Self-link Callout April 2, 2006 7:01 AM Subscribe
self-link. more inside.
I pulled the post. I'm not quite sure how it's a mistake to do exactly what the posting page says not to do, but I'll hold off on the banhammer til people wake up and take a look at it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:24 AM on April 2, 2006
I'm torn. On one hand, it could've been a cool post. His newspaper index is awesome as well. I would say that he should've had another member post a slightly better FPP, but given his level of participation up till now (4 comments on the blue) I'm not sure he knows anyone enough to ask.
On the other hand, he's been a member for a year. He's only made four comments and they're all recent. Also, one of them was a self link as well. It was in the comments but it was not noted as such. Lastly, that torrent site is sketchy and definitely on the wrong side of some copyright laws. I personally don't care, but I don't think the blue is a good place for piracy links.
If it were my call, I'd send him a stern email, give him a week off, and make him hand write the guidelines 100 times. With a herring.
/my two cents
posted by rollbiz at 7:50 AM on April 2, 2006
On the other hand, he's been a member for a year. He's only made four comments and they're all recent. Also, one of them was a self link as well. It was in the comments but it was not noted as such. Lastly, that torrent site is sketchy and definitely on the wrong side of some copyright laws. I personally don't care, but I don't think the blue is a good place for piracy links.
If it were my call, I'd send him a stern email, give him a week off, and make him hand write the guidelines 100 times. With a herring.
/my two cents
posted by rollbiz at 7:50 AM on April 2, 2006
Jess, can you do something about this disaster?
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:56 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:56 AM on April 2, 2006
Why do people who self-link make it so damn obvious that they're self-linking?
Or am I wrong...only the stupid self-linkers get caught, while the smart ones are better at covering their tracks?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:57 AM on April 2, 2006
Or am I wrong...only the stupid self-linkers get caught, while the smart ones are better at covering their tracks?
posted by SeizeTheDay at 7:57 AM on April 2, 2006
seems a rather innocent/stupid mistake.
yeah, it's not that after you click on "post a link" you get a page that says
Jess, can you do something about this disaster?
are you kidding? the question's wording is almost as funny as that "adminstrator hope me" post
posted by matteo at 8:03 AM on April 2, 2006
yeah, it's not that after you click on "post a link" you get a page that says
"Note: You read the guidelines, right? 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. Post it to MetaFilter Projects to announce your work instead, which was designed especially for this purpose"Matt should add something like that to the site, really, or people will keep self-linking, you know, innocently.
Jess, can you do something about this disaster?
are you kidding? the question's wording is almost as funny as that "adminstrator hope me" post
posted by matteo at 8:03 AM on April 2, 2006
Look, no one is trying to self-link here. He will get an attorney when he returns. Now, please hope me elope my girlfriend to Japan before the FBI finds us.
posted by xanthippe at 8:21 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by xanthippe at 8:21 AM on April 2, 2006
I just don't understand the willingness to be generous to self-linkers. They all claim they "didn't understand"; it's like prisoners claiming they were framed. Let loose the banhammer!
Also, I think geengi should serve the warrant himself, then post another question about how to handle his girlfriend's anger.
posted by languagehat at 8:41 AM on April 2, 2006
Also, I think geengi should serve the warrant himself, then post another question about how to handle his girlfriend's anger.
posted by languagehat at 8:41 AM on April 2, 2006
I just don't understand the willingness to be generous to self-linkers.
Me neither.
On the subject of geengi's AskMe, I looked at it and thought, "Here's another person who has seen the rash of people making judgments and not answering the frigging question that was asked, and is trying to pre-empt that by making his own question REALLY REALLY CLEAR," but I suppose that could just be me projecting my own issues onto someone who likes to shout.
posted by Gator at 9:07 AM on April 2, 2006
Me neither.
