did you know you can flag a post that hasn't been made yet? April 1, 2006 10:09 PM   Subscribe

Nothing world-breaking, but did you know you can flag a post that hasn't been made yet?
posted by Eideteker to Bugs at 10:09 PM (53 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I hope this isn't a double, but just in case it is, I took the liberty of flagging this post before I made it.
posted by Eideteker at 10:09 PM on April 1, 2006


I flagged that as fantastic. Now, I'm planning to post that one. It will be fantastic.
posted by TwelveTwo at 10:12 PM on April 1, 2006


Why is this under "bugs?"
posted by IshmaelGraves at 10:14 PM on April 1, 2006


bugs
posted by BoringPostcards at 10:28 PM on April 1, 2006


I also flagged that post as fantastic. Hopefully it will be a post about cat-scan.
posted by puke & cry at 10:29 PM on April 1, 2006


Why is this under "bugs?"

Because it's a bug? You shouldn't be able to pre-emptively flag a post. That's just not right.

It's not a design flaw because I doubt it was intentional and I suspect that the unexamined implicit assumption was that something like this wouldn't be possible. It's a bug.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:29 PM on April 1, 2006


I flagged this post as "noise" before I had an account on Metafilter.
posted by Balisong at 10:32 PM on April 1, 2006


Is that a flagpole up your ass, Eideteker? I thought it was just a regular stick...
posted by wendell at 11:01 PM on April 1, 2006


I'll fix this tomorrow.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:03 PM on April 1, 2006


Because it's a bug? You shouldn't be able to pre-emptively flag a post. That's just not right.

My droll sense of humor is entirely wasted on you philistines.
posted by IshmaelGraves at 11:07 PM on April 1, 2006


Everyone PLEASE NOTE Matt did not close this bug thread right away. Give the man some credit when he does what you ask him to, instead of just complaining all the time!

Thank you, Matt!
posted by Eideteker at 11:16 PM on April 1, 2006


I'll fix this tomorrow.

That's what Michael Brown said.
posted by gsteff at 11:37 PM on April 1, 2006


I got it, Ishmael. <3
posted by cortex at 11:49 PM on April 1, 2006


Why is this worthy of any time spent fixing? How is it subject to more abuse than the regular flagging system? I could just as easily run around flagging every comment like a shit-throwing monkey right now.

. . . Just watch me.
posted by dgaicun at 11:55 PM on April 1, 2006


You mean I'm not suppose to pick a flag for every single comment? I've been doing it wrong?
posted by Justinian at 12:00 AM on April 2, 2006


gsteff, that was great.
posted by ryanrs at 12:38 AM on April 2, 2006


Design flaw isn't a MeTa category in any case. Just what category would you have used, IshmaelGraves?
posted by nthdegx at 12:53 AM on April 2, 2006


I think IshmaelGraves hates the plurality.
posted by TwelveTwo at 1:03 AM on April 2, 2006


metafilter: the unexamined implicit assumption
posted by quonsar at 5:53 AM on April 2, 2006


Eideteker, for the second day in a row I woke up to look at the flag queue only to find that you've been fucking with the site again. Take some time off, this is not your personal playground.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:29 AM on April 2, 2006 [1 favorite]


He could probably use a nap anyway.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:44 AM on April 2, 2006


did you know you can flag a post that hasn't been made yet?

I'll fix this tomorrow

Why is this worthy of any time spent fixing?

Eideteker. . . you've been fucking with the site again

heh, I get it now. Stop me before I kill again.

And don't forget the safety plugs, Matt, you know my curious fingers can't decline the invitation of a hole.
posted by dgaicun at 8:20 AM on April 2, 2006


I still reckon closing MeTa threads is bad for everyone, MetaFilter and Ask MetaFilter. It doesn't stop people being dicks because they can do that anywhere. It stops people with something relevant to say on an issue being able to say it. It silences the wrong people. Ease off, please.
posted by nthdegx at 8:39 AM on April 2, 2006


Every minute Matt has to spend fixing crap like this is time he can't spend fixing jrun errors playing with Fiona.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 8:49 AM on April 2, 2006


Eideteker, for the second day in a row I woke up to look at the flag queue only to find that you've been fucking with the site again.

Thank you. It seems some members have trouble seening a line between metachat and metafilter.
posted by justgary at 8:57 AM on April 2, 2006


What made this thread for me was jessamyn saying "fucking".
There's something titillating about angry librarians.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 9:33 AM on April 2, 2006


Eideteker == dgaicun?

I hate sockpuppet accounts.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:03 AM on April 2, 2006


Wait, I thought I was your sockpuppet account? Ok, now I'm confused.
posted by dgaicun at 10:54 AM on April 2, 2006


There's something titillating about angry librarians.

Seconded. And flagged as fantastic.
posted by dersins at 10:58 AM on April 2, 2006


There's something titillating about angry librarians.

Thirded. Big time.
posted by tkolar at 1:21 PM on April 2, 2006


There's something igry about this talk of titillation.
posted by ?! at 4:16 PM on April 2, 2006


MetaFilter: titillating about angry librarians.
posted by grouse at 4:18 PM on April 2, 2006


There's something igry about this talk of titillation.

There's something igry about watching people attempt to create and use new words for old concepts.
posted by tkolar at 5:07 PM on April 2, 2006


stop flagging that goddamned post please! thank you.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:21 PM on April 2, 2006


[and fifty cents for the swear jar]
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:21 PM on April 2, 2006


I bet de-linking it would remove the temptation.
posted by Gator at 6:24 PM on April 2, 2006


Eideteker == Macho Man Randy Savage?
posted by fire&wings at 6:27 PM on April 2, 2006


wow, tkolar, you need to not let old Merriam-Webster be your sole guide. Igry is more than two years old. Nothing was coined here, but thanks for another example.

