Of course, there's February 27, 2007 12:24 PM   Subscribe

Is there now an official [more inside] cuteness moratorium?
posted by team lowkey to Etiquette/Policy at 12:24 PM (126 comments total)

This AskMe used to say:

"Of course, there's Long story short:"

...but has since been edited. Was this by request, or a success of flagging, or has the moderation simply become stricter? Not that I'm against it. Personally, I would automatically change any hanging "there's" at the end of an AskMe to "I like poop". I'd just like to know if this is the result vigilantism or policy change.
posted by team lowkey at 12:25 PM on February 27, 2007


Personally, I don't like poop [more inside], but that's just me.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 12:30 PM on February 27, 2007


I hope they're moderating the crap out of these suckers. I wouldn't advocate making the posters walk the plank or anything, but I hate [more inside] cuteness.
posted by languagehat at 12:34 PM on February 27, 2007


If your god was really resurrected, he'd kick the shit out of anyone who did that crap.
posted by Plutor at 12:35 PM on February 27, 2007


They're moderating the crap out of those suckers.
posted by cortex at 12:36 PM on February 27, 2007


I edit those stupid cutesy things when I see them, yeah.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:37 PM on February 27, 2007


also, team lowkey likes poop.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


If I was a better person I would care more about war and injustice and the environment, but I have to say that I'm a petty psycho and that [More Inside] cuteness schtick makes me want to gut the asker from asshole to appetite and wear their hollow carcass as a party dress.
posted by Divine_Wino at 12:38 PM on February 27, 2007 [8 favorites]


I second what languagehat says.

I like the emphasis on utility and not style on the green. The [more inside] cuteness gives me a slight case of vertigo. Doing away with that would be a benefit to the site. And while we are at, the other thing that makes ill is the *Filter statements. NewsFilter makes sense in that there are a lot of news posts and at times it seems like we are filtering the news. But then some guy pops on the green with: "OneEyedBaldChinchillaFilter: Where can I...." as if we have ever had another post about that. People who do that should have peanut butter smeared on their genitals and be locked in a small room with a hyena high on angel dust.
posted by dios at 12:40 PM on February 27, 2007 [6 favorites]


I don't have a problem with cute, but it always reads as a whisper to me.
posted by ontic at 12:43 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Fucking fabulous!—or what Divine_Wino said.
posted by OmieWise at 12:48 PM on February 27, 2007


OK, but would it be appropriate if the author of "Utopia" was locked away in a box, say, and you wanted to find him easily?
And there were a whole buncha boxes, all very similar?
What then?
posted by Dizzy at 12:48 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Thank goodness.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:49 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Glad to hear it. I had reached the point that I was very tempted to start haranguing askers about it in thread, but that would be worse for the moderators than for the asker. I'll flag them rather than flog them. And, of course I like poop!
posted by team lowkey at 12:54 PM on February 27, 2007


HyenaHighOnAngelDustFilter: I've had a bit of a problem with some peanut butter and my genitals. From my perspective, it's [less outside], but to the hyena there's
posted by Partial Law at 12:56 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


This comment is
posted by dios at 12:58 PM on February 27, 2007


When I was a kid, I had a record of "The Little Engine That Could," and every time a page-turn came up, there was a chime, and the voice would say, "Please turn the page." On the way to the beach that summer, I sat in the backseat of the car, reciting the whole story by heart, including every "Bing! Please turn the page." From a three year-old, that was cute.

These current [More Iinside] shenanigans are about as cute as a vomiting junkie with a bleeding dick fucking a pile of dogshit.
posted by breezeway at 1:01 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I edit those stupid cutesy things when I see them, yeah.
posted by mathowie at 3:37 PM EST on February 27 [+][!]


Thank you!
posted by caddis at 1:04 PM on February 27, 2007


Close, but no cigar, dios.

