three front page posts just this afternoon September 21, 2001 1:29 PM Subscribe
jbou sure is enthusiastic....three front page posts just this afternoon. And, natch, no e-mail address to mention this to him offline.
Wouldn't you be complaining if there were no posts at all? There's just no pleasing some people. Imagine that. Visiting the front page on a new day and find no new posts...we should do that...
posted by feelinglistless at 1:46 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by feelinglistless at 1:46 PM on September 21, 2001
Visiting the front page on a new day and find no new posts.
There are usually 30+ posts per day.
And, although everyone does have their own opinions, some of them i think could be done without.
posted by a11an at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2001
There are usually 30+ posts per day.
And, although everyone does have their own opinions, some of them i think could be done without.
posted by a11an at 2:01 PM on September 21, 2001
By the way, Matt, I was just thinking, perhaps it's time to issue the "Big Edict" to control ourselves on front page posts? There are many posts which simply belong as a comment to another thread, but it seems that we've lost all restraint.
The big problem is that it waters down (or multiplies the instances of) discussion. I've seen the same debates going on in about 20 different threads. This is where the Metafilter model breaks down and some control exerted from the top could relieve a great deal of the problem.
felinglistless, there is a middle ground between extremes...
posted by fooljay at 2:13 PM on September 21, 2001
The big problem is that it waters down (or multiplies the instances of) discussion. I've seen the same debates going on in about 20 different threads. This is where the Metafilter model breaks down and some control exerted from the top could relieve a great deal of the problem.
felinglistless, there is a middle ground between extremes...
posted by fooljay at 2:13 PM on September 21, 2001
Oh, and might I point out, that if everyone starts going back to the old rules and putting new "threads" under the old threads where they belong, those old threads wouldn't scroll off of the first page so fast and into oblivion. They would remain relevant...
posted by fooljay at 2:19 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by fooljay at 2:19 PM on September 21, 2001
We need a strong hand to rule us. It's time for Matt to move into a less forgiving, dictatorial mode. Marital Law, says I.
posted by cell divide at 2:45 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by cell divide at 2:45 PM on September 21, 2001
Marital Law indeed :-)
btw, I got my first angry MeFi e-mail just now from...you guessed it,,,jbou! Now I feel like one of the A-listers.
posted by briank at 2:48 PM on September 21, 2001
btw, I got my first angry MeFi e-mail just now from...you guessed it,,,jbou! Now I feel like one of the A-listers.
posted by briank at 2:48 PM on September 21, 2001
I was going to say something to jbou days ago, the person writes like a 15 year old. Today's activity supports my first impressions of the person (dead giveways: writing text for u like this. r u seeing what i'm seeing?) Also - the ridiculous comments made today about rich people and arabs, it really sounds like someone that doesn't do a great deal of independent thinking.
I was going to email this person and ask them to cut back a little bit, but I don't think they have the maturity necessary to be a good citizen here (based on everything they've posted).
Instead I just froze the account (martial law indeed -- I do feel bad about this, if I had more free time, I'd try to reason with the person, but I don't have the energy for it currently, and instead prefer to save everyone the headaches of reading this person's drivel).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2001
I was going to email this person and ask them to cut back a little bit, but I don't think they have the maturity necessary to be a good citizen here (based on everything they've posted).
Instead I just froze the account (martial law indeed -- I do feel bad about this, if I had more free time, I'd try to reason with the person, but I don't have the energy for it currently, and instead prefer to save everyone the headaches of reading this person's drivel).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:09 PM on September 21, 2001
I can give you his e-mail address if you change your mind, Marr.
posted by briank at 4:40 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by briank at 4:40 PM on September 21, 2001
Boy, you know, after a glass of wine those rr's and tt's look awfuly similar....(sorry) :-)
posted by briank at 4:41 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by briank at 4:41 PM on September 21, 2001
Matt: a thought. I know you don't feel comfortable as supreme MeFitorial dictator, marching around keeping folks in line. But maybe you could update the posting guidelines, indicating how certain common faux pas have a negative impact on the site. Things like:
If the rules were spelled out a little more clearly, we could avoid some of these arguments within the thread about the appropriateness of pointing out double posts, for instance. It would make it easier for the site to police itself.
posted by jpoulos at 5:20 PM on September 21, 2001
- double posts
- links to NYTimes et al
- posts like the motorcycle thread, which point to some company's front page, and are really just an excuse to skirt the rule requiring a link.
If the rules were spelled out a little more clearly, we could avoid some of these arguments within the thread about the appropriateness of pointing out double posts, for instance. It would make it easier for the site to police itself.
posted by jpoulos at 5:20 PM on September 21, 2001
And yet, it garnered 120 comments, based mostly, I'm sure, on the fact that it was lighthearted and had nothing whatsoever to do with terrorists...
