, or people's use of personas, that's fine. But don't parade your lack of scope as a badge of honor and use it as an excuse to shit once again on somebody who's doing his best to raise standards on the front page of MeFi.

Of course, how dare I question the bona fides of someone who's posted eleven whole links in four and a half years of membership, including such gems as "Soccer" has been nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize?
posted by languagehat at 10:37 AM on February 25, 2005

avogadro: "For the record, I was not aware of the previous thread (which was off in archives), nor do I read/load/reload MeFi compulsively, but that's neither here nor there. I have, however, seen over three years of these posts and others posts that seem to draw from the search engine well, and am tired of drinking that brackish water. Know, though, that I do not have an issue with y2karl the person, just these types of posts."

Well, fine. I'm sorry about the snarkishness, I just get sick of going over the same ground.

y2karl is the worst-- the worst-- candidate for these kinds of charges. He never says anything-- he just drops really good links, quotes a bit, and moves on. (In fact, his links are almost always some of the best here. This is consistent with him-- if he's googling, he's damned good at it.) Then, in his longest written text this century, he gets called out on a "get your own blog" charge?

You've gotta admit that that's tragic.
posted by koeselitz at 10:39 AM on February 25, 2005

Someone should post a picture of Pablo Fanques' fair.

Or failing that, Pablo Cruise.
posted by jonmc at 10:40 AM on February 25, 2005

I don't think that metafilter is a platform for publication, I think it's a filter of the web.

At least y2karl provides some interesting links once in a while so I'm willing to give him a free pass here and there for a blah post like that masks post.

And, EB, I think you lack credibility when you make that statement. I think Metafilter would be better off if more people actually devoted themselves to making good posts instead of jumping into every single thread to offer their own long-winded opinion.
posted by vacapinta at 10:43 AM on February 25, 2005

Of course, how dare I question the bona fides of someone who's posted eleven whole links in four and a half years of membership, including such gems as "Soccer" has been nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize?

Languagehat, there needs to be a word for this: digging through someone's posting history as a way to defeat their argument. We could have the next Godwin's Law on our hands here!
posted by Quartermass at 10:45 AM on February 25, 2005

Avogadro, do you see all the appreciative comments in the post you are calling out? That's because it is a great post. My bottom line on Y2K (as if anyone should care) is that 1) he makes great posts 2) sometimes he uses too much real estate, or too small font, or self-moderates too much, and 3) he makes great fucking posts. So lay off him.
posted by LarryC at 10:47 AM on February 25, 2005

Sometimes on the TV, when Barbara Walters says her name, I think she's saying "Pablo Walters."
posted by breezeway at 10:47 AM on February 25, 2005

I assert that it is normatively bad for the community to go fishing for compliments or validation or "eyeballs and exposure."

I feel it is normatively bad to look for the worst in other people and claim infallible telepathy in order to insinuate the most petty motives to them. I post about what interests me and what I care about.

I am extremely talkative in real life and have been so here in the past. However, for a fact, I post far less and comment far less than I used to do. I really don't want a web log of my own. I am a member of this one and that is enough for me. If you don't like it, that is fine with me.
posted by y2karl at 10:48 AM on February 25, 2005

I think Avogadro may have started this out on the wrong foot, tying y2karl to this as much as the post itself (obviously, without y2karl the post itself wouldn't exist, but pointing out "bad post...by y2karl!" isn't necessarily a good idea)

Still:

Oh, if one Googles the word mask with the words sacred, religion, god, ritual or role, to name but a few, one at a time by turn, one comes across so many links. Here are a few at random:

That's pretty hard to defend. I haven't made my first FPP yet, because I haven't stumbled across anything stellar, but it would never occur to me that a post like this would be seen as anything other than awful, let alone defensible.

Does this post make y2karl a bad poster? Not at all, you'd have to be insane to think so. Does a good poster make random google results automatically a good post? Not at all, you'd have to be insane to think so.
posted by bugbread at 10:49 AM on February 25, 2005

I am with languagehat on this one. I liked the post in question. y2karl obviously thought this one through. A well researched post with interesting links is just as valid and potentially interesting as a single link post. I hope he keeps up the good work.
posted by caddis at 10:50 AM on February 25, 2005

I really, really don't get the free pass people are willing to give him

Yes, by all means, let us take up torches and pitchforks to drive him out! He's making us read!

