I notice that a few posts have been deleted already today (and yesterday there were seven!), so I was wondering if the mods have any stories about days where they had to delete an extreme number of posts from the blue? [more inside]
posted by rebent
on Aug 20, 2012 -
which raised the issue of fears among some in the African-American electorate that Barack Obama would not be safe as president. The thread was shut down for reasons of WTF. Not exactly sure what the problem was, and I was disappointed, as I had recently heard about this and was hoping the thread would shed some light on the issue. This NYT article
would be a good starting point for discussion.
posted by flotson
on Jan 6, 2008 -
What the hell? Silent deletion of my FPP! I know that political correctness is the force that moves Metafilter, but come ON here people!
The post was a short one, centered on this story: http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,314564,00.html and apparently that's a story that Metafilter is not ready to handle at this point in time.
posted by Sukiari
on Dec 2, 2007 -
Wait.. a longtime user criticises the deletion
of a post
about one intellectual's review of another intellectual's book - a deletion with obscure sarcastic reason "clearly my filter for these isn't working properly. But wait, Hitchens AND Dawkins you say...? * taps pager * Damn this thing is broken. -- jessamyn"
... then you close the Meta thread? [more inside]
posted by dash_slot-
on Sep 11, 2007 -
I know I'll be run out on a rail for this, but jessamyn's deletion of the Bonds HR record FPP was weaker than the post itself. I take it she's not a baseball fan, because plenty of breaking newsfilter/obitfilter has stuck around on just such a quick post.
posted by rollbiz
on Aug 7, 2007 -
Are we deletion-worthy sure that this guy
is blind based on an anonymous comment on another site? Especially after jourman2's examples
showing a bad photographer is likely to blame for the image?
posted by hermitosis
on Jul 4, 2007 -
Getting the dog high? Why wasn't the whole thing deleted? Letting any comments ride on that one is a slippery slope, I should think. Especially ones condoning it or speaking of giving a dog something toxic.
posted by valentinepig
on May 30, 2007 -
Today, for the first time, I wished I could favorite a thread deletion justification. "This post was deleted for the following reason: im in ur over-trafficked meme
, stating ur ironic deletion raisin" - cortex
posted by BrotherCaine
on May 18, 2007 -
Could someone direct me to specific policies that state why posts are removed? I had one removed today because someone chose to use inappropriate language in a comment. The language use was apparently blamed on the article I posted. That is very strange. I don't know where the policy is that states what can and can't be posted.
posted by scissorhand2
on Apr 20, 2007 -
What happened to the thread of photos off the p2p networks? Did that link get removed for any particular reason? Was it to make room for the Zelda/Golden Ratio thread? Hmm. I am kind of disappointed.
posted by kuatto
on Mar 7, 2007 -
deserves credit for anti-eponysterically advocating that his post
, doubled five minutes later, be the one deleted. Mattamyn deserves credit, as usual, for not being blindly policy
posted by longtime_lurker
on Feb 22, 2007 -
I'd like to suggest that "um, yeah, post it at metachat.
" is not a good reason for deletion. Metachat
may be all about the stupid links but saying this smacks of snobbery. This was simply a poor post that didn't meet metafilter's editorial guidelines. It wasn't chatty in the slightest. Metachat is not your dumping ground. Can't we all just get along?
posted by seanyboy
on Nov 23, 2006 -
I was sorry to see this post on Dawkins
get deleted becuase it was "yet another Dawkings post", when the one from three weeks earlier
was deleted as well. I understand he's discussed alot, perhaps ad nauseum to some folks, but they can skip the post. I think the mistake being made here is that the same arguments will always be rehashed over and over. This disregards the fact that new people may have registered since the last time the topic was discussed.
In a very "meta" sense, the addition of new people to the discussion allows the argument to evolve, over the course of multiple debates. These kinds of topics - religion, rights, abortion, etc. - appear not to have objectively correct answers, however the passions on all sides and the articulation of arguments are a reflection of the community and our collective culture. By returning to the argument, with newer and older members we start to understand everyone's basis for their position, the forces that motivate the passions behind people's positions and give rise to the issue in the first place.
posted by Pastabagel
on Oct 13, 2006 -
Itchy trigger finger?