This comment was
posted by team lowkey at 1:09 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Bah. I like the [more inside] cuteness. And of course, poop.
posted by padraigin at 1:11 PM on February 27, 2007


As one who once made such cuteness, I'll say I've come to loathe this style. I hate it. I hate that it's on my permanent MeFi record so to speak. What the hell was wrong with me? I hope it's going away. Forever.

(pssst.... can the one time I did it be edited away please? Pretty please?)
posted by horseblind at 1:11 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I would like to take this opportunity to apologize for not only doing this, but using it to construct an overly cute poem. (no link included, I need no further shame)

I have now seen the error of my ways. Self-flagellation shall commence promptly at 5pm (they get angry when I do penitence while at work).

/me backs away bowing and scraping
posted by 1f2frfbf at 1:22 PM on February 27, 2007


(pssst.... can the one time I did it be edited away please? Pretty please?)
posted by horseblind


Should we really beat that blind dead horse?
posted by SteveInMaine at 1:23 PM on February 27, 2007


[moratorium inside]
posted by oneirodynia at 1:34 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Given a choice, grilled salmon is preferred.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 1:40 PM on February 27, 2007


I just pooped Shakespeare. And I loved every minute of it.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:42 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


One one hand, I am delighted by the ban on [MI] cuteness, I am slightly disturbed by the idea of Mathowie editing people posts based on his preferences. Its not like [MI] cuteness breakes any rules, unless there is a things-that-are-annoying-as-hell rule (and it is possible that such a rule exists, I haven't read the FAQ page in ages). Don't get me wrong, I am aware that it is his site and I am not one of those ZOMG! OVER-MODERATION! types. I just think that more "No annoying, cutesy [MI] crap" guidance on the posting page and less editing would be a better policy.
posted by necessitas at 1:43 PM on February 27, 2007


"The universal aptitude for ineptitude makes any human accomplishment an incredible miracle." - Colonel John Paul Stapp.
posted by econous at 1:46 PM on February 27, 2007


I edit those stupid cutesy things when I see them, yeah.

Not that I can think of a good reason to, but so would I. The one that grated on me more than any other was:

"The more, she is inside"

GAHH!
posted by scarabic at 1:48 PM on February 27, 2007


I just think that more "No annoying, cutesy [MI] crap" guidance on the posting page and less editing would be a better policy.

I don't, because it didn't work. We've even discussed it on Metatalk before, and it still didn't work. People do it because they see other people do it. I think mathowie is right to nip it in the bud whenever he sees it, and I will continue to flag it when I can.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 1:50 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Not that I can think of a good reason to

It makes the questions read poorly in an context other than the front page—in RSS, within the thread itself—because the [more inside] is only automagically displayed for AskMe's index.

I just think that more "No annoying, cutesy [MI] crap" guidance on the posting page and less editing would be a better policy.

I don't think it would work.
posted by cortex at 1:52 PM on February 27, 2007


I am slightly disturbed by the idea of Mathowie editing people posts based on his preferences. Its not like [MI] cuteness breakes any rules

Okay I can think of a good reason now.

[More inside] is a simple navigation marker which helps people understand what they're looking at when they load a great big long homepage filled with phrases and sentences. Not all FPPs make sense when you first see them, and [more inside] is a good visual cue to tempt you onward into the post where all will be explained. It allows posters to keep their posts brief (whcih is good for homepage real estate) without appearing to post fragmented non sequitrs.

So this is all well and good, yes? [more inside] has a purpose.

But when [more inside] morphs and morphs and morphs again into [inside joke #3453 riffing off meta-referential inside joke #3454] then what should be a simple navigational motif becomes an inscrutable (yes) annoyoance. The homepage should be presentable to new members who don't know all the magic words.

Also, [more inside] jokes have all been done to death at this point. Nothign lost.
posted by scarabic at 1:54 PM on February 27, 2007


I don't think it would work.

You are probably right.

I suppose the editing is better than having to read it. I don't understand why people do it in the first place. Do they think we are so dumb that we'll miss the [more inside] without their lead-in?
posted by necessitas at 1:56 PM on February 27, 2007


They think they're funny.