If you were directing your comment to John Chaneski, Peter Gordon, Francis Heaney and Kevin West I'm sure they'd love to hear from you.
posted by ?! at 7:19 PM on April 2, 2006


languagehat thinks igry is a perfectly cromulent word.
posted by dgaicun at 7:28 PM on April 2, 2006


wow, tkolar, you need to not let old Merriam-Webster be your sole guide.

Google is my co-pilot.

Igry is more than two years old.

My apologies if you actually used the word in innocence, and didn't know that it was an attempt to consciously create and spread a word. On the other hand, I've never seen someone use it who didn't know exactly where it came from, so I'm guessing my original comment stands.
posted by tkolar at 7:31 PM on April 2, 2006


Well, now, if you read the small text you and I both know I know where the word originated.

You might find it difficult to read anything at a level above Dick and Jane if it makes you feel painfully embarrassed to read "new" words.

I'll let you in on a little secret. Writers often create words. They even use new words to describe concepts older than the written word.

The way the words spread? Other people use the words in magazines, books, and recently, on websites. People in fine offices overlooking major metropolitan areas note the various uses. They keep little files and sometimes, with much gnashing of teeth, they add the words to their dictionaries.

After many years those dictionaries contain numerous words once thought "new." Yet, people unselfconsciously use them. Believe it or not they use the word without regard to the "creator" or creation date.

Say, you're not part of one of those Latin Alone Militant Editor groups are you?
posted by ?! at 1:02 AM on April 3, 2006


I quite like igry. What word would you prefer in its place?
posted by Squid Voltaire at 11:18 AM on April 3, 2006


Say, you're not part of one of those Latin Alone Militant Editor groups are you?

No. And neither am I French, before we go down that route.

Let me give you New Word Lameness Rating System (NWLRS), 1 to 7 with 7 being the lamest:
  1. Words created to fill a pressing need, like "email", or "television", or "communism".
  2. Words created by authors for specific worlds that contain technology or concepts that don't apply to this one. Read "Book of The New Sun" for a lot of examples of this (although it contains a lot of number 5 too)
  3. Semi-nonsense words created for the hell of it that fall into common use (e.g. "burbled" and "chortle", or more recently "truthiness")
  4. Words created by authors for concepts that would be neatly encapsulated by existing words, but catch on despite this. "Grok" comes to mind. I'm pretty sure "Rishathra" will become popular if we ever meet some aliens to have sex with.
  5. Words created by authors for concepts that would be neatly encapsulated by existing words, and the word never catches on. This covers the bulk of words created by authors.
  6. Words created to fill no pressing need whatsoever ("We need a word that ends with 'gry'!) and self-consciously spread.
  7. Words created by marketing teams and self-consciously spread.
As you can see from from this highly scientific scale, "igry" is lame. Not as lame as "Web 2.0", but still pretty far up there.
posted by tkolar at 11:42 AM on April 3, 2006


stop flagging that goddamned post please! thank you.

Oops, I flagged it before I saw this comment.

How does the flagg que work? Do you just see a list of flagged posts? or comments and posts with the sum of their flaggs?
posted by delmoi at 11:50 AM on April 3, 2006


In sum: Web 2.0 is Lame 7.0.

Hi, brownpau!
posted by cortex at 12:14 PM on April 3, 2006


Squid Voltaire wrote...
I quite like igry. What word would you prefer in its place?

"Painfully Embarrassed/Embarrassing" has worked very well for many years, and continues to be quite serviceable.

It is admittedly longer, so I may be willing to tolerate it along with "u" and "l33t" from people with carpal tunnel syndrome.
posted by tkolar at 12:55 PM on April 3, 2006


Whups, pronoun trouble. "Painfully Embarrassed" is longer, so I may be willing to tolerate "igry" from people physically incapable of using proper english.
posted by tkolar at 1:11 PM on April 3, 2006


Oh, you are an Editor. There's no doubt about it. The cash you must have saved skipping the thesaurus when purchasing your school supplies.

And you evidently posess a strong background in science-fiction. Where are you on the "sci-fi" argument?

Let's rework your scale: SS to 1B to 2B to 3B to P to Lf to C

Triple play!
posted by ?! at 5:27 PM on April 3, 2006


Whups, pronoun trouble. "Painfully Embarrassed" is longer, so I may be willing to tolerate "igry" from people physically incapable of using proper english.

But not from those of us with the skill of Eddie Felson?
posted by ?! at 5:34 PM on April 3, 2006


You know what? Now I do wish Matt had closed this thread earlier, before it degenerated into such an uncouth scuffle over linguistic quibbles. Accursed hooligans!
posted by Eideteker at 6:12 PM on April 4, 2006


Well, you should have flagged it a few years ago, to give Matt some lead time.
posted by tkolar at 8:28 PM on April 4, 2006


So noted. I was right to flag your comment using the new flag designations (due to be rolled out in 2008) as "brilliant! a tour de force!" before you made it.
posted by Eideteker at 9:10 PM on April 4, 2006


Not to quick...In 2007 admin dios will require that designation appear only in flashing capitals. In Metafilter Link Yellow TM.
posted by ?! at 10:20 PM on April 4, 2006


« Older Is there no room on metafilter for fun?   |   Self-link Callout Newer »

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