On the subject of geengi's AskMe, I looked at it and thought, "Here's another person who has seen the rash of people making judgments and not answering the frigging question that was asked, and is trying to pre-empt that by making his own question REALLY REALLY CLEAR," but I suppose that could just be me projecting my own issues onto someone who likes to shout.
posted by Gator at 9:07 AM on April 2, 2006
It seems clear that hanslicht joined just to promote his own personal site, and did so at the earliest opportunity. Of course he feigns ignorance. Ban him.
posted by LarryC at 9:21 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by LarryC at 9:21 AM on April 2, 2006
The reason people continue to self-link is because of inconsistent application of the rules. Matt and Jess are very kind and forgiving and give people the benefit of the doubt, and while that's a noble attitude, it allows people like matthewchen to stick around with his retarded, unintelligible moonman comments despite the fact that he deliberately self-linked. But that's okay, we'll keep posting the MeTa threads and go through it over and over and over and over and over again.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:57 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 9:57 AM on April 2, 2006
his retarded, unintelligible moonman comments
This is causing me to giggle uncontrollably. I really have to figure out a way to get more sleep.
posted by Gator at 10:01 AM on April 2, 2006
This is causing me to giggle uncontrollably. I really have to figure out a way to get more sleep.
posted by Gator at 10:01 AM on April 2, 2006
[self links] will result in a deletion and your account will be banned
I should think that there is no wiggle-room whatsoever in this rule.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:05 AM on April 2, 2006
I should think that there is no wiggle-room whatsoever in this rule.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:05 AM on April 2, 2006
The self-linking account from this morning has been banned, I just wanted people to have a chance to reply to Tryptophan-5ht's recommendation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:08 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:08 AM on April 2, 2006
The reason people continue to self-link is because of inconsistent application of the rules.
The reason people continue to self-link is because some people will break rules, no matter if they are consistently applied or not. You will never stop self-linking from occurring. Ban them or not, it doesn't matter, it will continue to happen. But a permanent ban is great for egregious violations, while those that seem to fall in a gray area should be given a short timeout. IMHO.
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:10 AM on April 2, 2006
The reason people continue to self-link is because some people will break rules, no matter if they are consistently applied or not. You will never stop self-linking from occurring. Ban them or not, it doesn't matter, it will continue to happen. But a permanent ban is great for egregious violations, while those that seem to fall in a gray area should be given a short timeout. IMHO.
posted by Roger Dodger at 10:10 AM on April 2, 2006
The reason people continue to self-link is because of inconsistent application of the rules.
Wrong. The people that do it have no knowledge or respect for the rules -- they just want to promote their stupid site by any means necessary. You think every person making a post scratches their chin and reads 5,000 previous metatalk threads before posting?
They do it for the traffic, plain an simple, and it doesn't really matter what the rules are, because people will go to any length to get others to their site. Thankfully, 99% of the members here understand the rule and the reason for the rule and do a good job not breaking it. But we'll always have opportunists, and it doesn't matter if I institute capital punishment, it's not going to be a deterrent.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on April 2, 2006
Wrong. The people that do it have no knowledge or respect for the rules -- they just want to promote their stupid site by any means necessary. You think every person making a post scratches their chin and reads 5,000 previous metatalk threads before posting?
They do it for the traffic, plain an simple, and it doesn't really matter what the rules are, because people will go to any length to get others to their site. Thankfully, 99% of the members here understand the rule and the reason for the rule and do a good job not breaking it. But we'll always have opportunists, and it doesn't matter if I institute capital punishment, it's not going to be a deterrent.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:16 AM on April 2, 2006
Thanks for the update, jess. And Roger, I understand that you can't stop all self-links, but refusing to ban for some of them will result in more.
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:17 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by Optimus Chyme at 10:17 AM on April 2, 2006
I'm sorry, but the post is crap no matter whether it's a self-link or not, and nothing anyone can do will render it worthy of Metafilter.
From the site:
I can not imagine that this is approved by the newspapers - on the other hand, these files are not scannings from print copies, it seems to be pre-press files. Maybe they are made avaiable for online subscribers or advertisers - anyway some are doing the effort to seed the newspapers everyday.
...and then he goes on to link to the torrents.
Once again, we should NOT be using Metafilter to infringe copyright, no matter how inane the law. This post raises bigger issues than whether a self-link is punished.
posted by aberrant at 10:42 AM on April 2, 2006
From the site:
I can not imagine that this is approved by the newspapers - on the other hand, these files are not scannings from print copies, it seems to be pre-press files. Maybe they are made avaiable for online subscribers or advertisers - anyway some are doing the effort to seed the newspapers everyday.
...and then he goes on to link to the torrents.
Once again, we should NOT be using Metafilter to infringe copyright, no matter how inane the law. This post raises bigger issues than whether a self-link is punished.
posted by aberrant at 10:42 AM on April 2, 2006
refusing to ban for some of them will result in more.
False. People just show up, see thousands of people and links and think "hey, I could use some traffic, I'll post my site here!"
