Is it out of line to post two links in one day?

October 11, 2001 1:54 PM

Considering my rookie state-of-being. Let me ask this, is it out of line to post two links in one day?
posted by thekorruptor to Etiquette/Policy at 1:54 PM (26 comments total)

if you really need to... if it's just some little news blurb, don't.
posted by moz at 2:00 PM on October 11, 2001

but, but I want to be cool like all the other kids. Ok, I'll be good.

Thanks. ;)
posted by thekorruptor at 2:03 PM on October 11, 2001

If you do post two links, both with be judged far harsher than if you'd posted them on two seperate days. It is something most people frown upon unless both are really really really good links.
posted by cCranium at 2:04 PM on October 11, 2001

I would say don't do it. If it's so wonderful, it can wait til tomorrow.

Unless it's kitties. Then by all means go ahead.
posted by Kafkaesque at 2:18 PM on October 11, 2001

Good question.

Quantity is irrelevant. If both links aren't good enough to be posted together, they shouldn't be posted at all. But if you really think that they're Metafilter material, then post away! Even on the same day.

(Unless the links are about God. Then the death penalty applies.)
posted by gd779 at 2:25 PM on October 11, 2001

I'm going to add the limitation of one per day really soon, with an "appeal" button to be reviewed before showing up on the site.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:06 PM on October 11, 2001

That would be perfect, Matt Rules make everyone the same and eliminate nastiness. Abusers who would post once a day would still be chastised by the community for being over-eager. Everyone else would have time to choose and consider - and adequately draft -their contributions.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:13 PM on October 11, 2001

Maybe there should be a merit badge or perhaps running the virtual gaunlet...

Or maybe Matt could figure out how we could give each other shocks via our mice or keyboards ala the family therapy episode on the SImpsons

I'll 'it's about Barry Malzberg, friends's you...


Zzzzzzzzt!!!
posted by y2karl at 3:17 PM on October 11, 2001

Upon consideration, Miguel's suggestion is more sensible. God knows, I could use more time to think, more looking before leaping, as is all too obviously evident.
posted by y2karl at 3:23 PM on October 11, 2001

Hey --

But what if it's already tomorrow here on the East Coast?

*ducks*
posted by jennak at 3:25 PM on October 11, 2001

karl, I hate to admit it, but I have no idea who Barry Malzberg is. Could you enlighten me?
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:36 PM on October 11, 2001

sorry, 1 link every 24 hours, from the moment you post. So there's no timezone problems.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:38 PM on October 11, 2001

What about my dog? Can he post 7 times a day?
posted by Kafkaesque at 3:49 PM on October 11, 2001

I personally do not see any problems with posting more than one link per 24 hours. But I take issues if those links are to AP/Reuters news wire. Seven out of ten 'cool kids' here routinely check up on CNN/MSNBC/Yahoo News. There is no point in being 'the first to post' from those sites. There is no 'karma' to be gained by being the first. But if you are one of those living on the edge of the 'net and routinely find 'cool stuff' on the frontiers, then, and only then, by all means - post them all.

And I'd again call for a 3-6 hours 'restrain-yourself' period for posting any developing story seen on the news wire or scrolling at the bottom of CNN/Headline News/MSNBC/Fox News. Unless of course if you are an eyewitness, (ie. the Seattle Earthquake), then by all means, post the developing news as well.
posted by tamim at 4:38 PM on October 11, 2001

alternate revenue stream. 1 freebie post a week. $5 for every subsequent post! pay to play, baby! ;)
posted by heather at 6:38 PM on October 11, 2001

oh, $10 if it's to cnn or the onion.
posted by heather at 6:38 PM on October 11, 2001

> Quantity is irrelevant.

Quantity is definitely relevant. 250 great links on the front page every day would completely change the nature of this site. The increase in quantity has done more to diminish my pleasure in this site than the decrease in quality has (I'm not even so sure that there was a dramatic decrease in quality). Could be me; YMMV.
posted by sylloge at 6:41 PM on October 11, 2001

Scroll down here: Malzberg was at one time a very hard to read 'cutting edge' writer who once got a John W. Campbell award which got all of traditional science fiction fandom bent out of shape, primarily because Campbell was a hero to the Limbaugh/Libertarian wing of the genre and Malzberg was some kinda pinko liberal. Personally, I'd be bent out of shape getting any award named after John W, Campbell--the man who launched the career of L. Ron Hubbard.
posted by y2karl at 6:57 PM on October 11, 2001

One of these things is not like the other ones
One of these things does-n't be-long ...

posted by sylloge at 8:44 PM on October 11, 2001

I think it should really be a one post per 36 hours -- perhaps greater. People get overeager and post anything. This way they'd really have to make that link count for something. I know -- I've been there, done that. Kinda like karma at slashdot except based on time. To make that "First post!" stay you have to earn it (+2 mod point, etc..).
posted by bloggboy at 9:02 PM on October 11, 2001

Kafkaesque! Kitty!
posted by quonsar at 9:31 PM on October 11, 2001

awww

Poor Biskit.

is...is he OK???

Tell me!!!
posted by Kafkaesque at 10:15 PM on October 11, 2001

I like cheese. (Does that make me less of a man?)

But I agree, one post a day.
posted by timothompson at 10:39 PM on October 11, 2001

I agree with bloggboy. One of the (many) problems with the users who post an average of one post a day is that their ideas, interests, and world views tend to dominate a bit, and I would argue that the quality of their links tends to be diminished somewhat (even if they are good posters) than if they were constricted to say......three posts per week.

But I agree with Matt doing things this way, because any change is somewhat experimental. Sometime in the future, he can review it and see if it's working or not, and decide whether he needs to make further changes.
posted by lucien at 2:36 AM on October 12, 2001

1 freebie post a week. $5 for every subsequent post!

can i pay not to see the paid-for links? ;)
posted by walrus at 9:46 AM on October 12, 2001

one front page post per day seems more than generous to me considering how many users there are now, and that mefites should generally be showing restraint with regards to posting anyway, especially when it comes to wtc related info. hopefully that will slow the growth of the tumor know as NewsFi, which is certainly a big part of the unfiltering of metafilter, and is getting more than a little stale. actually, i expect to see some news. it's the BreakingNewsFi feeling that is nagging me.


oh, $10 if it's to cnn or the onion.


and how about a $100,000 fine and up to one year in prison for an Ananova link?
posted by basmati at 11:01 AM on October 12, 2001