I liked that post, and it seems like everyone else who posted did too -- no-one seemed to be snarking or complaining or asking for it to go. Sure, it's a link to a Google search, but an interesting one I hadn't thought of before. It was headed for a fun interweb memories thread... but then it was tragically taken from us. As an official Metafilter King, I would urge you to reconsider.
posted by reklaw
on Sep 14, 2006 -
to a site with a few hundred photographs gets deleted because it's supposedly a double of a 2-year old link
to a post on some messageboard with but a few dozen similar pictures? What gives? (I've happily accepted the fate of unfortunate double posts in the past, but these links are not the same...)
posted by Robot Johnny
on Jun 15, 2006 -
Just out of curiosity, how is it that some posts get deleted because the thread is full of the same animated gifs we always see, and some posts
continue to live way past their prime? Is it the presence of ceiling cat?
I understand some of these are left in for humor value; such was the case with the infamous Mushroom post. But when the only thing that's different is the original post, and there are no actual responses anyhow, what's the criteria?
posted by hoborg
on Jun 14, 2006 -
Where da hybrid thread at? It was actually kind of interesting.
posted by clevershark
on Mar 15, 2006 -
Policy clarification question: Matt deleted
a link to revisionist.org. I'm not necessarily opposed to this, but I do have a few questions: a) What is the history of link removal from FPP - not modification, like adding a NSFW, but under what circumstances are links actually removed? b) When a link is removed for political reasons, what is the rationale behind the removal? [mi]
posted by By The Grace of God
on Feb 7, 2006 -
I have to disagree
. I thought things were just getting interesting. There was no name-calling or other objectionable activity going on, was there? What gives?
posted by JeffK
on Jan 23, 2006 -
Matt, please kill the Creeley post on the front page--it was a mistake (I'd been sent some false info, and posted before looking into it further...)
posted by Chrischris
on Sep 29, 2005 -
It should be pretty obvious that stuff like this
should not fly in the blue. Using this site as a quarry for pyramid schemes is inappropriate and action should be taken accordingly.
posted by baphomet
on Jun 26, 2005 -
Just curious - How is this a double post?
I know earlier I had flagged a double comment I had made, but when I checked back to see if any new comments had been added the thread was gone.
posted by shawnj
on Mar 17, 2005 -
OK Matt : I took your deletion of my previous two posts on this subject, the 2004 election controversy ( and probably several by other folks ) as an indication that either 1) you oppose posts on the election controversy or 2) you want quality posts. Since I don't like to think of you as a site manager inclined towards censorship, I took the deletion of those posts as an indication that they weren't of sufficient quality. So, I addressed #2 : I thought that was a high quality post
- well substantiated, and which presented an angle not yet discussed or noted elsewhere on the net. If you are opposed to discussion of the 2004 election, why not state that in your posting guidelines ? I feel that would be more helpful. Otherwise, new users may be confused for those unspecified posting categories which you are inclined to delete.
posted by troutfishing
on Nov 22, 2004 -
OK, I might sound like a whiner, but I gotta ask. Why did my post to this letter
get deleted while the Neal Pollack stuff stays up? Too incendiary?
posted by lumpenprole
on Nov 12, 2004 -
Does Matt remove posts from the archives? I've been trying to find a couple of old threads from a few months ago, a link about the whilstler devices that people are putting in the tailpipes of thier cars and an interview with a guy that had one in his car. I've searched thru the archives post by post and used the search but it seems to have disappeared. Is it possible that it has been dumped for some reason? Is this common? I cant even seem to find the post from earlier this month that had the old GI Joe PSA. What's up Matt?
posted by daHIFI
on Aug 27, 2003 -
I posted a thread about retail price plans for major retailers being publsished on websites ahead of time. The retailers were ticked. The story questioned if this was a freedom of speech issue or did the retailers have a right to demand the information be removed.
The thread was removed. Was it the subject or the link to an audio news story?
posted by hockeyman
on Nov 23, 2002 -
Curious, as this
is the only one I I've actually run across. It seems that double-posts have been very rare recently. Or have they just been getting caught that quickly?
posted by Su
on Mar 5, 2002 -
I posted something on Mefi that was apparently inappropriate (OK, thinking back on it, it wasn't a good idea): a request for advice about a family member becoming part of an orthodox religious "cult" like organization. It was killed pretty quickly. Can anyone tell me a good place to ask questions like this, here on this site or somewhere similar? I was hoping for advice from the people here; after hanging around here for a few months, I'm continually impressed by the quality (and quantity) of comment posted here.
posted by luriete
on Dec 13, 2001 -