Two posts by the same person in one day! Too much! October 8, 2001 12:29 PM Subscribe
There have been two people today who have posted two links on the front page. (one being a double post) How do you think limiting people to one front page post a day would work out? Or maybe even one every three days? a week?
So there have been three double-posts today, two of which were to URLs already entered into the system. If that doesn't shock you, check this out:
screenshot of someone entering in the RIAA/register.co.uk link
Is there any way I can make that more clear to users what they are doing?
I suppose I could show the thread, and re-write the URL link with a variable, so I could make sure they've seen the thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:00 PM on October 8, 2001
screenshot of someone entering in the RIAA/register.co.uk link
Is there any way I can make that more clear to users what they are doing?
I suppose I could show the thread, and re-write the URL link with a variable, so I could make sure they've seen the thread.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 1:00 PM on October 8, 2001
I can't believe those 2 double posts today. Both had only about two posts separating them from the original posts, yet had almost an hour's time between them.
Yes, MetaFilter gets rather long as the day progresses, and for the West Coasters, its certainly more cumbersome to weed through every post and comment that's been shared during that 3-hour head start for us East Coasters, but seriously... 2 same-day double posts in a row? Searching is not fail-safe, but how hard is it to look at the freakin' front page, people?
posted by Hankins at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2001
Yes, MetaFilter gets rather long as the day progresses, and for the West Coasters, its certainly more cumbersome to weed through every post and comment that's been shared during that 3-hour head start for us East Coasters, but seriously... 2 same-day double posts in a row? Searching is not fail-safe, but how hard is it to look at the freakin' front page, people?
posted by Hankins at 1:06 PM on October 8, 2001
Matt, I liked the "WTC Link Notice" you put up, though when I originally saw it, it had the yellow background style behind it. It was very loud, but it certainly got attention. If you're thinking about just error messaging (not the showing of the thread, as you suggested), I think a similar approach would communicate the message better. The current notice is probably just getting lost too easily.
posted by Hankins at 1:15 PM on October 8, 2001
posted by Hankins at 1:15 PM on October 8, 2001
HOW COULD THE CURRENT NOTICE GET LOST???????
maybe if you could code a clown to pop out of the monitor and bop them over the head with a rubber mallet, it might have some effect.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:23 PM on October 8, 2001
maybe if you could code a clown to pop out of the monitor and bop them over the head with a rubber mallet, it might have some effect.
posted by rebeccablood at 1:23 PM on October 8, 2001
Doesn't work for me: when I post a link I don't get any increased traffic on my site at all, and hardly any visits to my profile -- I can tell, because I have a link there to a graphic on my own server and I can tell when it's loaded. (Maybe it's because everyone already knows who I am.)
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2001
posted by Steven Den Beste at 1:28 PM on October 8, 2001
maybe if you could code a clown to pop out of the monitor and bop them over the head with a rubber mallet, it might have some effect.
Or maybe you could just have the browser crash completely. I've heard that this is very easy to do on some OSs.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2001
Or maybe you could just have the browser crash completely. I've heard that this is very easy to do on some OSs.
posted by iceberg273 at 1:29 PM on October 8, 2001
In order for people to get the message, there need to be consequences to violating the rules--even if the violation is completely innocent. What about a 3 or 5 day "suspension" of posting privileges if you double-post.
Matt, you're already looking at and manually deleting all these double posts. It wouldn't be too hard to give yourself a "suspend user" button, if you felt it justified, which would suspend the user and automatically issue an email explaining why.
If it cuts down on double-posts, it would pay for itself in time saved.
posted by jpoulos at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2001
Matt, you're already looking at and manually deleting all these double posts. It wouldn't be too hard to give yourself a "suspend user" button, if you felt it justified, which would suspend the user and automatically issue an email explaining why.
If it cuts down on double-posts, it would pay for itself in time saved.
posted by jpoulos at 1:41 PM on October 8, 2001
when I post a link I don't get any increased traffic on my site at all
I get a few clickthroughs from my user profile, but I almost never post a link. I suppose it's fellow degenerates coming over to see if they can download an "I <heart> osama" banner for their desktop or website.... ;)
posted by rebeccablood at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2001
I get a few clickthroughs from my user profile, but I almost never post a link. I suppose it's fellow degenerates coming over to see if they can download an "I <heart> osama" banner for their desktop or website.... ;)
posted by rebeccablood at 1:50 PM on October 8, 2001
Is there any way I can make that more clear to users what they are doing?
