Why was this question deleted? October 3, 2006 4:22 AM   Subscribe

why? I was looking forward to reading this one and had marked it as a favorite (as had others). Do we have to explain why we ask each and every question now?
posted by lemonfridge to Etiquette/Policy at 4:22 AM (112 comments total)

No, but you do have to explain what part of "This post was deleted for the following reason: chatfilter. please explain what is the problem you're trying to solve" you don't understand.
posted by googly at 4:26 AM on October 3, 2006


I understand the reason, but it seems a like...

"I dont know why someone would want to ask that?!"
*click - deleted!*

Surely the same can be said for "What's the font on a Monopoly board?" and "Why do dogs lick your face when you whisper (usually gibberish) into their ears?"
posted by lemonfridge at 4:31 AM on October 3, 2006


The idea, googly, is that a lot of chatfilter gets through because "oh, I'm writing a novel..." or "oh, this is part of my job training exercise." Which is sad that interesting questions get nixed because of this lack of a "problem," when tons of shit questions get through because idiots never run out of "problems."
posted by GooseOnTheLoose at 4:35 AM on October 3, 2006


There were a spate of short chatty open-ended questions on AskMe over the past few days. The more chatty a question is, the more important it is that the OP explain why they're asking so it doesn't turn into an open-ended "what's your favorite x" question. There are many places on the web where you can ask your open-ended chatty questions. Sometimes the answers to the questions would depend heavily on wtf the OP was thinking, or why they were asking, as in this question. It's not hard to add a few more words and explain why you're asking and the guidelines and the faq both ask you nicely to do this.

In this particular case, a bunch of people flagged it and I removed it. If you're really curious about answers, you can use your weekly question to ask some variant of it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:46 AM on October 3, 2006


that question was way too vague to get useful answers
posted by pyramid termite at 4:46 AM on October 3, 2006


I wouldnt have said the question was vague at all pt, if anything it was precise and to the point.

Anyway, thanks for speaking up Jessamyn.

I'm going to go and find out why dogs lick peoples faces....or something.
posted by lemonfridge at 4:54 AM on October 3, 2006



There was a problem to be solved. I wanted to know common ways that people were made to feel guilty by strangers. That limited the scope significantly. I didn't ask about lovers / friends / or family members.

My reasons for wanting to know this? If I wanted to know how to flirt (to elicit a feeling from a stranger) would there be any questioning of my motives? This is no different. It's no more open ended.

This question is not unanswerable.
This is a not a favorite X question.
I didn't offer my answers to this question.

If love and lust are not chatfilter, I don't see what the problem is asking about these questions darker side of the human nature.

There are several possible answers to this question. If it had stuck around for long enough to do get some good answers it would have been to practical use. Why do I want to know how to make someone feel guilty that I barely know? Hypothetically it happens to me all the freaking time. Hypothetically just knowing how people do this, and breaking it down would help me out. Hypothetically maybe I have a guilt complex, maybe my coworkers and customers seem me coming a mile a way. I don't see how that's really relevant for this question to be solved.
posted by the giant pill at 5:02 AM on October 3, 2006


the giant pill, I still have no idea what you were going for. Why make them feel guilty? What's the motivation on your end? How guilty? What's your definition of a stranger? It seems totally open ended. The first two answers ask for clarification. That's a sign you need to provide more info.

Compare these two questions, and I'm going to take a wild stab at a specific answerable reason why someone would ask a question like this:

- What are some easy/common ways to make a stranger feel guilty?

or

- Every once in a while, complete strangers come up to me and complain out loud. They might be unhappy with standing in a line ("jeez! can you believe this wait?!") or they start talking crap ("I feel sorry for you -- that you have to live next to a yapper dog like that one next-door"). I find both of these kind of rude and I don't feel like commiserating with strangers, especially when I disagree with their assessment. Is there any way to make people feel guilty for doing it, to make them rethink doing it next time?

One could be about anything, the other question is quite specific. And please, don't bother trying to find other similar open-ended questions that didn't get flagged or deleted, because yes, humans run the site and we delete after the fact so we are far from perfect and I think "but timmy's question didn't get deleted!" undermines any argument.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:16 AM on October 3, 2006


jessamyn writes "In this particular case, a bunch of people flagged it and I removed it."


Apparently, there are people who are truly upset -- either by "wrong" questions being asked or just because a "rule" was broken. Upset enough that they just have to complain and demand redress.

Jesus people, he paid his five bucks, let him ask his question.
posted by orthogonality at 5:17 AM on October 3, 2006


The problem with way you phrased the question above matthowie, is that I don't want people to focus on me using guilt as a tool. I don't want an ethics discussion. There was and is no way to phrase this question with my specifics that would cause people not to go into the ethics of using guilt as a tool.
posted by the giant pill at 5:24 AM on October 3, 2006


Actually, you could say, "No responses addressing any applicable ethical issues, please; I have considered those already and they are part of the problem I seek to solve."
posted by brain_drain at 5:50 AM on October 3, 2006


. . . not part of the problem I seek to solve."
posted by brain_drain at 5:51 AM on October 3, 2006


Perhaps one answer to your question, lemonfridge, can be found here. No doubt we all have chatty hypothetical questions that might provoke interesting discussions. But if everybody asked those, then specific questions like sirmissalot's are more likely to get pushed off the page before anyone sees them.

Its not a perfect system, and it does depend on arbitrary and slightly vague rules as to what counts as an acceptable question, but there are some pretty good reasons for not letting absolutely every question through.
posted by googly at 5:54 AM on October 3, 2006


There was and is no way to phrase this question with my specifics that would cause people not to go into the ethics of using guilt as a tool.

So say you don't want an ethical discussion in the question, then flag anybody who tries it and wait for jessamahowie to do their thing.

The problem with this question isn't that it's unanswerable, but that it's almost infinitely answerable, with no way for the responders to know what sort of response you want or how useful their answer might be.
posted by flashboy at 5:56 AM on October 3, 2006


I don't get the deletion either. Coming right out and asking "How can I make strangers feel guilty?" should be OK, and that's clearly what the question is.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:38 AM on October 3, 2006


Unless its not OK, because there is somewhere a chorus of school-marmish tsk-tskers with "ew, antisocial behavior" trigger fingers. Please keep those people away from the delete button.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:52 AM on October 3, 2006


Please keep those people away from the delete button.

