Link to metatalk September 25, 2007 3:39 PM Subscribe
Feature suggestion: If a thread or comment is referenced in MetaTalk thread, display a little indicator on the referenced thread/comment and have it link to the MetaTalk discussion.
I sort of agree too. While I think it's often a good idea to have all "stakeholders" such as they are involved in a discussion, often it's not really in anyone's interest for that to happen. The stuff that gets discussed here most of the time is pretty inside baseball. In AskMe I'll often put links to a relevant Meta thread in the thread, or someone will. Sometimes, less so, we'll do this in MeFi. Anyone is welcome to do that if they think it's helpful, but I can't see it as a policy thing because sometimes you just want to discuss an issue -- like linking to a print version of a page, for a recent example -- without making the OP feel like they've been called out in MeTa.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:08 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 4:08 PM on September 25, 2007
Because being called out in MeTa is the worst thing that can happen to a child.
posted by klangklangston at 4:17 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 4:17 PM on September 25, 2007
The thread Rhomboid links to proposes the same idea but, there, it was greeted enthusiastically. I'm guessing the initial comment (in this case Dave Faris) here quickly set the tone this time?
posted by vacapinta at 4:33 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by vacapinta at 4:33 PM on September 25, 2007
Yeah, it's all Dave's fault! Let's get him!
posted by klangklangston at 4:37 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 4:37 PM on September 25, 2007
Under "All posts are © their original authors" at the bottom of the page, can it say "Dave Faris is a pissy little Metafilter-h8r," please?
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 4:43 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 4:43 PM on September 25, 2007
I'm just glad that that thread didn't reveal that I used to support the idea and then forgot about it.
posted by grouse at 4:47 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by grouse at 4:47 PM on September 25, 2007
While agreeing with Dave Faris and jessamyn, I think it's a good idea, if only because someone generally links to the MeTa thread anyway. A discreet icon and link would be a good way to make it consistent without making it too obvious.
posted by dg at 5:16 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by dg at 5:16 PM on September 25, 2007
Maybe the lack of visible and consistent pointers to relevant MetaTalk threads is at least partly responsible for the arcane and insular nature of the subsite. Why not welcome the masses? There's plenty of poo here for everyone to fling.
posted by brain_drain at 5:55 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 5:55 PM on September 25, 2007
Those people who don't come here might not be like us. They might not like they way we snark. Fucking n00b asswipes! Who the hell do they think they are? They're not any better than us. I say everyone should be FORCED to read every MeTa thread before they are allowed to read anything on the blue.
posted by RussHy at 6:03 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by RussHy at 6:03 PM on September 25, 2007
The stuff that gets discussed here most of the time is pretty inside baseball.
What the heck? Seriously, is there any reason for Metatalk to even exist any more if that's the case? Shouldn't an awareness and understanding of the way the place is supposed to work be a pre-freakin'-requisite?
I think it's finally just hit home for me that Metafilter really has changed since Matt decided to use moderators.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on September 25, 2007
What the heck? Seriously, is there any reason for Metatalk to even exist any more if that's the case? Shouldn't an awareness and understanding of the way the place is supposed to work be a pre-freakin'-requisite?
I think it's finally just hit home for me that Metafilter really has changed since Matt decided to use moderators.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 PM on September 25, 2007
Shouldn't an awareness and understanding of the way the place is supposed to work be a pre-freakin'-requisite?
yeah, but should a user HAVE to read metatalk in order to be able to use mefi or askmefi?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:30 PM on September 25, 2007
yeah, but should a user HAVE to read metatalk in order to be able to use mefi or askmefi?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 6:30 PM on September 25, 2007
Fuckin' A they should.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:37 PM on September 25, 2007
Seriously, is there any reason for Metatalk to even exist any more if that's the case?
Who needs a reason? I'm happy if it exists just to give me something to read.
posted by smackfu at 6:38 PM on September 25, 2007
Who needs a reason? I'm happy if it exists just to give me something to read.
posted by smackfu at 6:38 PM on September 25, 2007
Seriously, is there any reason for Metatalk to even exist any more if that's the case? Shouldn't an awareness and understanding of the way the place is supposed to work be a pre-freakin'-requisite?