They don't have any knowledge of the consequences or rules. They ignore the warning. Me or Jessamyn not banning a user six months before they arrive at the site has absolutely no bearing on their actions. Why would it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:46 AM on April 2, 2006
False. People just show up, see thousands of people and links and think "hey, I could use some traffic, I'll post my site here!"
They don't have any knowledge of the consequences or rules. They ignore the warning. Me or Jessamyn not banning a user six months before they arrive at the site has absolutely no bearing on their actions. Why would it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:46 AM on April 2, 2006
Part of the problem here is the odd application of the word ban. Right now there are a few ways people can be "banned" whose include time-outs which are the most common (you can't come back for a fixed period of time or until you've sobered up/calmed down), banning (you can't come back, unless something seriously changes, and maybe not even then) and some sort of nuclear bannage (we have deleted your account and blocked your ip from looking at MetaFilter). I've almost never seen the latter happen.
For self-linkers most of them weren't invested in the site to begin with, so when they get banned, they go away and find someone else to spam and we never hear from them again. For really clueless folks who didn't get it, sometimes they'lll ask "what the hell happened?" and we'll explain it and occasionally they'll get posting rights back. Just like the nuclear ban, this almost never happens. Sometimes if I think someone has just been clueless, I'll send them an email and let them know about the pulled post and the MetaTalk thread in case they had something to say in their defense.
In my view, the strong language on the posting page is less for brand new users and more for people who have been in the community a while and may still be tempted to link to something they are involved in, usually with good intentions. Risking banning for highlighting your buddy's new site that you designed is not something most people will do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:50 AM on April 2, 2006
For self-linkers most of them weren't invested in the site to begin with, so when they get banned, they go away and find someone else to spam and we never hear from them again. For really clueless folks who didn't get it, sometimes they'lll ask "what the hell happened?" and we'll explain it and occasionally they'll get posting rights back. Just like the nuclear ban, this almost never happens. Sometimes if I think someone has just been clueless, I'll send them an email and let them know about the pulled post and the MetaTalk thread in case they had something to say in their defense.
In my view, the strong language on the posting page is less for brand new users and more for people who have been in the community a while and may still be tempted to link to something they are involved in, usually with good intentions. Risking banning for highlighting your buddy's new site that you designed is not something most people will do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:50 AM on April 2, 2006
And yet another reason to consider a policy of admin-reviewing any new user's first three posts.
The self-link problem Matt describes would be--poof--gone.
posted by squirrel at 10:58 AM on April 2, 2006
The self-link problem Matt describes would be--poof--gone.
posted by squirrel at 10:58 AM on April 2, 2006
It probably wouldn't be poof-gone, but I still agree it'd be much reduced.
And I still wonder what percentage of FPPs per month are from first-time posters. I know it's been said that admin-review would create too much extra work for the admins, but I don't have the impression that first-time posters are actually storming the gates of the Blue all that much. There are probably way more Anonymous AskMe questions to be approved on a daily basis than there would be first-time posters' FPPs.
posted by Gator at 11:03 AM on April 2, 2006
And I still wonder what percentage of FPPs per month are from first-time posters. I know it's been said that admin-review would create too much extra work for the admins, but I don't have the impression that first-time posters are actually storming the gates of the Blue all that much. There are probably way more Anonymous AskMe questions to be approved on a daily basis than there would be first-time posters' FPPs.
posted by Gator at 11:03 AM on April 2, 2006
I would like to set a policy of the first link requiring review, which should eradicate almost all of it (of course, me and jessamyn can't research every single first post to the degree many members here do -- perhaps there should be a staging area sort of place for members to help?).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:04 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:04 AM on April 2, 2006
Yeah, I would guess it's maybe 2 first time posts each day.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:08 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:08 AM on April 2, 2006
The community-reviewed staging area is a good idea, Matt. I would set up a separate flagging/voting system similar to projects and leave comments on. With the flags it could be set to go to the front page automatically after 5-10 (or whatever number) "okays" from separate users.
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:28 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by frecklefaerie at 11:28 AM on April 2, 2006
Maybe you could set it up the way Anonymous AskMe used to work -- the post would be assigned a number but wouldn't be visible on the main page (but would be visible through other means like the "deleted posts" bookmarklet or a "pending posts" page). But I would leave commenting off until it's approved, and at this point I renew my previous request for a "self-link" flag to be added to the flags list.
