MetaTalk posts tagged with chatfilter

Was it something I said?

Drasher — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:06:41 -0800

That's the THIRD time I write an answer in the green and click on the close tab button. No, it wasn't by mistake, I just thought better of it. Is it me??!? The last one was the one was a question by Goodgrief ("Keep a name from a previous marriage?"). I realize the question is a little chatfilterish, but I was going to post my opinion; like most others were doing. Then, right as I was writing an answer, I thought... What if they don't like that answer? What if everybody thinks I'm a jerk for spouting my opinion? This has happened a little too much to be comfortable.

boys are like this and girls are like that

jabberjaw — Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:10:52 -0800

Couch in the Ladies' Room. Am I the only one who thinks a chatfilter thread devoted to stereotyping and generalizing men and women is a bad use of AskMe? I'm more troubled that it's such a popular thread. What am I missing?

I feel like Curly Joe Besser- Why so sensitive??

gjc — Sat, 19 Sep 2009 07:24:56 -0800

"I'm a delicate snowflake" filter/callout: This thread is chatfilter; I was going to just flag and move on, but I was annoyed with something within that chatfilter and felt the need to call out. How can you get annoyed when people don't know the intricacies of your job? We don't know what an emerging technologies rocket powered tollbooth operator is- that's why we asked you. You don't have to get snippy about it. Why so defensive? Just because someone clumsily asks a question at a cocktail party or commits the mortal sin of generalization in a blog article doesn't mean we hate you or don't respect your work...

I'm puzzled by an AskMe that I think is chatfilter.

fritley — Thu, 10 Sep 2009 17:38:33 -0800

I tag chatty questions and they almost always get deleted. Sometimes, though, I think a question is chatty but it doesn't. That's fine of course - I might just be wrong. But on this one I go read the guidelines again and aside from minor wording differences, it's exactly the first "thing to avoid". Now that's not what is puzzling. What puzzles me is that this is a wildly popular thread. The participation is huge, and of good quality (even though nobody mentioned "Thunder Road"). Other chatty questions get silly responses because everyone knows they will be deleted. Did the mods somehow know that it's an interesting question and lots of people would love to read it and opine? Is there something about the question I don't see? Is my reading of the guidelines wrong, or are they not as clear as I think? I hope it doesn't look like I'm demanding an explanation from anyone (this is my first MeTa and I have not read it as long as Ask) but I wonder if I am missing something. If I just deserve a "tag it and move on" that's fine - give it to me.

Open-ended chatty questions on AskMe

mhjb — Fri, 10 Jul 2009 08:25:45 -0800

Open-ended chatty questions on AskMe When posting a question to AskMe, the user is cautioned: "AskMe questions should have a purpose, goal, or problem to be solved. Open-ended chatty questions that don't offer a problem to be solved are detrimental to the long term usefulness of the site." OTOH, the list of all time most popular AskMe questions seems to be composed of these types of questions, almost exclusively. Am I misinterpreting the definition of 'open-ended', or is the caution message less than ideal?

Chatfilter deletion why?

Not Supplied — Sat, 09 May 2009 04:53:56 -0800

Question deleted...not sure why? Hi there. Just got an askme question deleted and not entirely clear why. I promise I'm not spitting my dummy out as I know you have reasons for moderating things. I reviewed the faq on chatfilter ""...if your motivation for asking the question is 'I would like to participate in a discussion about X,' then you shouldn't be doing it in AskMe. If your motivation is 'I would like others to explain X to me,' then you're probably OK." I feel that it is the latter - I said I was interested in answers from people who'd done either or both things, and there are some good answers there. My reason for posting was to help set my own goals. It was definitely subjective but doesn't seem too different from other stuff on the askme page - "memories of this one girl I knew way back when are bringing this on. Should I get in touch with her, despite the fact I now live thousands of miles away? " "Should marriage even be a hard question? Are there people for whom it was who end up very happy together?" "A friend of mine constantly texts and checks email on her phone when we're out together, which I find irksome. Am I right to think this is discourteous? "

The floor is open.

mullingitover — Tue, 05 May 2009 14:46:56 -0800

I'm supposed to ask here: what's the question? The AskMe post is as follows:

[opening: tale of deceit and betrayal] "So, I'd like some ideas about what might be considered high-cost behaviors." [Caveat: I know what you're going to say, so please don't tell me what I don't want to hear. Also, I'm already doing the alternative advice you were going to give me.] "Otherwise, the floor is open."

