Can we have a 'see also' feature for links with more info? July 25, 2006 7:29 PM   Subscribe

Suggestion: In lieu of the infamous carets, or the oft-suggested WIKI, wouldn't a [see also] notation be more effective solution? It would certainly be in keeping with the continuity of the site's layout and design.
posted by Smart Dalek to Etiquette/Policy at 7:29 PM (63 comments total)

Yer links are broke.
posted by evil holiday magic at 7:34 PM on July 25, 2006


Disclaimer: models shown are not necessairily to scale.
posted by Smart Dalek at 7:37 PM on July 25, 2006


Yes! I love it! Much better than carets! I would click it again and again and again!
posted by yhbc at 7:38 PM on July 25, 2006


The burning question for me would be: why? Wikipedia links are the canned processed meat of Metafilter posts. Better to just discourage them entirely as superfluous, I'd think.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:49 PM on July 25, 2006


I just caught on to the caret trend today, although it's kinda nice, I completely agree that in the long run it's ugly.
posted by furtive at 7:49 PM on July 25, 2006


I'm prety sure loquacious did it here just to piss people off. I'm gonna give him such a smack!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:51 PM on July 25, 2006


I'm prety sure loquacious did it here just to piss people off. I'm gonna give him such a smack!

Careful, he may talk to you about persimmons!
posted by scottreynen at 7:57 PM on July 25, 2006


As a member who feels that Wikipedia articles aren't appropriate for 'content' links but still appreciates the quick background that they provide, I like the caret, and especially lurve fuyugare's classy and cute MeFi No-Caret GreaseMonkey Script^.

Couldn't the non-caret fans make a script of their own to remove them?
Can't we all just get along?
And why can't I rollerskate in a buffalo herd?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:59 PM on July 25, 2006


And what if God was one of us?
posted by cortex at 8:01 PM on July 25, 2006


Just a stranger on the bus?
posted by cortex at 8:01 PM on July 25, 2006


People wouldn't convert, they'd just transfer.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:15 PM on July 25, 2006


Not this again.
posted by bigmusic at 8:23 PM on July 25, 2006


Wikipedia is so well-known by now that any links to it are pretty much a waste of time. If people posted links to google search results for every little goddamn thing in their posts would you guys think it was such a good idea? It's the same thing.
posted by cellphone at 8:35 PM on July 25, 2006


Couldn't the non-caret fans make a script of their own to remove them?

I'm really tempted to make a GreaseMonkey script to remove suggestions that a GreaseMonkey script would be a good solution to any problem.
posted by scottreynen at 8:40 PM on July 25, 2006 [1 favorite]


I'm really tempted to just grease up a monkey and shove a carrot up ... oh never mind.
posted by jefbla at 8:43 PM on July 25, 2006


I did the caret 'cause I like it, not to annoy people. I like the caret convention because it's one little character which makes it less obtrusive.

Yeah, everyone kinda knows wikipedia, but providing the link is a kindness - saves many other people many accumulated keystrokes.

I like the wikipedia-footnoting so much that I'd like to see a button in the post and/or textarea box to automate it.

No, not everyone who is a member of or who reads MetaFilter is a king-hell supergenius of the internet and as capable as the most vocal minority.

However, the footnoting convention most certainly should not be Wikipedia specific, for there are many other useful references available. If anything it should be the caret or the [see also]. That latter of which just takes more space anyway.
posted by loquacious at 8:58 PM on July 25, 2006


It's actually really easy edit that script to just remove the caret all together. Now I'll ever have to see that stupid fucking wiki caret ever again.
posted by bob sarabia at 8:59 PM on July 25, 2006


Yeah, right, we need to invent a GreaseMonkey script to deal with folks who refuse to use the simple convention of an html link. Sure, whatever. If a Wikipedia article is worth linking here (a rare occurence, and growing more so by the day), it's worth linking with the convention we've all been using online for years now. Wikipedia links aren't so special they deserve a change to that.

But whatever, Matt likes them, and folks like loquacious laugh as they encourage them, so the caret is going to show up more and more here, making the site look stupider and stupider.

*shrug*

Life is tough sometimes.
posted by mediareport at 9:01 PM on July 25, 2006


Well then, say hello to my little friend.


posted by cellphone at 9:10 PM on July 25, 2006


Metafilter: Don't You Fucking Dare Include References To Wikipedia or YouTube Or I'll Fucking Cut The Shit Out Of You.
posted by Effigy2000 at 10:13 PM on July 25, 2006


I rather like the ^. It is occasionally useful and yet completely innocuous when its utility is unneeded. Why do people feel so strongly against it?
posted by shoepal at 10:56 PM on July 25, 2006


You'll find arguments against in the previous thread on this very topic.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:12 PM on July 25, 2006


What the fuck does it matter that it saves space? If you're so concerned with saving space, do everyone a favor and stop linking to wikipedia. Fucking braindead.
posted by bob sarabia at 11:21 PM on July 25, 2006


But the caret is one of the worst single characters to use for this purpose, because it already has several. The Dagger† symbol historically denotes a footnote. It's Option-t on a Mac.