I think any system where the post would be automatically approved based on # of votes or something like that might be open for abuse (just like the suggestions of auto-banning people who get X # of negative flags, or auto-posting to the Blue any Project that gets X # of votes).
posted by Gator at 11:42 AM on April 2, 2006
I think any system where the post would be automatically approved based on # of votes or something like that might be open for abuse (just like the suggestions of auto-banning people who get X # of negative flags, or auto-posting to the Blue any Project that gets X # of votes).
posted by Gator at 11:42 AM on April 2, 2006
But we'll always have opportunists, and it doesn't matter if I institute capital punishment, it's not going to be a deterrent.
I see no reason why you should not banninate self-linkers just for the punishment of such behaviour. Deterrent effects aside, some anti-social behaviours deserve punishment.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 AM on April 2, 2006
I see no reason why you should not banninate self-linkers just for the punishment of such behaviour. Deterrent effects aside, some anti-social behaviours deserve punishment.
posted by five fresh fish at 11:48 AM on April 2, 2006
Awww, the moonman was allowed to post another Project. How heartwarming.
posted by Gator at 11:58 AM on April 2, 2006
posted by Gator at 11:58 AM on April 2, 2006
damnit, how did I miss the moonman post? I just went to the page and it looked fine. is matthewchen even involved in that site?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:01 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:01 PM on April 2, 2006
So, is the moonman banned? Because he should have already been.
posted by puke & cry at 12:04 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 12:04 PM on April 2, 2006
Since Projects have to be approved, and that one was, I'm guessing not.
posted by Gator at 12:05 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by Gator at 12:05 PM on April 2, 2006
oh right, I forgot about that.
posted by puke & cry at 12:08 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by puke & cry at 12:08 PM on April 2, 2006
Perhaps we should try to reduce any deterrent effects and make punishment the only goal? Crushing newbies with the banhammer seems to channel snark and other bad humors out of the community. A bit like throwing a virgin into the volcano. A naughty, self-linking virgin.
posted by ryanrs at 12:10 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by ryanrs at 12:10 PM on April 2, 2006
don't you all think there is a jangly, wistful, post-britpop tune in "matthewchen is spamming again"?
posted by funambulist at 12:17 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by funambulist at 12:17 PM on April 2, 2006
No.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:43 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:43 PM on April 2, 2006
don't you all think there is a jangly, wistful, post-britpop tune in "matthewchen is spamming again"?
I'm thinking more of a dark, industrial, grindcore track.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:03 PM on April 2, 2006
I'm thinking more of a dark, industrial, grindcore track.
posted by ludwig_van at 1:03 PM on April 2, 2006
Yes, I do see the irony.
posted by five fresh fish at 1:59 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by five fresh fish at 1:59 PM on April 2, 2006
I would like to set a policy of the first link requiring review
Surely that would mean the second post they make would be the self-link, then, if they are attempting to deliberately abuse the system. It will be a bit like how you have to make some comments before you can most. Under this system they'd have to make some comments, and an approved front page post, before they could self-link, and you'd have much more work to do.
posted by Jimbob at 3:13 PM on April 2, 2006
Surely that would mean the second post they make would be the self-link, then, if they are attempting to deliberately abuse the system. It will be a bit like how you have to make some comments before you can most. Under this system they'd have to make some comments, and an approved front page post, before they could self-link, and you'd have much more work to do.
posted by Jimbob at 3:13 PM on April 2, 2006
I dunno if most self-linkers are smart enough for that. Like Matt said, mostly they don't even bother skimming the rules, they just show up and post.
posted by Gator at 3:17 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by Gator at 3:17 PM on April 2, 2006
Staging area? Sounds like overkill or an invitation to bureaucracy or argument. Surely a quick perusal by you or Jessamyn as with anonyAskMeFi would be easy enough - a single hoop to jump through for first time posters. Most selflinkers are pretty obvious at first blush; otherwise it would be business as usual with the Mefia doing the back checks after posting, if someone senses a rat.
posted by peacay at 3:25 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by peacay at 3:25 PM on April 2, 2006
it doesn't matter if I institute capital punishment, it's not going to be a deterrent.
True, though it makes repeat offenses much more inconvenient.
Vote of support for the ban.
posted by scarabic at 5:28 PM on April 2, 2006
True, though it makes repeat offenses much more inconvenient.