It would be nice if everyone knew how the site worked and how things got decided but not everyone cares to. Are you really just now noticing that there is a teeny subset of users who frequent MetaTalk and that the site has grown sort of large while MeTa has grown not so much at all? Not everyone cares about how favorites counting works or the Whistler meetup or what social software tools we add on user profiles page and that seems okay by me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:43 PM on September 25, 2007
It would be nice if everyone knew how the site worked and how things got decided but not everyone cares to. Are you really just now noticing that there is a teeny subset of users who frequent MetaTalk and that the site has grown sort of large while MeTa has grown not so much at all? Not everyone cares about how favorites counting works or the Whistler meetup or what social software tools we add on user profiles page and that seems okay by me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:43 PM on September 25, 2007
Yes. As I go, so goes the world. Do not cross me. I am the über-maven/salesman/connector. I taught Malcolm Gladwell everything he knows.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:46 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 6:46 PM on September 25, 2007
that seems okay by me.
That's too bad, because it seems to run counter to everything I've always believed and liked about how Metafilter was run. Doubly too bad, of course, because you're one of the three people who run the place.
So it goes, and such are the downsides of 'success' I guess. I dunno, maybe it's time for me to start disengaging from the site a bit, like so many old-time users have.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:02 PM on September 25, 2007
That's too bad, because it seems to run counter to everything I've always believed and liked about how Metafilter was run. Doubly too bad, of course, because you're one of the three people who run the place.
So it goes, and such are the downsides of 'success' I guess. I dunno, maybe it's time for me to start disengaging from the site a bit, like so many old-time users have.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:02 PM on September 25, 2007
Ok, my actual comment is that the reason I know MetaTalk exists is because it used to be in the alleyway between Metafilter and Ask Metafilter. Anyone else remember those days?
posted by ALongDecember at 7:38 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by ALongDecember at 7:38 PM on September 25, 2007
Whatever happened to the "every post gets its own talk page like Wikipedia" plan? Could the tabs for the talk pages not be adequately rounded?
posted by Eideteker at 8:37 PM on September 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by Eideteker at 8:37 PM on September 25, 2007 [2 favorites]
Instead of waiting a week, every new user should be required to read and undergo a comprehension test on the 10 most recent MetaTalk threads as at the time of them signing up before they can post anything anywhere here. If they fail, their membership is instantly revoked.
The only thing to work out is whether failing involves understanding or not understanding.
posted by dg at 9:35 PM on September 25, 2007
The only thing to work out is whether failing involves understanding or not understanding.
posted by dg at 9:35 PM on September 25, 2007
I dunno, maybe it's time for me to start disengaging from the site a bit, like so many old-time users have.
You did NOT just threaten to take your toys and go home, did you?
did you?
really?
posted by dersins at 10:04 PM on September 25, 2007
You did NOT just threaten to take your toys and go home, did you?
did you?
really?
posted by dersins at 10:04 PM on September 25, 2007
No, duh. But being a little less emotionally involved would seem to me to be wise.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:25 PM on September 25, 2007
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 10:25 PM on September 25, 2007
I want to say that Metatalk isn't actually necessarily that insular—while I have pretty much the same misgivings as I did in the last thread, and agree with much of Jessamyn's comment up top, this part of the site isn't really exactly invisible. Looking at site use patterns, its true that Metatalk only gets a fraction of the traffic of that the blue and the green get, but it's a pretty significant fraction:
In any given seven day period, probably five or six thousand different logged-in users will hit either of the main subsites; something like three thousand or so will hit the grey. Commenting and posting gets to a bit more of a gulf, with maybe a quarter or a fifth as many posts to here as to the blue, likewise for comments. But it's really more of a backroom than a hidden basement cubby: a lot of people drop by regularly.
