I'm as upset as humanfont was
over people inventing facts, then using those facts to argue from. Unfortunately, humanfont does that exact thing
By making these speculative inferences and then arguing vituperatively from them, humanfont is inflaming an already fraught discussion and making the conversation worse. [more inside]
What are the sources in the MetaFilter community network where if its not an FPP, doesn't fit into any other category and I don't really feel like framing it as an AskMe, can I vent, chat with friends&Mefites, and deal with something on my mind, in general?
I know... it's about the links, not the discussions... [more inside]
I'm confused. What is more important to mefites, actually responding to the content of FPPs, or rating their quality? I see a general (hence, no links in this question) preponderance to the former. It seems that many responses to posts are actually rating the quality of it and/or the poster, rather than the content of the FPP. I've read a lot of the sites about Metafilter and maybe I'm missing a concept or something.
I am truly not trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely interested in understanding this. Thanks.
Ahem, ok a two for one.
Would a "great conversation" flag be something desirable? I tried to flag a conversation by flagging the fpp post, but frankly the post was... so so, the conversation that followed was terrific though, so I just chose "other" in the flag list.
And can people envision a method to encourage well crafted posts instead of the rush-to-post-before-someone-beats-me- to-it?
I know once comments start deleting a poor/bad post becomes hard despite there possible being a much superior (double) post. the only things I can think of seems like a lot of work for dear leader.
How about threads "floating" back up to the top of the page in relation to the intensity of the conversation? Right wing site Free Republic