19 posts tagged with etiquette by MiguelCardoso.
Displaying 1 through 19 of 19.
Let's argue in threads instead of in MetaTalk
Perhaps it's time to reconsider using MetaTalk to denounce single comments and only slightly contentious single posts. [More inside.]
Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe?
Can we - even if only briefly - discuss stuff on AskMe or not? This Sopranos thread started off as a question but the discussion of last night's episode was inevitable and almost irresistible. My own opinion, fwiw, is that it would be nice if a little discussion was indeed allowed or, as has happened already, generously overlooked.
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.)
Etiquette: Linking to fragile sites
GeoCities is, of course, notorious for falling to pieces if more than three people click on one of its sites (though anastasiav's secondary links more than make up for her first). It's happened to everyone, so I wonder whether more experienced posters have untold ways of guessing what sort of traffic a posted website will bear? Are there any ways to avoid the "MetaFiltered" meltdown? Are there any steps posters can take to preempt the predictable outcome, besides including the (unsatisfactory) Google cache? Can the content be saved in another way, in order to answer users' queries?
In short, what is the best policy for fragile links, assuming they're worth posting anyway?
Can we criticize?
It's great that Matt is just one of the guys when it comes to posting but, with respect, this post of his seems way below average. It's a short news item, from a big media source, which will already be known to those who follow the news. The post, though, is not the point. My question is "To what extent are we allowed - or able - to criticize his posts as if he were just another user?" Is it ungracious, ungrateful or downright rude, for instance? Fwiw, my opinion is that special treatment and undue deference are just as annoying and even insulting.
"This is MetaFilter, not NewsFilter, asshat"
"This is MetaFilter, not NewsFilter, asshat": a delightful namecheck from the crucial, irrepressible Misanthropic Bitch, echoing a worthy sentiment and a cause by now well lost. (Received by e-mail, with thanks.)
I admit it, I monopolized the thread
Er, Guilty... It's easy to monopolize a thread when the subject is dear to one's heart. But it's difficult to gauge when one should resign and say "I'll shut up now". Cheerleading is annoying and thread-destroying. Although it's impossible to regulate posters' percentages and stuff, I'd like to hear other members' opinions on what constitutes the acceptable limit for commenting on one's own thread - considering that the moment you post it, it no more belongs to you than it does to anybody else.
Warnings for FPPs
[Bracket Etiquette]: For the benefit of users old and new and Metafilter usability in general, what warnings are considered essential or helpful when posting to the front page? [Possible list inside.]
What is the MetaFilter styleguide on capitalization of titles?
Looking at MetaFilter's front page, one finds an awesome variety of styles regarding capitalization of titles. Is there a preferred style? Which one better enhances readability? I'm not proposing uniformization - just asking what fellow members find most congenial.
How long do we wait for what's inside?
So here's a minor issue, strictly for decompression purposes: How long should we wait for someone to post his/her "More Inside" supplement? Matt recently rebuked ZachsMind and indeed deleted his offending comment because he leapt too soon, saying: "(...)you didn't wait until I had gotten my chance to finish my "more" post(...)". Yesterday y2Karl played the same trick on me.
Should it be ten or fifteen minutes? Or doesn't it matter? My own opinion is that one should just wait until the supplement is posted - unless it's demonstrably not forthcoming. Isn't jumping the gun just another version of annoying, pre-emptive thread sabotage? Or is it, somehow, fun?
Should it be ten or fifteen minutes? Or doesn't it matter? My own opinion is that one should just wait until the supplement is posted - unless it's demonstrably not forthcoming. Isn't jumping the gun just another version of annoying, pre-emptive thread sabotage? Or is it, somehow, fun?
Listing links on user profile pages
To avoid cluttering up the front page, is it OK for those of us who come across a lot of interesting links to use our user pages to list some of those we'd like to share but probably won't merit much discussion? I'm worried about using up bandwidth and the old accusation of using MetaFilter as one's personal blog.
If it's OK, what's the acceptable limit? Would five or six links be acceptable? Or should the opportunity be used (as some, like Zachsmind, have done) to list some of our favourite MetaFilter threads, for example? Please advise.
If it's OK, what's the acceptable limit? Would five or six links be acceptable? Or should the opportunity be used (as some, like Zachsmind, have done) to list some of our favourite MetaFilter threads, for example? Please advise.
And yet MetaFilter is a joy to read
Piling on clavdivs; piling on riviera; piling on fold_and_mutilate; piling on stavrosthewonderchicken; piling on rodii; piling on evanizer; piling on rcade; piling on bluetrain; piling and unpiling; back and forth; predictably lashing and then cuddling; the pack mentality rife; the mob rule always subjacent... This is what MetaTalk looks like after two weeks away.