Vote of support for the ban.
posted by scarabic at 5:28 PM on April 2, 2006
I think we should have a policy where old users adopt new users... One randomly user whose number is under 15k will be assigned to a new user, and they have to review the first 10 messages... ah fuckit. Never mind.
posted by crunchland at 5:32 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by crunchland at 5:32 PM on April 2, 2006
If there were such a staging area and a new member submitted a self-link or some spam, would they then be given a strong warning or would they be banned even though they had not posted anything to the front page?
posted by shoesfullofdust at 6:44 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by shoesfullofdust at 6:44 PM on April 2, 2006
One would hope they'd be banned and beaten for their stupidity should they send a self-link in for approval.
There's a real fear of holding people accountable for themselves here, isn't there?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:02 PM on April 2, 2006
There's a real fear of holding people accountable for themselves here, isn't there?
posted by five fresh fish at 7:02 PM on April 2, 2006
People who really care about cleverly circumventing the no-self-link ban by e.g., posting an innocuous FPP first, are going to be clever enough to make their self-link nonobvious. Really, there's no hope of catching the clueful ones, except maybe by IP address.
So the only ones we should even bother trying to catch are the stupid ones. And those should be catchable by the "first FPP must go by #1 or #292" system. On workload: note that each one caught that way is one less MeTa thread to wade through!
posted by Aknaton at 7:21 PM on April 2, 2006
So the only ones we should even bother trying to catch are the stupid ones. And those should be catchable by the "first FPP must go by #1 or #292" system. On workload: note that each one caught that way is one less MeTa thread to wade through!
posted by Aknaton at 7:21 PM on April 2, 2006
squirrel: "And yet another reason to consider a policy of admin-reviewing any new user's first three posts.
Hmm, I wonder how proposals about reviewing new users' first post(s) will be received.
posted by JMOZ at 7:28 PM on April 2, 2006
Hmm, I wonder how proposals about reviewing new users' first post(s) will be received.
posted by JMOZ at 7:28 PM on April 2, 2006
Is this really a problem? Every few days someone self-links. They get found out pretty quickly. We drink their blood on MetaTalk and Matt bans them. The whole process is very satisfying.
posted by LarryC at 7:56 PM on April 2, 2006
posted by LarryC at 7:56 PM on April 2, 2006
The smart ones who can get a good post by Matt so they can post a subtle PepsiBlue are, in my opinion, just peachy.
If they're good enough to get past Mathowie, they're probably good enough to at least mildly entertain me; in the thread, the gung-ho clan will alert me to its advertising status, so that hile I am entertained, I can simultaneously boycott the advertiser.
There are plenty of very capable folk who earnestly despise such perverted abuse of the community. I'm sure all but the very best will be rooted out.
Works for me!
naturally, if Matt lowers his standards to such that I end up disliking MeFi, he loses whatever advertising dollars are involved. The higher the quality of post, the higher the value of the advertising space. There are a class of people who represent an insanely valuable market to whom MeFi is direct contact. I don't think I wish to sell myself cheaply/easily.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:20 PM on April 2, 2006
If they're good enough to get past Mathowie, they're probably good enough to at least mildly entertain me; in the thread, the gung-ho clan will alert me to its advertising status, so that hile I am entertained, I can simultaneously boycott the advertiser.
There are plenty of very capable folk who earnestly despise such perverted abuse of the community. I'm sure all but the very best will be rooted out.
Works for me!
naturally, if Matt lowers his standards to such that I end up disliking MeFi, he loses whatever advertising dollars are involved. The higher the quality of post, the higher the value of the advertising space. There are a class of people who represent an insanely valuable market to whom MeFi is direct contact. I don't think I wish to sell myself cheaply/easily.
posted by five fresh fish at 8:20 PM on April 2, 2006
There's a real fear of holding people accountable for themselves here in modern western culture, isn't there?
But that's another one of my hobbyhorses that I haven't got the energy to get up on, so I'll leave it at that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on April 2, 2006
But that's another one of my hobbyhorses that I haven't got the energy to get up on, so I'll leave it at that.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:47 PM on April 2, 2006
There's a real fear of holding people accountable for themselves here in modern western culture, isn't there?
As a guy who grew up in a home of Eastern culture in the US, I can say with some certainty that the "lack of accountability" in the West is caused by our great amount of wealth and prosperity. And while this has the unfortunate consequence of creating lazy, selfish, and often intellectually stunted people, the latitude given by Western culture often allows people a chance at rehabilitation, second chances, and greatness. Creativity and genius are often found by trial and error.