There are two people with a delete button, and no whining is going to change who those two people are. Don't like it? Off to Yahoo Answers you go.
posted by mendel at 6:53 AM on October 3, 2006


In this particular case, a bunch of people flagged it and I removed it. If you're really curious about answers, you can use your weekly question to ask some variant of it.

Please let me know what variant is acceptable, because the question seems as clear as can be.
posted by StickyCarpet at 6:57 AM on October 3, 2006


Upset enough that they just have to complain and demand redress.

That's quite the hyperbole for someone using the flag button.
posted by smackfu at 6:57 AM on October 3, 2006


Is this something I'd have to respect Kip Hawley to understand?
posted by OmieWise at 6:59 AM on October 3, 2006


mathowie: "the giant pill, I still have no idea what you were going for. Why make them feel guilty? What's the motivation on your end? How guilty?

Is this part a joke? Now we have to state our "motivation" and the "why" of our questions? Jesus, there sure is a rubber fence when it comes to the so-called rules of AskMe. I really don't get this, Matt.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 7:02 AM on October 3, 2006


What smackfu said.
posted by If I Had An Anus at 7:03 AM on October 3, 2006


mendel is right. This question is perfect for Yahoo!Answers.
posted by RussHy at 7:10 AM on October 3, 2006


You can get away with virtually anything if you explain why you want to know or if the question demands specific information that not everyone reading will be equally qualified to provide. If you want, you can argue that this question covers the second part (I personally wouldn't agree with you) but the fact remains that if a small effort to cover the first part had been made, the question would still be there.

I don't know if this has been the standard since Day One but it's certainly not new. Yes, it's a weird kind of compromise but I think in practice it works surprisingly well.
posted by teleskiving at 7:30 AM on October 3, 2006


I don't really understand all this whinging about deleted questions. What, are you going to DIE TOMORROW if you don't find out how THE HIVE MIND would "make a stranger feel guilty" (whatever that means)? mattnjess have made it pretty clear what they look for in deleting posts. Wait a week and try again, if it's so important.

I think all those "make a playlist about x" questions should be deleted with a link to ummm, that one site that recommends mix tapes.
posted by muddgirl at 7:41 AM on October 3, 2006


The thing about this question is that there are not really any magic ways to make strangers feel guilty that are going to be a good answer. What makes one person feel guilty makes another person angry, or amused, or just gets no response.

So, basically, you're asking "What are some ways that you try to make strangers feel guilty?" That's chatty, even without the "I'll go first...I tell them I've got cancer." It sounds like you're just trying to poll the general audience.

Instead, you should try to tap into the narrow part of MeFi that would have specialized knowledge about psychology or sociology by asking something like "Have researchers studied what things make people feel guilty? Apart from an emotional relationship with another person, what sorts of stimuli are most effective at making people feel guilt?"
posted by MrZero at 7:42 AM on October 3, 2006


People you are misunderstanding the problem with chatty questions. It's not that the question, it's the answers.
posted by oddman at 7:48 AM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Please let me know what variant is acceptable, because the question seems as clear as can be.

mathowie had some good suggestions.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:51 AM on October 3, 2006


Yahoo!Answers
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:00 AM on October 3, 2006


Wow, all the people who flagged it here should feel guilty as hell. Who knew the answers would be so clear, concise, incisive and to the point? Great question!
posted by OmieWise at 8:09 AM on October 3, 2006


Its not a perfect system, and it does depend on arbitrary and slightly vague rules as to what counts as an acceptable question, but there are some pretty good reasons for not letting absolutely every question through.

Yes, exactly. God, we really need a "If you are posting to complain about the deletion of a question from Ask Metafilter, don't" warning on the MeTa posting page.

Yahoo!Answers

Heh. They don't know what the fuck to do with it, either.
posted by mediareport at 8:29 AM on October 3, 2006


Some of these are pretty good!

nonverbal body language, Broadside, or expand body showing dominate, and maybe some disgust in a frown.

or

talk to your friend and in the same time you look at them,and it will make they will feel discomfort at the moment.
posted by agropyron at 8:39 AM on October 3, 2006


I've flagged this whole thread as great theater.
posted by Mister_A at 8:57 AM on October 3, 2006


*expands body showing dominate*
posted by brain_drain at 9:04 AM on October 3, 2006


Surely the same can be said for "What's the font on a Monopoly board?" and "Why do dogs lick your face when you whisper (usually gibberish) into their ears?"

The answers to those two questions do not change based on the reason for asking. The answers to questions like "how do I make a stranger feel guilty" and "what color sweater should I buy" are dependent on the reason for asking.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 9:08 AM on October 3, 2006


Metafilter: Expands body showing dominate.
posted by Mister_A at 9:14 AM on October 3, 2006


OH NOES MY PRECIOUS QUESTION WAS DELETERD!

"How do you make food?"
(Deleted. What kind of food?)

"What's that thing over there?"
(Deleted. What thing?)

"How do you make a stranger enjoy?"
(Deleted. Enjoy what?)

"How do you make a stranger take the thing from my hand?"
(Deleted. Who? What thing?)

YOU ARE ALL FASCIST BAD BECAUSE MY QUESTION GOT FAVED SO THERE WAS A SOMETHING THAT READS IT! ALSO, YOUR ANALOGIES ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND DIFFERENT SO I WILL PROVE IT! AND FOR THIRD, THERE IS NO OTHER INTERNET SIGHT THAT WILL I CAN EVER FIND WHERE I POST THINGS!
posted by klangklangston at 9:15 AM on October 3, 2006 [3 favorites]


Metafilter: Expand body showing dominate, and maybe some disgust in a frown.
posted by klangklangston at 9:16 AM on October 3, 2006


Who knew the answers would be so clear, concise, incisive and to the point?

