MetaTalk

If a link has been posted and deleted, am I right to assume that reposting the link, even as a sub-link in a post leading on another link about the same thing, is a bad idea? [more inside]
posted by running order squabble fest on Jul 29, 2011 - 65 comments

Religious issues aside, do we really need three separate posts covering slight variations of the same thing? [more inside]
posted by tkolar on Jun 3, 2008 - 68 comments

This is an example of a double that should have been left alone. [more inside]
posted by wfrgms on Feb 13, 2008 - 34 comments

Why'd we go and kill this. Just because of this? (more inside) [more inside]
posted by es_de_bah on Sep 28, 2007 - 15 comments

Soooo...what happens when we get a much better post on the exact same topic just a few minutes later?
posted by allkindsoftime on Jul 19, 2007 - 37 comments

Today's edition of what irks me: Hijacking threads with unsupported claims of doubleness. Either put up or shut up--don't shit on good threads just because you read boing boing and have a bad memory.
posted by null terminated on Apr 10, 2007 - 62 comments

An Immodest Proposal: One of the interesting phenomena I've noticed as other aggregating sites are on their ascendancy (can you Digg it?) is that many links that had been MetaFiltered long ago (in Web time) get a new wave of attention, which flows back around here, and BANG! Double-triple-quadruple post!. And how many times lately have we seen comments like "Didn't see it the first time; glad it was reposted"? Maybe what we need is a separate place for "Re-Current" posts or links, where we can acknowledge that WE got it months/years ago, and re-open comments on it. Obviously, such a sub-Meta would require a lot of moderation/maintenance, and maybe it should be an off-site project. How should it work? Can we/you make it work? Why bother? Any volunteers?
posted by wendell on Mar 6, 2007 - 33 comments

would it be too newsfilter / doublepost to link the closing arguments in the scooter libby trial? the previous post three weeks ago was pretty generic, and the commenters in the thread are right that it was almost impossible to follow what was going on (and i say this as a law student who's fascinated by these things). today, however, was some grand drama, with the defense breaking down into tears, and Fitzgerald going after not just Scooter but Elmer Fudd himself with both barrels. this is stuff that's actually accessible to the general public, but i hate crowding the blue. (grey, i got no problem with, apparently...) thoughts?
posted by spiderwire on Feb 20, 2007 - 30 comments

I posted this double in large part because the headline for this post from a few days before was so cryptic that it passed under my radar. I'm aware that there can be no official policy outlawing cryptic posts (I'm not arguing for a strict policy, either), but such doubles are bound to occur when the front pages are filled with non-descriptive links. Judging by this and other comments in my thread, I'm not alone in wishing that folks would provide a bit more info with their FPPs. At the least, it could save wasted time on the part of posters and readers alike. Wondering what the wider MeFi community thinks about this.
posted by flapjax at midnite on Oct 26, 2006 - 49 comments

I posted a link in a comment on the blue. Can I repost it as an FPP?
posted by anjamu on May 12, 2006 - 42 comments

Doubleposts and deletions; now that MeFi is a bit of a monster, rather than a very small community, is it time to perhaps do away with the concept of doubleposts, and just let topics stand? For instance, this post was deleted as being a double, although the comments and links inside were significantly more active and amusing than the original, which wasn't linked by the deleter. (As an aside, if we're going to make content disappear because of doubleposts, may I request that the deleter please link to the original topic?)
posted by dejah420 on Mar 14, 2006 - 33 comments

Hypothetical scenario: Someone puts up a front page post, but does it in a manner with heavy editorializing / intentionally trolling / etc. The topic is interesting, but it gets removed because of the garbage that came along with it. Someone reposts on the same topic, even with some of the same links, but without the editorializing. Would it be okay? Is there a policy on this?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow on Aug 15, 2005 - 16 comments

Question: what constitutes a double-post? This is easy to answer for websites, but it seems to be harder for NewsFilter posts. One person recently argued that a second NewsFilter post on a previously discussed topic isn't a double if it offers a different perspective. However, I'm not sure that argument can be made for the topic of this post, which has already been discussed twice. So is every news article on a topic fair game for its own post? Early returns indicate that the discussion isn't going to be much different from the first two go-rounds, so what's the point? (yes, I know this is a double post).
posted by casu marzu on Feb 17, 2005 - 11 comments

I know I'm probably asking for it, but I don't understand the bile that comes with double-posts, or even posts that some people are already familiar with (even if it's not a double-post).
posted by o2b on Jun 7, 2004 - 40 comments

RetroFilter! Since "Eric Conveys an Emotion" was first posted over three years ago, both the contents of the link and the Metafilter community that discussed it have changed. Now that Metafilter has surpassed 25,000 threads, perhaps we could use a forum dedicated to the dredging up of old-school links from Metafilter's past? Alternatively, should we encourage "selective doubleposting" to Metafilter itself?
posted by PrinceValium on Apr 21, 2003 - 3 comments

"Um, isn't this a kinda sorta double-post? [/meanie]"
"This thread is over 30 days old, and has been closed for archival purposes."
So it being a repost is not relevant. I propose a mortatorium on such statements, now that it is hard coded that threads are officially dead after one month. Comments pro & con are welcome herein.
posted by ZachsMind on Sep 11, 2002 - 12 comments

Front Page Posts. Is there a time limit before a topic is reposted? If something was posted a year ago, and you've got something new, or want to explore a different angle, how long should you wait? Or will any repost elicit a thread composed of "repost" and "how about some pancakes?"

posted by Grod on Aug 26, 2002 - 12 comments

At what point did the "Spread the Dot" thing get added to Metafilter? It's a googlebomb attempt.

WHAT.
THE.
FUCK.
MATT?
posted by Irontom on Aug 1, 2002 - 51 comments

is a post that includes a link previously posted in a thread, but not on the homepage, a double-post?
posted by o2b on Sep 25, 2001 - 30 comments

How about a Statute of Limitations on double-posts? jpoulos just posted a link that turns out to be a double-post from something from April 2000. Sure, he should have done the search, but is there a point where something has slipped out of our collective conscious long enough that it can be seen afresh?
posted by briank on Jun 22, 2001 - 12 comments

It's posts like this one that really disappoint me. Talk about previously covered territory -- every element of that post has been discussed here at one point or another. If it's an important topic that needs more discussion, could we at least wait until there is some new development that gives a proper excuse for bringing it up? Alternately, I'll just shut up and we can all go back to flogging the dead horse.
posted by norm on May 17, 2001 - 15 comments