long and discursive post has a huge amount of editorialising in it and would really be a better fit on someone's personal blog.
posted by Joe in Australia
on Aug 11, 2012 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
Worst post ever?
Single link: Check. Editorializing: Check. Conspiracy Theory: Check. Google-as-evil-censor subtext: check.
posted by tiamat
on Mar 11, 2006 -
I call censorship by the religious majority
posted by cbrody
on Dec 11, 2005 -
isn't a good post and is an example of framing that should be avoided.
posted by dios
on Apr 28, 2005 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -
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 -