Languagehat: But don't parade your lack of scope as a badge of honor and use it as an excuse to shit once again on somebody who's doing his best to raise standards on the front page of MeFi.

*applauds*

On preview:
posted by scody at 10:50 AM on February 25, 2005

Jesus fucking Christ on a fucking crutch

Wow! When you said you liked languages, I didn't realize you liked the dirty talk!! IM me, let's get something started here.
posted by jonson at 10:51 AM on February 25, 2005

Whoa, where did that "on preview" come from?
posted by scody at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

Shouldn't the basic criterion just be whether he's managed to bring "the best of the web" to bear on any given topic? If someone uses Google to assemble a bunch of pedestrian links, then it's the quality of what they've linked to that's the offense, in my mind.

Deciding whether someone had the idea first, or the good link, and judging them by which came first just gets into a really slippery slope. What if a question occurred to me, so I Googled on it just to get my own answer, and by chance found a couple of really cool sites? Would it be inappropriate for me to make an FPP from them, with some supporting links? Might I have to justify that order of operations here?

If you don't think they're good links, then ignore them. If you think someone has a habit of posting really boring links, then call them out on that. If you're saying that sometimes he _does_ post good links, but you don't approve of the way he found them, then I just really don't get it.
posted by LairBob at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

Languagehat, there needs to be a word for this: digging through someone's posting history as a way to defeat their argument. We could have the next Godwin's Law on our hands here!

Ad hominem tu quoque (Just plain "tu quoque" for short)
posted by bugbread at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

ooooh, skot vs. snarkout!

They're both on the same side of the issue! How can it be "vs"? I would agree with them, but snarkout is a hypocritical McCarthyite, so I will have no ~~rodent~~dog in this fight.
posted by anapestic at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

I'm getting a major Stephen Den Beste flashback here.

Those were some meta times, dude. Hey, didn't den Beste eventually get a weblog?
posted by iceberg273 at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

I think Metafilter would be better off if more people actually devoted themselves to making good posts instead of jumping into every single thread to offer their own long-winded opinion.

Really? I think if everyone who was a regular felt a need to post often instead of when they came across something interesting, the front page would be unreadable, sort of like what the Dalai Lama said about the way the world would be if every single person drove a car.

Despite the trauma it caused last time I said it, Karl's style is more suited to memepool than MeFi. I realize no one would be able to gently stoke his ponytail in that commentless forum so that will never happen. Nothing is going to change, and Karl's 31 fans can continue to take turns posting [this is good] whenever he hits "I'm feeling lucky".
posted by thirteen at 10:52 AM on February 25, 2005

But don't parade your lack of scope as a badge of honor and use it as an excuse to shit once again on somebody who's doing his best to raise standards on the front page of MeFi.

Yeah, that's what he was doing. Avo, can I get one of those shiny "lack of scope" badges that you so enjoy showing off? Also, can you shit on me? By which I mean, "Enter valid criticism about a front page post"?

Bingo. You try "googling masks" and constructing a post from the first random hits you get.

That thing that just flew by you was the whole point.
posted by Skot at 10:53 AM on February 25, 2005

Ad hominem tu quoque (Just plain "tu quoque" for short)

Ehhh - not flashy enough. Whenever someone posts the words Ad hominem, it makes my eyeballs want to fall out of my head.
posted by Quartermass at 10:55 AM on February 25, 2005

Hey jonmc, instead of flying a kite, can I just go to the Walters Art Gallery (Uhh.. Museum -- old habits die hard) and draw a kite string on this painting?

posted by breezeway at 10:56 AM on February 25, 2005

Languagehat, I personally jumped in not because I hate Karl nor because he's the worst poster on MetaFilter, but because he's such a vocal and visible member of the community that I'd hate to see what I personally view as tics of his posting style become the accepted norm. Plus, he inspires reactions like this:

Of course, how dare I question the bona fides of someone who's posted eleven whole links in four and a half years of membership, including such gems as "Soccer" has been nominated for the 2001 Nobel Peace Prize?

