selflink December 28, 2005 12:55 PM   Subscribe

Self link
posted by ryanrs to Etiquette/Policy at 12:55 PM (61 comments total)

Care to elaborate?
posted by panoptican at 12:57 PM on December 28, 2005


Flag- "breaks the guidelines".
posted by Saydur at 12:58 PM on December 28, 2005


WHOIS joannewarfieldfineart.com:
Registrant:
The Scream Online
Stuart Balcomb
P.O. Box 598
Venice, Ca 90294
US
Email: stuart@thescreamonline.com

Registrar Name....: REGISTER.COM, INC.
Registrar Whois...: whois.register.com
Registrar Homepage: www.register.com

Domain Name: joannewarfieldfineart.com

Created on..............: Wed, Feb 28, 2001
Expires on..............: Sat, Feb 28, 2009
Record last updated on..: Fri, Sep 30, 2005

Administrative Contact:
TheScreamOnline
Stuart Vail
P.O. Box 598
Venice, Ca 90294
US
Phone: 310-555-1211
Email: stuart@thescreamonline.com

Technical Contact:
TheScreamOnline
Stuart Vail
P.O. Box 598
Venice, Ca 90294
US
Phone: 310-555-1211
Email: stuart@thescreamonline.com

DNS Servers:

ns.wwwnexus.com
ns2.wwwnexus.com
From Edward King's Profile:
Homepage URL: http://www.thescreamonline.com
posted by ryanrs at 12:58 PM on December 28, 2005


Probably a photographer site he hosts/built for someone else. Removed.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:59 PM on December 28, 2005


Also, Edward's other FPP is also a link to joannewarfieldfineart.com.
posted by ryanrs at 1:01 PM on December 28, 2005


True, but people really enjoyed the post. They are some pretty amazing photos in the old one, the new post today, not so much. I'll leave the old one up and I didn't ban the guy's account, but I'll let him know what he did wrong.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:02 PM on December 28, 2005


please be consistent, matt. that is all.
posted by iconomy at 1:05 PM on December 28, 2005


Knee-jerk.

The ScreamOnline looks to be a magazine where Edward King has "where some of my [his] writings are published".

Not his site, nor does he seem to be on the staff

-----------

Publisher/Editor-in-Chief
Stuart Vail

Editorial Staff
Joanne Warfield—Photography
John Kilgore—Fiction
Sonja Mongar—Non Fiction
John Guzlowski—Poetry
Proofreading—Annette Hillesland

Site Design—Vail Graphics
Creative Consultant—Joanne Warfield

Contributors
Robert Balcomb, Brooke Bergan, Jared Carter, Homer Christensen
Ahmed Faheem, David Feela, Charles Fishman, Luther Gerlach
Tim Girvin, G. Gömöri, Dansuha V. Goska, John Isaac, Sean Kernan
John Kilgore, Michael Knisely, Robin Larsen, Lisa Lenard-Cook
Sara McWhorter, Norm Nason, Feliks Netz, B.Z. Niditch, CJ Puotinen
David Radavich, Ron Roizen, M.J. Rychlewski, Marty Scott, Sheron Mariah Steele
Joe Survant, Margaret Szumowski, Stuart Vail, M.L. Williams, Rob Woutat
------------------------

This is like banning links to New York Times by Matt Haughey since he's a contributor now.
posted by Gyan at 1:06 PM on December 28, 2005


iconomy: why? His reason makes sense. Are you worried about incentives to future self-posters? It's hard for me to get upset about reasoned inconsistency in MeFi FPP-deleting.
posted by ibmcginty at 1:07 PM on December 28, 2005


I agree with iconomy here; inconsistancies in policy based on how good a post is seems kinda shady. It's one thing to let a bad post go, but a self-link?
posted by dflemingdotorg at 1:19 PM on December 28, 2005


iconomy, I generally frown on rules for the sake of rigor. I'm not going to say that there's no such thing as a self-link that was worth keeping around. Someone's 30 year old images of Afghanistan that no one else on this site could find previously? Totally worth keeping around and a good post (just read the old comments, people gushed over it).

I've said it every time someone presses me to "stick to the rules" -- once in a blue moon, there's something really good that gets posted as a self-link. I know that's a judgement call, and it doesn't scale very well, which is why it's too nuanced for a huge community that will likely disagree where the line should be drawn. Still, I would wager a vast majority of mefi users enjoyed the first (possible) self-link without knowing the story behind the person posting it and their possible relationship (if any) to the person running the site.

I kind of like how digg.com handles this -- they don't care. If something is truly good, it will get voted up and stick around. Of course, they spend a lot of effort trying to thwart people gaming the system and falsely voting, but they let the good stuff stick around, regardless of who created it.