Note to all those people: YOU ARE NOT.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:01 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Yes, experience does suggest that nothing based on posters reading and following instructions will do much good. I do like the idea of statistically analyzing the most frequent constructions and then programatically autodeleting them (probably because I know nothing about programming), and I look forward to the first MetaTalk complaining "where the hell did my [more inside] cuteness go?"
posted by nanojath at 2:02 PM on February 27, 2007


I look forward to the first MetaTalk complaining "where the hell did my [more inside] cuteness go?"

Oh, so do I, so do I.

*sharpens stakes*
posted by languagehat at 2:11 PM on February 27, 2007


I think people just think it's cute. I'd bet that most people who do it primarily read AskMe, and don't spend any time in MeTa. In that community, it's the only inside joke they have, since joking isn't permitted in threads. So they think they are bonding with their fellow Askers, not knowing that they are angering the larger community. Especially since the larger community isn't permitted to tell them off in thread. I don't see any real way to stem the abuse other than editing them.
posted by team lowkey at 2:13 PM on February 27, 2007


Editing them?
Hah!
Neuter 'em!
That way, there'll NEVER be "more inside"...
posted by Dizzy at 2:18 PM on February 27, 2007

I edit those stupid cutesy things when I see them, yeah.

fair enough. since i kinda have the same issues as horseblind up there, let me then ask a clarifying question:

is this spelled out in any kind of 'post etiquette' section in the FAQs anywhere, or am i too stupid to find it? seriously, i did look.

simply put, as someone fairly new to this site read: i don't have the vast MeFi / AskMeFi street cred of, say our four-digit brethren who have been hanging out here Since Before It Was Cool and still post daily i've personally made this mistake and was, quite honestly, shocked and dismayed by the sheer amount of vitriol levelled at (what i considered to be) a pretty trivial gaffe. or is it not a trivial gaffe? or just hyperbole? i'm seriously mystified by the disproportionate anger it incurred -- don't youall have better things to hate on (like the rise in childhood obesity or horribly laid-out Scary Clown websites)? i mean when i did it, i wasn't trying to be cute, or funny, i honestly thought it was a helpful clarifying edit. later on i was embarrassed to read that it caused the layout to look all wacked out on RSS readers, etc. which i don't use, so there's no way i'd never know this

i guess what i'm asking is are inadvertent newb blunders like this really so flameworthy? or should i just go die in a fire?

and on preview: yea, what team lowkey said. i'm primarily an askmefi reader. i have too much to do at work all day to try to read all the metafilter/metalk stuff, much less ever have the time to compile something FPP worthy besides, it was askmefi that prompted me to buy an account and provide an answer.
posted by lonefrontranger at 2:19 PM on February 27, 2007


Possible advertising idea: boxer shorts, bras, maternity t-shirts, and toilet seat lids printed with [more inside].
posted by fandango_matt at 2:20 PM on February 27, 2007


I agree whole-heartedly with editing out the [more inside] play. But it's a weird kind of community standard being upheld where repetitive wordplay on the frontpage of the green is deleted while inflammatory wording is not.

I know you've said before, Matt, that you don't want to provide a guidebook for what kinds of posting and commenting is OK and what kinds will be edited, deleted, hidden and/or punished, but I think this is a further datapoint as to why it might be a good idea. In the long run, it might save you time and effort.
posted by solid-one-love at 2:21 PM on February 27, 2007


But it's a weird kind of community standard being upheld where repetitive wordplay on the frontpage of the green is deleted while inflammatory wording is not.

The cuteness-editing serves a clear, neutral utility issue—it can't really be compared meaningfully to use of questionable or provactive wording in a question. Not to say the latter isn't an interesting question, but the two things are not in the same ballpark.

i guess what i'm asking is are inadvertent newb blunders like this really so flameworthy? or should i just go die in a fire?