OmieWise, are you sarcastically implying that only questions that attract clear, concise, incisive and to the point responses on Yahoo!Answers are fit to ask? That simplifies things tremendously.

agropyron: Yeah, that second scenario would be pretty creepy.
posted by StickyCarpet at 9:17 AM on October 3, 2006


This was a poorly worded question, but delete? This deletion was not as bad as the food scenes in movies deletion which was just nonsensical.
posted by caddis at 9:19 AM on October 3, 2006


klangklangston:

YOU ARE ALL FASCIST BAD BECAUSE MY QUESTION GOT FAVED SO THERE WAS A SOMETHING THAT READS IT! ALSO, YOUR ANALOGIES ARE TOTALLY WRONG AND DIFFERENT SO I WILL PROVE IT! AND FOR THIRD, THERE IS NO OTHER INTERNET SIGHT THAT WILL I CAN EVER FIND WHERE I POST THINGS!"

Nice blog, klang.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 9:26 AM on October 3, 2006


Yahoo!Answers
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:00 AM PST on October 3 [+] [!]


They answered it!

By sitting in the middle of the street. Somebody's bound to hit you and then feel guilty.
posted by vacapinta at 9:29 AM on October 3, 2006


When I was driving back from New Orleans to Michigan, and we made a foolish detour through Atlanta, I managed to catch about half of a late night radio host doing some sort of call-in contest (at least, I assume it was a contest).
The question that the callers had to answer was "What kind of hat am I wearing?"
As I came in, the host had just dismissed "bandana," because "bandanas aren't hats."
He then reiterated the clues: it was made of cloth, it had colors on it, you could wear it on your head. While I listened, he went through ski caps, fedoras, bandanas again (some callers thought they could argue him into accepting it as a hat, though since he was specifically asking about the hat he was wearing, it shouldn't have made any difference), and "one of them Jewish things, a marmaduke or something."
The rest of the people in the van made me change the station, but I'm still wondering what kind of hat he was wearing.

Often, when I see questions on AskMe, I think "What kind of hat was he wearing?"
posted by klangklangston at 9:47 AM on October 3, 2006 [3 favorites]


Hey so how you guys doing?
posted by Mister_A at 9:48 AM on October 3, 2006


I don't get the deletion here, either. Seemed clear enough.
posted by dead_ at 9:51 AM on October 3, 2006


how can i delete the fish? in my pants?
posted by quonsar at 10:02 AM on October 3, 2006


StickyCarpet writes "OmieWise, are you sarcastically implying that only questions that attract clear, concise, incisive and to the point responses on Yahoo!Answers are fit to ask?"

No, I was sarcastically suggesting that at the time I looked at it that Yahoo thread proved that the series of questions that Matt had about the question were not made up in his itchy-delete-button-fingered body, but were endemic to the question. That is indeed good to know as it puts the handwringing over this particular deletion into proper context.
posted by OmieWise at 10:05 AM on October 3, 2006


The aspect of this deletion that I question is any concern for the useless or transgressive motives of the asker.

If Roentgen had asked "How can I damage film without taking it out of the box?", and his question was deleted on the grounds of "Why would you want to damage perfectly good film?", then the discovery of X-Rays could have been delayed.
posted by StickyCarpet at 10:25 AM on October 3, 2006


If Hitler had asked "How do I kill 6 million Jews?" and his question was deleted on the grounds of "Why would you want to kill perfectly good Jews?", then the Holocaust would have never happened.
Why, StickyCarpet, do you hate the Chosen People of God?
posted by klangklangston at 10:46 AM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


if matt had asked "how do i get strangers to annoy one another?" and ... oh, hell, never mind
posted by pyramid termite at 11:05 AM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


You know, this thread is taking up precious space in the tubes! You can't just throw these things on the internet like it's some sort of truck or something. Think people, Think!

p.s. Why do you hate america?
posted by blue_beetle at 11:39 AM on October 3, 2006


If you want to get rid of the mixtape questions, just tell them there are entire websites dedicated to them.

Art of the Mix
Tiny Mix Tapes
MixMatcher
WebJay
posted by IndigoRain at 2:31 PM on October 3, 2006


Aw crap, wrong thread.
posted by IndigoRain at 2:32 PM on October 3, 2006


All MeTa threads are one, Indigo.
posted by klangklangston at 3:03 PM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


by the login some of you folks seem to subscribe too, there are no stupid askMe questions only stupid askMe answers.
posted by Megafly at 4:52 PM on October 3, 2006


Looking at the poster's list of previous questions, it looks like s/he's a writer for a small free newspaper looking to fill up a top-ten list. So, a clear problem to be solved, not asking for "your favorite x" but for "most notable x", which is at least a little more objective. Ok, so it's a question they could easily answer by googling aroung for themselves, but it's not just chat, I think.

The '80s song question is bad, I think, just because every '80s song that we remember now is either absurdly upbeat or a super-cheesy ballad. I went to answer, but it occurred to me I would be typing for hours.
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:53 PM on October 3, 2006


Me also in wrong thread. (Ducks flying tomato)
posted by LobsterMitten at 4:54 PM on October 3, 2006


Apparently, there are people who are truly upset -- either by "wrong" questions being asked or just because a "rule" was broken. Upset enough that they just have to complain and demand redress.

Honestly. Admins get persnickety about something. Suddenly people consider it their job to report said thing. Next thing you know, admins are using the number of flags as an excuse for their action. Circular. And pretty silly.
posted by scarabic at 5:41 PM on October 3, 2006


"Often, when I see questions on AskMe, I think 'What kind of hat was he wearing?'"

I don't wear hats, so you can rest easy when I post a question.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:00 PM on October 3, 2006


The aspect of this deletion that I question is any concern for the useless or transgressive motives of the asker.

If Roentgen had asked "How can I damage film without taking it out of the box?", and his question was deleted on the grounds of "Why would you want to damage perfectly good film?", then the discovery of X-Rays could have been delayed.


In the 15 minutes I've been staring at the edit box I have not been able to figure out a way to adequately convey how completely dumbfounded I am.
posted by Khalad at 6:33 PM on October 3, 2006


Circular. And pretty silly.

Tell me what you'd do differently. Seriously. Looser guidelines? Tighter administration? A more "whatever dude" vibe? An airtight aggressively enforced FAQ? Heavier banhammer? More make-up sex?

The system has enough give in it so that when you're buying a condo, there's a way for you to ask an extra question and no one gives you a hard time about it. 199 out of every 200 questions don't wind up in MetaTalk at all, possibly even fewer.

And yet, for every one that winds up here, we have to act like we need to reinspect every single premise that made AskMe/MeFi/HiFi/Projects/Jobs and MeTa the sort of sites they are today. Or, when we try to explain what we did, you call that making excuses?