I am thankful for a culture that allows people to make mistakes and allows them to learn and grow. I often cringe when I hear stories of family members still in the East who are given, as Eminem once said, "you only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow this opportunity comes once in a lifetime."
Luckily we have a culture that allows fallibility.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:09 PM on April 2, 2006
As a guy who grew up in a home of Eastern culture in the US, I can say with some certainty that the "lack of accountability" in the West is caused by our great amount of wealth and prosperity. And while this has the unfortunate consequence of creating lazy, selfish, and often intellectually stunted people, the latitude given by Western culture often allows people a chance at rehabilitation, second chances, and greatness. Creativity and genius are often found by trial and error.
I am thankful for a culture that allows people to make mistakes and allows them to learn and grow. I often cringe when I hear stories of family members still in the East who are given, as Eminem once said, "you only get one shot, do not miss your chance to blow this opportunity comes once in a lifetime."
Luckily we have a culture that allows fallibility.
posted by SeizeTheDay at 9:09 PM on April 2, 2006
Creativity and genius are often found by trial and error.
Nice thought, but it has nothing to do with jerks who make a calculated decision that a brief $5 membership here is worth the couple of thousand hits they might get before Matt or Jessamyn deletes their self-link and bans them from the site. Most self-linkers know exactly what they're doing, and any kind of forgiveness for them is a terrible idea.
LarryC: Is this really a problem? Every few days someone self-links.
It doesn't seem like a growing problem to you? Huh.
posted by mediareport at 10:18 PM on April 2, 2006
Nice thought, but it has nothing to do with jerks who make a calculated decision that a brief $5 membership here is worth the couple of thousand hits they might get before Matt or Jessamyn deletes their self-link and bans them from the site. Most self-linkers know exactly what they're doing, and any kind of forgiveness for them is a terrible idea.
LarryC: Is this really a problem? Every few days someone self-links.
It doesn't seem like a growing problem to you? Huh.
posted by mediareport at 10:18 PM on April 2, 2006
Well, it's a shame, but the word 'western' actually ended up in my comment as a result of an editing mistake.
Christ, the culture here in Korea is as bad (and quite probably worse) for instilling a lack of personal responsibility and accountability in people. Whether that generalizes to other Asian cultures, I haven't the experience to be able to say.
But it certainly wasn't my intention to deride the 'west' and praise the 'east'. Far from it. I'm an equal-opportunity cynic.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:02 AM on April 3, 2006
Christ, the culture here in Korea is as bad (and quite probably worse) for instilling a lack of personal responsibility and accountability in people. Whether that generalizes to other Asian cultures, I haven't the experience to be able to say.
But it certainly wasn't my intention to deride the 'west' and praise the 'east'. Far from it. I'm an equal-opportunity cynic.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 12:02 AM on April 3, 2006
The reason people continue to self-link is because of inconsistent application of the rules.
Are you retarded? Do you really think most self-linkers read MeTa? Please.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 AM on April 3, 2006
Are you retarded? Do you really think most self-linkers read MeTa? Please.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 AM on April 3, 2006
Maybe you should use the <blink> tag on the warning on the posting page for new users?
posted by delmoi at 1:41 AM on April 3, 2006
posted by delmoi at 1:41 AM on April 3, 2006
Both of matthewchen's projects have been pretty intresting.
posted by delmoi at 1:49 AM on April 3, 2006
posted by delmoi at 1:49 AM on April 3, 2006
Nice thought, but it has nothing to do with jerks who make a calculated decision that a brief $5 membership here is worth the couple of thousand hits they might get before Matt or Jessamyn deletes their self-link and bans them from the site.
Yes, and clearly some of the people who self-link are not just jerks who made that calculation. Why punish those people as well?
I have no problem with keeping people who apologize sincerely.
posted by delmoi at 1:55 AM on April 3, 2006
Yes, and clearly some of the people who self-link are not just jerks who made that calculation. Why punish those people as well?
I have no problem with keeping people who apologize sincerely.
posted by delmoi at 1:55 AM on April 3, 2006
How about a little symbol by a post (or maybe on the comments page) indicating that it's a first post?
Could be something innocuous and maybe not immediately apparent so that experience membersd would recognize it (like the [!] link, really) but that would serve as an alert.
It would also be nice to have a little signal for congratulating people on their first post (or to just take that into account while comments) without them having to point it out.
posted by spiderwire at 6:38 AM on April 3, 2006
Could be something innocuous and maybe not immediately apparent so that experience membersd would recognize it (like the [!] link, really) but that would serve as an alert.