They aren't really so flameworthy, but we really like to complain over here in suburban Greyton. Going and dying in a fire would probably be an overraction.
posted by cortex at 2:26 PM on February 27, 2007


It's not even wordplay, it's format play. You can be clever and funny in your questions and comments, but I think the wording under the comment box covers this:

Ask MetaFilter is as useful as you make it. Please limit comments to answers or help in finding an answer. Wisecracks don't help people find answers. Thanks.

A running joke about the page format isn't useful in getting your question answered. That doesn't explain why it creates such virtiol in some of us, but the edit fits within the larger policy.
posted by team lowkey at 2:29 PM on February 27, 2007


i'm seriously mystified by the disproportionate anger it incurred -- don't youall have better things to hate on?

Hi, welcome to MetaTalk. Let me be your tour guide....
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:34 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Lonefront ranger — yes, there is text asking that people not do the [MI] game, I believe on the new question form in AskMe. It says something to the effect of "If you fill in (the second) box, you do not need to indicated that there is "more inside" as the phrase will show up automatically.

Not an outright ban, but a pretty obvious request from Numero Uno there. I can't quote this text directly because I have recently posted a question and now I'm getting the green countdown of death, but you get the idea.

Off-topic, I'm loving the new permalink structure for threads, because I was just able to hover over several links on this page and determine without clicking whether I've already read the thread.
posted by Brittanie at 2:36 PM on February 27, 2007


Style over substance.
posted by Dave Faris at 2:42 PM on February 27, 2007


THis is what it says:
This will be the "more inside" area where you explain additional details about the question if necessary. If you use this space, don't write "more inside" to the question area, it will automatically be added for you.

It probably wouldn't hurt to add "don't introduce the 'more inside' either" somewhere in there.
posted by necessitas at 2:44 PM on February 27, 2007


Yes, this is annoying. But perhaps not as annoying as people who don't put the question on the front page at all.
posted by ludwig_van at 2:47 PM on February 27, 2007


What's the proper flag for more inside/no question on front page? I generally pick "Other". Perhaps there should be a "formatting" flag.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:48 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I disapprove of the "There is [more inside]" game because once you click on the post the [more inside] vanishes and you are left with a confusing, unending, unreferenced "There is"

Which to the outsider just looks dumb.

But I totally understand the impulse of people to try to make their post as clever as they can, not realizing that they are actually hurting its readability. That pretty much exemplifies every front page post I've ever made here. Sometimes cleverness here at the Big M Ranch gets you gold stars by your names and podcast interviews, and other times it gets you noogies and righteous indignation. YMMV.
posted by onlyconnect at 2:58 PM on February 27, 2007


I know for a fact that if you call Mathowie's answering machine you are greeted by an unintelligible, chirping three-year old girl who tells you to wait for a beep that never arrives after forcing you to sit through her infantile rendition of the ABC song.
posted by docpops at 3:01 PM on February 27, 2007


Replace the more inside with an arrow.

Replace it with ellipses?

Make the "more inside" text right justified, so it's away from the main body?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:05 PM on February 27, 2007


Hey, let's all read a limerick.

Earlier in the thread, about free-loading off of library wireless, someone had suggested that limericks in the thread were unwelcome (this was said in a facetious manner). fandango_matt then dropped this gem moments before the thread was deleted, and everyone should see it and appreciate it:
Librarians surveyed the debris
Of the teenager's internet spree:
"He downloaded porn
All night and all morn,
And set our wallpaper to Goatse."
posted by ibmcginty at 3:10 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Perhaps the preview could check whether the last character is a letter. If not, a big warning appears:
You didn't end your sentence with any punctuation. Is this intentional? Be aware that we don't like the "there is [more inside]" joke, and we will delete it if we see it.
Add some additional information to the FAQ about the joke and why it's bad, and link to it. People can still do it if they want, but at least there will be a "DON'T DO THIS" somewhere on AskMe that shouldn't get in the way of regular use.
posted by team lowkey at 3:38 PM on February 27, 2007


Personally, I've always said if you take away the [more inside] cuteness, then you'll just have people ending their questions with triple-exclamatory acronyms.
posted by Wolfdog at 3:44 PM on February 27, 2007


[inside joke #3453 riffing off meta-referential inside joke #3454]

Biting from jokes of the future, eh? That's a fine-worthy offence, right there!
posted by The Great Big Mulp at 3:45 PM on February 27, 2007


Can we also consume the living flesh of those who say 'wow... just wow'?

