We disagree about double posts January 27, 2001 9:49 AM Subscribe
enough with the smug MEFI reverse posting, already! We're all very proud that you're such a dedicated metafilter reader, but so what if someone starts a new thread about an old topic, especially if the thrust of the post is different?!
posted by crunchland at such-and-such a time on January 27
Well there seems to be a problem with to much noise around here and with the new sort feature (upper right hand corner of the home page) there really is little need to post a new topic.
Yes, this should be in MetaTalk but no one ever goes there.
posted by Mick at 5:57 AM PST on January 27
The topic is not old. The specific link came up like a week ago. Most all that was said was said about 'IT', maybe wait until something new comes out? If that jaguar/baylink post was inappropriate, this certainly is too.
posted by tiaka at 7:43 AM PST on January 27
crunchland wrote: enough with the smug MEFI reverse posting, already! We're all very proud that you're such a dedicated metafilter reader, but so what if someone starts a new thread about an old topic, especially if the thrust of the post is different?!
You could not be more wrong on this, crunch. It is everybody's responsibility to do a MeFi search for a link before posting it to the front page. This is a "self-policing" community, in case you did not know that, and the people (like myself) who point out when people make mistakes like redundant posts to the front page are merely doing their duty as MeFi citizens, not being smug or trying to impress anyone with how carefully they read this site. This message needs to go out to everybody, but Mick is right that the conversation would be better held in metaTalk.
posted by ericost at 8:07 AM PST on January 27
posted by crunchland at such-and-such a time on January 27
Well there seems to be a problem with to much noise around here and with the new sort feature (upper right hand corner of the home page) there really is little need to post a new topic.
Yes, this should be in MetaTalk but no one ever goes there.
posted by Mick at 5:57 AM PST on January 27
The topic is not old. The specific link came up like a week ago. Most all that was said was said about 'IT', maybe wait until something new comes out? If that jaguar/baylink post was inappropriate, this certainly is too.
posted by tiaka at 7:43 AM PST on January 27
crunchland wrote: enough with the smug MEFI reverse posting, already! We're all very proud that you're such a dedicated metafilter reader, but so what if someone starts a new thread about an old topic, especially if the thrust of the post is different?!
You could not be more wrong on this, crunch. It is everybody's responsibility to do a MeFi search for a link before posting it to the front page. This is a "self-policing" community, in case you did not know that, and the people (like myself) who point out when people make mistakes like redundant posts to the front page are merely doing their duty as MeFi citizens, not being smug or trying to impress anyone with how carefully they read this site. This message needs to go out to everybody, but Mick is right that the conversation would be better held in metaTalk.
posted by ericost at 8:07 AM PST on January 27
furthermore, to expect users to search through old threads before posting a new one is asking way too much.
...unless it there was a function built-in to the posting routine, where a keyword search was automatically done, and some little message popped up and said "Someone has already posted a message about such-and-such. Do you still want to post this new thread?"
posted by crunchland at 10:01 AM on January 27, 2001
...unless it there was a function built-in to the posting routine, where a keyword search was automatically done, and some little message popped up and said "Someone has already posted a message about such-and-such. Do you still want to post this new thread?"
posted by crunchland at 10:01 AM on January 27, 2001
Crunchland:
1) There is a search feature on this site (link at the top and bottom of each page). I think you are right that this should be integrated with the posting routine, so that people who are too lazy to do a search before they post a link would get a notice that the link had already been posted. And perhaps if we could work it they would also get a low voltage electrical shock. But please understand that this site exists due to the benevolence and spare time of one guy, namely Matt Haughey. Adding the auto-search to the posting routine has been discussed, and I imagine when Matt gets the chance he will do it.
2) Self-policing will certainly not work if bright people like yourself don't join the police force. I think your suggestions are right on, though, and everybody appreciates when people bring good ideas to a problem.
3) The smugness you sense is typical of the tone at MeFi, but I don't think "smug" is the best word for it. People like to give each other shit here, and sometimes that comes across a little harsh to newbies. But it is meant in fun I think.
4) The problem you describe, that there is too much stuff posted on the home page is certainly a recognized issue (here is the latest metatalk thread about it). But don't you see that trying to keep people from posting redundant links is an attempt to stem that tide? Your argument, that people should be allowed to keep posting the same topic to the main page because there are too many topics on the main page for people to know what has been posted there, well, that doesn't make any sense. Here is a recent addition to the site Matt made to help remedy the problem.
5) does my numbering make me seem suitably officious?
posted by ericost at 10:31 AM on January 27, 2001
1) There is a search feature on this site (link at the top and bottom of each page). I think you are right that this should be integrated with the posting routine, so that people who are too lazy to do a search before they post a link would get a notice that the link had already been posted. And perhaps if we could work it they would also get a low voltage electrical shock. But please understand that this site exists due to the benevolence and spare time of one guy, namely Matt Haughey. Adding the auto-search to the posting routine has been discussed, and I imagine when Matt gets the chance he will do it.
