Searching for a url doesn't seem to work when the url is below the fold.
posted by homunculus on Jun 20, 2008 - 30 comments

Religious issues aside, do we really need three separate posts covering slight variations of the same thing? [more inside]
posted by tkolar on Jun 3, 2008 - 79 comments

This is an example of a double that should have been left alone. [more inside]
posted by wfrgms on Feb 13, 2008 - 38 comments

Has this 1994 interview with Cheney, in which he advises to not invade Baghdad, been posted yet? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BEsZMvrq-I I couldn't find it using the search feature, but thought I would do a pre-emptive check here and get flamed before a smaller audience if I'm wrong.
posted by mecran01 on Aug 13, 2007 - 46 comments

This post was deleted for the following reason: seen it. -- jessamyn Huh?
posted by homunculus on Jul 18, 2007 - 149 comments

Double post.
posted by Samuel Farrow on Apr 19, 2007 - 12 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 - 63 comments

An Immodest Proposal: One of the interesting phenomena I've noticed as other aggregating sites are on their ascendancy (can you Digg it?) is that many links that had been MetaFiltered long ago (in Web time) get a new wave of attention, which flows back around here, and BANG! Double-triple-quadruple post!. And how many times lately have we seen comments like "Didn't see it the first time; glad it was reposted"? Maybe what we need is a separate place for "Re-Current" posts or links, where we can acknowledge that WE got it months/years ago, and re-open comments on it. Obviously, such a sub-Meta would require a lot of moderation/maintenance, and maybe it should be an off-site project. How should it work? Can we/you make it work? Why bother? Any volunteers?
posted by wendell on Mar 6, 2007 - 34 comments

"hampster dance" just got deleted. it did look (after 17 comments) as though it was about to spiral seriously out of control, but matt could have at least waited an hour or two.. ok, fine, i'll go read about the military coup in thailand.
posted by dminor on Sep 19, 2006 - 16 comments

In an attempt to be a better MeFier, I have a question about this post

I cannot find anything remotely similar to this one posted yesterday or any other day...

Can you point me in the right direction..??
posted by WhipSmart on Aug 1, 2006 - 13 comments

Okey fine. Then where? Is there some place on the web where DrawBall is being discussed?
posted by ZachsMind on Jul 16, 2006 - 27 comments

Maybe I'm crazy, but I thought that this was the same exact post as this.
posted by I Love Tacos on Jun 28, 2006 - 69 comments

My link to a site with a few hundred photographs gets deleted because it's supposedly a double of a 2-year old link to a post on some messageboard with but a few dozen similar pictures? What gives? (I've happily accepted the fate of unfortunate double posts in the past, but these links are not the same...)
posted by Robot Johnny on Jun 15, 2006 - 31 comments

I posted a link in a comment on the blue. Can I repost it as an FPP?
posted by anjamu on May 12, 2006 - 42 comments

Doubleposts and deletions; now that MeFi is a bit of a monster, rather than a very small community, is it time to perhaps do away with the concept of doubleposts, and just let topics stand? For instance, this post was deleted as being a double, although the comments and links inside were significantly more active and amusing than the original, which wasn't linked by the deleter. (As an aside, if we're going to make content disappear because of doubleposts, may I request that the deleter please link to the original topic?)
posted by dejah420 on Mar 14, 2006 - 33 comments

Is it just me, or does the thread that contained the link to the British doc about White Phosphorous and MK-77 being used in Iraq no longer exist?
posted by Chomskyfied on Nov 12, 2005 - 6 comments

Am I missing something here? Sure its a good link but its still a double-post and the poster himself states: "*shrug* sorry, I'm a sucker for his photos. I figured everyone who missed it last time would appreciate it and the people who'd already seen it would like to know he's updating again."
posted by KevinSkomsvold on Oct 20, 2005 - 4 comments

The other one should be axed, not this one. I couldn't agree more. I know this has happened before- someone writing a well-crafted post is beaten (by about ten minutes) to the punch by a hastily-made, one-link post. I realize that technically, the "first" post wins, but shouldn't exceptions be made for cases like this? It's rewarding speed over substance.
posted by mkultra on Sep 28, 2005 - 37 comments

Hypothetical scenario: Someone puts up a front page post, but does it in a manner with heavy editorializing / intentionally trolling / etc. The topic is interesting, but it gets removed because of the garbage that came along with it. Someone reposts on the same topic, even with some of the same links, but without the editorializing. Would it be okay? Is there a policy on this?
posted by NotMyselfRightNow on Aug 15, 2005 - 16 comments

GoDaddy recant thread deleted.
"Because the original is still on the front page".
posted by Goofyy on Jun 22, 2005 - 63 comments

Just curious - How is this a double post? I know earlier I had flagged a double comment I had made, but when I checked back to see if any new comments had been added the thread was gone.
posted by shawnj on Mar 17, 2005 - 37 comments

Question: what constitutes a double-post? This is easy to answer for websites, but it seems to be harder for NewsFilter posts. One person recently argued that a second NewsFilter post on a previously discussed topic isn't a double if it offers a different perspective. However, I'm not sure that argument can be made for the topic of this post, which has already been discussed twice. So is every news article on a topic fair game for its own post? Early returns indicate that the discussion isn't going to be much different from the first two go-rounds, so what's the point? (yes, I know this is a double post).
posted by casu marzu on Feb 17, 2005 - 11 comments

double post.
posted by brevator on Jan 28, 2005 - 17 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

Ooops.