I've posted once without noticing that warning, though I think it looked different back when I made the mistake. One thing you could try (involves coding, sorry) would be to require an extra click: take off the post/preview form and say something like "If you are positive this URL is not a duplicate, you may proceed" to the post screen.
posted by sudama at 2:23 PM on October 8, 2001
I've posted once without noticing that warning, though I think it looked different back when I made the mistake. One thing you could try (involves coding, sorry) would be to require an extra click: take off the post/preview form and say something like "If you are positive this URL is not a duplicate, you may proceed" to the post screen.
posted by sudama at 2:23 PM on October 8, 2001
for that matter, you could just have a screen that says only "sorry this is a double post" and leave it at that.
now, that would prevent people from posting a (wacky) URL a year later, or moving a link from within a thread to the top page.
if you wanted to go code-crazy, you could add a form in which the user could explain why their post should be allowed onto the front page anyway, which would then shoot off an email to you explaining why it's a good post ("it hasn't been linked in a year, and wholelottanothing is a super, super cool site!") and you would have a web-based interface that would allow you to "post" or "forget it".
but that's more work for you. the only advantage would be that it's push technology for your convenience.
forget that idea. what would be the consequence if every unique URL that had been posted here once would NEVER be able to appear again? very little, I should think.
it would prevent people from moving a link from a thread to its own thread; but it might not be bad to have to go find a different source, anyway. if it's important enough for its own thread, maybe it's important enough for that little bit of work.
it *might* discourage people from putting related URLs in a pre-existing thread, but I would hope that wouldn't happen.
I don't know, just a thought....
posted by rebeccablood at 2:34 PM on October 8, 2001
now, that would prevent people from posting a (wacky) URL a year later, or moving a link from within a thread to the top page.
if you wanted to go code-crazy, you could add a form in which the user could explain why their post should be allowed onto the front page anyway, which would then shoot off an email to you explaining why it's a good post ("it hasn't been linked in a year, and wholelottanothing is a super, super cool site!") and you would have a web-based interface that would allow you to "post" or "forget it".
but that's more work for you. the only advantage would be that it's push technology for your convenience.
forget that idea. what would be the consequence if every unique URL that had been posted here once would NEVER be able to appear again? very little, I should think.
it would prevent people from moving a link from a thread to its own thread; but it might not be bad to have to go find a different source, anyway. if it's important enough for its own thread, maybe it's important enough for that little bit of work.
it *might* discourage people from putting related URLs in a pre-existing thread, but I would hope that wouldn't happen.
I don't know, just a thought....
posted by rebeccablood at 2:34 PM on October 8, 2001
First things first: shut down the new user signup.
Self-linkers: five day lockout on first incidence, forfeiture of membership on second.
Doubleposters: curse-filled email on first incidence, five day lockout on second, forfeiture of membership on third.
People won't shape up until they have a reason too. If people learn to value their membership, to value being a poster-in-good-standing here, and to value what Matt has created and allows us to use, then they will stop being cavalier with it.
posted by UncleFes at 2:45 PM on October 8, 2001
Self-linkers: five day lockout on first incidence, forfeiture of membership on second.
Doubleposters: curse-filled email on first incidence, five day lockout on second, forfeiture of membership on third.
People won't shape up until they have a reason too. If people learn to value their membership, to value being a poster-in-good-standing here, and to value what Matt has created and allows us to use, then they will stop being cavalier with it.
posted by UncleFes at 2:45 PM on October 8, 2001
1st offense: left pinky finger, 1st knuckle.
And on and on until it's logical conclusion.
Once you've exhausted your entire complement of metacarpals, you'll think twice about clicking the mouse with your nose.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:59 PM on October 8, 2001
And on and on until it's logical conclusion.
Once you've exhausted your entire complement of metacarpals, you'll think twice about clicking the mouse with your nose.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:59 PM on October 8, 2001
If i had been drinking some sort of beverage at the time of reading kafka's comment, portions of that beverage would have exited through my nose.
posted by Zool at 4:53 PM on October 8, 2001
posted by Zool at 4:53 PM on October 8, 2001
At Filepile I just check if the file has been uploaded in the past 2 days. If so, I tell them they can't upload a file with that name.
Sure, people can change the filename but then they're knowingly going around the system and people then have a reason to call them out. Otherwise I'm putting too much responsibility on them to check FilePile everyday.
At the post-a-link page just say, "Sorry that URL was posted X days ago." Then figure out how many days you want to wait before you allow a repost. I can't imagine needing to post the frontpage of CNN more than once a month. It'd also cut out the bad front page links (e.g., "http://cnn.com/ where do YOU get your news?", "http://theonion.com/ Where do YOU get your laughs?")
Anyway, I hate when people tell me how to fix my site. But I just had sugar and WOWEEEEEEEE...
posted by perplexed at 6:28 PM on October 8, 2001
Sure, people can change the filename but then they're knowingly going around the system and people then have a reason to call them out. Otherwise I'm putting too much responsibility on them to check FilePile everyday.
At the post-a-link page just say, "Sorry that URL was posted X days ago." Then figure out how many days you want to wait before you allow a repost. I can't imagine needing to post the frontpage of CNN more than once a month. It'd also cut out the bad front page links (e.g., "http://cnn.com/ where do YOU get your news?", "http://theonion.com/ Where do YOU get your laughs?")