Awesome. I'm glad that volume of posting is now the sole metric for one's worth in the community; I look forward to people ginning up their importance with dozens and dozens of searches on interesting topics resulting in hundreds of links. That will certainly make MeFi the best of the web! But I once posted a single link newsfilter post about hockey (with a typo), so what the hell do I know?

Matt, guilty as charged, although I don't think 13 ever really went away. But, my buttons having been pushed, I'll shut my yap for another six months. Karl will do his thing (hi Karl! I remain genuinely curious about why you don't want a site of your own, just as I was the last time I attempted to shit on you with a torch-bearing, badge-wearing mob of semi-literate FrontPage readers) and the never-ending MeTa argument about what makes a good post will pick up again at some point in the future.
posted by snarkout at 10:58 AM on February 25, 2005

To me, y2karl's post is the best one so far today!
posted by caddis at 10:58 AM on February 25, 2005

You can always skip a post you don't like. I can't believe his posts are that irksome to anyone. I can spot y2karl posts a mile away. Sometimes I check them out, sometimes I don't. Really, is it that hard to just MTFO?
posted by Jim Jones at 11:00 AM on February 25, 2005

Whenever someone posts the words Ad hominem, it makes my eyeballs want to fall out of my head.

Yeah, that's why I usually drop the "ad hominem" part as well. "Tu Quoque" is catchier, less well known, and thereby carries less baggage.
posted by bugbread at 11:01 AM on February 25, 2005

MTFO

Move The Fuck Over?
posted by bugbread at 11:02 AM on February 25, 2005

Knock yourself out, dude. Also. Smirnoff Twisted Cranberry is surprisingly good when chased with this stuff.
posted by jonmc at 11:03 AM on February 25, 2005

Move The Fuck Over?

One of Hank Williams early working titles.
posted by jonmc at 11:04 AM on February 25, 2005

Well, rating strickly on style this isn’t terrible.

Soft flavor and mouthfeel. More vegetables in there.
posted by breezeway at 11:06 AM on February 25, 2005

This is a bad callout, especially in light of last week's bad y2karl callout.

y2karl posts good stuff, don't like it, then don't read it and quit the damned callouts on good members.
posted by fenriq at 11:06 AM on February 25, 2005

I assert that it is normatively bad for the community to go fishing for compliments or validation or "eyeballs and exposure."

I feel it is normatively bad to look for the worst in other people and claim infallible telepathy in order to insinuate the most petty motives to them. I post about what interests me and what I care about.

Speaking of infallible telepathy, I was making a general statement and specifically responding to crunchland. But you can take it as a personal attack if you want.

I'll go more general than my previous statement, though: Metafilter would be a better place if most of the frequent posters dialed it back a notch or five, or better yet just went the hell away. In the history of Metafilter, there have been a number of members that thought they were the draw and they have always (with one exception) been wrong. This is why people announce their departures in dramatic ways, and is why for the most part no one could really give a flying fuck when they leave.
posted by norm at 11:08 AM on February 25, 2005

I have yet to make a first post on the blue. The one guideline I have tried to follow (although I can't remember where I saw it) is "don't go looking for links to post." Which is exactly what was done here. y2karl made the links about his posting topic, not a posting topic about the links.
posted by boymilo at 11:11 AM on February 25, 2005

In the history of Metafilter, there have been a number of members that thought they were the draw and they have always (with one exception) been wrong.

Who's the exception?

bugbread, jonmc: On
posted by Jim Jones at 11:14 AM on February 25, 2005

Every single thread? Hmm.

The way I see it, MetaFilter is about the posts, not the commentary. Mine or anyone else's long-winded comments on any subject don't count for jack-shit. Many more people read the blue and the posts there than read any of the resulting threads. Protecting the quality of FPPs is job #1 of the community. And, manufacturing posts by Googling on an interesting subject or even manufacturing a post by looking for links on a subject one has been researching is not making a quality post. Posting to the front page is not being a published author. This is not Foreign Policy or ArtForum or even Wired or AdBusters. This is not a publishing platform. You shouldn't be posting here to "get eyeballs".

And this isn't Wikipedia, either. If you need validation for your dilettantism, write Wikipedia articles.

