working on a personalized version of metafilter June 26, 2000 11:33 PM   Subscribe

Just to let you know, in response to a lot of requests, I'm working on a personalized version of metafilter. No two members will see the same entries because it's going to start catering to your needs. If you like member A's links and comments, they'll get floated up. If you don't care for member B's argumentitive tone, they'll disappear from sight, and their comments will be hidden from view.

Once it's done, it's going to rock.
posted by mathowie (staff) to Feature Requests at 11:33 PM (15 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

I just want to say for the record that I don't think it will rock. I think it will suck. With everyone seeing something different, everyone will be participating in a different discussion. I thought the whole point was discussion. Now the point will be erasing people you don't agree with? I think it will suck.

I am pouting. I don't like this.
posted by y6y6y6 at 11:30 AM on June 27, 2000

A feeling of doom slowly creeps over me as I realize I'm the MeFi member most likely to be filtered out... sigh...
posted by wendell at 2:02 PM on June 27, 2000

well, if you don't want anything filtered for you, then don't add anyone to your watched or ignored lists. Then you'll get the site as is. Also, non members will get the site as is. This is just for the people that want to see things this way, to filter the site per their choices. There will always be an option to see everything.

When I said "everything will be different" it sounded too extreme. The order in which posts are displayed under each day will be different for different people (if they add a few people to their watched and ignored lists). So the folks you like will be on top of each day, and the folks you ignore will be gone.

How can that not be better than it is now?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:18 PM on June 27, 2000

I'm dreading the first topic where the two most active posters have each other on their ignored lists, and start posting at cross purposes, without any idea what the other is saying. Those of us who don't plan to use ignore lists are likely to see some "discussions" which are far more disjointed than anything on the system now.

Also, changing the order of posts is sure to break the sequence of many conversations, although that won't affect people who aren't using that feature as severely.
posted by harmful at 6:47 AM on June 28, 2000

discussions won't be ordered by your preferences, just the front page. I'll add the "search for similar URL" thing on posting, so cross ignored people should see the same URL.

But the discussions will remain time based, but your ignored list users will be a link away, like slashdot's "2 comments below your threshold" that you can still read, if you follow the links.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:39 AM on June 28, 2000

Might even help keep interesting topics alive longer than the 3 hours before they disappear off the bottom of the screen. Now I see what you're proposing I agree, it's perfect for those people who want the filtering.

posted by Markb at 9:00 AM on June 28, 2000

Cheers Mat,

For putting new ideas in motion. Individualized moderation seems like a good way to placate the upper-crust critics without trampling the freedom of speech advocates like myself.
posted by john at 10:26 AM on June 28, 2000

You know, it's funny.

I'm the *first* guy to climb up on the box and bitch and moan agonizedly when someone suggests the imposition of rules to make *other* people happy, rather than themselves.

So that's exactly what I'm going to do now. :-}

I don't think I'm arguing with myself; this isn't exactly the same as what I suggested the other day. My intention the other day was to make it easier for people to keep track of *entire threads* which either they started or were participating in. Both approaches I suggested were optional, the 'classic' interface remaining the default place one would go when hitting the front page.

As others have noted above, the primary problem with extensive customizability in discussion software is that *everyone ends up participating in a different discussion*.
This Is Not Good.

Anyone who read my "elitist" posting on an MF thread last night will realize that I feel that DGs will seek an equilibrium between the people who are too talkative (like me :-) and the people who tire easily, without much technological help. If I read a thread, I always want to *see* all the posts, even if I don't read all of each one.

All *I* had been after was a way to deal with the 'mail' part of MetaFilter more efficiently... without breaking the 'newspaper' aspect.
posted by baylink at 7:49 PM on June 28, 2000

Baylink, I've been toying with something like that for my (Slash-powered) weblog; you could "flag this item" and have it not drop off the front page until you unflagged it. I think such a feature would be a dandy addition to MeFi, given how quickly topics I continue to want to rant about drop out of sight.
posted by snarkout at 9:15 PM on June 28, 2000

Baylink, I think what Matt is suggesting is only allowing customization of the fromt page, ie. if you dislike all the threads I've posted before, you can put me on your shit list and any thread I post *on the front page* will be hidden from your view. If on the other hand you think I only ever post golden nuggets of wisdom (I know I'm stretching credibility beyond it's elastic limit here but...) you can customise it so that the top thread for each day would be anything I posted.
The discussions generated from postings would still be the same as now.
So it doesn't allow you to keep track of threads much better than it does now, but it means you don't have to suffer the pointless drivel I post as threads unless you're really bored.
Feel free to correct me Matt if I've just re-designed the new MetaFilterFilter.
posted by Markb at 8:10 AM on June 30, 2000

Uhm... So this is only for the front page, affecting posts that people leave? This isn't going to apply to comments made? I'm for this then.

1. Sounds like it's a voluntary thing, designed for people who are particular about how many posts each individual should be allowed to leave each day. If someone likes how things are now, they don't do anything. If someone wants to censor an individual, they can choose not to see that individual's posts.

2. It's not silencing people. Most will probably only use the ignore feature in extreme cases, like if someone posts four or five times a day and gets annoying, but he can still comment to other people's posts and participate in the commentary and conversation. He doesn't get censored. It's just some people will not see him on the podium taking center stage if that person abuses the priviledge.

3. The float-up choices will only matter if that person's also a regular poster. His comments won't get special attention compared to others.

This idea works for me. I comment more than I post anyway.
posted by ZachsMind at 7:57 AM on July 3, 2000

A feeling of doom slowly creeps over me as I realize I'm the MeFi member most likely to be filtered out... sigh...

Uh... Wendell? Me, Baylink and Murray_Kester may disagree with that....

Well, for what my two cents is worth these days... I say whatever it takes to make the "Grumpy Whinies" here happy. Personally I value everyone's input. Whether I agree or disagree.. it gives me something to think about. I have changed my POV on quite a few occasions when someone like Zeldman or y6y6y6 put up a valid, well-thought-out point.

Of course.... this will give me "Carte Blanche" to have a "Field Day" with the ignorant morons that have my comments blocked out...

...they'll never know why everyone is snickering at them. :0) Muhuhahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!
posted by EricBrooksDotCom at 11:50 AM on July 3, 2000

That's the spirit, Eric. Give'em hell behind their back. *smirk*
posted by ZachsMind at 1:37 PM on July 3, 2000

I can tell you right now, I'm not going to filter anyone. Even Kester. Why? Because sometimes the most annoying people attract the people I respect the most to post their comments.

I'll just take my chances.
posted by mrmorgan at 8:59 PM on July 6, 2000

Mr Morgan, et al, I must say in all honesty that it's never been my intention to deliberately piss anyone off by whatever I have posted here. I've been a member for about 2 years. I don't contribute much, mostly scan, read, absorb and reflect what others are saying.

Whatever sins I have commited in the past, I ask each of you to cast the first stone or bury the hatchet and hold your peace. Mefi has been an interesting and enriching experience for me and for many of us here that participate in the discussions.

In many ways I have to hand it to Matt. He is a very fair-minded and decent guy with a strong sense of free speech, moral values and even-handedness. I take my hat of to him for his achievement. In Aussie-speak, Matt, you're a great bloke. Keep on keeping on dude.

In the meantime, may the debates continue unfettered by thought police and may each individual respect the right of everyone else to respectfully disagree with whatever he/she says.

If and when Matt - the site owner - says to me, 'Murray, you are no longer welcome here', I will pack my cyber bags and leave for good. At this point he has not asked me to do so.

Until then, I have as much right to speak my mind here on any issue as anyone else within the established rules of nettiquete and MeFi-specific guidlines, and will continue to express my opinion whenever I feel the desire and or need to do so.
posted by murray_kester at 7:15 AM on May 30, 2002

« Older Impersonation and craziness led to thread deletion   |   Comment Preview Test Newer »

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