quick, start bailing!
posted by sudama at 2:38 PM on January 23, 2001

Matt, ever thought about a server fund?
[....ducks....]
posted by Markb at 2:44 PM on January 23, 2001

22 new threads is a lot.
posted by thirteen at 2:46 PM on January 23, 2001

When I woke up, there were 21 threads today, and that was before noon.

That's pretty nutty, don't you think? There will probably only be 2-5 comments on the threads, since there are so many.

Before I start coding things to disable posting based on the number of posts existing for one day, I thought I'd try to plea everyone to put on the brakes a little.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:53 PM on January 23, 2001

I dunno ... looks like most of them have at least 5-8 responses thus far. But then, I kind of dig the variety, even if some of the threads mean nothing to me (who the hell is Bertie Fisher?).
posted by aaron at 3:04 PM on January 23, 2001

I agree, though I have posted twice today, and I'm not at all proud of that. However, overall, I have posted less in the last several months now.

There are several reasons for the number of posts coming in. First, most obvious, more people joining in, more people participating. I have nothing against participation, but, I do wish they'd just go away. I mean, it was all great and stuff until *they* showed up. The motherfuckers. heh.

And, second reason I think is, the election mess. People hate W and they hate what he's doing, so, you get 3-4 of these posts a day now. That *really* adds to the work load.


Lately I just can't keep track of everything, there's too much *stuff*. I'm afraid there's going to be a day when I will not be able to deal with it.


Btw, is it just me or did that mpeg/Crouching Sapphire, Hidden Bastard seemed a bit inappropriate?
posted by tiaka at 3:49 PM on January 23, 2001

tiaka: the mpeg?
(or did you mean the MeFi post?)
posted by pnevares at 3:58 PM on January 23, 2001

Ooops, yeah, missed on the 'post' word there. Actually, yes, the post, but the mpeg seemed pretty dirty too. I bet there are a lot of kids on mefi.
posted by tiaka at 4:07 PM on January 23, 2001

Dirty? They wave their hands at each other and then she jumps on him. Did I get an expurgated version?
posted by rodii at 4:42 PM on January 23, 2001

Not dirty.
posted by redfoxtail at 4:56 PM on January 23, 2001

tiaka:

It's the "Life" section of the daily read, and I for one enjoyed being able to giggle at people being silly.
posted by cCranium at 5:40 PM on January 23, 2001

What's the record for most number of threads for one day? We're at 27 now with 6 hours to go. Woo.

Or is this info in those stats that someone recently compiled? I'll go and look for that...
posted by gluechunk at 5:59 PM on January 23, 2001

Here's the recent metrics thread. It appears that 33 is highest number of threads for one day.
posted by gluechunk at 6:04 PM on January 23, 2001

Hmm.. maybe you're right. Maybe I just wish I had someone that cared enough to wave hands at me *sob* I think I'll go and watch a Zhang Yimou film.... *sob**sniff*
posted by tiaka at 6:41 PM on January 23, 2001

Poor Metafilter, like all things in life, is becoming a victim of its own success. (And a victim of Steven den Beste's, it seems.)

I agree that most of us talk too much (I've only posted four links in a year, thankyouverymuch -- or is that too few?) But there's no way to rein in the posting unless Matt issues repeated calls for clarity and discretion, not just on MetaTalk, where most folks don't tread regularly, but directly on the site, or in a Metafilter email spam, and I doubt that's a desired maneuver.

So we will continue to wade through the masses, ignoring the blabbermouths and the extraneous posts, hoping we don't descent into the morass of mediocrity we all fear we are destined to become.

< / bad poetry>
posted by werty at 7:51 AM on January 24, 2001

I understand having to wade through all the American links, I'm used to those.

But I have to admit I'm amazed by the number of "dumb picture posts" that get posted up on meta sometimes months after they have appeared elsewhere.

That scooter one, and the one about the car that was almost flattened by it's load, and a couple of others that I can't be bothered going back and finding, they aren't even good for a giggle after you've already seen them time and time again posted in blogs from the middle of last year.

I thought the metafilter people were all blog addicts. Is this not so? Don't they know we've already seen those links, been emailed them, and got the goss on them from various viewpoints in various blogs, about ten years ago when they first hit the net?

The pictures aren't the only thing that brings about a strange sense of deja vu. Some of the links are more than a little ancient too. If it's not new and vibrant and topical, then there should be a reasonably good reason to post it up. If there isn't, don't.
posted by intuit at 10:21 AM on January 24, 2001

I feel bad that the two posters in that I mentioned are two of my favorite and part of the reason I read meta at all, and it's unfair to pick out two. I'm sorry about that aspect of my post. Really it was wrong to pick out just two. If it was just two, I wouldn't be complaining.
posted by intuit at 10:29 AM on January 24, 2001

I still think that limiting the amount of posts per day to a hard number won't be terribly affective and will only cut down on quality. If you're getting so many links even before noon, that just means that those who get here first will suck up the space alloted. And who's to say that most people would give thought to "is this a good link or am i wasting space for better content?"
posted by tomorama at 5:56 PM on January 24, 2001

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