I am utterly unpersuaded by languagehat's vitriolic rant. He could visit Wikipedia and learn new things there. If that's the point. And the information would likely be more reliable. It doesn't matter if a lot of effort was put into a post, this isn't kindergarten where you get a gold star for effort. It's a lot of effort for many people to be functionally literate.

If even 10% of the active members were to decide to manufacture a FPP every day by picking some idea and Googling and then putting a lot of effort into a well-written post about it, MetaFilter would suck. It wouldn't be better, it'd be worse.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:15 AM on February 25, 2005

manufacturing posts by Googling on an interesting subject or even manufacturing a post by looking for links on a subject one has been researching is not making a quality post.

I disagree, at least as regards the post in question.
posted by caddis at 11:23 AM on February 25, 2005

My blood pressure has never gotten higher due to a y2karl fpp, but my scrolling finger has gotten a little tired scrolling past his festival of small text and unprioritized links. He's sort of the Henry Rollins of MeTa - putting out every single thought no matter how trivial.
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 11:27 AM on February 25, 2005

Icy!
posted by gleuschk at 11:28 AM on February 25, 2005

Seems like bady2karl callouts that have backed up like airplanes on a foggy runway, have received clearance all at once. Petty, ax-grinding wankers, the whole lot of you complaining.
posted by MLIS at 11:28 AM on February 25, 2005

What languagehat said.

For what it's worth, I'd rather scroll past y2karl's exhaustive posts than 10 posts with one link to something I could find on Fark.

This is why people announce their departures in dramatic ways, and is why for the most part no one could really give a flying fuck when they leave.

As someone who only recently got a chance to have a login on this fine site, I certainly gave a flying fuck when troutfishing was made to "depart". And I'd hate to see y2k be driven out of here too.
posted by kableh at 11:29 AM on February 25, 2005

In the history of Metafilter, there have been a number of members that thought they were the draw and they have always (with one exception) been wrong.

Thanks, man. That's nice of you to say, but I'm not sure my posts are ALL that important to the community as a whole.
posted by jonson at 11:31 AM on February 25, 2005

MLIS, thanks for not lumping me in with those bozos.

I'm outta here. I've got a kite to fly and art to deface.

posted by breezeway at 11:33 AM on February 25, 2005

y2karl posts good stuff, don't like it, then don't read it and quit the damned callouts on good members.

what he said. Is this beat on y2k week? Did i miss the memo? Did he sleep with your wives/husbands/poodles or something?

and what kableh said too.
posted by amberglow at 11:37 AM on February 25, 2005

If a post isn't a bald-faced link to CNN, it's ridiculous to get into criticizing it for whence it came. "Oh, that's on boingboing" - not everyone reads boingboing, get over it. "That came from google" - are you fucking joking? You can't post stuff you found on google? Not even worth discussing such a stupid idea. As with people's innermost intentions, the source of a link is unknown to you in most cases: why waste time worrying about it?

All that matters is if some reasonable number of people found the post interesting, it's politely and well presented, and it's not entirely part of some larger agenda. y2karl's non-politics posts consistently meet those requirements, and are clearly not just blithely copy/pasted from google.

And now everyone's warning of the dire consequences of too many people posting? I envy you the obvious dearth of real problems in your life!
posted by freebird at 11:39 AM on February 25, 2005

(how many comments will this thread have end, a record maybe?)
What I notice about y2karl's posts, there’re crafted threads that blanket the post.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:42 AM on February 25, 2005

blanket the ~~post~~ the subject.
posted by thomcatspike at 11:44 AM on February 25, 2005

The problem isn't too many people posting. The problem is the same people posting too many times. The whole damned top 10 (or 50) most frequent posters could all go away and MeFi would be better. This is not to say that the top ten posters always post bad things, but it is to say (generalizing) that these are the posters that most crowd out less strident voices, contribute most to boyzone, promulgate the stupidest jokes, are quonsar, etc.
posted by norm at 11:47 AM on February 25, 2005

I envy you the obvious dearth of real problems in your life!

You will never know such beauty. You ponytail strokers look like ants to me.
posted by thirteen at 11:48 AM on February 25, 2005

So, is Metafilter about links or subjects?
posted by boymilo at 11:50 AM on February 25, 2005

why make ten go away, when one leaving would solve the problem, norm?
posted by crunchland at 11:50 AM on February 25, 2005

Is anyone at all on other side in this thread vs. the previous y2karl thread, which was about a totally different issue?