But that doesn't mean that auto-alerting is a great idea: while what goes on here doesn't need to be considered not for public consumption in any exclusive, Get Off My Lawn sense, it doesn't necessarily make sense to throw a "hey, hey, look over here at this thing" link into a thread automatically when doing it manually and with some discretion has worked pretty dang well historically.
I think everybody should, for a fuzzy and idealistic and unenforceable value of 'should', read the grey, because I figure it's good for them as members of the site to see some of the stuff that goes on here. But it's not mandatory, and a lot of folks won't be interested or even necessarily "get" Metatalk. We don't force AskMe fans to post or comment on the blue, or vice versa, and we can't do it with Metatalk either, and that's how it should be.
This is the part of the site that some folks come to gravitate to as their investment in metafilter-as-community grows, I think, and it remains in my eyes one of the most fascinating and wonderful things about mefi; but it's a bit more work to fit in here, and it's a lot wilder and nastier than the rest of the site, and so it's always, I think, going to be fractional. If we started pointing blinking neon signs at the grey, I don't think we'd end up with a more enlightened userbase so much as one with a higher percentage of confused and turned-off casual members who wouldn't know what to do with the grey.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:01 PM on September 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
In any given seven day period, probably five or six thousand different logged-in users will hit either of the main subsites; something like three thousand or so will hit the grey. Commenting and posting gets to a bit more of a gulf, with maybe a quarter or a fifth as many posts to here as to the blue, likewise for comments. But it's really more of a backroom than a hidden basement cubby: a lot of people drop by regularly.
But that doesn't mean that auto-alerting is a great idea: while what goes on here doesn't need to be considered not for public consumption in any exclusive, Get Off My Lawn sense, it doesn't necessarily make sense to throw a "hey, hey, look over here at this thing" link into a thread automatically when doing it manually and with some discretion has worked pretty dang well historically.
I think everybody should, for a fuzzy and idealistic and unenforceable value of 'should', read the grey, because I figure it's good for them as members of the site to see some of the stuff that goes on here. But it's not mandatory, and a lot of folks won't be interested or even necessarily "get" Metatalk. We don't force AskMe fans to post or comment on the blue, or vice versa, and we can't do it with Metatalk either, and that's how it should be.
This is the part of the site that some folks come to gravitate to as their investment in metafilter-as-community grows, I think, and it remains in my eyes one of the most fascinating and wonderful things about mefi; but it's a bit more work to fit in here, and it's a lot wilder and nastier than the rest of the site, and so it's always, I think, going to be fractional. If we started pointing blinking neon signs at the grey, I don't think we'd end up with a more enlightened userbase so much as one with a higher percentage of confused and turned-off casual members who wouldn't know what to do with the grey.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:01 PM on September 25, 2007 [1 favorite]
That's too bad, because it seems to run counter to everything I've always believed and liked about how Metafilter was run. Doubly too bad, of course, because you're one of the three people who run the place.
I agree. Self-policing is over, sadly. MeTa used to be the immune system of MeFi, or at least the tonsils... Now policing comes down not to the set of guidelines that everyone can agree on but the specific character that 3 people want the site to reflect. I'm sure it's regretted that MeTa was ever coded. When I met mathowie he said something about long periods of his life going by where he woke up and checked MeTa first thing in the morning, with extreme dread, to see if anything was happening. I know how it feels from that perspective too. It's hard not to jump in and respond when you're attacked. And it's too easy to withdraw completely and give folks the sense that admins don't care and aren't involved. I'm quite sure that the admins are thrilled with declining MeTa visitation. It's not much but a thorn in the side at this point. But now that it's out there and unretractable, the only acceptable outcome is for it to fade into obscurity. Death by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile, policy is now an editorial function, not a community function. Been this way a while.
I'm not sure why you think stavros is such a dolt for not noticing MeTa's relative decline, Jessamyn. How are we supposed to track these things? Have some data to share? I would bet that MeTa is getting more pageviews than ever, although, proportionally, it may not be growing at the same pace as MeFi, and certainly not as fast as AskMe. But lies, lies and statistics can prove anything. Slower growth does not mean that MeTa is irrelevant. Everyone knows that a small fraction of any online community contributes the majority of the content.
