What is this filtering you speak of? December 3, 2005 8:51 AM   Subscribe

I just saw a comment on Metafilter today, I think it was, talking about another "[Fill in the blank] Filter" website, but saying that "Not much filtering was going on..." As a neophyte, I'd need some explanation about "filtering". It seems to be far more than, say, censorship or limiting access... but I was wondering if somebody could offer a more complete definition that covers specifically how Metafilter and other sites like it are "filtering". Thanks!!
posted by Misciel to MetaFilter-Related at 8:51 AM (36 comments total)

It's editing really--selecting which things you want to show others (much like a newspaper/magazine/tv show/etc)
posted by amberglow at 8:58 AM on December 3, 2005


(and since we're each doing it, the sum of the site becomes more than just what one person's editorial choices--it becomes the sum of all of our choices)
posted by amberglow at 9:00 AM on December 3, 2005


- what ; >
posted by amberglow at 9:00 AM on December 3, 2005


Wikipedia's entry on MetaFilter mentions the "filtering" aspect too.
posted by Gator at 9:02 AM on December 3, 2005


the real question is what the "meta" part means.
posted by crunchland at 9:08 AM on December 3, 2005


Filtering is using restraint. Not posting stuff that most users will have already seen on Fark or Boing Boing or wherever. Also not posting the latest news flash that we have all heard on NPR or CNN.
posted by LarryC at 9:31 AM on December 3, 2005


metafilter is things on the net that people found interesting ... (and hopefully others do too) ... an unfiltered net is available at google's main page
posted by pyramid termite at 9:59 AM on December 3, 2005


Filtering is using restraint. Not posting stuff that most users will have already seen on Fark or Boing Boing or wherever

Actually, Misciel, you have accidentally touched on a very controversial topic. What is meant by Filtering is sorting through all the web sites you visit or stumble upon and then posting the "Best of the Web."

The great controversy is what does "Best of the Web" mean? Some posters such as Larry C have argued that anything posted on another popular web site such as Fark is not the Best because the guidelines for posting clearly state:

A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.

Others have said the same thing about
The New York Times
CNN headline News
Yahoo

and many other heavily traveled web sites. In Metatalk post after Metatalk post we have attempted to hash this out and usually there has been an agreement that even though something has been posted on Fark before, because many (most?) of us do not visit Fark it would be new to many (most?) of us.

Filtering is really just a way of referring to sorting through most of the garbage out there in the hopes of finding a nugget of gold that you can then share with the rest of us.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 10:06 AM on December 3, 2005


"Filter" is really a metaphor, and somewhat inaccurate at that. You should ask, "What's a metaphor?", to which the answer is, of course, "Grazing sheep."
posted by mischief at 10:07 AM on December 3, 2005


Wikipedia: In epistemology the prefix meta- is used to mean about (its own category). For example, metadata is data about data (who has produced it, when, what format the data is in and so on). Similarly, meta-memory in psychology means an individual's intuition about whether or not they would remember something if they concentrated on recalling it. Any subject can be said to have a meta-theory, which is the theoretical consideration of its foundations and methods.

So, you know, I always took it to mean "a filter of filters". Each person functions as a filter. Many of us find links by reading other filtered sites, like NYT or Coudal or BoingBoing. Then we come here to create a filter of all those filters.
posted by Miko at 10:13 AM on December 3, 2005


I messed up that link, but good. Let's try that again.
posted by Miko at 10:16 AM on December 3, 2005


So, you know, I always took it to mean "a filter of filters". [...] Many of us find links by reading other filtered sites [...] Then we come here to create a filter of all those filters.

Funny, Miko, I always took to mean that as well, but rather:

Filter 1) The minds, interests, attitudes, clicking habits etc. of the Mefite collective;
Filter 2) What ends up being posted and what not; comments that extend, deepen and delightfully derail; a mobocratic consensus about what is acceptable.

As opposed to

1) Other 'filtered' sites
2) As you or I said.

Interestingly enough, the wiki inteprets the "meta" part differently.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:20 AM on December 3, 2005


To answer your question, Misciel, I believe it applies to the perceived pollution of MeFi with one particular topic, e.g. IraqFilter, BushFilter. This goes hand in hand with the editorializing amberglow mentioned, but they're not the same thing IMO, and I think it's the topic selection or agenda-setting that's the problem in the eyes of people who use this term, not directly the editorializing. YMMV.

While we're being pedantic, I'd go with 'editorializing', because what's wrong with editing?

I'll shut up now.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:24 AM on December 3, 2005


We're like filter feeders.

Baleen whales Represent!
posted by atrazine at 10:50 AM on December 3, 2005


Crush! Krill! Destroy!
posted by trondant at 10:53 AM on December 3, 2005


Wait, editorializing and editing are two different things. To editorialize is to opine. To edit is to select and emend topics, elements, and text. Both are going on here, not one or the other. Even editing itself is not a value-neutral activity; editors choose what gets to the reader's eye and what doesn't, and they base their choices on an editorial philiosophy -- or, here perhaps, more of a personal philosophy or set of interests.
posted by Miko at 11:19 AM on December 3, 2005


Agreed, Miko.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 11:31 AM on December 3, 2005


Now I know
posted by Eideteker at 12:22 PM on December 3, 2005


why amberglow's contribution index
posted by Eideteker at 12:23 PM on December 3, 2005


is so high.
posted by Eideteker at 12:23 PM on December 3, 2005


(burma shave comments!) ;)
posted by Eideteker at 12:23 PM on December 3, 2005


"...usually there has been an agreement that even though something has been posted on Fark before, because many (most?) of us do not visit Fark it would be new to many (most?) of us."

