Connect MeTa threads directly to the original threads that inspired them? October 13, 2006 3:40 PM Subscribe
It would be extremely beneficial to be able to connect MeTa threads directly to the original threads that inspired them.
When someone posts an innappropriate/poorly formatted/whatever thread, calling it out in thread gets it sidetracked, but they are unlikely to ever see the MeTa thread, and flagging for deletion isn't always the best solution. This way you could simply create a 'linked' MeTa thread, a link would popup in the initial thread (directly under headline on inside?) and discussion ABOUT the thread could take place there. Similar to the way wikipedia treats neutrality disputes, etc.
When someone posts an innappropriate/poorly formatted/whatever thread, calling it out in thread gets it sidetracked, but they are unlikely to ever see the MeTa thread, and flagging for deletion isn't always the best solution. This way you could simply create a 'linked' MeTa thread, a link would popup in the initial thread (directly under headline on inside?) and discussion ABOUT the thread could take place there. Similar to the way wikipedia treats neutrality disputes, etc.
Well, I haven't been here much the past few years so I'm not sure exactly how the whole flagging etiquette has played out... is it no longer kosher to start a metatalk thread about the thread in question, then link it, politely, within that thread? That's how it always used to be done.
That would be a far better solution than having a bunch of people doing their best to stamp all over a thread (see: Idol) because they can't keep their whiny, pedantic fingers off the keyboard ;)
posted by The God Complex at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
That would be a far better solution than having a bunch of people doing their best to stamp all over a thread (see: Idol) because they can't keep their whiny, pedantic fingers off the keyboard ;)
posted by The God Complex at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
Isn't it already a general practice (and a matter of courtesy) to post in the original thread that you have taken it to the gray?
posted by Urban Hermit at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by Urban Hermit at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
Matt had been talking about doing this as an automatic per-thread feature (no "callout" required) for a while, but I don't remember whether that pony was shot or just got stabled.
posted by cortex at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by cortex at 3:49 PM on October 13, 2006
Talk pages would be hell, no? 9 in jokes, 13 unamusing animated images and 72 new users accidentally leaving genuine comments...
And I reckon the traditional manual addition of a link to any MetaTalk thread works fine, and isn't too much trouble.
posted by jack_mo at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
And I reckon the traditional manual addition of a link to any MetaTalk thread works fine, and isn't too much trouble.
posted by jack_mo at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
You mean a talk page. Matt has talked about it before.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
Question mark on that first sentance.
posted by bob sarabia at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by bob sarabia at 4:01 PM on October 13, 2006
So what thread inspired this one?
posted by brain_drain at 4:15 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by brain_drain at 4:15 PM on October 13, 2006
The current system seems to work fine. Someone creates a MeTa thread, posts a comment cosisting of just "MeTa" and that's that. If you can't be arsed to look for the link in the comments then why would you care enough to participate in a talk thread? And don't we want to discourage side-channel communications ala "talk" pages? Seems like it would just degenerate into navel gazing and dilute the few cases where there is actually a need to discuss a post.
posted by Rhomboid at 5:06 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by Rhomboid at 5:06 PM on October 13, 2006
You mean a talk page. Matt has talked about it before.
yeah, we could call it ... hmmm ... how about metatalk?
the current system is fine, as long as people follow it, with a possible exception being made for spamlinks by spammers that should be cast into utter darkness ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:00 PM on October 13, 2006
yeah, we could call it ... hmmm ... how about metatalk?
the current system is fine, as long as people follow it, with a possible exception being made for spamlinks by spammers that should be cast into utter darkness ...
posted by pyramid termite at 6:00 PM on October 13, 2006
The problem with making it easier to create MeTa pages is it would make it easier to create MeTa pages. Right now you have the option of flagging something or commenting about it with almost equal effort, or creating a MeTa threat with a little more effort. Too many already comment when they should just flag. If MeTa threads became less effort, too many would create MeTa threads when they should just flag. Easier isn't always better.
posted by scottreynen at 6:23 PM on October 13, 2006
posted by scottreynen at 6:23 PM on October 13, 2006
If anything, it should be more difficult to make MeTas.
Peep this pony, homeslices:
"To post this to MetaTalk, please pick a number between 3 and 67, enter the number in the box below, and click 'post'."
[32]
"I am sorry, but you were waaay off. Please try posting again in thirty-two hours."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on October 13, 2006
Peep this pony, homeslices:
"To post this to MetaTalk, please pick a number between 3 and 67, enter the number in the box below, and click 'post'."
[32]
"I am sorry, but you were waaay off. Please try posting again in thirty-two hours."
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:50 PM on October 13, 2006
Wow. As succinct a summary of software development as I've ever seen.
posted by GuyZero at 5:43 AM on October 14, 2006
posted by GuyZero at 5:43 AM on October 14, 2006
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by sophist at 3:43 PM on October 13, 2006