And yet... and yet MetaFilter is a joy to read. I'd wished personalities weren't made into issues at the cost of issues themselves - issues are, after all, what MetaFilter does best - but then it struck me that perhaps MetaTalk is fulfilling its role as a sort of blotter-paper, soaking up all the displaced aggressiveness and natural human attrition and rivalry. And keeping MetaFilter clean, so to speak. Is this perverse or healthy in a leeching, purging sort of way? So - can this be talked about without thinking it's about somebody or another? Has MetaTalk been efficiently used so that MetaFilter can be MetaFilter? Is it being dumbed down and fouled up? And does it matter if the result over in the blue seems so successful?
And yet... and yet MetaFilter is a joy to read. I'd wished personalities weren't made into issues at the cost of issues themselves - issues are, after all, what MetaFilter does best - but then it struck me that perhaps MetaTalk is fulfilling its role as a sort of blotter-paper, soaking up all the displaced aggressiveness and natural human attrition and rivalry. And keeping MetaFilter clean, so to speak. Is this perverse or healthy in a leeching, purging sort of way? So - can this be talked about without thinking it's about somebody or another? Has MetaTalk been efficiently used so that MetaFilter can be MetaFilter? Is it being dumbed down and fouled up? And does it matter if the result over in the blue seems so successful?
Is Deep Linking Good Linking?
Is Deep Linking Good Linking? Jakob Nielsen says websites should encourage deep links as they enhance usability. He suggests three general guidelines. Nutcote(please scroll down)raises the question of etiquette: "Maintaining a links-based weblog, this is an important issue. I can see good points on both sides; to some extent it depends on the kind of site being linked to. When linking to a personal site, deep linking might not be good manners (depending on the site); but this is not the case when linking to an article on a major news site. It is a worldwide _web_ after all.".
Since this is an issue which affects a lot of us, I'd like to know what other bloggers think. Specially as I suspect the decision whether or not to deep-link(as opposed to just linking to an irrelevant main page as well as to the intended page) is not as simple as Nielsen makes it sound. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Since this is an issue which affects a lot of us, I'd like to know what other bloggers think. Specially as I suspect the decision whether or not to deep-link(as opposed to just linking to an irrelevant main page as well as to the intended page) is not as simple as Nielsen makes it sound. Any thoughts? Thanks!
Regrets on posting by proxy
Someone sent me an email saying he hadn't any posting privileges and wanted to add his comment to a thread I'd started. I posted it by proxy. I now have severe misgivings, expressed in that thread, reacting to mr_crash_davis's objection. What should I have done? The comment, by Thom Carlson, was intelligent and cogent and did provoke some lively responses. He's now sent me a second email, backing up his first comment.
I remember rebeccablood's thread about posting a link for someone and how most people felt it wasn't OK to do so. What about a single comment? Do the same principles apply? Please advise as I'm at a loss...
I remember rebeccablood's thread about posting a link for someone and how most people felt it wasn't OK to do so. What about a single comment? Do the same principles apply? Please advise as I'm at a loss...
A felicitous one-off or an example to be followed?
Norton DC's "marker" post is simple and to the point. It only links to a photograph but the way it's worded suggests the picture is representative of a wider subject: careless parenting, "kids will be kids", toy safety and possibly the redundance of "creative" presents such as crayons or markers for toddlers, etc. So is it a felicitous one-off or an example to be followed? [more inside]
What is the correct form of address here at MetaFilter? Real names or screen names?
What is the correct form of address here at MetaFilter? Or isn't there one? Real names seem to be used more and more. In this thread holgate and ljromanoff address each other as Lance and Nick. Can we use a real name when we know it - by exchanging emails with someone, for instance? Isn't it confusing for everyone else? Does it make others feel left out? (Examples inside.)
Paysites: link? copy and paste? ?
What's MeFi's ethical position on posting stuff from paysites? (more)
A "take it to MetaTalk" button
A "take it to MetaTalk" and/or "take it to Email" buttonb below the Comment box? In the heat of the moment it would help to be reminded these options existed.
9-11 abbreviations disrespectful
There is something disquieting and deeply disrespectful about the way some well-intentioned but impatient members have chosen to abbreviate the September 11 massacres. After 0.81 there has just appeared a 911 designation. Is a geeky insider-code-thing acceptable in these circumstances?
Is it even understandable to non-savvy members? To non-Americans, for instance "911" is a Porsche or an emergency phone number or the 9th of November.
Also there seems to be something inconsiderate about saying "WTC" when so many others died in Washington and Pennsylvania.
I am at a loss for suggestions. It would be too jinxy to say History will probably record the attacks as the September Attacks(there already is a "Black September"...) - because September is not yet ended.
Any ideas, meanwhile?
I often need to refer to these events here at MeFi and would welcome a short, but respectul abbreviation.
Thank you.
Is it even understandable to non-savvy members? To non-Americans, for instance "911" is a Porsche or an emergency phone number or the 9th of November.
Also there seems to be something inconsiderate about saying "WTC" when so many others died in Washington and Pennsylvania.
I am at a loss for suggestions. It would be too jinxy to say History will probably record the attacks as the September Attacks(there already is a "Black September"...) - because September is not yet ended.
Any ideas, meanwhile?
I often need to refer to these events here at MeFi and would welcome a short, but respectul abbreviation.
Thank you.
Page:
1