Anyway, self-links being bad is true 99% of the time, but I'm not going to "be consistent" and make that 100%. Sometimes they are worth keeping around and I hope even the most pile-on happy metatalk users can agree with that.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:20 PM on December 28, 2005


Also: it's not being inconsistent, I think posting the "best of the web" is more important than "don't self-link" and once in a great, great while, someone's work trumps the rule by being so good at the first goal.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:22 PM on December 28, 2005


Knee-jerk? Here's why I thought it was a self-link:
  • Lame FPP to 7 photos.
  • Poster's sole previous FPP was to same site.
  • Poster's homepage WHOIS matches FPP link WHOIS.
  • FPP link not indexed by Google.
Seemed like enough evidence to warrant a MeTa post.
posted by ryanrs at 1:30 PM on December 28, 2005


Anyway, self-links being bad is true 99% of the time, but I'm not going to "be consistent" and make that 100%.

And the nice part is that the large majority who erroneously think their shit is good enough to self-link (or who don't give a goddam about the guidelines) will, per usual, get mocked in the short window before the deletion.
posted by cortex at 1:32 PM on December 28, 2005


and remember - let's be careful out there.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:34 PM on December 28, 2005


I kind of like how digg.com handles this -- they don't care.

If you want to have us start pre-approving posts, sure.

Let someone else re-post a self-link if it's that good.
posted by scarabic at 1:36 PM on December 28, 2005


Those photos sucked an incredible amount of ass. Self link or no.

I can do better with my nearly 10 year old 640x480 resolution Ricoh digital camera that has practically zero night/low light abilities.

Here's a not-so-pro tip: Don't use a point-and-shoot, be it film or digital. Use a heavy, rock-solid tripod. Use extremely fast film - 1200 and up - and very fast shutters and wide open apertures. Capture the insane amount of detail that's available in dark-sky firework shows that the eye most often misses due to the motion of the fireworks and the inherent nature of the human eye.

If you're going to go for the open shutter effect, don't make it look like an accident. Go fucking crazy go nuts. Again, use a tripod, unless you're actually planning on dancing and painting with your camera. That half-assed open shutter, shaky hand stuff just looks like, well, bad photography.



Joanne's other shots are more interesting and painterly, but those fireworks shots not so much. Though, it makes me wonder how much of her stuff is really more painting and less photography and composition.

(Sorry for ranting about it here. There's no where else to put it. And it argues in favor of the deletion. Best of the web it's not.)
posted by loquacious at 1:36 PM on December 28, 2005


loquacious, maybe Joanne agrees with you? None of her other pages link to the fireworks photos.
posted by ryanrs at 1:42 PM on December 28, 2005


Can someone be clear about something for me then?

If I host a site for an acquaintance, and I think it's really awesome -- linking it on MeFi, even though it's not mine is a self link?

I don't ask with regard to the link in this post - I ask just as a general question. Is that poo-pooed even though it may be a legitimately cool thing?

[I happen to do web hosting on a very small scale, and sometimes my clients come up with coolass stuff. i've never linked any of it from MeFi, but might consider it sometime unless that is for some reason deemed unkosher].
posted by twiggy at 1:46 PM on December 28, 2005


At what point do you get so obsessed with this that you check up on every bad post?
posted by smackfu at 1:50 PM on December 28, 2005


If I host a site for an acquaintance, and I think it's really awesome -- linking it on MeFi, even though it's not mine is a self link?

Yes. The reason self-linking is forbidden is not (just) that it's self-promotion but that we are incapable of being objective about our own stuff; every parent thinks their kid is the cutest and smartest thing ever and would post it to MeFi if there were a "cute kids" category. The same goes for your friends, clients, etc., if not to quite the same degree. The whole point of this place is to post great stuff you've run across out there in the wide world, not spread the word about stuff you're involved with (and of course think is awesome).
posted by languagehat at 1:51 PM on December 28, 2005


Let someone else re-post a self-link if it's that good.

I think it's been tried in the past and failed, because people wanted to continue a self-link pile-on.

Those photos sucked an incredible amount of ass. Self link or no.

loquacious, not a single person is arguing the fireworks photos were any good. You're ranting to no one.

even though it's not mine is a self link?

twiggy, the point of the rule is that being close to a subject clouds your judgement and we're shooting for good links here. You might think your brother's/sister's/coworker's/wife's site is really, really amazing but 99% of the time it's nothing special and people won't enjoy it. It's better if people find things on their own that's really good and they have no incentive to link to.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:52 PM on December 28, 2005


If I host a site for an acquaintance, and I think it's really awesome -- linking it on MeFi, even though it's not mine is a self link?