You have the floor, what would you do differently?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:34 PM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


more make-up sex ... definitely more make-up sex
posted by pyramid termite at 6:40 PM on October 3, 2006


I would delete all complaints about deletions of chatfilter. This would dramatically reduce complaints about deletions of chatfilter.
posted by brain_drain at 6:53 PM on October 3, 2006


If Roentgen had asked "Why does my barium platinocyanide while the Cathode ray tube is still wrapped in black paper?, More Inside--
I checked and the barium platinocyanide isn't glowing ahead of time and the paper isn't letting light through. It also let me take a picture of my wife's skeletal hand. Could this have something to do with the Rays inside my cathode tube bouncing off an object inside the tube?"

That would have been a worthwhile AskMe question.

If we assume that Google didn't exist in 1895 and Metafilter did. Cause you could definely Google that one.
posted by Megafly at 7:00 PM on October 3, 2006


"Why does my barium platinocyanide glow"

curse you cut and paste!
posted by Megafly at 7:01 PM on October 3, 2006


I would delete all complaints about deletions of chatfilter.

Please, please, please start doing this.
posted by mediareport at 7:08 PM on October 3, 2006


There's a continuum between chatty and nuts-and-bolts practicable. I think we can easily agree on the extreme end of chatty, but "what I would do" is draw the line a little more loosely with regard to the middle zone.

Really, there are times when the deletion reason says "please rephrase and repost," and those just seem ridiculous. What I would do is let more of them go. The justification seems to be "it would get chatty if it were left alone," but there are a couple of things I'd add to that.

#1: the question might still get answered. There would be superfluous discussion as well, but so what? It's the internet.

#2: this isn't about saving front page real estate, because the rephrased question would take up just as much. It's kind of jackass to have a "once per week" policy and ask users to tweak and resubmit, too. It amounts to more of a "fuck off" than a "try again."

#3: the pre-emption justificaiton is out of sync out of sync with the rest of MeFi. We don't delete threads on controversial subjects because they might get abusive. Comments get pruned when they go over the line but we don't punish the poster for opening the door to them.

In the end, I think Matt's vision of "what AskMe should be" is less important than what members find useful and important to them. People give or get information they want or need here and the distinction-from-above about which questions really need answering goes a little too far at times. There's a certain range over which people will simply differ, and you could do more to be real about that.

Further, I think every online community needs a little room to wiggle and giggle. You can't be "on task" all the time, 100%, just as you can't stop people from chatting at the water cooler at work. I'd pay that more service in the deletion policy. I'm not saying "turn AskMe into MetaChat." I'm saying, again, that I think your dial is turned a few degrees too far to one side.

I have a hunch that Matt is glad someone else built MetaChat so he doesn't have to, but if you spend time in both places, I think you gather rather quickly that MeFi is a place people are terrified to post because it's so cutthroat. And at times the mission of AskMe seems way too task-oriented, with no room to be a community. The spontaneous generosity and consideration over at MetaChat are a stark contrast to the bickering, judgment, and didactic lecturing which plagues AskMe. Deleting any thread that calls for opinions is a good way to keep people from getting to know one another, and keeping people from getting to know one another is a good way to keep them from giving a shit about one another.

Perhaps some room to breathe on threads that are less than 100% utilitarian would breed a little more "community" in this community. I personally find the asshole comments more of a threat than the chatty threads. Matt has built many sites to redirect forces which he doesn't want represented in the Blue. I think he missed it with MetaChat, and it's unfortunate now that that site is growing and attracting new members who've never had anything to do with this place and don't want to. Bus missed. I see the same ship sailing for AskMe. At some point it will be overwhelmed by the number of questions and the "small town" feel will be gone (if it isn't already). It's actually time, high time, to think about how to glue the community together more, perhaps do more with the categorization to spawn tight sub-communities.

In summary, I think *A LITTLE* more latitude on the chattiness would allow the community to decide what's important to ask, satisfying their fundamental impetus for coming here. And I think a less "on-task" regimen might allow for more community building, which would increase the love and set a more helpful tone.

In any event, you asked me what I would do. I ask you: what's the end purpose of stamping out the semi-chatty threads. Please don't use the extreme examples as a crutch: we're not talking about "what's your favorite color," here. And don't resort to arbitrary statements like "not what AskMe is for" or "not what Matt wants," or "there are other places on the net for that." Fact is: this community comes together here and pretty much nowehere else. And the quality of the community here is the entire value proposition. So pointing me to another site is beside the point if not disingenuous.

I suppose there will be a lot of responses along two lines:

1) "I don't give two shits for MetaChat"
2) "You want to open the floodgates to overwhelm AskMe with shit, you moron"

I'd say on the first point that I use it only for illustrative purposes. There is another way of doing things which has a different set of pros and cons. As an example it's useful to consider.

And with #2, please see my comments above, where I say repeatedly that my disagreement is on the order of a few degrees, not a qualitative, fundamental disconnect.
posted by scarabic at 7:09 PM on October 3, 2006 [2 favorites]


Too long, didn't read.
posted by Khalad at 7:14 PM on October 3, 2006


Deleting any thread that calls for opinions

Wow. Just wow. You really think that's what's been happening in the green? Earth, calling scarabic.
posted by mediareport at 7:19 PM on October 3, 2006


Good God. Here is an UTTERLY chatty thread which Matt jumped into and commented on rather than deleting because it tickled his personal fancy:

What's the appeal of Steve Wozniak?


I can think of a "practical problem to be solved" by this thread, actually. It probably applies to lots of deleted threads.

Author Eamonn Kelly argues that one of the basic human fundamental needs is "belonging." It's in there with food, security, etc. You can live an animalistic existence with nothing more than food or shelter, but people need to be connected to a culture to be human.

A lot of the "chatty" threads are like this one: people feeling a disconnect of some kind and reaching out to tweak it, figure out what they're missing, settle a nagging discontent, figure out "am I crazy," etc.

You can dish out some tough love and disagree, naturally, but you'll be arguing that people don't, in fact, have a strong need to feel a sense of belonging within their culture.

Bald requests for emotional support, I would argue, don't belong here. Moreso because the folks on this site have no core competency in that, so cut the losses and run.