If you're going to be retarded in the construction of your FPP, you might as well do it a little better.
posted by blasdelf at 11:38 PM on July 25, 2006


Yes.
posted by delmoi at 12:05 AM on July 26, 2006


I did the caret 'cause I like it, not to annoy people. I like the caret convention because it's one little character which makes it less obtrusive.

Actually I don't mind nearly as much when it's wrapped in a <sub> or (even better) a <small> tag, but the fact is for most people it's more obtrusive. It's less typing but visually far more obnoxious. When it's added to a non-linked word it's just totally aggravating.
posted by delmoi at 12:09 AM on July 26, 2006


Why can't you link to Wikipedia like this+? Hella less intrusive, and actually looks like a deliberate typographic mark.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:30 AM on July 26, 2006


Not that there's any damn reason to link to Wikipedia1.

1 And besides, I prefer footnotes.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:32 AM on July 26, 2006


Ooooo, can we really do this again? It's ugly and obtrusive. Stop it. And if you love it so much, make your own Greasemonkey frou-ha to insert it.
posted by dame at 5:56 AM on July 26, 2006


Wikipedia is so well-known by now that any links to it are pretty much a waste of time.

Oh, what bullshit. Wikipedia is an easy and thoughtful way to provide added information. If you're so intent on making the reader do the work, why have any links at all? Just post "There's some really interesting information out there about Chinese Jews. Go find it if you can."

I don't give a rat's ass what convention people adopt for their links (and good luck trying to get everyone here agreed on anything), but I'm sick of this thoughtless anti-Wikipedia nonsense and I don't care who knows it.

*opens window, hollers at uncaring world*
posted by languagehat at 6:17 AM on July 26, 2006 [1 favorite]


I like the caret convention because it's one little character which makes it less obtrusive.

But no characters at all is even less obtrusive. Your recent FPP could have been:

Aikido tested in urban combat.

Which would have made it abundantly clear that there were two links. Or just put the wikipedia link in the first comment from a one-sentence description of aikido.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:28 AM on July 26, 2006


Isn't it ironic that someone who spells out the name for & in his nic favors using an obscuring symbol in place of a word?

Aside from that, there's nothing being said here that wasn't said in the other thread.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 6:44 AM on July 26, 2006


That's a coincidence, Kirth. In fact, my family has known the Ampersands going back three generations. They're good people. Very conjunct.
posted by cortex at 6:55 AM on July 26, 2006


I'm complex.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:01 AM on July 26, 2006


Why do we need so many links to wikipedia or a special notation for them in the first place?
posted by signal at 8:08 AM on July 26, 2006


Because several of us are stealth marketers working for Jimmy Wales on a commission basis.

Crap, I wasn't supposed to mention that.
posted by cortex at 8:17 AM on July 26, 2006


Wikipedia is so well-known by now that any links to it are pretty much a waste of time.

I don't agree. Well, if the poster just added indiscriminate links to Wikipedia for very topic in the post, that would be a waste of time. But Wikipedia has good articles and bad articles. If a good, on-topic article is linked (not as the main link, mind you, but as additional background), and sloppy articles, even if on-topic, are not linked, then the poster has done MeFites a service by already filtering out the bad articles and recommending the good ones.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 8:41 AM on July 26, 2006


Perhaps we need subject-specific indicators for wikipedia links. For example, a in post about the new Transformers movie .
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:52 AM on July 26, 2006


What a glorious*º°©¹℠™ day*º°©¹℠™ it will be when every word*º°©¹℠™ of a post*º°©¹℠™ has its own tag cloud.*º°©¹℠™
posted by darukaru at 9:30 AM on July 26, 2006


My vote is for or [wiki].
posted by sveskemus at 9:39 AM on July 26, 2006


Monju, that's cool, but the problem is someone is always going to be a Go-Bots dude or whatever and have a beef, therefore I've taken the liberty of selecting a wiki notation that I'm sure we can all aggree on.

An ffp would now look thus:

Aikido tested in urban combat.
posted by Divine_Wino at 9:43 AM on July 26, 2006


lol
posted by mr_crash_davis at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2006


I also urge everyone to indicate that they are sorry for a stupid spelling error in this way:

aggree agree


That seems simple and easy for everyone no? Matt, close the thread.