So saying that only a small proportion of users visit MeTa means nothing. This place, like all online communities, is carried by its most active users and well known personalities.
Nice try!
posted by scarabic at 11:32 PM on September 25, 2007
I agree. Self-policing is over, sadly. MeTa used to be the immune system of MeFi, or at least the tonsils... Now policing comes down not to the set of guidelines that everyone can agree on but the specific character that 3 people want the site to reflect. I'm sure it's regretted that MeTa was ever coded. When I met mathowie he said something about long periods of his life going by where he woke up and checked MeTa first thing in the morning, with extreme dread, to see if anything was happening. I know how it feels from that perspective too. It's hard not to jump in and respond when you're attacked. And it's too easy to withdraw completely and give folks the sense that admins don't care and aren't involved. I'm quite sure that the admins are thrilled with declining MeTa visitation. It's not much but a thorn in the side at this point. But now that it's out there and unretractable, the only acceptable outcome is for it to fade into obscurity. Death by a thousand cuts. Meanwhile, policy is now an editorial function, not a community function. Been this way a while.
I'm not sure why you think stavros is such a dolt for not noticing MeTa's relative decline, Jessamyn. How are we supposed to track these things? Have some data to share? I would bet that MeTa is getting more pageviews than ever, although, proportionally, it may not be growing at the same pace as MeFi, and certainly not as fast as AskMe. But lies, lies and statistics can prove anything. Slower growth does not mean that MeTa is irrelevant. Everyone knows that a small fraction of any online community contributes the majority of the content.
So saying that only a small proportion of users visit MeTa means nothing. This place, like all online communities, is carried by its most active users and well known personalities.
Nice try!
posted by scarabic at 11:32 PM on September 25, 2007
scarabic and stavros, it's not callous admins or the site growing successful or us purposely trying to kill this part of the site. Those would be great explanations if we admins were all a petty bunch that hated this place. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Back to the original points being made: think of something like Yelp. I'm sure there's a 5% of the userbase that are totally into Yelp. They go out to more restaurants just to have more reviews up and they watch how many comments their reviews get and they meet other Yelp reviewers while out and they recognize usernames. But then think of everyone else that uses Yelp. They just want the freaking directions to the restaurant or the hours or know how much an entree costs. They're not interested in the rest of it because they don't have time or interest.
Tacking on a metatalk link to anything being discussed seems like it would just get in the way for a lot of readers. They just want to know where to find a good dentist in Dallas or what crazy thing Bill O'Reilly said. I also think about how Wikipedia does their thing and sometimes you look at one of the discussion pages behind any random page and it's like watching sausage get made. My original idea to have a "Talk" page for everything on mefi was to follow Wikipedia's lead but I've realized having thousands of splintered discussions embedded all over the site is a much worse alternative to a centralized thing like MetaTalk.
I feel like MetaTalk serves the people that dig deeply through the site and care about it pretty well. It's got its own community and culture and I don't see the big gain to be made from having another few thousand people look at some hand-wringing over a deleted comment or the phrasing in a title of a post. We discuss edge-cases by and large, and stuff that occurs at the margins of whatever rules or guidelines we have. It's nuanced, specific, sometimes minor stuff.
There's also an obvious technical issue of how to link specific threads/comments to a discussion here. It's not a simple thing to do and we'd have to ask people making new posts to optionally link to something somewhere else and if not deemed related enough, we'd have to unlink when necessary, or link when someone forgot to.
