MetaTalk

I discovered an awesome website today. Said website was posted to MeFi in 2011, in a post about the website itself. Specific pages of the website also appear within collections of links in 2 more recent posts (2017, 2018), although the posts aren't specifically featuring the website itself. The website is still going and still full of excellent content (7 years worth of additional content from the 2011 post). Is it frowned on for me to post it again?
posted by Cozybee on Sep 25, 2018 - 5 comments

A post linking to the story of Philip Johnson, thief of the Totenberg Stradivarius, was just deleted as a double, with this previous version of the story - an entirely different article, telling the tale of what happened when the violin was found - cited as the double. [more inside]
posted by motty on Mar 17, 2016 - 55 comments

Today's edition of what irks me: Hijacking threads with unsupported claims of doubleness. Either put up or shut up--don't shit on good threads just because you read boing boing and have a bad memory.
posted by null terminated on Apr 10, 2007 - 62 comments

I posted this double in large part because the headline for this post from a few days before was so cryptic that it passed under my radar. I'm aware that there can be no official policy outlawing cryptic posts (I'm not arguing for a strict policy, either), but such doubles are bound to occur when the front pages are filled with non-descriptive links. Judging by this and other comments in my thread, I'm not alone in wishing that folks would provide a bit more info with their FPPs. At the least, it could save wasted time on the part of posters and readers alike. Wondering what the wider MeFi community thinks about this.
posted by flapjax at midnite on Oct 26, 2006 - 49 comments

Shouldn't Matt and Jess be the ones who decide which posts are deleted?
posted by bonaldi on Oct 26, 2006 - 77 comments

A while back I posted a wonderful video for a song called "JCB Song". It went down very well.

I found out today they are going for a UK Christmas number one, and have added a back-story of their touching song to their site.

Im guessing I cant draw attention to this no? I'm dying for a decent xmas #1 after last year's god awful Band Aid thing.
posted by lemonfridge on Nov 22, 2005 - 13 comments

Just because there's no good way to get a thread shilling a new piece of free software noticed once it drops off the top of the front page is no reason to make a further thread noting the addition of a uninventive feature that was missed in the original post.

Nor does that fact that KevinSkomsvold saved it by turning it into a discussion about the merits of RSS mitigate my point. IE: What is the best way to do it?
posted by bonaldi on Dec 8, 2004 - 13 comments

double post, double post...you missed something from 2001 I would hereby like to call a moretoreum on "double post" callouts in threads when the original link was more than, lets say, 18 months ago. Not everyone has been a member since the beginning, most people don't have the time to go back and read multiple years of archives, nor is it reasonable to expect that they would. The search is wonky, we all know that. [more inside]
posted by dejah420 on Jun 24, 2004 - 51 comments

Can we please agree not to insinuate that something's a double post if it's been on another community site?

Posting a link isn't some journalism competition, it's sharing something neat. The "foo-site scooped it first" thing is irrelevant. If I cared that I waited three whole days to see some flash game, I would read other sites like this.

Please, can we comment on the link provided and only provide other takes if the commentary somewhere else is particularly insightful?
posted by Mayor Curley on May 26, 2004 - 30 comments

Though it may make someone more hesitant to participate in the future, unless we are given a way to delete our own messages (or an easy way to alert someone who can), telling us that we've posted a duplicate link is nothing but a condescending tactic of metafilter bullies.
posted by crunchland on Jan 15, 2002 - 23 comments

A simple "double post" or "current thread is here" is enough, no need to patronize or fill the thread up with stupid comments.
posted by geoff. on Dec 23, 2001 - 20 comments

Sorry if this is a double post but the search timed out -- why do some members applogise in their front page comment for possible double posting because the search timed out, especially before they've actually got to the point of the actual post in the first place? (more)
posted by feelinglistless on Oct 17, 2001 - 18 comments

I just wanted to point out quite possibly the most nicely worded double post notification I've ever seen, as an example of etiquette done right.
posted by EatenByAGrue on Jul 26, 2001 - 7 comments