You can always show it another mefite whose judgement you trust, and who isn't an acquaintance of your hosted acquaintance. Let them decide whether it's cool enough for a post; if it is, they will, and if they don't, that's that.
posted by cortex at 1:57 PM on December 28, 2005


At what point do you get so obsessed with this that you check up on every bad post?

I think the lackluster post usually sets off red flags in people, and they start digging. That's why really good posts get through unnoticed, and why I'm fine with them sticking around 1% of the time.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:57 PM on December 28, 2005


At what point do you get so obsessed with this that you check up on every bad post?

You make it sound so bothersome. This is distributed obsession, man. From each, according to his spare time; to each, according to his gall and self-promotion.
posted by cortex at 1:59 PM on December 28, 2005


I think it's been tried in the past and failed, because people wanted to continue a self-link pile-on.

Perhaps, but how is it any less of a pileon than the few self-links you allow to live?
posted by scarabic at 2:02 PM on December 28, 2005


As someone who has spent a great deal of time trying to get really good photos of fireworks, and is now denied the opportunity to rudely express my contempt for these crappy photos in the thread, I would like to point out that among pictures of fireworks, these are extremely bad and awful.
posted by y6y6y6 at 2:04 PM on December 28, 2005


how is it any less of a pileon than the few self-links you allow to live?

The ones I allow to live are almost always unnoticed. There's no pile on.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:07 PM on December 28, 2005


Obsessed? Perhaps. I admit I've been actively searching for self-links. This was my first. And I must say, killing a FPP is pretty satisfying. Maybe even better than getting Best Answer. Next up: provoking someone's bitter public flame-out.
posted by ryanrs at 2:14 PM on December 28, 2005


Well, they're ignored until they're found out. A recent self-link that was allowed to live caused quite a stir. Presumably, deleting a link that people were commenting in happily would also cause a stir ("aw, why'd you have to kill it?").

But in that latter case, at least the upset parties have a recourse: repost it. Inconsistently applying cardinal rules causes trouble for which there is no recourse.
posted by scarabic at 2:17 PM on December 28, 2005


ryanrs - nailing self-links is good work. I congratulate you. It's pretty clear that flagging it early is important. Matt says that his occasional leniency is about letting higher-quality posts live on, but I suspect it's only a tough call once the conversation has picked up steam. I'd warrant that a self-link, called out with 0 comments still, will get deleted regardless of the link quality.
posted by scarabic at 2:19 PM on December 28, 2005


Shut the hell up scarabic. Boy howdy there are a ton of frustrated moderators around here. What the sam heck is the point of deleting a two month old archived thread?
posted by kjh at 2:28 PM on December 28, 2005


Uh, I don't think the older post should be deleted. I just mentioned it as evidence against the fireworks post.
posted by ryanrs at 2:38 PM on December 28, 2005


If you can't follow the conversation, kjh, perhaps shutting up is a good idea indeed.
posted by scarabic at 2:47 PM on December 28, 2005


It seems less like a conversation and more of a monologue, scarabic.
posted by crunchland at 2:53 PM on December 28, 2005


strike that. you account for 5 of the 35 comments on this thread.
posted by crunchland at 2:55 PM on December 28, 2005


mathowie: "Anyway, self-links being bad is true 99% of the time, but I'm not going to "be consistent" and make that 100%. Sometimes they are worth keeping around and I hope even the most pile-on happy metatalk users can agree with that."

What bothers me most about self linking is the brazen flaunting of the one rule that is stated very clearly. It is disrespectful. There isn't much ambiguity in:
Because linking to your own site or a project you worked on in this space will result in a deletion and your account will be banned.
This doesn't say: might be banned.

If your going to make a conscious decision to let the occasional self-link stand and not ban the users, you might consider rephrasing this. I understand your dislike for the rigid enforcement of hard and fast rules, but the only thing worse is not following through on the one rule written that way.

Hell, you even include a handy-dandy link to the Projects page. What more could these people ask for. I say ban them without remorse or mercy and if they sincerely want to continue participating consider the five bucks for a new membership a token fee for your time.
posted by cedar at 3:22 PM on December 28, 2005


1. Charge 10 bucks.
2. Make them wait at least one month before posting.
3. Delete all self-links. 99% means that every self-deluded idiot is going to continue to try to hit that mathowie-1%, and it'll NEVER. FUCKING. END. That's disruptive to the community.

cedar is right. It doesn't say 'you might be banned'. And if it did, you'd have the same damned problem.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:40 PM on December 28, 2005


ryanrs :

Lame FPP to 7 photos.