Exploring subtleties in cultures, however... I think we're damn good at that. The question in question, way up at the top, here, is a perfect example.
posted by scarabic at 7:20 PM on October 3, 2006


Earth, calling scarabic.

scarabic here. Thanks for taking a handful of words out of context and pretending you can call me crazy on that basis. I'm going to try to keep this channel clear for important use now, mmkay?
posted by scarabic at 7:22 PM on October 3, 2006 [1 favorite]


Actually, that Woz thread was pretty informative; I was going to comment there that I found the responses & links interesting but I didn't want to clutter up AskMe.

Thank you, scarabic, for giving me the chance to express my appreciation here.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:35 PM on October 3, 2006


Looking at the poster's list of previous questions ...

This was obvioiusly the reason for the deletion. If someone with more gravitas, like languagehat, had posted this question, although I doubt he ever would get so sloppy, I doubt this question would have been deleted.
posted by caddis at 7:47 PM on October 3, 2006



I would delete all complaints about deletions of chatfilter.

Please, please, please start doing this.
posted by mediareport at 10:08 PM EST on October 3 [+] [!]



Jeez! You guys should be working for the Bush Ministry of Information.
posted by caddis at 8:13 PM on October 3, 2006


More deletions please.
posted by LarryC at 9:03 PM on October 3, 2006


If everything were put to a mere user vote, AskMe would never have been created. Find me the MeTa arcives from right before AskMe's early days and I'll bet no one was crying out for a question and answer forum. For this reason, I find simple "I vote X" comments unhelpful. Support your opinion, don't just register it.
posted by scarabic at 9:10 PM on October 3, 2006


"#2: this isn't about saving front page real estate, because the rephrased question would take up just as much. It's kind of jackass to have a "once per week" policy and ask users to tweak and resubmit, too. It amounts to more of a "fuck off" than a "try again.""

That's not true, though. It does preserve "real estate," in that for that week there's one fewer question. Added on top of each other, deletions make a small, yet significant impact. And it's a real motivator for people to try to conform to community norms if they feel like they're risking something. I do think the lack of risk and accountability is a significant structural factor over at Yahoo.

"Further, I think every online community needs a little room to wiggle and giggle. You can't be "on task" all the time, 100%, just as you can't stop people from chatting at the water cooler at work."

The implied thought that the moderation has no wiggle room simply isn't supported by evidence. There is a gray area, and all you can say is that you'd like it a little looser.
But the fundamental point of a successful community, especially one this large, is that there is some underlying connection that transcends a purely social level. MeCha is great, but MeCha will NEVER be the size of MeFi. Ask those Monkey Filter folks.

"I have a hunch that Matt is glad someone else built MetaChat so he doesn't have to, but if you spend time in both places, I think you gather rather quickly that MeFi is a place people are terrified to post because it's so cutthroat. And at times the mission of AskMe seems way too task-oriented, with no room to be a community."

I like MeCha, I spend time there now and then, and it serves a definite purpose. But people who are afraid of getting critiqued by the "cutthroat" MeFi seem to me too quailing to be worth paying attention to on this point. They don't like it, fine. And AskMe is RIGHTLY task-oriented. That's what makes it useful, rather than a freeform gabfest, a chat.
And I think that the enforced cuteness of MeCha is a turn-off, but can work within the confines of a smaller community over there. People get to know each other more and are more intimate, but that's not necessarily what everyone wants from their online community. Which brings us back to the "MeFi is not a floor wax AND a desert topping" discussion. You like MeCha better. Fine. But that's not an argument for changing MeFi to make the two converge more.

"In any event, you asked me what I would do. I ask you: what's the end purpose of stamping out the semi-chatty threads. "

My fundamental argument is that the purpose of AskMe is to provide answers that are useful both to the asker and to the audience, and chatty threads are not the best way to satisfy those goals (without end-runs of "Well, it's useful emotionally to unburden, etc.").
But yes, we disagree in degrees only.
posted by klangklangston at 9:41 PM on October 3, 2006


_______ ____ is spamming.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:02 PM on October 3, 2006


I think scarabic has some good points and insight, but they seem to me to be mostly irrelevant to the question at hand. Why? Because I don't think that AskMe should be a "community". But then, I recognize that the perception inside and outside of AskMe, as well as the reality (probably) is that AskMe is a community of answerers. But what, exactly, is the utility of there being a "community" of answerers? As long as there are competent people willing to answer questions, and as long as the guidelines for questions and answers are clear and enforced, then AskMe will chug along just fine whether or not it's a community. In other words, as I've always said, the community part of this deal resides in the rest of MetaFilter and should not be a primary function of AskMe. And I think that to the degree to which AskMe does function primarily as a community, is the degree to which it's slightly pathological and this is demonstrated in these chatty posts and the outrage that results from their deletions. AskMe isn't comparable to MeCha because Mecha was designed to be a community and AskMe was not.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:40 PM on October 3, 2006


Thanks for taking a handful of words out of context and pretending you can call me crazy on that basis.

I read the whole comment, but in that paragraph, you're clearly bemoaning what you see as the loss of a certain kind of community, right, and then clearly raise "Deleting any thread that calls for opinions"as an example of what keeps that community away, in your view. Perhaps you can explain the point, then, of that phrase, if it didn't reflect what you actually feel is going on.
posted by mediareport at 11:10 PM on October 3, 2006


Yikes. I didnt expect, or want this :s
posted by lemonfridge at 12:02 AM on October 4, 2006


Pants that have held fish
can be made fit for wearing
with a little soap.
posted by flabdablet at 4:37 AM on October 4, 2006


scarabic writes "We don't delete threads on controversial subjects because they might get abusive. Comments get pruned when they go over the line but we don't punish the poster for opening the door to them."

Actually, that's been given as a reason for deleting both an FPP and an askmefi of mine: they might encourage comments unpalatable to Christians.
posted by orthogonality at 5:04 AM on October 4, 2006


scarabic writes "In the end, I think Matt's vision of 'what AskMe should be' is less important than what members find useful and important to them. People give or get information they want or need here and the distinction-from-above about which questions really need answering goes a little too far at times. There's a certain range over which people will simply differ, and you could do more to be real about that.