I really hate lame link threads such as this:
I just saw on CNN that the blah blah blah de do blah blah blah BLAH!! Can you believe it? What do you think? (Yeah yeah, I would have posted a link but it's not on there yet)
Welllll, then don't post it. This is not TVblog.
posted by fooljay at 8:46 PM on September 21, 2001
I really hate lame link threads such as this:
I just saw on CNN that the blah blah blah de do blah blah blah BLAH!! Can you believe it? What do you think? (Yeah yeah, I would have posted a link but it's not on there yet)
Welllll, then don't post it. This is not TVblog.
posted by fooljay at 8:46 PM on September 21, 2001
Dammit. I hit post instead of preview. Anyway, what I was going to say is that posts like these should be obliterated as quickly as possible. They are expressly contrary to the spirit of Metafilter.
posted by fooljay at 8:48 PM on September 21, 2001
posted by fooljay at 8:48 PM on September 21, 2001
Regarding fooljay's point, I made a thread just like that (The U.S. Embassy in Manila...) and couldn't decide whether or not to feel bad about it (it got two real comments, so it doesn't matter anyway), and then I decided to, because the link, of course, was irrelevant. Oh well.
posted by j.edwards at 2:08 AM on September 22, 2001
posted by j.edwards at 2:08 AM on September 22, 2001
Jeeeeeeezus people!!. This is getting ridiculous...
At the foundation of every civilized society is a set of laws governing behavior therein...
posted by fooljay at 7:02 AM on September 22, 2001
At the foundation of every civilized society is a set of laws governing behavior therein...
posted by fooljay at 7:02 AM on September 22, 2001
At the time I posted, there was no wire story to link to. I thought itmay be significant so I went ahead and posted...
posted by owillis at 7:07 AM on September 22, 2001
posted by owillis at 7:07 AM on September 22, 2001
Come on Oliver, you've been around way long enough to know that this is severly frowned upon... What would it have killed to wait the extra time? You've seen this gem, right?
Let's see, just since last night, aside from Oliver's no-link we have:
Double post
A double post (technical error).
A post which featured a link that was featured in a previous comment
A new post featuring the same topic that has been in about 400 threads in the last two days (blame)
A post linking to a different news story (Guardian as opposed to BBC) about the same story.
And I'm going to stop there, not because there isn't more, but because I'm getting really disgusted... This is not what Metafilter was about. It's not conducive to good discussion. It's also not unavoidable.
I have to seriously think whether or not I want to waste my time and effort here right now. More than anything, it's painful to watch the degeneration.
posted by fooljay at 7:24 AM on September 22, 2001
Let's see, just since last night, aside from Oliver's no-link we have:
Double post
A double post (technical error).
A post which featured a link that was featured in a previous comment
A new post featuring the same topic that has been in about 400 threads in the last two days (blame)
A post linking to a different news story (Guardian as opposed to BBC) about the same story.
And I'm going to stop there, not because there isn't more, but because I'm getting really disgusted... This is not what Metafilter was about. It's not conducive to good discussion. It's also not unavoidable.
I have to seriously think whether or not I want to waste my time and effort here right now. More than anything, it's painful to watch the degeneration.
posted by fooljay at 7:24 AM on September 22, 2001
The first double post link is incorrect. There was another. And as far as the "new post featuring the same topic", that can also go for this one...
posted by fooljay at 7:51 AM on September 22, 2001
posted by fooljay at 7:51 AM on September 22, 2001
A post linking to a different news story (Guardian as opposed to BBC) about the same story.
Well, I tried... Although I have to say the second thread, which contained liam's "Zalmay Khalilzad" link and a lead on USA*Engage, was more informative (for me, anyway) than the first thread.
posted by Dean King at 2:02 PM on September 22, 2001
Well, I tried... Although I have to say the second thread, which contained liam's "Zalmay Khalilzad" link and a lead on USA*Engage, was more informative (for me, anyway) than the first thread.
posted by Dean King at 2:02 PM on September 22, 2001
fooljay,
Frustrated net surfing is never good.
You may need your therapist a tad too.=)
Stick around man.
posted by a11an at 2:44 PM on September 22, 2001
Frustrated net surfing is never good.
You may need your therapist a tad too.=)
Stick around man.
posted by a11an at 2:44 PM on September 22, 2001
Oliver, no biggie. I'm just obviously frustrated at the volume of infractions, not necessarily any one of them. I still love you all and Mefi.
a11an, my therapist says to hold my breath and count to 10 before I post. I think I'm paying him too much money.
posted by fooljay at 3:27 PM on September 22, 2001
a11an, my therapist says to hold my breath and count to 10 before I post. I think I'm paying him too much money.
posted by fooljay at 3:27 PM on September 22, 2001
It seems like most of the infractions mentioned here have to do with news items that people want to discuss.