I would also say MetaTalk isn't exactly a shining example of community and sometimes reveals an ugly side to interactions here. I get a lot of email from first time posters here that thought they were helping the site out by pointing out a minor glitch or asking about some wish they had, and they come away from it feeling personally attacked and wanting their accounts deleted because they didn't search deeply enough in the archives before posting here.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:55 AM on September 26, 2007
Back to the original points being made: think of something like Yelp. I'm sure there's a 5% of the userbase that are totally into Yelp. They go out to more restaurants just to have more reviews up and they watch how many comments their reviews get and they meet other Yelp reviewers while out and they recognize usernames. But then think of everyone else that uses Yelp. They just want the freaking directions to the restaurant or the hours or know how much an entree costs. They're not interested in the rest of it because they don't have time or interest.
Tacking on a metatalk link to anything being discussed seems like it would just get in the way for a lot of readers. They just want to know where to find a good dentist in Dallas or what crazy thing Bill O'Reilly said. I also think about how Wikipedia does their thing and sometimes you look at one of the discussion pages behind any random page and it's like watching sausage get made. My original idea to have a "Talk" page for everything on mefi was to follow Wikipedia's lead but I've realized having thousands of splintered discussions embedded all over the site is a much worse alternative to a centralized thing like MetaTalk.
I feel like MetaTalk serves the people that dig deeply through the site and care about it pretty well. It's got its own community and culture and I don't see the big gain to be made from having another few thousand people look at some hand-wringing over a deleted comment or the phrasing in a title of a post. We discuss edge-cases by and large, and stuff that occurs at the margins of whatever rules or guidelines we have. It's nuanced, specific, sometimes minor stuff.
There's also an obvious technical issue of how to link specific threads/comments to a discussion here. It's not a simple thing to do and we'd have to ask people making new posts to optionally link to something somewhere else and if not deemed related enough, we'd have to unlink when necessary, or link when someone forgot to.
I would also say MetaTalk isn't exactly a shining example of community and sometimes reveals an ugly side to interactions here. I get a lot of email from first time posters here that thought they were helping the site out by pointing out a minor glitch or asking about some wish they had, and they come away from it feeling personally attacked and wanting their accounts deleted because they didn't search deeply enough in the archives before posting here.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:55 AM on September 26, 2007
i love you guys
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:08 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 1:08 AM on September 26, 2007
MetaTalk is the real site; everything else is superfluous.
posted by timeistight at 1:13 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by timeistight at 1:13 AM on September 26, 2007
It's not like there's a secret handshake or password required to read Metatalk. I suspect that if people hand around here long enough to care, they'll find their way here one way or another.
posted by Dave Faris at 2:52 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 2:52 AM on September 26, 2007
I'm not sure why you think stavros is such a dolt for not noticing MeTa's relative decline, Jessamyn.... Nice try!
I don't think anyone's a dolt. MeTa has always been a much less-attended part of the site, since ever. Now that the site is much bigger, that's still true. Maybe I've got the wrong perspective to comment honestly on this issue, but I really see MeTa as operating more or less as it always has: a small core of passionate users spending time helping make the site better or keep it from getting bad.
Seriously invested users come here to ask for things or offer alternatives to how moderation works and the mods listen and respond and sometimes change the way they do things. Newer users come here to ask basic questions about the site. We also have a ton more meetup threads and a lot more "I'd like this part of my profile to work more like THIS" and I think those topics, for people who may be AskMe- or Music-only members may be skippable by a wide portion of the MeFi population.
The fact that stavros seems to be saying that everyone should read or be interested in all of the site or all of MeTa just seems to be a perspective difference between his view of the site and what I was referring to: we know we have users that are mainly interested in one part of the site and I still think that's an okay way to interact with MetaFilter. We see this particular with Music and AskMe, less so with Jobs and Projects.
I think it's a good idea if people have opinions or problems with the site that they know this place exists and I encourage people to use MeTa any time they have a beef with the site. You act as if, in my/our perfect world that NO ONE would come to MeTa and that's dead wrong. I spend more time here than probably any place else on the site. I get the feeling that MeTa has been more popular lately, not less, and that's the good news from an admin perspective because it means that people give a shit about the site and that dealing with wiseasses and snark to try to help make and maintain a nice place for people is working.
