24 posts tagged with editorializing.
Displaying 1 through 24 of 24. Subscribe:
Editorializing
What are the rules on editorializing, exactly? I notice some posts with a strong poster's-own-voice getting through, and some getting deleted, and I haven't been able to figure out the rules behind the rule. [more inside]
Does posting text of the article as a description count as editorializing?
Just wondering why this post was deleted. The text of the FPP was simply a copy/paste of the article posted. [more inside]
Bad guy is silly and bad, also stupid.
This long and discursive post has a huge amount of editorialising in it and would really be a better fit on someone's personal blog.
Join my Cause!
This is more a question in general than it is an effort to poop on a particular post. [more inside]
FPPs posts that are conclusive should be based on evidence.
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]
True to form
where did you get that idea?
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.
Some people sin like this, some people sin like that...
FPP Editorializing.
Editorializing and calling for donations on fpp - lame
An FPP is not a place for them to make a point. It is a place to share.
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 .
Worst post ever? Check.
Worst post ever? Single link: Check. Editorializing: Check. Conspiracy Theory: Check. Google-as-evil-censor subtext: check.
I call censorship by the religious majority
I call censorship by the religious majority
A seemingly editorializing post
What do you think about this? (mi)
Oh look, someone just took dump on the front page!
Do we really need tag editorializing?
Do we really need tag editorializing?
Editorial posts and how to make them better
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?
Simply insipid anti-GOP propaganda post
This isn't a good post and is an example of framing that should be avoided.
Michael Jackson belongs in jail
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.)
A political broadside
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?
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?
Editorializing on the front page
Guidelines for contenious or inflammatory topics
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?
Editorial personality in profiles
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?
What do you think of editorializing and directing commentary?
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.)
Stop editorializing on front page
Dear longtime visitors to MetaFilter: Don't do this.
Page:
1