2) Self-policing will certainly not work if bright people like yourself don't join the police force. I think your suggestions are right on, though, and everybody appreciates when people bring good ideas to a problem.
3) The smugness you sense is typical of the tone at MeFi, but I don't think "smug" is the best word for it. People like to give each other shit here, and sometimes that comes across a little harsh to newbies. But it is meant in fun I think.
4) The problem you describe, that there is too much stuff posted on the home page is certainly a recognized issue (here is the latest metatalk thread about it). But don't you see that trying to keep people from posting redundant links is an attempt to stem that tide? Your argument, that people should be allowed to keep posting the same topic to the main page because there are too many topics on the main page for people to know what has been posted there, well, that doesn't make any sense. Here is a recent addition to the site Matt made to help remedy the problem.
5) does my numbering make me seem suitably officious?
posted by ericost at 10:31 AM on January 27, 2001
Your argument seems to be that since Matt *could* expend lots of energy adding a technological fix to the problem, that people who want to try the traditional self-policing approach somehow have no right to speak up. Piss on that.
furthermore, to expect users to search through old threads before posting a new one is asking way too much.
Why? Are we saying that we have to maximize the convenience of MF for every yo-yo who want to start a MAKE.MONEY.FAST thread? If you want to belong to a community, you should have to accept a few responsibilities. Since this is a community created and maintained by the generosity of one person, offered with absolutely no restrictions and free of charge to anyone who wants to belong, why is it so onerous to ask them to follow a few easy guidelines?
And there's a difference between
(1) reposting URLs that were posted ages ago (though it's worth asking why an old URL is newsworthy enough to merit posting)
(2) adding a new link to continue a discussion just because it's "slipped down the page." If you can't be bothered to read a few days of discussion, even if it involves … (gasp) scrolling, why should you be allowed to post?
In happier times, people understood that this kind of thing is usually an oversight and responded mostly with gentle nudges. Lately, with the repeated Ascroft/W-key thread-extension links, people's nerves have been rubbed a little raw.
posted by rodii at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2001
furthermore, to expect users to search through old threads before posting a new one is asking way too much.
Why? Are we saying that we have to maximize the convenience of MF for every yo-yo who want to start a MAKE.MONEY.FAST thread? If you want to belong to a community, you should have to accept a few responsibilities. Since this is a community created and maintained by the generosity of one person, offered with absolutely no restrictions and free of charge to anyone who wants to belong, why is it so onerous to ask them to follow a few easy guidelines?
And there's a difference between
(1) reposting URLs that were posted ages ago (though it's worth asking why an old URL is newsworthy enough to merit posting)
(2) adding a new link to continue a discussion just because it's "slipped down the page." If you can't be bothered to read a few days of discussion, even if it involves … (gasp) scrolling, why should you be allowed to post?
In happier times, people understood that this kind of thing is usually an oversight and responded mostly with gentle nudges. Lately, with the repeated Ascroft/W-key thread-extension links, people's nerves have been rubbed a little raw.
posted by rodii at 10:33 AM on January 27, 2001
rodii: Lately, with the repeated Ascroft/W-key thread-extension links, people's nerves have been rubbed a little raw.
i have to admit that i was guilty of this last night, when JISH posted a repeat of the blogvoices staying open story, while it was the second-to-latest thread on MeFi Front. although it's gone now, i want to apologize for the two posts in that thread.
posted by pnevares at 11:34 AM on January 27, 2001
i have to admit that i was guilty of this last night, when JISH posted a repeat of the blogvoices staying open story, while it was the second-to-latest thread on MeFi Front. although it's gone now, i want to apologize for the two posts in that thread.
posted by pnevares at 11:34 AM on January 27, 2001
Why is the answer to every problem on MetaFilter more programming by Matt?
posted by rcade at 11:44 AM on January 27, 2001
posted by rcade at 11:44 AM on January 27, 2001
rcade, because it's easier than people having to expend a little of their own effort.
Crunchland, if you don't like the rules, don't post.
posted by Markb at 12:21 PM on January 27, 2001
Crunchland, if you don't like the rules, don't post.
posted by Markb at 12:21 PM on January 27, 2001
Actually, here is the latest MetaTalk thread about too much stuff posted to the home page. And here are some suggestions on how to conduct a discussion about where we go from here.
posted by sudama at 12:39 PM on January 27, 2001
posted by sudama at 12:39 PM on January 27, 2001
I'm not necessarily insisting that Matt program or reprogram. I merely point out that if you expect people to search through the database before they post anything, you're doomed to fail.
