MetaTalk

I'm confused. What is more important to mefites, actually responding to the content of FPPs, or rating their quality? I see a general (hence, no links in this question) preponderance to the former. It seems that many responses to posts are actually rating the quality of it and/or the poster, rather than the content of the FPP. I've read a lot of the sites about Metafilter and maybe I'm missing a concept or something.

I am truly not trying to be a smartass, I'm genuinely interested in understanding this. Thanks.
posted by Slap Incognito on Dec 13, 2005 - 93 comments

A what-makes-a-good-post question I'd like to see other MetaFilter dinosaurs answer along with me: What are the best and worst links you ever inflicted on the front page?
posted by rcade on Jul 29, 2004 - 66 comments

Without getting specific, I regularly see links on metafilter these days to items which not only have previously been posted to every site on the intarweb and my grandmothers mailing list, but which have usually appeared on my television set some twelve to twenty four hours before they show up here. I fully realise that the intentions of the participants re-shape the intentions of communities over time, and that if I don't like it here I'm free to leave.

However, I first got interested in this site because it was the best filter on the web, not the wittiest discussion forum, so I'll poke my head over the parapet one more time to ask the question: what is the purpose of this site any more as opposed to, say, blogdex? Do we still fulfill a useful function, or as Matt obliquely eludes elsewhere, are human filters wearing the orange safety reflectors of the web these days, compared to the robots? And if not, how can we raise the bar?
posted by walrus on Jul 31, 2003 - 56 comments

For god's sake, enough with the pornolizer
posted by tj on Jan 11, 2002 - 11 comments