It's just the same people arguing now, because they don't like each other.
posted by smackfu at 11:51 AM on February 25, 2005

Also, y2karl has posted 5 FPPs in the past week. That's crazy.
posted by smackfu at 11:52 AM on February 25, 2005

that old trick "reading EB's comments with the voice of the Comic Book Guy" works every time

EB: If you don't think comments matter, then, by all means, shut up.

Ethereal Bligh has posted 4 links and 1200 comments to MetaFilter
posted by mr.marx at 11:54 AM on February 25, 2005

are quonsar, etc.

Whatever issues one may have with Mr. Q, I hardly think 93 posts since 2000 makes him a "Top 10" poster to the front page. So it's not at all clear what you're complaining about Norm.

I guess this is just a "complain about people doing stuff I don't approve of on Metafilter" thread now? Have fun.
posted by freebird at 11:56 AM on February 25, 2005

Perhaps Ostracism is what is sought here.
posted by y2karl at 11:56 AM on February 25, 2005

Freebird: "That came from google" - are you fucking joking? You can't post stuff you found on google?

I think you're misinterpreting what people are saying. It isn't that the sites were obtained by Google (big deal), it's the bit where he says "Oh, if one Googles the word mask with the words sacred, religion, god, ritual or role, to name but a few, one at a time by turn, one comes across so many links. Here are a few at random". I suspect if he'd said "Here are some of the really good ones" instead of "here are a few at random", this issue wouldn't have come up. Hopefully, it was just poor word choice.

On preview: Smackfu: "It's just the same people arguing now, because they don't like each other."

Personally, 1) I don't find the post at question to be intolerably bad or worthy of Big Drama, but 2) since it's come up, no, I don't think that a random selection of Google results makes a good post. A careful culling of gems found via Google results, however, is very good. And, 3) I don't dislike y2karl. So that kind of disproves your hypothesis.

Mr. Marx: Ethereal Bligh has posted 4 links and 1200 comments to MetaFilter

Tu quoque, mon frer!
posted by bugbread at 11:58 AM on February 25, 2005

I agree with Languagehat . Regardless of his posting history - which I have found consistently interesting and in the top few percent of all posts, just based on the current front page this is one of the best and most interesting posts, and engendered a 100% in-blue positive and informative discussion. What more do we want?

Googling "masks" does not make best of the web, but filtering the google search to make an interesting juxtaposition of mask links creates the best of the web, and doesn't just link to it.

Anyway, what is wrong with googling up some cane toad information? They are pretty interesting, alive, or dead.
posted by Rumple at 11:59 AM on February 25, 2005

Tu quoque, mon frer!

lol!
posted by mr.marx at 12:00 PM on February 25, 2005

The one guideline I have tried to follow (although I can't remember where I saw it) is "don't go looking for links to post."

Why? Is this like one of those superstitious things that love will only come to you when you stop looking?

Seriously, why should it matter if someone finds a link because they are already interested in the topic or if they stumble across an interesting link online? What if you stumble across an interesting topic in a used bookstore and then google on it? There are posts all the time that seem to derive from segments on NPR (if you happen to listen to NPR you will notice this)...

What matters is whether the links are interesting. If someone posts a bunch of encyclopedia entries and seems to just be trying to generate discussion rather than actually provide some interesting content, that's problematic. But if someone gives you insight or makes you aware of a subject you hadn't spent time with before, why should it make any difference whether they're recycling links from A&L/ memepool/ boing boing etc; or from NPR/NYer/NYTMag; or googling a topic that recently struck their interest for some non-media-related reason?

And the GYOB thing is about posting your opinions rather than links. Metafilter is a community weblog, but it's a weblog of links, not one of musings or personal stories. GYOB if you want to opine on the front page, but no need to GYOB if you want to post links on a regular basis, because that is actually the purpose of this website.
posted by mdn at 12:02 PM on February 25, 2005

Aw shit... this one's much better.

Look. It's Friday. Gimme a break. It's not like I'm really new here or something, and this thread is hardly uncluttered with nonsense as it is. Leave it up. Pretty please? I'll give you a nice FPP on Monday, or maybe we can go fly a kite together or something. I know: promises, promises. But look, it is a much better picture.