Irrelevant with regards to whether it's a self-link.

Poster's sole previous FPP was to same site.

He likes that person's work. Sheesh.

Poster's homepage WHOIS matches FPP link WHOIS.

Poster's homepage doesn't seem to be his homepage. It is what he links to, just like some posters link to places they hang out, but don't run. EK has had 4 works published at Scream. The FPP link belongs to the staff photographer of the Scream, the link listed in EK's profile. Big surprise about the WHOIS!!

FPP link not indexed by Google

Are you saying Joanne is EK? If not, it's not a self-link. A crappy post, Yes.
posted by Gyan at 3:47 PM on December 28, 2005


Wait, so, Matt, what did the guy say about his self-link? Did he claim ignorance? Did you get a response at all?

I understand your position about rules v. guidelines, but are you really trying to say it's *not* pretty damn shocking that you're *not* banning a user whose first two front-page posts were to the same site - a site he was involved with?

I mean, that's pretty damn shocking. Give us time to adjust, at least.
posted by mediareport at 3:51 PM on December 28, 2005


...assuming he is involved with the site, that is. Jury seems still out...
posted by mediareport at 3:52 PM on December 28, 2005


Just to be clear: I think EK knows Joanne Warfield, which is how he might have found the fireworks page. Also, considering that these photographs are 4 years old and JW is renovating her site, the base navigation pages might have been removed sometime back, hence no Google index. But I don't think it's a self-link.
posted by Gyan at 3:58 PM on December 28, 2005


For what it's worth, posting a site you yourself are renovating does indeed count as a self-link in my book.
posted by mediareport at 4:00 PM on December 28, 2005


mediareport: "For what it's worth, posting a site you yourself are renovating does indeed count as a self-link in my book."

In my book too.

I just rebuilt a large and popular political weblog that happened to break a big story (well sourced and unreported elsewhere) at the same time. This is something that would have been prime PoliFilter fodder but I didn't do it because I had just fondled the templates, upgraded the scripting and moved them to another host.

I'm not credited on the site and am not a contributer but there is no way I can claim in good faith that I'm not involved in the site.
posted by cedar at 4:08 PM on December 28, 2005


mediareport : "posting a site you yourself are renovating does indeed count as a self-link"

Agreed, but where do you figure that EK is involved with JW's site other than possibly knowing her and liking her work?
posted by Gyan at 4:14 PM on December 28, 2005


If
hosting it = committing resources to it
and
committed resources to it = invested in it
then
linking to it = self-linking.
posted by scarabic at 4:14 PM on December 28, 2005


I haven't heard back from the guy, so the jury is still out on a self-link.

Delete all self-links. 99% means that every self-deluded idiot is going to continue to try to hit that mathowie-1%, and it'll NEVER. FUCKING. END. That's disruptive to the community.

They don't know that I make a rare exception to the rule when a site is amazing. People either see the warning and ignore it or don't see it. People will self-link here forever, because there is a huge incentive to do so. Get your application in front of several thousand people in just a few short hours and it's only five bucks a week to wait?

The page says self links will be removed and accounts will be banned. I added that second part when some guy blatantly did it, then reported me to paypal for fraud because "it didn't say he would be banned anywhere on the site" and demanded his five bucks back. It doesn't have to mention a rare exception and even having rare exception has no bearing on whether or not people will do it.

I'm just acknowledging that once in a great while an exception is granted. Getting rid of exceptions won't deter anyone from trying to take advantage and sneak a self-link in. 90%+ of members never even open up the url metatalk.metafilter.com so they won't know my opinion on the matter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:17 PM on December 28, 2005


iconomy, I generally frown on rules for the sake of rigor. I'm not going to say that there's no such thing as a self-link that was worth keeping around. Someone's 30 year old images of Afghanistan that no one else on this site could find previously? Totally worth keeping around and a good post (just read the old comments, people gushed over it).

I totally agree. Rules for rules sake is never a good thing. Zero tolerance is never a good thing, yet some people seem to crave zero tolerance for self links.

And in any event, all that's certain is that he's 'connected' to the artist herself, any the registree. He obviously didn't take the photos, and we don't even know if he wrote the HTML.

Although I did just complain about inconsistency deleting chatfilter on askme...
posted by delmoi at 4:37 PM on December 28, 2005


I kind of like how digg.com handles this -- they don't care. If something is truly good, it will get voted up and stick around. Of course, they spend a lot of effort trying to thwart people gaming the system and falsely voting, but they let the good stuff stick around, regardless of who created it.

There was another site that tried that, Kuro5hin. It ended up sucking. Only the most banal shit got posted and I left.