Aside from some of you super-duper mefi acolytes, mere mortals are not going to do it. Maybe the answer is to restrict the posting of new topics to more seasoned mefi people, and only let newbies comment. (Though, I'm sure someone has already thought of this...)
And it's not about me liking or not liking the rules... I am commenting on human nature. You're welcome to play policemen all you want.
And, naturally, there are apparently plenty of other threads people have already started on this subject, too. *sigh*
There's nothing new under the sun.
posted by crunchland at 12:54 PM on January 27, 2001
Aside from some of you super-duper mefi acolytes, mere mortals are not going to do it. Maybe the answer is to restrict the posting of new topics to more seasoned mefi people, and only let newbies comment. (Though, I'm sure someone has already thought of this...)
And it's not about me liking or not liking the rules... I am commenting on human nature. You're welcome to play policemen all you want.
And, naturally, there are apparently plenty of other threads people have already started on this subject, too. *sigh*
There's nothing new under the sun.
posted by crunchland at 12:54 PM on January 27, 2001
...and I'm sorry I said anything. I'm wrong about everything. You're right about everything. I will shut up now.
posted by crunchland at 1:25 PM on January 27, 2001
posted by crunchland at 1:25 PM on January 27, 2001
Crunchland, it's all good.
I have been e-mailing a couple of MetaFilistines about the opening of discussion about double posting and other subjects, and perhaps a wait and see approach is appropriate at this time, or maybe not...
But, I (personally) think that regardless of whether this takes place that you ought to keep on tossing in your opinions (isn't that what MeFi is all about?).
Oh, and if you don't like the rules, then post anyways (like you did). :-)
posted by Avogadro at 9:06 PM on January 27, 2001
I have been e-mailing a couple of MetaFilistines about the opening of discussion about double posting and other subjects, and perhaps a wait and see approach is appropriate at this time, or maybe not...
But, I (personally) think that regardless of whether this takes place that you ought to keep on tossing in your opinions (isn't that what MeFi is all about?).
Oh, and if you don't like the rules, then post anyways (like you did). :-)
posted by Avogadro at 9:06 PM on January 27, 2001
Damn, I stired up a bit of a hornet's net there with that post. That's what I get for breaking the rules and posting while inebriated...although that said, doing a search for the word 'IT' tends to return an unmangeably large result set, which may vindicate me in the eyes of history :-P
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:42 PM on January 28, 2001
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 2:42 PM on January 28, 2001
I have been e-mailing a couple of MetaFilistines about the opening of discussion about double posting and other subjects...
A tiny private self-chosen cabal of MeFi users swapping emails back and forth in secret is most emphatically not the way to start any legitimate discussion on this matter. Or on any other matter.
posted by aaron at 3:18 PM on January 28, 2001
Sure it is, Aaron, stop being so dramatic. The tiniest, most secret cabal of all, a cabal of one, does it all the time, every time a person makes a comment. We're not talking about a secret cell of conspirators oranizing a putsch here, just some people that respect one another having a friendly private discussion (claimer: I'm not one) which *may* result in a suggestion being offered, at which time I'm sure no one is going to stop you or anyone else from being as contrary as you want.
Anyway, there is no MetaFilter cabal.
posted by rodii at 6:24 PM on January 28, 2001
Anyway, there is no MetaFilter cabal.
posted by rodii at 6:24 PM on January 28, 2001
I didn't say there was one. I'm saying nobody should attempt to create one, because anything such a group would suggest would have to be looked upon skeptically from the get-go. We'd have to ask why such suggestion could never have been brought up here originally.
posted by aaron at 9:34 PM on January 28, 2001
posted by aaron at 9:34 PM on January 28, 2001
aaron, I was referring to talking about this thread and getting some further advice (via e-mail to basically confirm what it was that I was reading in the thread) about whether, with the recent changes made by Matt, I should try to push the agenda or sit on my hands. It already looks like there have been some changes in how members post and comment, and the sentiment on that thread seems to be to wait and see. In any case, anything that is said in the thread would have much more weight in the community than anything that was said in private. If you want, you can e-mail me to give me your advice, or you can post in the thread about that particular issue.
There is no cabal, there is no A-list, there's no place like home...
posted by Avogadro at 5:04 AM on January 29, 2001
There is no cabal, there is no A-list, there's no place like home...
posted by Avogadro at 5:04 AM on January 29, 2001
(I would have added a smiley to my last sentence but I was worried about trademark.
:-| <--totally serious face)
posted by rodii at 7:24 AM on January 29, 2001
:-| <--totally serious face)
posted by rodii at 7:24 AM on January 29, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
In any case, I don't see what's wrong with posting new threads about old topics that have scrolled down the page, especially if the point of the post is somewhat different than the point of a previous post.
I guess what I mean to say is that I think this is a problem with the way mefi works, and all the "self-policing" in the world won't solve it.
posted by crunchland at 9:57 AM on January 27, 2001