Look. It's Friday. Gimme a break. It's not like I'm really new here or something, and this thread is hardly uncluttered with nonsense as it is. Leave it up. Pretty please? I'll give you a nice FPP on Monday, or maybe we can go fly a kite together or something. I know: promises, promises. But look, it is a much better picture.

posted by breezeway at 12:02 PM on February 25, 2005

Perhaps Ostracism is what is sought here.
posted by y2karl at 11:56 AM PST on February 25

Get a grip Karl.

In case you guys don't notice karl's perceived martyrdom, his comment about ostracism is intended to reflect Socrates.... a true genius who tried to bring light to the world but was told to leave Athens because the democracy there was afraid to hear the truth. Karl is comparing himself to Socrates. That sort of complex speaks volumes about him, and it is consistent with is attitude.

What bullshit. He isn't some Messiah who is bringing light and the truth to us fools who are too blinded by our own ignorance that we reject the truth. He is just some bored person has a psychological need to lecture to other people.
posted by dios at 12:02 PM on February 25, 2005

look in a mirror next time you have a pronouncement like that, dios.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM on February 25, 2005

It always feels a little...artificial when it's clear someone's just Googled a general topic rather than stumbled on something cool.

I find that far preferable to having a view (the war) and then finding links to support that view, which was y2karl's normal MO. Besides, I see almost all the links posted on mefi posted elsewhere first. If y2karl want's to spend the time doing google research rather than taking them from other blogs, more power to him.

Of course, how dare I question the bona fides of someone who's posted eleven whole links in four and a half years

God, I hope no one actually takes that comment seriously. If metafilter needs less of anything it's more links from members trying to raise their "value" on metafilter. I had no idea we had to work on a body of work before posting to metatalk.

y2karl is the worst-- the worst-- candidate for these kinds of charges. He never says anything-- he just drops really good links, quotes a bit, and moves on.

Maybe you're just new, maybe you don't pay attention, but y2karl has never "just dropped really good links". Normally they're well thought out, researched essays backing up his views. In fact, for most of his posting history he's done exactly the opposite. But he's seemed to change his style lately, and this post is a breath of fresh air.
posted by justgary at 12:06 PM on February 25, 2005

look in a mirror
mr.marx you can make a better judgment here.
Near the bottom you can check your self out in the mirror.
posted by thomcatspike at 12:06 PM on February 25, 2005

I hardly think 93 posts since 2000 makes him a "Top 10" poster to the front page. So it's not at all clear what you're complaining about Norm.

Biggest contributors.

In general, I suggest that if you see your name, post less.
posted by norm at 12:07 PM on February 25, 2005

look in a mirror next time you have a pronouncement like that, dios.
posted by amberglow at 12:05 PM PST on February 25

What the fuck are you blathering about now amberglow? If you got off karl's nuts long enough, you would see what people are talking about here and maybe realize that it doesn't have any relation to anything you know about me.
posted by dios at 12:08 PM on February 25, 2005

Well, if y2karl makes his posts to get attention, it's certainly working. I used to be a great crusader against his posting style, too. But he's contributing, and more than just this nannering metatalk prattle. And if you don't like it, then come up with your own posts, and push his off the front page.

Jeezus. Just give it all a rest, you little old ladies.
posted by crunchland at 12:10 PM on February 25, 2005

a psychological need to lecture to other people

bwaaaaaaaa!
posted by breezeway at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2005

I suggest that if you see your name, post less.

Yeah, mathowie. STFU!
posted by crunchland at 12:11 PM on February 25, 2005

dios = gay baiting troll. I would call him out to a separate MeTa thread if I had a post available.
posted by MLIS at 12:13 PM on February 25, 2005

What the fuck are you blathering about now amberglow?

I think he's saying you're a twat. Maybe that's just me, though.
posted by kableh at 12:14 PM on February 25, 2005

dios, one day maybe you'll understand that He is just some bored person has a psychological need to lecture to other people applies to you just as well. And who are you to judge anyone? Do you know y2k? Are you a psychologist? An analyst? I didn't think so.