A lot of this seems to come from the fact that so many people (myself included) want to talk about the WTC, but would it make sense to have main two categories for MeFi -- 1) News, and 2) Web Links? And maybe put them on different pages?
(I can hear it now -- people will also want categories for 3) Newbies and 4) jbou .... )
posted by mattpfeff at 4:51 PM on September 22, 2001
A lot of this seems to come from the fact that so many people (myself included) want to talk about the WTC, but would it make sense to have main two categories for MeFi -- 1) News, and 2) Web Links? And maybe put them on different pages?
(I can hear it now -- people will also want categories for 3) Newbies and 4) jbou .... )
posted by mattpfeff at 4:51 PM on September 22, 2001
Hehe Fooljay,
Yeah, being on the computer when angry/frustrated really sucks.
The only thing that I can think of to do is to hit the keys harder, which doesn't seem to accomplish very much. =P
posted by a11an at 9:07 PM on September 22, 2001
Yeah, being on the computer when angry/frustrated really sucks.
The only thing that I can think of to do is to hit the keys harder, which doesn't seem to accomplish very much. =P
posted by a11an at 9:07 PM on September 22, 2001
It seems like most of the infractions mentioned here have to do with news items that people want to discuss.
And that's....okay. Just discuss them in the original threads instead of spawning a new thread for everything. Especially when it's basically the same damn story (or a complete double post)...
The problem is that everyone who posts to the front page thinks that their post is going to be hot shit. That it's so important, that it needs to rise up out of an existing thread only to be glorified. That dilutes conversation and makes it repetitive. It also takes away from the good links that people post in the comments of threads...
A lot of this seems to come from the fact that so many people (myself included) want to talk about the WTC, but would it make sense to have main two categories for MeFi -- 1) News, and 2) Web Links? And maybe put them on different pages?
I've actually been nooding over that same idea. If we just added a meta-meta-metafilter section where people could create discussion topics it might take care of some of it. A perfect example would be all of the discussion on whether or not U.S. foreign policy should be changed. Can you imagine how cool it would be to have a focused place of discussion on that topic alone? If news stories came out, they would be posted into that discussion forum and not to the front page (or perhaps there might be a new feature where the poster can disallow comments under the thread, but instead direct them to the discussion forum...)
posted by fooljay at 1:48 AM on September 23, 2001
And that's....okay. Just discuss them in the original threads instead of spawning a new thread for everything. Especially when it's basically the same damn story (or a complete double post)...
The problem is that everyone who posts to the front page thinks that their post is going to be hot shit. That it's so important, that it needs to rise up out of an existing thread only to be glorified. That dilutes conversation and makes it repetitive. It also takes away from the good links that people post in the comments of threads...
A lot of this seems to come from the fact that so many people (myself included) want to talk about the WTC, but would it make sense to have main two categories for MeFi -- 1) News, and 2) Web Links? And maybe put them on different pages?
I've actually been nooding over that same idea. If we just added a meta-meta-metafilter section where people could create discussion topics it might take care of some of it. A perfect example would be all of the discussion on whether or not U.S. foreign policy should be changed. Can you imagine how cool it would be to have a focused place of discussion on that topic alone? If news stories came out, they would be posted into that discussion forum and not to the front page (or perhaps there might be a new feature where the poster can disallow comments under the thread, but instead direct them to the discussion forum...)
posted by fooljay at 1:48 AM on September 23, 2001
Can you imagine how cool it would be to have a focused place of discussion on that topic
Hmm .. this seems to be the most probable answer to most of the problems. I myself, would love to have somewhere to discuss the major political, economic, or even social problems that are frequent.
So, new things regarding the WTC disaster could be filed under one big heading. And Middle East could be filtered into another corner for commentary and discussion.
Ooh, I'm loving it more and more ;-) I'd be like - - MetaAnalysis - - or something ..
posted by a11an at 7:53 AM on September 23, 2001
Hmm .. this seems to be the most probable answer to most of the problems. I myself, would love to have somewhere to discuss the major political, economic, or even social problems that are frequent.
So, new things regarding the WTC disaster could be filed under one big heading. And Middle East could be filtered into another corner for commentary and discussion.
Ooh, I'm loving it more and more ;-) I'd be like - - MetaAnalysis - - or something ..
posted by a11an at 7:53 AM on September 23, 2001
Fooljay: It might have been a mistake for me to post the Joshua Marshall item as a new thread instead of extending a discussion that was already going on. I was 50/50 on doing it, but because it gave me a chance to link to a great weblog on current American politics (his weblog) I posted it.