Anyway, I hate when people tell me how to fix my site. But I just had sugar and WOWEEEEEEEE...
posted by perplexed at 6:28 PM on October 8, 2001
I totally agree with Andre and Rebecca, screw the warning, don't let them post it. Period. Forcing someone to wait X days seems fair if the link isn't new. People don't seem to be reading very closely these days.
(hoping as she posts this that lots of new traffic will flood to her site)
posted by megnut at 8:09 PM on October 8, 2001
(hoping as she posts this that lots of new traffic will flood to her site)
posted by megnut at 8:09 PM on October 8, 2001
Kafkaesque: I retract my idea and say let's go with yours. if it works for the Yakuza, it'll work for Metafilter!
posted by UncleFes at 8:14 PM on October 8, 2001
posted by UncleFes at 8:14 PM on October 8, 2001
Perhaps some kind of "thread merge" button for the Grand Architect of All Things Metafilter that moves whatever has transpired of a new repeat or semi-repeat thread into an older relevant one - for example I wondered whether we needed a "Second Anthrax Case" thread when the same issue had come up in the original one. There could be some kind of standardised note atttached. That said I have no idea whether this would be difficult/possible/worth the bother.
Front page posts never helped me any, but that was because I have only posted crap links (and learned from my mistake, hopefully). Sometimes I get hits after saying something coherent. Obviously this isn't very often.
posted by Grangousier at 3:40 AM on October 9, 2001
Front page posts never helped me any, but that was because I have only posted crap links (and learned from my mistake, hopefully). Sometimes I get hits after saying something coherent. Obviously this isn't very often.
posted by Grangousier at 3:40 AM on October 9, 2001
Perhaps some kind of "thread merge" button for the Grand Architect of All Things Metafilter that moves whatever has transpired of a new repeat or semi-repeat thread into an older relevant one - for example I wondered whether we needed a "Second Anthrax Case" thread when the same issue had come up in the original one. There could be some kind of standardised note atttached. That said I have no idea whether this would be difficult/possible/worth the bother.
Front page posts never helped me any, but that was because I have only posted crap links (and learned from my mistake, hopefully). Sometimes I get hits after saying something coherent. Obviously this isn't very often.
posted by Grangousier at 3:40 AM on October 9, 2001
Front page posts never helped me any, but that was because I have only posted crap links (and learned from my mistake, hopefully). Sometimes I get hits after saying something coherent. Obviously this isn't very often.
posted by Grangousier at 3:40 AM on October 9, 2001
That's my first double post in recent memory and I have no idea how it happened.
I'm sure I only clicked the button once.
Perhaps I need to cut down on the coffee.
Sorry.
posted by Grangousier at 3:41 AM on October 9, 2001
I'm sure I only clicked the button once.
Perhaps I need to cut down on the coffee.
Sorry.
posted by Grangousier at 3:41 AM on October 9, 2001
what about an option to post the comment in the thread where it first appeared? "that link has already been posted, click here to add your comment to that thread."
posted by phooey at 8:44 AM on October 9, 2001
posted by phooey at 8:44 AM on October 9, 2001
First things first: shut down the new user signup.
Being a new user myself, I don't like this idea. I've never been compelled to post to the front page, as it's already, well, crowded, and, uh, I don't have anything interesting to link.
However, I do remember first really starting to read the page (rather than looking at a link or something after bouncing over from k10k or some other aggregate) around july/august, when one couldn't register at all, and it really irked me that i couldn't post a comment.
I think it's reasonable to 'embiggen' the amount of time it takes for a new user to post to the front page (maybe though tracking actual time, if possible, in addition to amount of comments, as it seems some people make comments just to post to the front page) to something like a month, or more. it seems reasonable to ask someone to be a active participant for at least this brief amount of time to insure that they care enough to be responsible with how they post.
but maybe that's a coding nightmare. er.
posted by fishfucker at 9:41 AM on October 9, 2001
Being a new user myself, I don't like this idea. I've never been compelled to post to the front page, as it's already, well, crowded, and, uh, I don't have anything interesting to link.
However, I do remember first really starting to read the page (rather than looking at a link or something after bouncing over from k10k or some other aggregate) around july/august, when one couldn't register at all, and it really irked me that i couldn't post a comment.
I think it's reasonable to 'embiggen' the amount of time it takes for a new user to post to the front page (maybe though tracking actual time, if possible, in addition to amount of comments, as it seems some people make comments just to post to the front page) to something like a month, or more. it seems reasonable to ask someone to be a active participant for at least this brief amount of time to insure that they care enough to be responsible with how they post.
but maybe that's a coding nightmare. er.
posted by fishfucker at 9:41 AM on October 9, 2001
FWIW, I am opposed to both the closing of the door to new users and implementing a per day posting limit.
posted by rushmc at 9:17 PM on October 9, 2001
posted by rushmc at 9:17 PM on October 9, 2001
« Older Request: Member of the month poll. | Hypothetically, would this kind of link be okay? Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I've heard from some new posters that enjoy 50-100 visits to their profile URL, due to each post, so they tend to enjoy posting a lot of threads.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:34 PM on October 8, 2001