That said, I generally put a link to a MeTa thread about an AskMe topic in the thread itself just as a matter of courtest, but it seems like there are times when it's not appropriate or a decent idea and there is the age-old problem of deciding if a MeTa thread is really "about" a certain other thread or just inspired by it. Whart we have now seems to work afaict.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:12 AM on September 26, 2007
I don't think anyone's a dolt. MeTa has always been a much less-attended part of the site, since ever. Now that the site is much bigger, that's still true. Maybe I've got the wrong perspective to comment honestly on this issue, but I really see MeTa as operating more or less as it always has: a small core of passionate users spending time helping make the site better or keep it from getting bad.
Seriously invested users come here to ask for things or offer alternatives to how moderation works and the mods listen and respond and sometimes change the way they do things. Newer users come here to ask basic questions about the site. We also have a ton more meetup threads and a lot more "I'd like this part of my profile to work more like THIS" and I think those topics, for people who may be AskMe- or Music-only members may be skippable by a wide portion of the MeFi population.
The fact that stavros seems to be saying that everyone should read or be interested in all of the site or all of MeTa just seems to be a perspective difference between his view of the site and what I was referring to: we know we have users that are mainly interested in one part of the site and I still think that's an okay way to interact with MetaFilter. We see this particular with Music and AskMe, less so with Jobs and Projects.
I think it's a good idea if people have opinions or problems with the site that they know this place exists and I encourage people to use MeTa any time they have a beef with the site. You act as if, in my/our perfect world that NO ONE would come to MeTa and that's dead wrong. I spend more time here than probably any place else on the site. I get the feeling that MeTa has been more popular lately, not less, and that's the good news from an admin perspective because it means that people give a shit about the site and that dealing with wiseasses and snark to try to help make and maintain a nice place for people is working.
That said, I generally put a link to a MeTa thread about an AskMe topic in the thread itself just as a matter of courtest, but it seems like there are times when it's not appropriate or a decent idea and there is the age-old problem of deciding if a MeTa thread is really "about" a certain other thread or just inspired by it. Whart we have now seems to work afaict.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:12 AM on September 26, 2007
Are there really many Music-only users? I'm pretty much a not-Music–only user so it's hard for me to know.
posted by grouse at 6:17 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by grouse at 6:17 AM on September 26, 2007
I'm quite sure that the admins are thrilled with declining MeTa visitation. It's not much but a thorn in the side at this point.
That's a really weird perspective. Now and then, specific things that happen here are kind of a pain in the ass, but this place as a whole is fucking essential. You don't wish your family would die in a plane crash just because Uncle Jimbo got drunk at Thanksgiving dinner or whatever, you know?
And I don't get where the notion of a the decline is coming from. It hasn't exactly been a ghost town around here so far as I can tell. Maybe, as Jess says, it's a perspective issue, but it seems like the same old metatalk to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:32 AM on September 26, 2007
That's a really weird perspective. Now and then, specific things that happen here are kind of a pain in the ass, but this place as a whole is fucking essential. You don't wish your family would die in a plane crash just because Uncle Jimbo got drunk at Thanksgiving dinner or whatever, you know?
And I don't get where the notion of a the decline is coming from. It hasn't exactly been a ghost town around here so far as I can tell. Maybe, as Jess says, it's a perspective issue, but it seems like the same old metatalk to me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 6:32 AM on September 26, 2007
Shouldn't an awareness and understanding of the way the place is supposed to work be a pre-freakin'-requisite?
I dunno about a prerequisite, but it's certainly a Good Thing and should be encouraged. But here's the problem:
we know we have users that are mainly interested in one part of the site and I still think that's an okay way to interact with MetaFilter. We see this particular with Music and AskMe, less so with Jobs and Projects.
This crystallizes something that's been niggling at me for some time, my slight discomfort every time a new subsite is added. I was as pleased as everybody else when AskMe was added; it's a great resource. But I was less pleased when it became apparent that a whole bunch of people were joining up because of AskMe and basically were not interested in any other aspect of the site, and every additional subsite adds to this.