It would also be nice to have a little signal for congratulating people on their first post (or to just take that into account while comments) without them having to point it out.
posted by spiderwire at 6:38 AM on April 3, 2006
"There's a real fear of holding people accountable for themselves here in modern western culture, isn't there?"
As evidenced by the US's miniscule prison population and its absurd emphasis on "therapeutic rehabilitation" and "fundamental causes".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:40 AM on April 3, 2006
As evidenced by the US's miniscule prison population and its absurd emphasis on "therapeutic rehabilitation" and "fundamental causes".
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:40 AM on April 3, 2006
Mediareport: No it doesn't seem to me we have a huge problem with self-links, because whatever their frequency, they don't stay up very long. Hanslicht's self link was up for 3 hours, then disappeared. It is not that disruptive. Certainly less so than some of the cumbersome proposals for preventing them.
posted by LarryC at 6:48 AM on April 3, 2006
posted by LarryC at 6:48 AM on April 3, 2006
Are you retarded? Do you really think most self-linkers read MeTa? Please.
posted by delmoi at 1:40 AM PST on April 3
They don't need to read MeTa; all they need is to have a friend tell them "go self-link here; they won't do shit about it as long as you pretend it's a mistake."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:26 AM on April 3, 2006
posted by delmoi at 1:40 AM PST on April 3
They don't need to read MeTa; all they need is to have a friend tell them "go self-link here; they won't do shit about it as long as you pretend it's a mistake."
posted by Optimus Chyme at 7:26 AM on April 3, 2006
I have no problem with keeping people who apologize sincerely.
Which will only serve to have the linkwhores apologizing with false sorrow, so that they can have the opportunity to screw us over again.
There is absolutely no reason to practice any level of forgiveness here on MeFi. There are enough people here that we can afford to lose the asshats.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on April 3, 2006
Which will only serve to have the linkwhores apologizing with false sorrow, so that they can have the opportunity to screw us over again.
There is absolutely no reason to practice any level of forgiveness here on MeFi. There are enough people here that we can afford to lose the asshats.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:20 AM on April 3, 2006
They don't need to read MeTa; all they need is to have a friend tell them "go self-link here; they won't do shit about it as long as you pretend it's a mistake."
Right, a friend who reads MeTa. Besides, the idea that we're "doing" anything to the self-linkers is stupid. They're out $5
posted by delmoi at 12:43 PM on April 3, 2006
Right, a friend who reads MeTa. Besides, the idea that we're "doing" anything to the self-linkers is stupid. They're out $5
posted by delmoi at 12:43 PM on April 3, 2006
There is absolutely no reason to practice any level of forgiveness here on MeFi. There are enough people here that we can afford to lose the asshats.
There's no reason not to practice forgiveness either. They're not "screwing us over" it's a minor annoyance. Lighten up.
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on April 3, 2006
There's no reason not to practice forgiveness either. They're not "screwing us over" it's a minor annoyance. Lighten up.
posted by delmoi at 12:45 PM on April 3, 2006
As evidenced by the US's miniscule prison population and its absurd emphasis on "therapeutic rehabilitation" and "fundamental causes".
Too many levels of sarcasm here, so I'm having trouble telling exactly what you're arguing, but just in case: the fact that America has 25% of the prison inmates in the world with 5% of the population supports my point, in my opinion.
In lieu of systematic and widespread personal responsibility for one's actions, punishment by the authorities becomes the overriding measure by which societal chaos can be tamped down. After the fact, not before.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 PM on April 3, 2006
Too many levels of sarcasm here, so I'm having trouble telling exactly what you're arguing, but just in case: the fact that America has 25% of the prison inmates in the world with 5% of the population supports my point, in my opinion.
In lieu of systematic and widespread personal responsibility for one's actions, punishment by the authorities becomes the overriding measure by which societal chaos can be tamped down. After the fact, not before.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:02 PM on April 3, 2006
That's an interesting point. Seriously, I'm ambivalent about this. I see indications of both trends. That makes me wonder that the problem, if there's a problem, might be a level deeper.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:02 PM on April 3, 2006
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:02 PM on April 3, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
may i recommend the poster be given the chance to fix the link rather than banning?
The post is kind of cool, and he took no steps to hide that its his blog - seems a rather innocent/stupid mistake.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 7:02 AM on April 2, 2006