This is more a question in general than it is an effort to poop on a particular post. [more inside]
posted by dawson on Jan 15, 2009 - 68 comments

This post is emotive, shrill and conclusive in tone. Considering it deals with emotionally charged topics, its sure to get a lot of attention. I can take emotive and shrill if the topic had been approached from an interrogative viewpoint, rather than conclusive. [more inside]
posted by Mutant on Jan 30, 2008 - 66 comments

True to form, this post could use a little balance. [more inside]
posted by four panels on Oct 12, 2007 - 85 comments

This post is pure editorial and belongs on the poster's own blog. The FPP makes a point (powerful women are beautiful) that is not made in any her of links. The post is entirely her opinion and because of that the discussion following is a mess.
posted by meech on Nov 24, 2006 - 63 comments

FPP Editorializing.
posted by trinarian on Sep 24, 2006 - 18 comments

Incredibly lame.
posted by mzurer on Jun 20, 2006 - 86 comments

Mischaracterizing the link. Trying to prove a conspiracy. Rampant editorializing. Effective double posts due to retread of the same discussions/topics being made by the same users. These things make for crappy posts. They would not occur if people would learn that a front page Metafilter post is not a place for them to make a point. It is a place to share .
posted by dios on Mar 15, 2006 - 225 comments

Worst post ever? Single link: Check. Editorializing: Check. Conspiracy Theory: Check. Google-as-evil-censor subtext: check.
posted by tiamat on Mar 11, 2006 - 12 comments

I call censorship by the religious majority
posted by cbrody on Dec 11, 2005 - 208 comments

What do you think about this? (mi)
posted by Count Ziggurat on Aug 11, 2005 - 18 comments

Oh look, someone just took dump on the front page!
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood on Jun 20, 2005 - 64 comments

Do we really need tag editorializing?
posted by null terminated on May 25, 2005 - 36 comments

What does peacay's comment mean on this thread I just posted to MetaFilter. I'm relatively new and naive to MeFi and would appreciate an explanation. Also, I used HTML formatting in the latter linked post. Why was it stripped from my thread?
posted by sjvilla79 on May 6, 2005 - 25 comments

This isn't a good post and is an example of framing that should be avoided.
posted by dios on Apr 28, 2005 - 156 comments

I'm a thread trying to call attention to myself. Unbelievable.
posted by ed on Jul 7, 2004 - 39 comments

I have mixed feelings about hoopyfrood's Michael Jackson belongs in jail post. On the one hand, I agree with the general "don't editorialize" philosophy and its corollary "save it for a comment in the thread." On the other, this isn't exactly the New York Times and a poster's take on their subject is arguably an integral part of the post. "Letting the link speak for itself", when it involves a news item, is all very well - but perhaps keeping one's opinion out of the front page text is also an exercise in obfuscation and even dishonesty. Has current policy on editorializing changed? ( I speak as a frequent editorializer, I should add. Even though I agree "pedophile of pop", with its dubious inverted commas, and all-capitals IN JAIL!, as well as the idea that everyone is innocent until proven guilty except Michael Jackson, are way too extreme a way of going about it.)
posted by MiguelCardoso on Nov 19, 2003 - 84 comments

Am I the only one that doesn't like FPPs that begin the political arguement in the post itself. See a post today for what I mean. Nothing against The Jesse Helms, but the links don't point to anything new. It appears to me to be a political broadside instead of interesting information. IMHO, interesting information is what a 'metafilter' is supposed to provide.

I thought the idea of MeFi was to let discussion occur in the comments, not on the front page.

Or am I way off base and should I head back to Slashdot & the WWDN forums?
posted by Argyle on Nov 27, 2002 - 32 comments

Shouldn't you post rants on your own blog if you have one?
posted by dchase on Apr 28, 2002 - 18 comments

All mapalm's posts this year have been about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict; all of them pro-Palestinian and anti-Israeli. The problem is that his editorializing is getting more and more heavy-handed. Today's post is downright inflammatory. In the thread, Sheauga's valiant attempts to provide background material were in vain. Can something be added to the guidelines asking posters to reserve their more contentious opinions for comments made in the thread?
posted by MiguelCardoso on Apr 6, 2002 - 69 comments

What about somehow allowing members to choose their most and least favorite front page posts in profile page as a way to add some metafilter-specific editorial personality to each profile page?
posted by Voyageman on Feb 15, 2002 - 12 comments

What do you think of editorializing and directing commentary toward a discussion that the poster prefers? Particularly in the FPP text? (See Steven Den Beste's post.)
posted by moz on Nov 19, 2001 - 40 comments

Dear longtime visitors to MetaFilter: Don't do this.
posted by rcade on Apr 30, 2001 - 24 comments