Here's where Matt's interests and ours (for values of "us" that include "liking the site the way it used to be") diverge irreconcilably: Matt welcomes anything that adds a bunch of $5 n00bs (and I would too if I were in his shoes), but they inevitably change the place, and this is why we're seeing so much whiny sense-of-entitlement in MeTa recently. Of course they feel hurt and upset when their sincere little bleats of "why was my thing deleted waaah?" get brutally mocked; they've never visited MeTa before and have no idea what the culture of the place is, or that their bleat is a carbon copy of 5,000 previous bleats. They're not at fault, exactly, but they should learn the folkways of MetaFilter or go play in a nicer sandbox. And if I get any whiff from the moderators that we'd better start being nicer to these people because they pay the bills, I'm going to be Very Upset. But fortunately that hasn't happened so far.
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
I dunno about a prerequisite, but it's certainly a Good Thing and should be encouraged. But here's the problem:
we know we have users that are mainly interested in one part of the site and I still think that's an okay way to interact with MetaFilter. We see this particular with Music and AskMe, less so with Jobs and Projects.
This crystallizes something that's been niggling at me for some time, my slight discomfort every time a new subsite is added. I was as pleased as everybody else when AskMe was added; it's a great resource. But I was less pleased when it became apparent that a whole bunch of people were joining up because of AskMe and basically were not interested in any other aspect of the site, and every additional subsite adds to this.
Here's where Matt's interests and ours (for values of "us" that include "liking the site the way it used to be") diverge irreconcilably: Matt welcomes anything that adds a bunch of $5 n00bs (and I would too if I were in his shoes), but they inevitably change the place, and this is why we're seeing so much whiny sense-of-entitlement in MeTa recently. Of course they feel hurt and upset when their sincere little bleats of "why was my thing deleted waaah?" get brutally mocked; they've never visited MeTa before and have no idea what the culture of the place is, or that their bleat is a carbon copy of 5,000 previous bleats. They're not at fault, exactly, but they should learn the folkways of MetaFilter or go play in a nicer sandbox. And if I get any whiff from the moderators that we'd better start being nicer to these people because they pay the bills, I'm going to be Very Upset. But fortunately that hasn't happened so far.
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
I don't have a strong opinion on the meta link either way, but in regards to the insular issue: if there is a significant number of users who are unfamiliar with the pleasures of the gray, should we consider adding the meetup list to the sidebar of the blue and/or green (or a link to it)?
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by and hosted from Uranus at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
it seems like the same old metatalk to me
PUT YO' GLASSES ON, BWAH!
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
PUT YO' GLASSES ON, BWAH!
posted by languagehat at 6:37 AM on September 26, 2007
Metatalk is useful in the way it was created, as an aid to self-policing and all that yadda-yadda from the early days; it's still useful, as a flame-pit to keep constructive users with a penchant for fighting from shittying up the main pages. It also serves as a personality distiller so we can see if the cat we've been tooth-and-nail with on the blue is maybe just a puss in boots, really.
But I think the automatic notification is counterproductive. If there were robots around to say "excuse me" when we bumped into one another, or "gesundheit" when we sneezed, we wouldn't learn the niceties that help society glide along. Some might say, "That's fine, politeness is overrated," but they'd be wrong, and assholes to boot.
No, we need to remind ourselves that it's rude to start a meta thread without putting a link ourselves in the offending thread to let everyone know where the metadiscussion is. Without doing it ourselves, we'd never be called upon to show any courtesy at all.
And, with regard to what Jessamyn just said, the mods would ideally spend most of their patrol time on Meta, responding to the self-policing that goes on here: the passionate group of seriously invested users, with a plurality of perspective and opinion tools the mods can't replicate alone, reflect the sitegeist better than any one person (or three people) ever could; it would be wonderful, for the mods and the site, if many or all of their choices were passed through the filter of Metatalk first.
posted by breezeway at 6:41 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
But I think the automatic notification is counterproductive. If there were robots around to say "excuse me" when we bumped into one another, or "gesundheit" when we sneezed, we wouldn't learn the niceties that help society glide along. Some might say, "That's fine, politeness is overrated," but they'd be wrong, and assholes to boot.