I haven't been bothered by the redundant and overwhelming coverage of Sept. 11 on MetaFilter. Things will return to normal long before anyone has time to implement a discussion board for MetaFilter users.
posted by rcade at 8:43 AM on September 23, 2001
I haven't been bothered by the redundant and overwhelming coverage of Sept. 11 on MetaFilter. Things will return to normal long before anyone has time to implement a discussion board for MetaFilter users.
posted by rcade at 8:43 AM on September 23, 2001
Thermodorian! (in lieu of Calvanist:)
posted by newnameintown at 12:30 PM on September 23, 2001
posted by newnameintown at 12:30 PM on September 23, 2001
I'd be like - - MetaAnalysis - - or something ..
Would that be "MeAn" for short?
I think the disturbing thing about multiple threads discussing the same topics is they destroy the Illusion of Consensus (as it were). People in a (good) discussion want to find a ground they agree on. So when someone else comes along in the community and raises the whole thing again, it shifts the ground from under those who discussed it previously. You think you've finally all said what needs to be said about whether the U.S. got what it had coming or not, and then someone goes and says, I think the U.S. had it coming, don't you?
So it's upsetting to those who earnestly participated in the earlier threads and think they made some progress, who see the issue raised anew and go, "What?!? NO!"
posted by mattpfeff at 3:09 PM on September 23, 2001
Would that be "MeAn" for short?
I think the disturbing thing about multiple threads discussing the same topics is they destroy the Illusion of Consensus (as it were). People in a (good) discussion want to find a ground they agree on. So when someone else comes along in the community and raises the whole thing again, it shifts the ground from under those who discussed it previously. You think you've finally all said what needs to be said about whether the U.S. got what it had coming or not, and then someone goes and says, I think the U.S. had it coming, don't you?
So it's upsetting to those who earnestly participated in the earlier threads and think they made some progress, who see the issue raised anew and go, "What?!? NO!"
posted by mattpfeff at 3:09 PM on September 23, 2001
Bingo, mattpref... Groundhog Day all over again...
posted by fooljay at 3:35 PM on September 23, 2001
posted by fooljay at 3:35 PM on September 23, 2001
Thermodorian! (in lieu of Calvanist:)
You think so? I'm not even sure the "pendulum of change" has swung far enough yet to come back...
posted by j.edwards at 4:55 PM on September 23, 2001
You think so? I'm not even sure the "pendulum of change" has swung far enough yet to come back...
posted by j.edwards at 4:55 PM on September 23, 2001
I think the disturbing thing about multiple threads discussing the same topics is they destroy the Illusion of Consensus (as it were).
One of the best examples of multiple threaditis were the Nader threads. Maybe I'm sick, but I enjoyed them.
posted by rcade at 5:15 PM on September 23, 2001
One of the best examples of multiple threaditis were the Nader threads. Maybe I'm sick, but I enjoyed them.
posted by rcade at 5:15 PM on September 23, 2001
> It seems like most of the infractions mentioned here have to do with news items that people want to discuss.
>> And that's....okay. Just discuss them in the original threads instead of spawning a new thread for everything. Especially when it's basically the same damn story (or a complete double post)...
I know I'm late to the game (sorry), but maybe here's an idea....
Is it possible, Matt, to allow user to "track" threads they find interesting? It could be contained in the pull-down; "most recent,", "most comments", "my favorites".
Perhaps that way we can get people to continue to use existing threads instead of making new ones. Also, it allows threads to be active past their "roll-off" period.
posted by jennak at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2001
>> And that's....okay. Just discuss them in the original threads instead of spawning a new thread for everything. Especially when it's basically the same damn story (or a complete double post)...
I know I'm late to the game (sorry), but maybe here's an idea....
Is it possible, Matt, to allow user to "track" threads they find interesting? It could be contained in the pull-down; "most recent,", "most comments", "my favorites".
Perhaps that way we can get people to continue to use existing threads instead of making new ones. Also, it allows threads to be active past their "roll-off" period.
posted by jennak at 12:36 PM on September 24, 2001
This has been brought up time and time again in MeTa. I developed a tool to do this, but stopped development when I heard about Mefi Pro, which Matt said contained this feature. Since MFP isn't ready and there is considerable water building up on the other side of the Mefi dam, I will open it up for people to use it.
At some point in the future (assuming that the future doesn't radically change), I will work with Matt to port over the user data to Mefi Pro...
posted by fooljay at 3:01 PM on September 24, 2001
At some point in the future (assuming that the future doesn't radically change), I will work with Matt to port over the user data to Mefi Pro...
posted by fooljay at 3:01 PM on September 24, 2001
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by darukaru at 1:35 PM on September 21, 2001