MetaTalk

Uhm, everyone using [more inside] in Ask MetaFilter sort of defeats the purpose if it and looks, err, bad, does it not? Is there anything to do about it?
posted by xmutex on Feb 18, 2005 - 31 comments

Could we maybe dispense with the cliffhangers in Ask.MetaFilter?
posted by Space Coyote on Jan 4, 2005 - 35 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

[more inside] [mi], and all the variations thereof: is this not superfluous? If further initial content is needed from the poster (in order to avoid a long FPP), isn't simply adding the first comment sufficient? Looks like about 75% of posts in the green have that final embellishment.

There was a post in MeTa about dropping the [mi] habit I think within the last year, but over 2,000 results showed up when I searched. Stav possibly posted it?
posted by yoga on May 21, 2004 - 44 comments

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?
posted by MiguelCardoso on Oct 5, 2002 - 38 comments