"Further, I think every online community needs a little room to wiggle and giggle. You can't be 'on task' all the time, 100%, just as you can't stop people from chatting at the water cooler at work. I'd pay that more service in the deletion policy. I'm not saying 'turn AskMe into MetaChat.' I'm saying, again, that I think your dial is turned a few degrees too far to one side.

"I have a hunch that Matt is glad someone else built MetaChat so he doesn't have to, but if you spend time in both places, I think you gather rather quickly that MeFi is a place people are terrified to post because it's so cutthroat. And at times the mission of AskMe seems way too task-oriented, with no room to be a community. The spontaneous generosity and consideration over at MetaChat are a stark contrast to the bickering, judgment, and didactic lecturing which plagues AskMe. Deleting any thread that calls for opinions is a good way to keep people from getting to know one another, and keeping people from getting to know one another is a good way to keep them from giving a shit about one another."


Scarabic nails it.
posted by orthogonality at 5:05 AM on October 4, 2006


keeping people from getting to know one another is a good way to keep them from giving a shit about one another

And yet, somehow, questions get answered with care and concern in AskMe. Go figure.
posted by mediareport at 5:21 AM on October 4, 2006


Actually, that's been given as a reason for deleting both an FPP and an askmefi of mine: they might encourage comments unpalatable to Christians.

No, actually, that's not at all correct. Maybe mathowie told you something different but I know that's not what I told you. I beleve your "What happens to pets during the rapture?" question was removed because the question itself seemed like an anti-Christian snark posing as a question. But don't take my word for it, here are the removed posts: MeFi, AskMe
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:15 AM on October 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


I think your dial is turned a few degrees too far to one side

I don't want to become a broken record on this point, but the problem is that the system is fundamentally unstable. Less deletions in the short term will mean more deletions in the long term, because the more chatty questions survive, the more people will post chatty questions. I think the current policy arguably minimizes the amount of moderation that needs to take place.
posted by teleskiving at 6:22 AM on October 4, 2006


And at times the mission of AskMe seems way too task-oriented, with no room to be a community

AskMe is not about being a community. AskMe is about getting questions answered. Real questions with real answers, not bullshit "community-building" questions.

Deleting any thread that calls for opinions is a good way to keep people from getting to know one another


AskMe is not about people getting to know one another. AskMe is about getting questions answered.

I like you, scarabic, but I think you're way off base here, and you're clearly wasting your energy, because the policy isn't going to change, nor should it. But keep it up if it's good for your adrenalin flow.
posted by languagehat at 6:47 AM on October 4, 2006


Oh, and as mediareport said so well:

And yet, somehow, questions get answered with care and concern in AskMe.
posted by languagehat at 6:48 AM on October 4, 2006


klangklangston: I bet he was wearing a top hat.

Why, StickyCarpet, do you hate the Chosen People of God?

Maybe his marmaduke is on too tight.
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 7:52 AM on October 4, 2006


I agree with scarabic, have said similar things in past threads, and would add: With a sense of community, you get better answers. That's the point -- not just touchy-feely fuzzies, but actual practical utility. When you feel a sense of responsibility to and community with people, you're more likely to try to help them, and less likely to kick them when they're down.
posted by occhiblu at 8:13 AM on October 4, 2006


I'd like to agree with you, scarabic and occhiblu, because I also want to do everything possible to encourage a sense of community and responsibility in MeFi and AskMe (and have said so elsewhere). But I just don't think you are right in this case.

The best way to get good answers is to pose good questions. By "good" I mean questions that are clear and detailed enough to: (1) provide readers with the background information that they need to give useful answers; and (2) allow this situation to be distinguished from similar ones, so that other readers might glean useful information as well.

For example, asking "how do i screw in a lightbulb?" is useless for everyone involved. The asker is unlikely to get a useful reply; and other readers have no idea whether this reply pertains to them or not. Asking "How do I screw a GE 100 watt outdoor bulb into a Sears X1-40 light socket?" is much more useful. Similarly, "I am supposed to give a toast to a retiring colleague at a company picnic and would like suggestions for an appropriate joke" is a 'better' (IMHO) question than "what are some kewl jokes? LOL!!!"

Sure, vague and open-ended questions are interesting, and may lead to nice discussions, but thats all they are - nice discussions. There's a place for that, its just not AskMe as currently constituted.

And scarabic, while I agree with most of what you say about the necessity of community, I think ultimately this all boils down to how moderators enforce rules that are ultimately vague and arbitrary. You think the line should be drawn here, and matamyn think it should be drawn there. And anyone who gets their question deleted will of course think that the line should be drawn somewhere else. But as long as we have only two moderators, we'll never agree on the exact place the line should be drawn. We just have to live with where they draw the lines - and IMHO they are pretty great at what is a hard and thankless job. If you want to be a moderator and apply your own standards for deletion, you have my vote.
posted by googly at 8:53 AM on October 4, 2006


AskMe = encyclopedia. Formal, comprehensive, exacting.

MeFi = Book of Lists. Strange, compelling, entertaining. It also doubles as a sounding board on big issues.

MeTa = Fight Club.

MeCha = Carebears.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:03 AM on October 4, 2006 [1 favorite]


Well, no, certainly a sense of community is not going to help with answers like "How do I change this lightbulb." I'm thinking more along the lines of "How do I deal with having to terminate my pregnancy?" or "How do I sleep when my boyfriend's cat keeps whining all night?" or any of the other questions that have gotten heated recently. It's a little easier to remember that the people you're tempted to attack or lecture in those situations are people rather than just punching bags or benighted souls in need of your infinite wisdom when you've actually substantially interacted with them in the past.
posted by occhiblu at 10:11 AM on October 4, 2006


Yours isn't the solution, occhiblu, it's the problem. It's the fact that people need to know each other and think of themselves as part of a community to actually be nice to each other that's the problem. Why encourage it when a moderator has the power to enforce a minimum level of decency and mutual respect? Insisting that elements of community must exist in order for decency to exist is capitulation.

If MetaFilter members aren't able to answer AskMe relationship and personal questions with compassionate insight without actually knowing each other, then we don't deserve to be—or are not qualified to be—answering those questions in the first damn place.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:03 AM on October 4, 2006


"Actually, that's been given as a reason for deleting both an FPP and an askmefi of mine: they might encourage comments unpalatable to Christians."