Cheers,

D_Wino

posted by Divine_Wino at 9:50 AM on July 26, 2006


I don't give a rat's ass what convention people adopt for their links (and good luck trying to get everyone here agreed on anything), but I'm sick of this thoughtless anti-Wikipedia nonsense and I don't care who knows it.

Thought: Links already work fine, like this, see? You can already make a word into a hyperlink that easy! You don't even need to add any extra punctuation at all.

So, just pick any word (say, the subject you actually want to show the wikipedia subject for) and MAKE THAT THE WIKIPEDIA LINK. A la:

Aikido tested in urban combat.

Isn't it cool how each link now makes fucking sense? Like, how the link to Aikido directs you to a page explaining what that word means, and the words "tested in urban combat" go to a story about that very phrase?!

COOL!!1
posted by odinsdream at 9:58 AM on July 26, 2006


and you kids stay off my lawn, too!
posted by blue_beetle at 10:19 AM on July 26, 2006


Cool, except people are gonna shit on you for using a Wikipedia link for Aikido: "Surely there's a better or more interesting source...".

That's why the carets/dagger/Transformer GIFs(Monju that seriously rocked, do you have any more?) are good for supplemental/footnote links.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 AM on July 26, 2006


I do not see why you wouldn't use [see also] for your wiki links.

conversely, I do not see why anyone else should.

this thread may now be closed.
posted by shmegegge at 11:31 AM on July 26, 2006


Alvy, I can say without hesitation: That is quite a bizzare leap of logic.
posted by odinsdream at 11:41 AM on July 26, 2006


odinsdream, no, your link doesn't make sense at all and it would confuse most search engine. "tested in urban combat" is terrible link text. As for the widespread Wikipedia hate, well, it's just too bad. Wikipedia provides a nice, easy entry point on obscure subjects and it can nicely supplement a post. Whether you use carets or words, nobody really cares.
posted by nixerman at 2:04 PM on July 26, 2006


nixerman; your point is completely invalid. The option I'm arguing against is:

^ : means a link to wikipedia explaining the previous word (incorrectly used as such, by the way, in the Aikido FPP)

My version is, indeed, much more semantically sensible. I'm not interested in "confusing" search engines, because search engines aren't the audience; humans are. Unless you've already been fully briefed on this caret-wikipedia-shit, you won't have the slightest idea that the caret is what it is.
posted by odinsdream at 3:01 PM on July 26, 2006


I'm not saying there are never times when Wikipedia belongs on the front page (although I'm definitely of the opinion that they usually don't add a whole lot, at least in front page posts here). I just don't see why they need special notation, and am surprised at folks like languagehat who refuse to acknowledge the obvious issues with repositioning an existing symbol for no apparent useful reason.
posted by mediareport at 3:30 PM on July 26, 2006


^
posted by alasdair at 3:38 PM on July 26, 2006


Huh? I didn't "refuse to acknowledge" any "issues," I said I don't give a rat's ass. Don't like the caret? Don't use it. Trying to convince everyone else on MeFi not to use it? You're wasting your breath, and someone's bound to use it just to spite you. I really fail to understand how people can get so worked up about it. But this is Liberty Hall, you can spit on the mat and call the cat a bastard.
posted by languagehat at 5:22 PM on July 26, 2006


Goddam bastard cat.
posted by cortex at 5:28 PM on July 26, 2006


Wikipedia and Google would like to thank you for making your link text something meaningful. Won't someone think of the leaking googlejuice?
posted by jewzilla at 5:44 PM on July 26, 2006


Bizzarre? Leap? Logic? Of?

Clearly, we disagree.

Search engines killed my buddy at the battle of Macho Grande, so fuck 'em.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 6:46 PM on July 26, 2006


Fuck community, that's all I gotta say^.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:05 PM on July 26, 2006


I said I don't give a rat's ass

Which is exactly what surprises me.
posted by mediareport at 9:15 PM on July 26, 2006


And it surprises me that people can get so worked up about a caret. We'll both just have to go around with permanently surprised looks.
posted by languagehat at 5:49 AM on July 27, 2006


Descriptivist running dog!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:12 PM on July 27, 2006


Chikushoo!

*beheads wonderchicken with katana*
posted by languagehat at 6:34 PM on July 27, 2006


† ‡ * ⇒ →
posted by bigmusic at 10:46 PM on July 27, 2006


Last post.
posted by dersins at 3:28 PM on August 25, 2006


« Older Gigs section for Music?   |   Posts tagged with "asshole" Newer »

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