I'd watch my mouth too, if i were you--insulting me again just gets you flagged again. I didn't feel the need to say you "blather"--why did you?
posted by amberglow at 12:16 PM on February 25, 2005

"I've been thinking about X a lot recently" is a great opening to a post on one's own blog. As has been said, this FPP is kinda aimless and more of a catalog.

But so what? It is a filtering of the Google results for "mask," and it is an interesting topic to begin with. So let it be.

But yes, as has been established EXHAUSTIVELY: karl needs a blog.
posted by scarabic at 12:16 PM on February 25, 2005

And the nuts crack is just more baiting--which i expect from you, sadly. (A quite telling psychological profile is already emerging about you, btw)
posted by amberglow at 12:18 PM on February 25, 2005

Are we really telling the people who helped make Metafilter what it is that they should stop posting?

If you don't want to see posts and posters you don't like, maybe you should GYOB. Get this, you can fucking ban people (if they've a static IP, anyway) from even looking at your site.

God, you guys are just nuts, lately.
posted by Jim Jones at 12:20 PM on February 25, 2005

Skot sucks.
posted by quonsar at 12:20 PM on February 25, 2005

y2karl rocks.
posted by quonsar at 12:21 PM on February 25, 2005

Witty isn't.
posted by quonsar at 12:22 PM on February 25, 2005

deviate from the norm.
posted by quonsar at 12:23 PM on February 25, 2005

dios, one day maybe you'll understand that He is just some bored person has a psychological need to lecture to other people applies to you just as well.

Yeah, good point. Because I make lots of front page posts in order to lecture about my latest soapbox issue. And then, after I make them, I link dump constantly in order to moderate the lecture and make sure people don't have any alternate viewpoints. And then, the next day, I generate some topic and make an FPP about it because I feel that we need to have a discussion on it. I do the same thing.... oh wait. No I don't.

And knock off "I'm flagging you" crap. You're the one who came after me with your silly analogy. You deserve to have it thrown back in your face that your blind and unwavering "he can do no wrong" attitude reflects on you.
posted by dios at 12:24 PM on February 25, 2005

I feel it is normatively bad to look for the worst in other people and claim infallible telepathy in order to insinuate the most petty motives to them.

This is a personal attack against ME!

I really don't want a web log of my own.

No I won't GMOFW no matter how bad I need to!

If you don't like it, that is fine with me.

Don't like it? Who gives a shit?!

Whew! I'm so glad you took the time to summarize all the crappy attitudes I attributed to you in the other thread, karl. And here I thought I'd gone out on a limb characterizing you as a self-absorbed compulsive poster who paradoxically belongs to a community weblog without caring what people think of his posts.
posted by scarabic at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2005

What the fuck are you blathering about now amberglow? If you got off karl's nuts long enough, you would see what people are talking about here and maybe realize that it doesn't have any relation to anything you know about me.

Totally inappropriate comment. You should apologize dios.
posted by caddis at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2005

I hardly think 93 posts since 2000 makes him a "Top 10" poster to the front page. So it's not at all clear what you're complaining about Norm.

Biggest contributors.

In general, I suggest that if you see your name, post less.

Norm, that page counts both FPPs and comments. That, or someone is doing spooky posting in my name, because I've never posted an FPP, and I'm number 4.

holy fuck, I'm number 4. I feel a callout coming on...

So a high contribution ranking doesn't mean you're making too many posts on the front page, just that you're posting a bunch in general. And since the argument is that the more links you post, the lower you must be setting your quality threshold, and the worse your links will be, the same doesn't apply to comments, unless for some reason the more you think and write the worse your thinking and writing becomes.
posted by bugbread at 12:25 PM on February 25, 2005

justgary: I see almost all the links posted on mefi posted elsewhere first.