...to which orthogonality is undoubtedly referring to his "what about Christians' pets when the Rapture comes?" question.

And he's right in the same way that "unpalatable to Christians" is a subset of "unpalatable to people who aren't the kind of fuckwits who ask smart-ass questions intended to mock strange-seeming beliefs of the religious".

It beggars the imagination to consider the possibility that orthogonality asked that question truly in earnest. He's being disingenuous: he doesn't ask other much more legitimate-seeming questions on theology while he does express his disdain of Christians extravagantly. It's just possible that he's managed to deceive himself—in self-justification coupled with typical MetaFilter wounded pride theatrics—that the question was asked in earnest...but more's the pity.

If anyone cares for an explanation for why this sort of thing irritates the hell out of me, a near lifelong and very certain atheist, then that's its own answer. The idea that a supposedly thoughtful adult hasn't managed to make peace with the fact that majority of the human race believes in crazy things in the form of religious belief and feels courageous in mocking them as if this is somehow new to the rest of us who are thoughtful adults...well, grow the fuck up. The Rapture has wacky consequences? No, really? You don't say. Who'da thunk it? And even if you're lucky enough to live in some Western European of North American enclave where religious belief is unusual and thus don't know personally anyone you like and admire who happens to be a believer, do you really feel comfortable mocking the countless millions of highly intelligent and thoughtful people worldwide who are believers? And just how can it be, how likely is it, and how lucky you must be if it's the case that you happen to be among the few people in all of human history to not hold to beliefs absurd and worthy of mockery? In short, this urge to mock religious believers is a form of juvenile arrogance. It deserves mockery more than these religious beliefs more innocently come by.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 11:37 AM on October 4, 2006 [2 favorites]


With a sense of community, you get better answers.

But there is a sense of community, and there are good answers. There's no need to artificially hype the sense of community by allowing questions with no other redeeming feature than to allow everyone to gather around the campfire and trade stories.

Also, everything that EB said, with particular emphasis on "this urge to mock religious believers is a form of juvenile arrogance."
posted by languagehat at 11:51 AM on October 4, 2006


And just how can it be, how likely is it, and how lucky you must be if it's the case that you happen to be among the few people in all of human history to not hold to beliefs absurd and worthy of mockery? In short, this urge to mock religious believers is a form of juvenile arrogance. It deserves mockery more than these religious beliefs more innocently come by.

Thanks EB. Thats good stuff.
posted by vacapinta at 3:28 PM on October 4, 2006


First of all, I had a nice response to klang to post last night but the site was unresponsive and I gave up. Sorry, klang, I forgot it all, except that you raised some good responses.

Lest this descend into an all-or-nothing question of whether to open the floodgates to chat, let me reiterate that there is a right balance, and all I suggest is a slight shift. Let me ask the EBs and languagehats here, are you saying you think the level of moderation on these is exactly right? Too loose?

You think the line should be drawn here, and matamyn think it should be drawn there ... But as long as we have only two moderators, we'll never agree on the exact place the line should be drawn

True. But hey, the admin gave me the floor to talk about why I think it should be drawn where I think it should be. There's no harm in having that conversation, and no reason to throw up our hands and just call it arbitrary.

I like you, scarabic, but I think you're way off base here, and you're clearly wasting your energy, because the policy isn't going to change, nor should it. But keep it up if it's good for your adrenalin flow.

If you like me, languagehat, then don't just dismiss me and blame my hormones. Your engagement of the topic is on the level of "arbitrary statements," which I entreated folks to try to resist resorting to. AskMe is for this. AskMe isn't for that. I don't see the point of you telling anyone what AskMe is for when you aren't an admin and hold such a dim view of having any influence on the admins here. She asked me what I think. I told her. How's that a waste of energy? Engage the subject with some substance if you're going to engage it, don't just pat me on the head and tell me I'm wrong. For starters:

AskMe is not about being a community. AskMe is about getting questions answered.


You're setting up a false dillema between what it is with what it does. Being a community and getting questions answered are not mutually exclusive or at all in conflict. I am arguing that they are integral. You seem to suggest that a community spirit has nothing to do with getting questions answered. I think that's wrong. Answering on AskMe is, on the face of it, an altruistic thing, and we all know altruism does not exist. I believe people participate out of a sense of being part of something great, out of a desire to help decent folks like themselves, and also to show off their knowledge in a forum they value. A sense of the other people and some buy-in to belonging there are all part of that.

The cold fusion code that runs AskMe is about getting questions answered. The human element that sets the site apart from your average web forum is indeed very much about being a community.
posted by scarabic at 6:41 PM on October 4, 2006


AskMe is a place where MeFites can share knowledge and experience with no expectation of reward other than the satisfaction of knowing they've helped another member out.

If that doesn't show a "Sense of community" I don't know what does.

Also, everything that EB and lh said.

And vacapinta, too.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:06 PM on October 4, 2006


"Sorry, klang, I forgot it all, except that you raised some good responses."

I used my mind waves 'pon you to vaporize any incipent arguments. (I wish I knew how to make the math symbol for "approximately equal to," as I would use it to simulate mind waves. Also, it's the most awesome homework cadge ever, or would be if teachers didn't see it as the lazing it is).
posted by klangklangston at 7:19 PM on October 4, 2006


Let me ask the EBs and languagehats here, are you saying you think the level of moderation on these is exactly right?

I'm hardly an EB or a languagehat but I'll give my opinion anyway: yes, I think the overall level of moderation is exactly right. I think there are more delete-worthy questions that survive than the other way round but that's OK for me in a "better five guilty men go free than one innocent man go to jail" kind of way.

I do agree with you that the site would benefit from a few more open-ended questions, all I ask is that just a little bit of time and thought be put into the composition of those questions, including framing it around a problem to be solved with really is not very hard. I can't see any way of allowing (apparently) throwaway one-liners like the one under discussion here without giving the impression that absolutely anything goes. How would you do it?
posted by teleskiving at 7:35 PM on October 4, 2006


If anything, moderation is extremely light. A whole lot of chattery shit gets by in AskMe, both as questions and in answers.
posted by five fresh fish at 12:19 AM on October 5, 2006


I agree with teleskiving: for reasonable values of "exactly," the overall level of moderation is exactly right. It would be unreasonable to expect the moderators to make the same decision you would in every single case, but I have not seen any decisions that made me think "the system is wrong and needs to be fixed." There's nothing wrong with your sharing your views, especially since you were asked, but nothing's going to come of it, so you're wasting your energy. (And the adrenalin thing was a joke: sorry if it offended you.)
posted by languagehat at 6:40 AM on October 5, 2006


Seems to me that scarabic's take on things is one of those positions that saying it's so undermines it. If the stated purpose is community building, that lessens the value of being a detached, sage, and altruistic member.