It's pretty clear that the OP posed a token question and is mainly posting to chat about relationship drama. Is this really what AskMe is for?

are medical questions above chatfilter?

peter_meta_kbd — Sun, 12 Apr 2009 17:58:19 -0800

Just curious and trying to understand the norms here: would this ask me medical question be chatfilter if instead of asking for reader's reactions to a given medication, it had asked for something else, say, "your experience with going to Stanford"?

I Dislike Chatfiler Deletion of Ouch

peter_meta_kbd — Fri, 03 Apr 2009 04:02:37 -0800

I don't like the chatfilter deletion of Ouch (I had posted a comment but not posted the original question) I read the FAQ and also Why was this question close which explained some of the owners and moderators perspectives. Of course it's your site, so you can do anything you want with it. I thought it was an interesting thread for a variety of reasons and didn't detract from other questions. When I read some of the background, I found that the owner prefers for ask questions to be directed to experts. It's possible there's some background for that that I haven't realized yet that gives it more value, but it feels to me snobbish and misguided. Most of the questions I find most interesting here allow people from many disciplines and maturities to contribute, and they actually do all add to the discussion. Most disciplines have their own forums for experts-in-X-only; if I were looking for that, I'd go there, not here, where IMHO diversity is one of the highpoints. Of course it's your site, and in many ways quite excellent, I'm just stating my opinion and explaining it, nothing more.

You have got to me shitting me

KokuRyu — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 20:10:50 -0800

You have got to be shitting me.

later

sluglicker — Thu, 20 Nov 2008 00:05:06 -0800

If you would indulge me, I'd like to say, "Farewell." I know that exiting posts "usually don't do well", but I wanted to write a few things before I leave. First, I'm not leaving for any bad feelings on my part or any one thing that happened here. Matt's vision for this site, and his and pb's execution is, in my opinion, historic. I have started to understand the difficulties of the work cortex and jessamyn do. I, we, might not always agree with their decisions, but I believe they sincerely strive to be fair, and usually they're right. They have the toughest job and I don't envy them. If I were with you right now, I'd give you both a kiss on the cheek as I say goodbye; well, maybe not you cortex (unless you're cool with that). Earlier yesterday, I read this post. Tonight, I met with my brother and a childhood friend, who I hadn't seen in 10+ years. I've never had a problem with meaning or purpose. I've pretty much known what's important to me. My friend has made many millions in manufacturing and real estate. During our conversation, I became acutely aware of what was fundamentally important to him, and I realized that though he was being true to his vision, I was not being true to mine. I'm not making any personal or political judgment; I simply saw my own meaning clearer. I was going to mention, one-by-one, all the people here who I am especially grateful to. If you look at my contacts, that's you. And if I've favorited your comment, that mean's you made me laugh or I learned something from you. There are three people who I want to mention though, sort of like at the end of the Wizard of Oz when Dorothy says that she will miss the scarecrow most of all. languagehat, thanks for being there for me and the knowledge you've shared. vronsky, ditto, and your artistic vision. I haven't directly communicated with the third person, nickyskye. I've been doing this (bbs, forum, etc.) for a long time, but I have never encountered such a gentle, insightful, intelligent person in all my wanderings. I've learned a lot from you, nickyskye. Thank you. Cya!

Oooh! I've got one!

stupidsexyFlanders — Fri, 14 Nov 2008 14:18:37 -0800

I'll go first: How's this not chatfilter?

I guess some thought "something" was right with my post...

sixcolors — Tue, 14 Oct 2008 14:56:55 -0800

Cortex, "weird" posts are now deleted? Where is that in the guidelines? Or, more specific, my "weird" posts are deleted, because I see weird posts on AskMeFi quite often that aren't deleted. Chatfiltery? I don't really see how it was that, either, it was a post about me asking how can I increase my situational awareness and for some examples. Chatfilter accusation aside, what I found really offensive was the post being deemed as weird. What on earth was weird about the question?

Smells like Jessamyn Spirit

wfrgms — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 23:45:30 -0800

Barack Obama's initials are not a smell. The unfettered censorship in this AskMe is so obscene that I feel it warrants this MeTa. jessamyn was first in with a non-answer that basically legitimizes what would otherwise be standard chat filter fare... She writes, "...he smelled like nothing, nothing at all." Seriously, jessamyn? That's your answer? That's the summation of your experience? Please. You're being a hypocrite - you want your own chatty comment to stand, because it's oh so apt with it's cute little linky lead-ins, yet you want to zap all the others. And then in mefi mail you explain that the "he smells like B.O." comment is legit because "B.O." are his initials? For the record, I said that Obama smells like Kevlar... because you know, he's bulletproof... Oh, but that's far, far, more deletion worthy than saying, "he smelled like nothing, nothing at all," or saying he smells like "B.O." Please. Close the thread if it's chat-filter, or delete abusive non-answers, but don't cherry pick the comments you like while censoring those you don't. That's bullshit.