Man, how much time do you spend online?!? Throughout the day I hit about a dozen or so other sites and frequently stumble upon some links that eventually get here. But you must be some kind of internet browsing all-star to see almost all of them first. Could you fill me in on some of the treats we'll be seeing over the next few days?
posted by Slack-a-gogo at 12:26 PM on February 25, 2005

Are some of you aware of how badly personal attacks poison the conversation? Not just for those involved, but for everyone?
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:26 PM on February 25, 2005

Karl is comparing himself to Socrates.

no, he isn't.
straw man, and a very weak, uninformed one.
those of us who have actually read a little about Athens and have some Greek available, know that the ostrakon (a small stone or piece of hard clay) was actually introduced (around 500-475 BC, I'd have to look that up) exactly to protect democracy in Athens and avoid the risk of tyrants taking charge.
people used ostraka in different colors to vote -- about political rivalries, also about religious issues. and ostraka were often used to ban dangerous assholes from the polis. it's not necessarily about Socrates.
also, lose the macho stuff, it's shameful. I hope you get a timeout for that kind of shit. or better yet, a black ostrakon.
posted by matteo at 12:28 PM on February 25, 2005

Totally inappropriate comment. You should apologize dios.
posted by caddis at 12:25 PM PST on February 25

What was inappropriate? He worships the guy and defends him incessantly even to the point when he makes a comparison that has no basis with the discussion at hand just to try to defend karl's actions. What the hell should I apologize for? The "get off his nuts" comment? Why should I apologize for that? There is nothing wrong with that at all. It's a colloquial, not literal, phrase that is used when someone is overwhelmingly supportive of someone. I know that everyone here has heard of it before. I'm not going to apologize if you are hypersensitive for a comment that is no worse than any other that appears a thousand times a day on Metafilter.
posted by dios at 12:30 PM on February 25, 2005

y'all see the cane toads on the front page now?
posted by mdn at 12:30 PM on February 25, 2005

bugbread, the contribution index has to do with the number of posts (both comments, and new threads) compared to the number of days since you've been a member. So you being #4 means that you've said an awful lot in the short time you've had the ability.
posted by crunchland at 12:30 PM on February 25, 2005

Just think of y2karl as The Mining Company (that's About.com for you young raspcalliwags) of MeFi. A lot of people interpret "Best of the Web" to be a single entity, a site that is especially special. I generally agree with this.

y2karl, however, interprets it as, "here's a topic, here are interesting things the web has to say about it." I don't necessarily agree with it, but he carries it off well because he invests time and care into each of his posts, which can't be said for some of what floats across the front page. Random Google bugs? Come on.

Could I find all those mask links if I just searched Google for "masks"? Yeah. But would I think to search Google for that if y2karl hadn't come along and provided such a good incentive to explore? Probably not.
posted by mkultra at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2005

apparently, someone has learned how to use the IMG tag and just can't seem to get enough of the archives at USDA.gov.
posted by crunchland at 12:33 PM on February 25, 2005

Most MeFi Comments

1. 6943 amberglow
2. 6545 dhartung
3. 6362 quonsar
4. 6267 jonmc
5. 5929 y2karl

Holy crap! Amberglow, slow down, buddy!
posted by me3dia at 12:34 PM on February 25, 2005

Lately, I've been thinking about crazy hats.
posted by Wolfdog at 12:36 PM on February 25, 2005

Tu quoque, mon frer!

Eh, I prefer to call it "history spanking".

Mr. Marx: Ethereal Bligh has posted 4 links and 1200 comments to MetaFilter

Dude, you just got history spanked!
posted by graventy at 12:38 PM on February 25, 2005

I noticed "tw at" has been used twice in the past twenty-four hours. When can the womenfolk expect an apology? ;)
posted by jenleigh at 12:41 PM on February 25, 2005

Crunchland: bugbread, the contribution index has to do with the number of posts (both comments, and new threads) compared to the number of days since you've been a member. So you being #4 means that you've said an awful lot in the short time you've had the ability.

Yeah, I kinda skimmed that part (I knew it didn't just rely on FPPs, but I wasn't sure the exact method). Point stands, though, that what Matt has discouraged is high volume FPP posting, not high volume commenting. Note that this comment has nothing to do with y2karl, it just addresses Norm's comments to the effect that "if you're high up on the contribution index, you should post less".

Graventy: That makes it sound like the person who did the history spanking was right, and the person getting spanked was wrong, when it's the other way around. Damn catchy, though.

Hmm...how about "history sideswiped"? "history feint"? "history baited"? No?
posted by bugbread at 12:44 PM on February 25, 2005

February 25, 2005 9:23 AM Subscribe

February 25, 2005
9:23 AM Subscribe