Maybe this is one of those situations like religion and placebo medicine where the less said the better.
posted by StickyCarpet at 8:54 AM on October 5, 2006


I do agree with you that the site would benefit from a few more open-ended questions, all I ask is that just a little bit of time and thought be put into the composition of those questions, including framing it around a problem to be solved with really is not very hard.

Not unreasonable at all. As an example, I wonder if someone were to ask a question relating to a problem in the past which can no longer be solved - is over and done - whether it would be deleted. There's no problem to solve. It's more of a "what would you have done?" kind of survey. But still, it could be phrased in a very results-oriented format. Would it stand up to the deletion test?

Bah. Part of me just chafes against the idea that questions need to be phrased the way an admin thinks they should be phrased. Like I said: if it has potential to be a good question with nothing more than a rephrase, what the hell? Style police? I don't get it. I'm not talking about the questions that have no chance of producing anything useful. I'm talking about the ones that get a deletion reason of: "please rephrase and post again." It reminds me of a text-only adventure game from the 80s where you need to type commands in exactly so or the game will tormet you with bland responses ad infinitum. Eventually you get sick of arguing with a few lines of code and start typing in fuck shit words and holding down the enter key.

LH: I've been wasting my energy on MetaTalk for years, and this is the first time an admin has solicited my opinion. If there's something here that's not going to be changed, it's my love of wasting time here - a love you clearly share :D   and anyway I have a vested interest in exploring online community issues with some of the best in the bunch - luvya doll
posted by scarabic at 6:50 PM on October 5, 2006


"please rephrase and post again."

To be fair, those reasons for deletion are in the extreme minority. I'm sure I've written less than ten of those, ever. If that's the reason for deletion then the poster gets an email explaining why their post was deleted and how it could be rephrased. This isn't me saying "I don't like how you said that." it's more like "Hey, no one is going to be able to answer your question as you wrote it, can you add a bit more supporting examples or explain why you want to know and try again? It doesn't seem like your question is super time sensitive." Contrast this with the number of times I've emailed a poster and said "Hey I'm going to be home for the next few hours, let's see if we can rework your question into something that will get the sort of answers I think you're looking for. Email or IM me."

Again, I appreciate your taking the time to explain just what it is that you don't like scarabic. I just feel that there is something about AskMe that just irritates you and I'm still not entirely sure what exactly it is since the things you describe seem like such a teeny minority of the questions that go through there. On the other hand, I practically had to stop using Ask.com's maps site because I just could not stand the way the site would scroll to the end of the directions after it calculated them instead of staying at the top where the time/distance evaluation was, so I feel your pain in some ways, I just don't see a way to assuage it here without some sort of radically different protocol to the way we handle things here.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:08 PM on October 5, 2006


"Part of me just chafes against the idea that questions need to be phrased the way an admin thinks they should be phrased."

I can't deny that I wouldn't ever share that sentiment as the result of superficial consideration, but I don't understand how it is that you and others don't see that, upon reflection, it makes a bunch more sense than it seems.

Take orthogonality's question I railed against a few comments back. It's simply true that the same question could have been rephrased in a way that made it acceptable. His question wasn't objectionable in its most limited and literal parsing, it's that it was objectionable when evaluated as a whole because the whole of it told us a great deal about what was really going on in his asking of the question. Just so with these other questions which get deleted, are defended, and someone says "it could have been rephrased and it would have been acceptable". The rephrased question would have have been the same question in some limited, literal sense. In many other ways, it wouldn't have been the same question at all. And, most importantly, it probably wouldn't have been the same question for the purposes of the questioner. How a question is phrased tells us a lot about what question the questioner is really asking. And that's not really esoteric: almost every answerer is fully aware of the true question and most answer the true question. That's why a certain question can be asked as a chatty question generating chatty answers and, rephrased, not.

This is just the nuance of basic human communication. I know you're not autistic, scarabic. This shouldn't baffle you.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:07 PM on October 5, 2006


If there's something here that's not going to be changed, it's my love of wasting time here - a love you clearly share :D

Ya got me dead to rights, officer!
posted by languagehat at 5:57 AM on October 6, 2006


To be fair, those reasons for deletion are in the extreme minority

Sure. I've made a narrow point here, and tried to admit that up front. Thank you for taking the time to read and respond. I'm sure you do more positive work behind the scenes than I can possibly be aware of.

some sort of radically different protocol to the way we handle things here

Agreed. If I were a pony-beggar I'd suggest resetting the user's 7-day ticker when deleting a thread for a trivial reason. But I understand that's a lot of code for an edge case. I am just glad to have the opportunity to express what I think on it, and as these things are always subtle judgment calls I don't think it's a waste at all to unpack and discuss them. Perhaps this little chat will make that judgment call a little bit more interesting in the future.

All I would suggest, in summary, is to keep in mind that the community is going to keep coming up with surprising stuff which can't be predicted, and before reacting to a new or foreign or seemingly aberrant or unacceptable question, that the admins consider the question of where the community is leading them by contributing it. God knows that 90% of the job is herding cats, but the other 10% is sense-and-response. And you can't run an online community without being surprised / shocked / baffled by what they throw at you. Since they are the ghost in the machine, I think their needs deserve constant consideration.


I know you're not autistic, scarabic. This shouldn't baffle you.


What? Am I mentally ill now if I can't follow your nested nuances for a couple hundred words at a stretch? :)
posted by scarabic at 5:40 PM on October 6, 2006


New and improved version posted.
posted by brain_drain at 10:22 AM on October 11, 2006


Thank you brain_drain and MrZero for your help in revising the question.
posted by the giant pill at 10:50 AM on October 11, 2006


« Older Finding the line between chatfilter and AskMe   |   Sometimes I just love this place. Newer »

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