While we're at it, I'm also in favour of the vivisection of those who use Ironic Excited Exclamation Marks '!!1!one!' and perhaps a gentle flogging for typing variants 'kthxbye' even when they're deployed in the service of self-parody.

The Battle of FPP is lost, but we can still win the war, people.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 3:49 PM on February 27, 2007


It's all about the minutia.
posted by Dave Faris at 3:54 PM on February 27, 2007


The members that I would like to draw and quarter are the ones who make Infinite Jest and Gravity's Rainbow recommendations, no matter what the book-related question is.

Memo to all of those members: We have all heard of those damned books; we know you love them; please shut the fuck up about them.

Seriously, look at the last few dozen book-related queries. It doesn't matter how far remote the question is from anything related to Infinite Jest, there will be some silly yahoo who thinks that Infinite Jest is an apposite suggestion to the questioner.
posted by jayder at 4:14 PM on February 27, 2007


Should we really beat that blind dead horse?
posted by SteveInMaine


sheesh! embarrassing as it is that I have done this, I was only joking about editing my mistaken post. I'll pay for my sin. Furthermore, at that time I did see it as a point of clarification. I now understand the problems caused by this. I shall forevermore refrain from such transgressions. Consider my hand slapped.

Still, SteveInMaine, you're a funny guy.
posted by horseblind at 4:16 PM on February 27, 2007


So I guess this wouldn't be a good time to request that Matt allow editing of the [more inside] message so you can say:
[more than you want to know inside]
[more cowbell inside]
[that's a-more inside]
[Sir Thomas More Inside]*
[moron inside]
[moran inside]
[oxymoron inside]
[moo-er inside]
[Intel inside]
[get the inside story]
[that ain't all folks!]
[more to come - The Tonight Show]
[additional interior]
*Yes, I would do a post about 'A Man for All Seasons' just to use that joke, but I am incorrigible.

[no more inside]
posted by wendell at 4:16 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


[Infinite Jest inside]
posted by wendell at 4:18 PM on February 27, 2007


Wendell, somebody did a Thomas More inside joke once in a question. It was funnier in their head*, no doubt.

Metafilter: It was funnier... ah, we all know the injoke. We all know all the injokes. Why bother, I mean really.
posted by Aloysius Bear at 4:21 PM on February 27, 2007


[this will wendell inside]
posted by grouse at 4:31 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


Jayder you sound stressed. Maybe you should chill out with a good book.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:31 PM on February 27, 2007


You know, Pynchon always helps me relax...
posted by cortex at 4:41 PM on February 27, 2007


lol poop.
posted by 31d1 at 4:45 PM on February 27, 2007


jayder's suggestion gives me a case of the howling fantods.
posted by ontic at 4:47 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


I think this is a great way to enforce reasonable standards. The only reason people do this is because they see other people doing it. Making documentation about it won't work and will just make people argue with it.

Mad props* to matthowie for quietly fixing my pet peeves!

*propellers
posted by aubilenon at 4:54 PM on February 27, 2007


[inside joke #3453 riffing off meta-referential inside joke #3454]

Biting from jokes of the future, eh? That's a fine-worthy offence, right there!

There's an initial allocation of 5,000 injokes for every community website. We pay fines if there are more injokes established than allowed, or when #1 (our last) rolls around we can collectively opt for the bonus package. Personally, however, I don't think we're that funny.
posted by carsonb at 4:56 PM on February 27, 2007


On the way to the beach that summer, I sat in the backseat of the car, reciting the whole story by heart, including every "Bing! Please turn the page." From a three year-old, that was cute.