There has? I don't think so. It seems to me that if it's been on Fark or similar already, that's a strike against it. It doesn't completely disqualify it, but it makes it questionable.

There are two extremes that I think we all agree we don't want: in one direction, it's having to check if something's been posted on Fark (and similar) and if it has, don't post it. That's extreme. In the other direction, it's taking things that you read on Fark and posting them to MetaFilter. That's also extreme.

The guideline of trying to avoid things that have already been seen by many people makes it clear that you shouldn't regularly use other very popular sites as sources for MeFi posts.

Speaking only for myself, if it's been on Fark, I don't want to see it, even though I don't visit Fark. If I wanted to read things posted on Fark, I'd go to Fark, wouldn't I?

The bottom line is that we don't want to rehash old cool crap, we want to find new cool crap. We don't want to be an aggregator of other sites like MetaFilter, we want to find stuff first. And also, in my opinion, that doesn't include news stories on Reuters or CNN or NYT or wherever.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:35 PM on December 3, 2005


It seems to me that if it's been on Fark or similar already, that's a strike against it.

i don't read fark or many other websites ... the idea that if it's on another website, it shouldn't be posted here is ultimately self-defeating if it's taken to the extreme ... what sites are so popular that "everyone" has seen them?
posted by pyramid termite at 1:01 PM on December 3, 2005


Well, that's why I said that it shouldn't be extreme, but more of a guideline.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:46 PM on December 3, 2005


My favorite whale movie is A View to a Krill.
posted by jenovus at 1:47 PM on December 3, 2005


Speaking only for myself, if it's been on Fark, I don't want to see it, even though I don't visit Fark. If I wanted to read things posted on Fark, I'd go to Fark, wouldn't I?

In all seriousness, if a poster didn't via the link and no one called it out as Farkery in the thread, how on Earth would you ever know?
posted by trondant at 2:16 PM on December 3, 2005


That is a secret only the experts know.
posted by puke & cry at 2:24 PM on December 3, 2005


if it's been on Fark, I don't want to see it, even though I don't visit Fark.

That's one of the more bizarre comments I've read, especially from such a sensible poster. It really makes no sense at all.
posted by languagehat at 2:49 PM on December 3, 2005


if it's been on Fark, I don't want to see it, even though I don't visit Fark.

That's one of the more bizarre comments I've read, especially from such a sensible poster. It really makes no sense at all.

posted by languagehat at 2:49 PM PST on December 3

I think that what EB means is that the kind of thing posted on Fark (i.e. Farkish material) is stuff he is not interested in because the Fark Filter catches a different type of nugget unsuitable for EB's delicate brain.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 3:53 PM on December 3, 2005


> My favorite whale movie is A View to a Krill.

As an arthropod I was really excited to see Krill Bill. And then really really disappointed.
posted by jfuller at 4:39 PM on December 3, 2005


Filtering is using restraint. Not posting stuff that most users will have already seen on Fark or Boing Boing or wherever. Also not posting the latest news flash that we have all heard on NPR or CNN.

That sounds really good. Where can I get some of that?
posted by nanojath at 6:24 PM on December 3, 2005


"It really makes no sense at all."

I think it makes impeccable sense. I feel the same way about Fox news.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:52 PM on December 3, 2005


In physics we study a lot of Max Planckton.
posted by jenovus at 8:01 PM on December 3, 2005


EB, I'm also confused. Is that just a way of saying you dislike Fark and Fox News? If so, I'm with you. I hate them too. But though Fox is biased, some of thse stuff they report is just plain news. Do I not want to hear there's been an earthquake somewhere, just because it's been reported on Fox news? I could understand you not wanting to hear about it FROM Fox News -- but is the fact of the earthquake been tainted just because Fox reported it? If Fox did a story on love, would you never be able to love anyone again?

Fark is a stupid site. I read it for a short time and got tired of it. But while I was there, I noticed that maybe .02% of the links there were interesting. So I GLAD when these links show up on MetaFilter. I get to experience them without wading through the crap on Fark.
posted by grumblebee at 6:47 AM on December 4, 2005


And I suppose amberglows because of ambergris?
posted by fleacircus at 7:26 AM on December 4, 2005


I think it makes impeccable sense. I feel the same way about Fox news.

What grumblebee said. I guess I can sort of see what you meant, but it still makes no sense, unless you genuinely believe that 100% of what's found on both Fox and Fark is stuff that on its own merits (i.e., if you saw it here without knowing where it came from) you would reject. I find that idea absurd.
posted by languagehat at 11:29 AM on December 4, 2005


« Older Phoenix meetup December 2005   |   Why was my thread deleted? Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments