Are Links Required? October 25, 2001 2:06 PM   Subscribe

Are front page postings forbidden without a link, no matter the postings content?
posted by clavdivs to Etiquette/Policy at 2:06 PM (49 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

The button sez 'Post a Link'. Click button. All will be revealed...
posted by xiffix at 2:11 PM on October 25, 2001


Subculture.com ( from Memepool ) ; it has a link, but it's still not suitable for the front page for far too many reasons.

Bring value to the forum, stop worrying about nitpicking elders, and all will be well ( I hope ).


posted by remlapm at 2:14 PM on October 25, 2001


remlapm: that was a dirty, rotten trick.
posted by ColdChef at 2:23 PM on October 25, 2001


stop worrying about nitpicking elders

Like Matt?
posted by jpoulos at 2:48 PM on October 25, 2001


DO NOT CLICK ON REMLAPM's LINK

Why in the FUCK would you post that link, knowing full well that people would click on it and get a thousand popup windows?

Anyway, back to the topic at hand, I think that there is only one case where a non-link post is acceptable: MAJOR EMERGENCY a la the Seattle quake and the initial World Trade Center post.

That's it. Not for every followup post that comes after it...
posted by fooljay at 2:50 PM on October 25, 2001


It's much worse on memepool where we don't have fooljay to warn us.

At work.
posted by j.edwards at 3:19 PM on October 25, 2001




i figured it would have to be a big deal. i was toying with my first post and not having a link....perhaps a canvass with no paint would have been my result. I feel linking is the real art to this blogthingie. The WTA and other emergencies go without saying for no links.
posted by clavdivs at 5:16 PM on October 25, 2001


Here's real irony for you. Clavdivs has posted over 700 comments, most of which are seminal and all highly enjoyable.
So one day, i.e. today, he starts "toying with (his) first post". Just to be safe, he actually presents the problem to MetaTalk: Are front page postings forbidden without a link, no matter the postings content?
This is the first thread he's initiated. And what happens? He's lectured and treated like a newbie by remlapm and nicwolff. While the real newbies get away with murder.
This isn't right, isn't fair, isn't nice, isn't productive at all. He could have pancake-linked if he'd wanted to. But he didn't. He came clean. Actually asked. And for this he was bombarded by remlapm and lectured - with quotes from the guidelines! - by nicwolff.

Wrong, wrong, wrong!

Post away clavdivs, please.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:47 PM on October 25, 2001


The ironic part, of course, being that in essence he followed the guidelines given by posting his no-link query about no-link posts to metafilter, where the guidelines dictate they should go... How odd.

Although I tremble before Miguel's might (just kidding, Miguel, we all love you), I think that one ought not to post to the front page without a link, it being against the guidelines.

The him-being-treated-like-a-newbie is tragic indeed (I enjoy what clavdivs writes myself), but it should be noted that what he wanted to do is expressly forbidden...

So what was it that you wanted to post, anyways? You've got me all curious.
posted by j.edwards at 5:56 PM on October 25, 2001


Hey, Miguel, what's the problem? Clavdivs thought he had something that might be an issue, he asked Metatalk, and he got his answer. Everyone did right (for the most part; thanks for the warning, fooljay), and it all worked like it's supposed to. Right?
posted by transient at 6:05 PM on October 25, 2001


transient: yes, you're right in an abstract way. He did ask MetaTalk. But did "MetaTalk" answer? Don't tell me MetaTalk is represented by our paltry dozen voices. This doesn't even constitute a quorum, much less an oracle. It's frightening to think MetaTalk is whoever happens to be around.
Claudivs is 700+ comments. He deserves some respect. It just moves me so much that, notwithstanding all his contributions and the standing he's earned, he actually saw fit to present his quandary to all of us. I don't think he has got his answer. Sure, it's working like it's supposed to, but you forget the most important question of all, explicitly mentioned by good old j.edwards, which is at this very moment gnawing away at all our curiosities: what oh what is the man thinking about posting?
Can you stand the suspense? I know I can't.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:32 PM on October 25, 2001


Claudivs is 700+ comments.
I have 1348 comments! HOHOHO!
ONCE AGAIN YOU PEOPLE LOOK LIKE ANTS TO ME!!
Where is my pony! Where are my 70 fucking virgins!
Where is my "Post Whatever Wherever" silk robe!

I need more respect over here!
posted by thirteen at 7:14 PM on October 25, 2001


Well, I don't know; whoever happens to be around seems to be the quorum, and they generally seem to give pretty good answers. I don't think anyone shrifted clavdivs on respect: he asked for a clarification on the general feeling on something, and the reply was that one should follow the rules except in extraordinary circumstances (and of course, since this was how I felt about it, I took it to be the correct answer). Believe me, I understand the curious hunger, but you can't say "this guy can do it because he has 700 comments, but this other guy can't because he has 699." Eh?
posted by transient at 7:25 PM on October 25, 2001


You are great, thirteen; indisputably. And yet you've been weak, for you have posted 33 links to the front page. So your 1348 comments must be divided by 33. Which is 400+. This is not as good as clavdivs's batting average. He is a 700 to 1 man. So there is, in fact, a 300+ difference.
I am a 447 comments to 17 links sort of guy. This works out at a pathetic 25+.
But you shall have more respect, all the same. But not a pony. Not even Matt deserves a pony, as you well know. Now please stop posting and give the rest of us a chance.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 7:32 PM on October 25, 2001


fucking virgins

Isn't that...

never mind.
posted by moss at 7:34 PM on October 25, 2001


Let's not be letting number of posts dictate authority over here. Otherwise everyone will be doing this:

Postcount++.
posted by darukaru at 7:36 PM on October 25, 2001


"You've made a Post +2!"
posted by j.edwards at 7:57 PM on October 25, 2001


member since: September 3, 2001

MiguelCardoso has posted 17 links and 449 comments to MetaFilter
and 18 threads and 185 comments to MetaTalk


It all makes so much sense now...
posted by norm at 8:25 PM on October 25, 2001


So your 1348 comments must be divided by 33. Which is 400+.

*cringe*
posted by mattpfeff at 9:00 PM on October 25, 2001


Must.
posted by liam at 9:24 PM on October 25, 2001


Catch.
posted by liam at 9:24 PM on October 25, 2001


Miguel.
posted by liam at 9:25 PM on October 25, 2001


Damnit, everybody, you made mattpfeff cringe!

Besides, by that rationale I could post a few more comments and get up to Miguel-level status, based on the poor number of links I've put up.

But that wouldn't be right.

And liam's tri-post (obviously to get more comments and accumulate power) is really making me nervous. "Catch?"
posted by j.edwards at 9:29 PM on October 25, 2001


fooljay: I clicked on the link before I saw your warning & all I got was boring---& NO pop-up windows whatsoever.
*After* your warning, I was so puzzled that I clicked on the link again. (So sue me. I'm running antique programs on my system & I can't even see the fabled sidebar on MetaFilter. ...Uh, and I'm scarily curious.) The 2nd time I clicked I got a sorta flashing fly window, but that was about it.
The THIRD time I clicked on the link (I did say I was scarily curious, didn't I?), I got the full fury---I sat back and let it run for about 3 minutes because it reminded me of the old BuddUggly site I miss so much. When I realized it was nowhere near as funny as BuddUggly, I controlaltdeleted it down.
...Uh, why did it take me 3 tries before my system could see what your system must have seen on the first try? (And if there's anything I should weed out of my system at this point, could you tell me what it's name is?)
Oh, and thanks for the rush!

posted by realjanetkagan at 9:36 PM on October 25, 2001


oog.
make that *its* name
sorry

posted by realjanetkagan at 9:43 PM on October 25, 2001


Damnit, everybody, you made mattpfeff cringe!

It was just the division error, actually. Mostly I've been chuckling.


I think post-count must be some sort of esteem-boosting therapy for MeFites with low-user# envy. Maybe one's MeFi esteem can be calculated arithmetically:

True Status Number = Comments + MeTa Comments + 2(MeTa Threads) – (ID# + 2(Front Page Posts)) ?

Or something.
posted by mattpfeff at 9:46 PM on October 25, 2001


"Catch?"

Catch up with MC in the race for high posting numbers and the concomitant authority.

In truth, I'm content as a double-digit serf.
posted by liam at 9:48 PM on October 25, 2001


Shouldn't you be ploughing fields somewhere or something, humble vassal?
posted by Kafkaesque at 9:54 PM on October 25, 2001


True Status Number = Comments + MeTa Comments + 2(MeTa Threads) – (ID# + 2(Front Page Posts))

That gives me T.S.N. = 50 + 26 + 2(1) - ( 10876 + 2(2))

Which simplifies to T.S.N. = -10802

A status number which I do not care for at all.

We're going to have to come up with an algorithm that will allow us to factor in several other variables, and (possibly...) reduce the significance of the ID#. I'll work on that...
posted by j.edwards at 11:55 PM on October 25, 2001


TSN = 260 + 120 (including this post) + 2(14) - (217 + 2(8)) = 175
I’m positive! w00t!
posted by gleemax at 1:50 AM on October 26, 2001


To make it even simpler, factor in the number of comments to each posted link, sorted into negative and positive.
Posts with zero comments? Comments of less than ten words? Dittos? Thanks for links? Long, boring rants? Penalties for self-links, double posts and deletions? Unacceptable uses of typography? spelling mistakes?


posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:33 AM on October 26, 2001


factor in the number of comments to each posted link, sorted into negative and positive.

A fairly large misunderstanding about links on metafilter is that # of comments in the thread is an index of the quality of the front page post. This is, of course, an incorrect assumption. Some quick and dirty examples follow.

"Your momma is ugly!" promotes a large amount of discussion, but adds little to a community discourse.

"Matter is energy,and energy matter!" might require you to think a little before responding. Even then, not as many people will respond, but the few responses could change the way that we see the world.

Sometimes, link quality and # of comments may correlate, but overall there may be very little correlation between the quality of the links (is this something that we wouldn't have found otherwise; is this something that people wouldn't have thought about; has this link been carefully researched) and the number of comment that the link generates. Above, clav notes that there is an art to this blogthingie. He's right, especially in the area of noticing those people who can find great links and carefully craft a front page post, and as a community, we need to pay attention to those posters who are where we would like to be in practising this art and emulate them.
posted by iceberg273 at 4:42 AM on October 26, 2001


We're going to have to come up with an algorithm that will allow us to factor in several other variables

yeah -- my attempt was rather crude. And clearly some front page posts are boosts to one's MeFi esteem (though I guess I'm still sheepish about my post from yesterday, which left me several times reaching for the Abort! Abort! Abort God Damn It! button, only to find, again and again, that it didn't exist...).

Anyway, my TSN will by in the red for a long, long time, but, clearly, I have no shame and I won't let that stop me....
posted by mattpfeff at 7:30 AM on October 26, 2001


hey, this is about ME,ME,Me. naw thanks folks, thanks Miguel. i love your stuff. your command of english is better then mine. post count? ehhh. thanks. i have rethought my first post. (i want it to be good)
posted by clavdivs at 8:01 AM on October 26, 2001


True Status Number = Comments + MeTa Comments + 2(MeTa Threads) – (ID# + 2(Front Page Posts))

I'd change ID# to Number of Digits in ID# - which reduces the likelihood of enormous negative numbers, while keeping ID# as a factor in the equation.

example:

MC's TSN (original): (453 + 188 + 2(18)) - (10947 + 2(17)) = -10304

MC's TSN (revised): (453 + 188 + 2(18)) - (5 + 2(17)) = 638

okay, well, maybe that's not quite it either. but I agree with j.edwards that the ID number needs to be weighted down, because as it is it overwhelms every other factor.

perhaps it would be useful to calculate mathowie's TSN, and rewrite the algorithm so that his was always at the top. or something. (of course, he would get the special god of MeFi bonus.)

mmmm. I think I'm getting ready for a long winter of D&D.
posted by epersonae at 8:53 AM on October 26, 2001


realjanetkagan, I suppose that maybe it's a server-based grab bag thing where you never know what you're gonna get. After I got the endless popup windows, I didn't go back for a second helping. Still any website with that in its repertoire is a "website non grata" AFAIC.

Oh and guys? Number of comments/links != respect...
posted by fooljay at 9:12 AM on October 26, 2001


mathowie's TSN = 1630 + 880 + 2(86) - (1 + 2(700)) = 1281

hmmm

my TSN = -7540

hmmm

i think the system needs some work
posted by rorycberger at 10:53 AM on October 26, 2001


Different tools for different tasks1. MetaFilter is good because it lacks such a ranking system. The only incentives people have to post here are the joy of taking part in an interesting discussion with interesting people, and the joy of seeing their name in print. While Matt can stay on top of the seeing-their-name-in-print people (with lots of hard work - Thanks Matt!), the joy of being modded up is a million times more seductive.

We already have one Plastic, we don't need another.
1: except for vise-grips, of course.
posted by jaek at 12:10 PM on October 26, 2001


How about incorporating the number of times one's name shows up in a mefi search? it would seem that your status would have a direct corrolation to how often people are talking about you. (Obvious exceptions: Mickey Suttle, PrivateParts, etc.)
posted by jpoulos at 12:58 PM on October 26, 2001


Well, I'm with jaek on this one. The point seems to be judgement by content, not by numbers, which makes it a pseudo-science, which means we can resort to experimental error, human error, etc. when passing judgement... Which doesn't work either.

And verbosity certainly doesn't correlate to value, in MeFi, MeTa, the ticketstub project, or anywhere else. With the exception of Politically Incorrect.
posted by j.edwards at 2:58 PM on October 26, 2001


Clavdivs has posted over 700 comments, most of which are seminal and all highly enjoyable.

::: blanch :::
posted by rushmc at 5:44 PM on October 26, 2001


sem·i·nal (sm-nl)
adj.
  1. Of, relating to, containing, or conveying semen or seed.

I don't know about all that semen business, but I've always understood seminal to mean 'influential'. Just curious as to who Clavdivs and his unique verbal constructions have influenced except, perhaps, Postroad.

posted by Karl at 6:50 PM on October 26, 2001


(Postroad was here first.)
posted by dhartung at 10:25 PM on October 26, 2001


(I was being figurative & half-serious)
posted by Karl at 12:25 AM on October 27, 2001


You guys are like those people who, when Monty Python is mentioned in a conversation, recite the entire script from every episode.

If any of you are confined and using MeTa as your only social outlet, then I apologize. The rest of you need to take a walk and get some fresh air.
posted by websavvy at 11:20 AM on October 29, 2001


Ah, the classic "get a life" post. Never fails to elicit a shrug.
posted by rodii at 12:21 PM on October 29, 2001


Not really a "get a life" post. More of a "stop flogging that horse, it's dead" post.
posted by websavvy at 12:58 PM on October 29, 2001


Can I just say how much I love the irony of posting a "stop flogging that horse, it's dead" post to a thread that had previously been inactive for nearly two days?
posted by moss at 1:59 PM on October 29, 2001


« Older Signs you are spending too much time on MetaFilter   |   matt makes money Newer »

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