Dude, you did that when we got drunk last Friday. It was still cute.
posted by jonmc at 4:56 PM on February 27, 2007


While we're here...

TIA!!!

Has it really come to TIA?
posted by ODiV at 4:59 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Well, I'll be damned - I was right.
posted by Wolfdog at 5:00 PM on February 27, 2007


I saw that "TIA!!!" post. Um, whazit mean?
posted by Bookhouse at 5:12 PM on February 27, 2007


Oh, wait, I just figured it out. "Thanks in Advance."


Ugh.
posted by Bookhouse at 5:13 PM on February 27, 2007


At this point, my main annoyance is reading a thread only to hit a comment which begins "I can't believe nobody has mentioned..." especially when it's like the 4th or 5th comment in the thread.
posted by vacapinta at 5:15 PM on February 27, 2007


It's 8:15? I so need a television.
posted by parmanparman at 5:15 PM on February 27, 2007


It's a shout-out for Tia Carrere.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 5:17 PM on February 27, 2007


Actually wendell's idea could be useful couldn't it? I mean if the [more inside] instead was a random similar sentence you wouldn't reliably be able to make a correct sentence with it?
Would this not discourage it?
posted by Catfry at 5:18 PM on February 27, 2007


There should be a comma. Right. There.
posted by Catfry at 5:19 PM on February 27, 2007


I was wondering what Total Information Awareness had to do with that post. I guess I just figured it was a form of bowing before AskMe's awesome power.
posted by ontic at 5:20 PM on February 27, 2007


I'm confused why people care so much? Kinda weirded out that mathowie edits those out?

The only one that was awesome was this one anyway.
posted by wemayfreeze at 5:22 PM on February 27, 2007


I'd gladly endure all the [mores cutsers inside] evar if people could be persuaded to take a moment to comprehend the whole question in the mad dash to to throw in their two cents (with the principal player's roles mixed up, an answer already addressed within the question, or an answer based entirely an assumption introduced by another respondant half-way through the thread that has nothing to do with the original question.)
posted by desuetude at 5:28 PM on February 27, 2007


I heart Dizzy.
posted by Kwine at 5:36 PM on February 27, 2007


vacapinta: At this point, my main annoyance is reading a thread only to hit a comment which begins "I can't believe nobody has mentioned..."

Yeah, that one really grates on me too. Why are people so particularly agape at the idea that no one else thought their song was worth mentioning?
posted by team lowkey at 5:40 PM on February 27, 2007


Dear AskMe: Can you help me learn my lines from Othello? [moor inside]
posted by Rhomboid at 5:43 PM on February 27, 2007 [2 favorites]


The members that I would like to draw and quarter are the ones who make Infinite Jest and Gravity's Rainbow recommendations, no matter what the book-related question is.


Damn straight. Fuckers straight up ruined my "What was this book I read once about the guy in WWII who controls important people's fantasy lives?" question.

Ruined it, I say.
posted by arto at 5:56 PM on February 27, 2007


Sometimes cleverness here at the Big M Ranch gets you gold stars by your names and podcast interviews, and other times it gets you noogies and righteous indignation.

That bears repeating, onlyconnect.
That bares repeating, onlyconnect.
posted by Meatbomb at 6:17 PM on February 27, 2007


After reading everything here twice and following closely every twist and turn and recommendation, songs like oh, anyway, you wouldn't care, he said, to suggest such a waste of good baskets as Infinite Rainbow, in the hoop, not so good and not like the time those phantom feet tapped lightly, one note held longer, and longer, then she said haven't you any shame? I can't really blame her, silky collar up against whose neck was she resting her cheek when he said Gaddis, Gaddis, man, read more Gaddis!
posted by breezeway at 6:29 PM on February 27, 2007


I heart you right back, Kwiney-san!
posted by Dizzy at 6:50 PM on February 27, 2007