I missed the FPP with a similar topic two posts below because of my habit of skipping links to Windows Media. I didn't mean to post something so topically similar to something else already posted on the front page.

Is there a way to move my post to a comment in the previous one?
posted by eustacescrubb on Nov 9, 2004 - 4 comments

I posted this entry that was deleted because "previously." The linked entry did not contain the same link and was marginally about the same subject. What gives?
posted by bbrown on Aug 24, 2004 - 3 comments

Double Post Suggestion: Part of the reason people double-post is because when they do a search, nothing turns up. This often has to do with the fact that the first poster wanted to maintain an element of surprise and therefore did not put any information into the post except a link. I would suggest that from now on, for each new front page post, that there be an additional, hidden field called 'description' or 'keywords' or both where the poster could put a list of keywords or a description that might turn up in future searches. This field would not show up on the front page, so posters could maintain the element of surprise without making it difficult to find the post in future.
posted by PigAlien on Jul 9, 2004 - 28 comments

I know I'm probably asking for it, but I don't understand the bile that comes with double-posts, or even posts that some people are already familiar with (even if it's not a double-post).
posted by o2b on Jun 7, 2004 - 40 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

Although this thread was used before (and the bad spelling!), it had a little more relevance to the accompanying links. Double post? Yes. Included more than the previous post? Yes. Someone forgot to spell check? Yes.
posted by Keyser Soze on Sep 3, 2003 - 24 comments

RetroFilter! Since "Eric Conveys an Emotion" was first posted over three years ago, both the contents of the link and the Metafilter community that discussed it have changed. Now that Metafilter has surpassed 25,000 threads, perhaps we could use a forum dedicated to the dredging up of old-school links from Metafilter's past? Alternatively, should we encourage "selective doubleposting" to Metafilter itself?
posted by PrinceValium on Apr 21, 2003 - 3 comments

This thread seems to be a triple post. Augusta was discussed here and here.

My apologies for not bringing it up here first.
posted by Kellydamnit on Dec 18, 2002 - 3 comments

New member; first post; searched and searched; usual story. Then this comment, by furiousthought, pointing to the fact that my link had already been posted in a thread (albeit, in my defense, long before I joined and cryptically referenced). So I wonder whether the automatic URL search facility which exists when you preview a front page post could possibly be extended to include URLS mentioned in comments? At the very least, we could thank the first users to link to it. Nobody has the time to read all the threads or click on all the links in comments and searches, whether MetaFilter or Google, often fail to point to cryptically described links.

Forgive me if this is impossible to achieve, stupid or has been asked before, of course!
posted by Carlos Quevedo on Oct 27, 2002 - 15 comments

Front Page Posts. Is there a time limit before a topic is reposted? If something was posted a year ago, and you've got something new, or want to explore a different angle, how long should you wait? Or will any repost elicit a thread composed of "repost" and "how about some pancakes?"

posted by Grod on Aug 26, 2002 - 12 comments

Curious, as this is the only one I I've actually run across. It seems that double-posts have been very rare recently. Or have they just been getting caught that quickly?
posted by Su on Mar 5, 2002 - 12 comments

Possible double post. The same topic if not the same link.

This post of January 23rd seems to be the same as my post of December 10th.
posted by dgeiser13 on Jan 31, 2002 - 4 comments

Double-post call-out bar raised. Thank you, SJC.
posted by SpecialK on Jan 27, 2002 - 17 comments

Trip Observation #3 : I don't know if others share this problem, but I have now learned the hard way to think twice before posting to Mefi while traveling (now being 2 for 2 on deleted double posts during the past 4 days, even after searching prior to posting.) So much happens on Mefi in short time periods that searching is not enough, I need to also carefully read any posts and comments I have missed, and also search, before posting from the road. So apologies for the inconvenience to Matt , to the private emailer kindly alerting me, to commenters publicly noting it, to readers re-reading old stuff, to anyone else I have forgotten.
posted by Voyageman on Jan 16, 2002 - 3 comments

Is this the first time where front page double post is getting equal attention as the original, and no one has asked for the double post deletion? Is this because Dave Thomas was a popular guy or what?
posted by Rastafari on Jan 8, 2002 - 11 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

This isn't exactly a double post, but it's a link to another article on the same site as wfrgms's only other post, and presented in almost exactly the same way. Something weird is going on here.
posted by moss on Oct 11, 2001 - 11 comments

Yea I want to know why you guys deleted my post. Some people get away with posting porn sites but I can't post a controversial thread that Tom Gutting wrote in the Houston City Sun. Geez who woulda thought!
posted by redhead on Oct 8, 2001 - 8 comments

Considering how snopes happy we are, what is the policy on follow-up threads? I just read the 'penis in a bottle' was actually a penis shaped fungus. [PIC]Would this make a double post? I can't see the benefits of putting this new info into the old thread as no one is going to read it. Shall we let them wander about in ignorance?
posted by skallas on Oct 4, 2001 - 9 comments

is a post that includes a link previously posted in a thread, but not on the homepage, a double-post?
posted by o2b on Sep 25, 2001 - 31 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

How about a Statute of Limitations on double-posts? jpoulos just posted a link that turns out to be a double-post from something from April 2000. Sure, he should have done the search, but is there a point where something has slipped out of our collective conscious long enough that it can be seen afresh?
posted by briank on Jun 22, 2001 - 12 comments

Bad day for double posts. I mean, I know the threads each has slightly different takes but were so many really needed?
posted by lagado on Apr 3, 2001 - 4 comments