I mean, matt do you really think your post about the truck-surfing video would have gotten posted if there had been a voting system (and your name hadn't been associated with it?). When each member cares about the community we only post what we think is good. I think that works really well.
posted by delmoi at 4:41 PM on December 28, 2005


I personally have never understood the absolute hatred people feel towards self-linkers. Yes, self-linking is bad and to a large extend "spamming" has ruined the internet. But that doesn't mean we have to destroy everyone who breaks the rules. IMO "Zero-Tolerance" is always wrong (Ironic, I know)
posted by delmoi at 4:44 PM on December 28, 2005


Man, I can't tolerate intolerant people!

They don't know that I make a rare exception to the rule when a site is amazing.

Heh. They might know that now. But fair enough.

It just seems to me that the reputation that Metafilter users already have out there in the broader internets, as anally-retentive rule freaks who take joy in smashing into jelly those who transgress our arcane and semi-comprehensible standards will only increase because the kind of seek-and-destroy mob mentality that eventuates when we're always on our guard against doofi like the ones that have been popping up lately is perpetuated.

(That's a little hard to parse, I know. Ah well.)

Plus, dollars to doughnuts, any thread that is a self-link, even if it's one of which you approve, is going to be firebombed with elephant-peeing pics and abuse, because people don't know, prima facie, which ones are going to pass the mathowie smell test. Which is going to put off the poster, the self-link vigilantes, and you and jessamyn, too, because you'll need to clean up the mess.

No win.

(Also, as a matter of principle, I'm not real comfortable with appeals to authority. In this case, the authority is you (mathowie) only. This, I understand, though, is my problem only.)
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:37 PM on December 28, 2005


and remember - let's be careful out there.

Ah, your nomme de 'filter is explained, sgt--and from a Steven Boccho production at that.
posted by y2karl at 5:56 PM on December 28, 2005


the reputation that Metafilter users already have as anally-retentive will only increase because mob mentality eventuates when we're on our guard.

did I get it?
posted by scarabic at 6:03 PM on December 28, 2005


do you really think your post about the truck-surfing video would have gotten posted if there had been a voting system

You know, about a dozen people IMed me today saying they thought it was hilarious even though it was a dumb ass video.

I still contend that there's a line where yeah, most dumb video links make for lame posts on mefi, but once in a while a video is funny or noteworthy enough to be worth it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:13 PM on December 28, 2005


*hires scarabic as his editor*

Well, sorta. My implication was that breaking out the pitchforks seems to me to be more likely and arbitrary when we're second-guessing and asking ourselves WWMD (what would mathowie do)?

On second thought, maybe not. But my other point -- about not knowing which self-links Matt would approve of before the pile-on starts means more unpleasantness than there might be otherwise -- stands.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:18 PM on December 28, 2005


The truck-surfing video was hilarious, especially posted by you, Matt. Out-of-character with the rest of your posts, to be sure, which was kind of endearing. You're not one of these stuck-up A-list buttmunches who's seen-it-all, day-before-yesterday, thank-you-very-much. There's nothing wrong with a dumb laugh sometimes. Hell I've posted a couple. People have always been far too on-guard against "becoming Fark" around here. Personally, I think we could do everything Fark does and lots of things Fark could never do. But that's too much for certain imaginations, I guess.
posted by scarabic at 7:16 PM on December 28, 2005


Out-of-character with the rest of your posts, to be sure

Well, most of them, anyway. :)
posted by mediareport at 9:41 PM on December 28, 2005


every self-deluded idiot is going to continue to try to hit that mathowie-1%, and it'll NEVER. FUCKING. END.

Will it end anyway? You're talking about flagrant rule-breakers. I'd wager on self-important MetaTalk whiners finally stuffing a sock in it long before I'd wager on a 100% guarantee stopping self-linkers.
posted by kjh at 10:12 PM on December 28, 2005


I added that second part when some guy blatantly did it, then reported me to paypal for fraud because "it didn't say he would be banned anywhere on the site" and demanded his five bucks back.


I know this must have been annoying for Matt but I appreciate the combination of bullheadedness, chutzpah, and just plain idiocy this guy must have had. The part where he tries to get his $5 back is the cherry.
posted by rdr at 11:30 PM on December 28, 2005


Well, most of them, anyway. :)

Heh.
posted by cortex at 7:52 AM on December 29, 2005


I make a rare exception to the rule when a site is amazing.

if the truck surfin' dude had self-linked his own google video in the forest would helen keller have banned him with silly string?
posted by quonsar at 9:46 AM on December 29, 2005


« Older Profile Bug   |   Choose map/lat-long or zipcode Newer »

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