As long as we are listing pet peeves, it irks me to no end when people start a question with some variant of "dear metafilter" and I really, really, really hate it when people end their question or answer with their name. There is just no need for that.
posted by necessitas at 7:06 PM on February 27, 2007


Laugh, laugh all you want to. But know that my heart is breaking.
posted by [more inside] at 7:17 PM on February 27, 2007 [3 favorites]


Masturbate more with your actual, real-life genitals, people. Seriously.
posted by Cyrano at 7:27 PM on February 27, 2007


I'm not gonna read this whole thread, sorry, but just have to mention that matt and/or jessamyn routinely allow [more inside] cuteness in anonymous posts that they ok. If they really want to stop it, then editing it out of *posts they themselves make* might be a good place to start.

/grumpy [more inside] cuteness hater
posted by mediareport at 7:39 PM on February 27, 2007


(Who was that asshole?)
posted by mediareport at 7:40 PM on February 27, 2007


Please help me find information on that guy named Jay from late-90s-era Saturday Night Live [Mohr inside].
posted by amyms at 7:53 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dear metafilter, you hive mind, you. I can't believe nobody has mentioned my pet peeve yet, which is when people decide to supply a via attribution that they think the poster forgot. Wow. Just wow. Talk about completefuckingknowitallfilter. Kthxbye.
posted by madamjujujive at 8:24 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


And that's how Madamjujujuve managed to make the heads of 12 people explode.
posted by Dave Faris at 8:30 PM on February 27, 2007


I also hate people who end their posts with "That is all."

That is all.
posted by jayder at 8:34 PM on February 27, 2007


I also hate people who end their posts with "That is all."

Damn right! There's just no sense to it. Period.
posted by carsonb at 9:06 PM on February 27, 2007


madamjjujive comes to us via Everlasting Blort.
posted by wendell at 9:12 PM on February 27, 2007


That's all, folks!
posted by wendell at 9:13 PM on February 27, 2007


Hey, I went on holiday and realised I don`t give a shit about the stuff that goes on the internet.

I thought I`d share this profound moment with you.

That is all.
posted by liquorice at 9:15 PM on February 27, 2007


[less inside]
posted by Rhomboid at 9:15 PM on February 27, 2007


Oh, thank God the constant use of "hive mind" has bothered someone else. I was beginning to feel all alone in this... uh, hive.

And, people, please stop spelling "fiance" or "fiancee" as "finance." It's an easy typo, but it's far too common to just let GO.
posted by houseofdanie at 9:55 PM on February 27, 2007


[les inside]
posted by wendell at 10:17 PM on February 27, 2007


Dear AskMe, I need to cut my grass and the shed is locked with the [mower inside]
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:52 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Dear AskMe, we're doing a production of Othello and oh fuck it
posted by George_Spiggott at 10:53 PM on February 27, 2007 [1 favorite]


Hey, Hive Mind, there's a giant metal egg that just crashed through the roof of my 1970s living room and I'm afraid there's [Mork inside]
posted by Bookhouse at 12:07 AM on February 28, 2007


having a rule in the guidelines about this sounds like a good idea at first but then you think about it and the rule reads more like a warning that this site is populated and run by cranky easily distracted obsessive pedants which is probably a good warning to have.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 12:25 AM on February 28, 2007


Warning: MetaFilter is populated by cranky, easily-distracted, and obsessively pedantic nincompoops whose incessant complaining and calling for rules are actually requests for a title banner on each page that reads, "Warning: MetaFilter is populated by cranky, easily-distracted, and obsessively pedantic nincompoops . . .
posted by fandango_matt at 1:20 AM on February 28, 2007


I'm hearing a ticking sound similar to that of a stopwatch, and Mike Wallace, Leslie Stahl, and Steve Kroft just popped up and introduced themselves, so I'm beginning to wonder if there's [Morely inside]
posted by fandango_matt at 1:28 AM on February 28, 2007


So we edit questions to cut out "cutesyness" but not for inflammatory wording?
posted by handee at 1:47 AM on February 28, 2007


I have been lurking on MeFi for a long time and only recently ponyed up for a full account - that said, I have found myself a little bit bugged by the whole [MI] shtick.