Where's my question?

reenum — Tue, 07 Oct 2008 10:30:56 -0800

I posted a question in AskMeFi and can't find it. What gives? I asked a non-anonymous question which is still not on the green. Did I violate a rule of some sort?

Mefi Suggestion Box

amyms — Sat, 04 Oct 2008 23:16:16 -0800

Obviously we all love Metafilter or we wouldn't be here posting and reading day after day... But, if there was one thing you could change/modify about your Metafilter experience, what would it be?

Dog Attack!

kalessin — Wed, 17 Sep 2008 10:58:18 -0800

A hypothetical question prompts answers of varying violence against hypothetical dogs. Chatfilter? Useful analysis? Something in between? An AskMe question was one of those hypothetical questions about dogs attacking children, and what to do. From my point of view, a hypothetical question poses an emotionally triggering question and folks start proposing violence, including outright gun slaughter, on hypothetical dogs. I am sort of OK with a single round of answers and opinions about what's appropriate response and what isn't, but I'm not okay getting forcefully disagreed with in-thread over my request for perhaps less violence being counseled against dogs, hypothetical or not. Am I misunderstanding the point and protocols of AskMe again? I don't think so, but this is where we talk about these sorts of things. Beyond that, I'm pretty sure that advocating violence against humans is against our guidelines, so how about the same rule for dogs?

Pompous bands do not make good questions.

youcancallmeal — Thu, 31 Jul 2008 15:14:51 -0800

Will someone please tell me how this is not chatfilter? I mean, really? How is there possibly a subjective answer to this question?

Do Mefites get sick of eating Chatfilter?

adamrice — Thu, 12 Jun 2008 15:09:20 -0800

In the "Do chinese people get sick of eating chinese food?" AskMe discussion, which might have had a germ of a worthwhile idea behind it, the OPP has essentially come out and said "my question is chatfilter."

metaask

plexi — Tue, 10 Jun 2008 12:25:52 -0800

I asked a question and many of the responses were that I am "biased." Is a judgement of character a prerequisite for answering a question?

AskMe Rescue - What are the disadvantages of being a man?

kookoobirdz — Thu, 29 May 2008 19:03:46 -0800

AskMe Chatfilter Rescue: Disadvantages of being male I thought this was an excellent question, and it made me think. So let's continue the chat. The question was - What are the disadvantages of being a man? I vote for philosophical answers rather than stuff like who pays more for dry cleaning or cover charges. Like the one about how you can't be trusted around children because you might be a molester. That's a pretty sad reality. Here's what I think: I enjoy being a guy, but one thing I have philosophized about is the stunted intimacy. I don't mean sexual intimacy, which is just one subset intimacy, but rather the unguarded closeness and surrender and trust and sharing that any two people can experience, such as a mother and child. Men have much less of this, at least in western culture. You don't realize it for the most part because all you know is all you know. Being a man = reality (you know, if you're a man). But look at women. It is culturally acceptable and natural for them to display and and indulge in a level of intimacy and affection with each other that is simply not in the realm of possibilities between men. Can you imagine two straight men, who are friends, sitting on a couch together with their arms around each other, looking into each other's eyes, maybe one comforting the other, hand softly on his neck, or crying or something? Unless you're 6 and the other guy is your dad, that isn't going to happen, the obvious exception excluded. I know that regional cultures can make this more or less of a possibility for women too, but I think you know what I'm saying. To think of two men doing that kicks up a visceral gender-role police enforcement squad in one's lizard brain. What? WHAT?! It's so deeply ingrained that it's alarming when the sediment is disturbed. Or think about walking arm in arm down the street. No way. Guys have made a lot of strides in shedding machismo, but not to that degree. (again, this is culture-dependent. I've seen some other culture, maybe Indian (?) where guys might actually walk down the street holding hands) And the thing is, I think I can speak for men (see culture caveats) when I say we don't want those things. It's not like we secretly want them but cruel society won't let us have them - it's that we simply weren't trained that way, or maybe it's a combination of biology and culture. Because of my socialization and the way gender roles are mapped out in our culture, I was essentially programmed that this was not an option any more than flying is, or that there could be some primary color other than the ones we know of. It isn't something you think about or regret, it simply doesn't exist. And to clarify, I'm not talking about machismo, toughness, provider-ism, or the idea of men not being able to show emotions or weakness. Those things exist much closer to the surface than what I'm talking about. Yet if I am using logic, I can say that humans are humans. On the inside we are all squooshy little oysters that are on the same journey regardless of the shape of our shell or our random gender assignment. We are all the same thing, having the same bewildering, exploratory experience. And intimacy is something every human spirit needs. Simply the act of touching while sharing a common experience is nourishment for the soul, perhaps some kind of assurance that we aren't alone. Look at chimps that don't get groomed by their troopmates - they become unhealthy. Look at the ostracized omega wolf in a pack - it's miserable. Beings need intimacy with their fellow beings. Women can have a level of tender intimacy with either sex, so essentially with anyone. Guys can only have that with women (noting the obvious exception). Again, it's not that I couldn't have that if I and another guy both wanted it and didn't care about gender roles, but it just doesn't exist in my head. So then isn't it a deficit for me as a man that I don't have the same level of opportunity for intimacy as a woman? Shouldn't that be recognized as a pretty awful missing piece in the human journey? How would my life be different if there was not an invisible wall, or a set of blinders maybe, that cut out at least half of my opportunities to share existence with another human presence at a basic level? I don't know, but I bet somebody somewhere has studied this. Still, though, it's great to be able to write my name in the snow.

AskMeFi: The Key to True Happiness

sjuhawk31 — Tue, 27 May 2008 09:34:37 -0800

Is it wrong to call out a post that's trying to find happiness? I responded to this thread with a "previously" link to the "happiness" tag. These questions come up on the green a bunch and, while they're extremely open-ended, they rarely get nailed for being chatfilter. Usually, I just move on, without even flagging it as breaking the guidelines. After all, the person is trying to find happiness and having their question deleted wouldn't really bring that. But I kind of feel like a jerk for answering this particular question with the "previously," and I'd like to hear what the mods/power users think about those kinds of threads.

chatfilter?

krautland — Mon, 05 May 2008 05:51:04 -0800

Isn't How is the downturn in the US economy affecting you chatfilter? Or what am I missing that it's still there?

This is chatfilter, AMIRITE folks?

dhammond — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 23:09:02 -0800

Is this chatfilter? The "question" mostly falls into the category of "asking the question and giving your own answer before getting the answers of others" but there's also a bit of "I'm curious if other people feel like I do" at play here. It didn't inherently strike me as chatfilter because jjjjjjjijjjjjjj claimed it was for a paper, but as the comments continued the question seemed less like a legitimate query and more of a thesis made to generate discussion, particularly with the explanation of his thesis and when he (arguably) compared the thread to other forms of chatfilter. I'd like to point out that I replied in the thread and that I'm not certain that it's explicitly chatfilter, but I would like to raise the question to hear everyone's thoughts on this. I would also like to mention that I have enjoyed jjjjjjjijjjjjjj's relatively few comments on the site and in no way mean this as an attack on him or his contributions to the site.

Embrace this new feature, and take it to where it needs to go, where the world clamors for it to go -- OPTIONAL HYPOTHETICAL FILTER

John Kenneth Fisher — Thu, 03 Apr 2008 08:46:02 -0800

Matthew: For a long time, I have been sad at the loss of HypotheticalFilter. When AskMe was young, such questions would arise. But those days are gone now, as the site matured. It's simply not done, you'd say. It floods the page with nonsense. It makes the real questions get lost. Still, I thought, I want to know how to dispose of a body, or how long we'd survive without the sun. Who would win in a fight? A squirrel, or a squirrel's weight in ants? But it was your site, sir, and you merely allow me to use it. So I muddled through, saddened, but understanding. But today, Matthew, today things have changed. We are being encouraged to ALTER ASKME TO OUR WHIMS. I don't CARE about sports! I LOVE Law and Government! RelationshipFilter sickens me, and I will not have it! RelationshipFilter is crack that I want, nay, NEED in my life. Perhaps, just perhaps, now that we have the seeds of a customizable interface, and can play with categories to our ever-changing desires, perhaps now is the time to introduce a new category - one for hypotheticals! John embraces them, wants to see more of them. Wishes to spend his workday debating Spider-Man versus She-Ra. You, Matthew, shun this, and see it as the ruin of civilization. Until today, I could never win that argument, for you ARE Metafilter Network, LLC, and if only one of us can be happy, it must be you. No one would debate this. But now, now Matthew, it is no longer a binary choice between our wishes. Embrace this new feature, and take it to where it needs to go, where the world clamors for it to go -- OPTIONAL HYPOTHETICAL FILTER. Off by default, if you wish, waiting, lurking, for your legions of hypothetical-loving denizens to leap into gleefully. I believe in HypotheticalFilter. I believe in Metafilter. but most of all, Matthew, I believe in YOU. Give me that checkbox, and I promise you, I will click it, oh I will click it with all of my heart. What say you, sir, what say you?