I have to agree with onlyconnect though.. once you click on the link the entire structure of the question becomes extremely ridiculous.

/time to lurk again.
posted by your mildly obsessive average geek at 2:16 AM on February 28, 2007


Still, SteveInMaine, you're a funny guy.

Neigh, just a horse of a different color.
posted by SteveInMaine at 3:48 AM on February 28, 2007


So we edit questions to cut out "cutesyness" but not for inflammatory wording?

I'm not sure if it's that simple, basically; editing out the cuteness is done for different reasons and a much lower threshold of consideration than editing for content, that's for sure.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:11 AM on February 28, 2007


Too soon, man, too soon.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:19 AM on February 28, 2007


Boy some people really need to get in touch with their [moron side].
posted by Kirth Gerson at 7:27 AM on February 28, 2007


Although I mostly don't care for [MI]s, I did like the one about the hungry cat.
posted by paduasoy at 8:23 AM on February 28, 2007


I have to confess that upon reading this, I first thought "Why's everyone mad about the cups?" Then I realized that was an in-joke, and inappropriate for such a serious thread on how bad cutesy bullshit is, right?
Speaking as a reader, the "Of course there's" makes sense. And when trying to write something that will get the most eyeballs coming from the front page, it's obviously got utility (otherwise people wouldn't keep doing it). The complaints about maulings from RSS are fine, but it's like complaining that not everything works perfectly on Opera. You use a minority content delivery system. Stop demanding to be pandered to.
I'm not going to particularly miss it, and have probably abused all of these things that annoy people at some point myself, but the high dudgeon? Y'all so silly.
posted by klangklangston at 10:24 AM on February 28, 2007


And when trying to write something that will get the most eyeballs coming from the front page, it's obviously got utility (otherwise people wouldn't keep doing it).

So where's the feedback that tells these people their cute lead-in is getting more people to read their questions? There is no such thing. That lots of people do something in no way proves that there's any utility in their doing it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 10:34 AM on February 28, 2007


handee: "So we edit questions to cut out "cutesyness" but not for inflammatory wording?"

I know it's a long thread, but that's been addressed a couple times already. They aren't editing to cut out cuteness, though it is the cuteness that makes this particular violation so annoying. They are editing out a running gag about the page format. It degrades the utility of the site, doesn't work on the actual page or the RSS feeds, and doesn't help the asker get their question answered in anyway. I'm sure they would also start editing questions if it became popular for everyone to end their question with "TIA, you socialist assholes!!!"
posted by team lowkey at 10:36 AM on February 28, 2007


What Kirth said. I don't think your obviously is really obvious, klang.

And it's not just RSS that's affected. The actual thread itself has the same ridiculous non-terminated text.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:43 AM on February 28, 2007


And new folks coming to archived questions through a search engine are going to have "wtf?" moments for every one of those cutesy jokes. To me, that's the most compelling reason to delete them; they make the site look sloppy to anyone who wasn't reading at the time the joke was on the front page.
posted by mediareport at 3:43 PM on February 28, 2007


THE NUCLEAR OPTION:

Replace the "[more inside]" with "[…]", using the unicode ellipsis character like I did, not three periods.

Pros: end to all injokes,
Cons: end to all injokes.
posted by blasdelf at 6:57 PM on February 28, 2007 [1 favorite]


Also, you would put the "[…]" in the RSS feed and on the question page in the appropriate places.

Maybe as a related pony, you would have a second RSS feed that included the [more inside] — a "full text" rather than summary feed. You could do this with one feed, but a number of feedreaders would just default to the full text and that would be a problem.
posted by blasdelf at 7:00 PM on February 28, 2007


« Older 1 day in Moscow?   |   I have a question. (unrelated) Here's another one. Newer »

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