No, we need to remind ourselves that it's rude to start a meta thread without putting a link ourselves in the offending thread to let everyone know where the metadiscussion is. Without doing it ourselves, we'd never be called upon to show any courtesy at all.
And, with regard to what Jessamyn just said, the mods would ideally spend most of their patrol time on Meta, responding to the self-policing that goes on here: the passionate group of seriously invested users, with a plurality of perspective and opinion tools the mods can't replicate alone, reflect the sitegeist better than any one person (or three people) ever could; it would be wonderful, for the mods and the site, if many or all of their choices were passed through the filter of Metatalk first.
posted by breezeway at 6:41 AM on September 26, 2007 [1 favorite]
Here's where Matt's interests and ours (for values of "us" that include "liking the site the way it used to be") diverge irreconcilably: Matt welcomes anything that adds a bunch of $5 n00bs
I'm surprised how easily people throw around stuff like this. scarabic thinks malice drives my admin decisions and you are saying I'm only in it for the $5 cash -- that I love new subsites because it means more new members.
I built ask mefi to be useful for existing members! Just like music is a way for existing members to showcase their creative work and jobs is to get each other hired, and projects is for showing off our work. I build the sites to help people like you. I've talked a bunch of times before about how every new member is a bit of a drag and certainly not the driving factor in anything (revenue-wise, it's a tiny amount, since only 10 or so a day join normally).
The newer members that come along and just ask/answer questions or just post songs are an anomaly we only realized 6-12 months after we launched each site. New users weren't even planned for when we built the subsites. Now that I think about it, when we launched ask mefi, new users were closed off. We didn't even open up member signups for almost a year after ask mefi started.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:23 AM on September 26, 2007
I'm surprised how easily people throw around stuff like this. scarabic thinks malice drives my admin decisions and you are saying I'm only in it for the $5 cash -- that I love new subsites because it means more new members.
I built ask mefi to be useful for existing members! Just like music is a way for existing members to showcase their creative work and jobs is to get each other hired, and projects is for showing off our work. I build the sites to help people like you. I've talked a bunch of times before about how every new member is a bit of a drag and certainly not the driving factor in anything (revenue-wise, it's a tiny amount, since only 10 or so a day join normally).
The newer members that come along and just ask/answer questions or just post songs are an anomaly we only realized 6-12 months after we launched each site. New users weren't even planned for when we built the subsites. Now that I think about it, when we launched ask mefi, new users were closed off. We didn't even open up member signups for almost a year after ask mefi started.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 7:23 AM on September 26, 2007
Automatic notification is counterproductive to what makes Metatalk work. The grey is inhabited by people who care about the site as whole and are willing to argue, debate and bring up points both large and small that. That they can do this in an unfettered format (stuff On Meta is rarely deleted) with administrators willing to listen and respond is good thing. If someone can't be bothered to click the link that's an inch to the right, then MetaTalk doesn't need'em. Those who are curious and care enough will find their way to MetaTalk. Those who don't, won't and everyone remains happy.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 7:29 AM on September 26, 2007
Apart from the odd self-link callout, isn't self-policing pretty much dead? I've only been a member since 2005 so I can't really talk about how it was in the Good Old Days before all us $5 noobs invaded the place but as far back as I can remember most MeTa threads seem to be about ponies and whining about too much or too little moderation.
I supported the idea of an automagic MeTa link when a thread on the blue or gray was called out last time it was brought up but after giving it some more thought now I'm not so sure. Do we really need more whining noobs on MeTa? MetaTalk is not exactly hidden in the navigation links everybody sees at the top of any MetaFilter page and if someone is dedicated enough to want to have a say as to how the site should develop in the future they will find their way over here.
posted by sveskemus at 7:32 AM on September 26, 2007
I supported the idea of an automagic MeTa link when a thread on the blue or gray was called out last time it was brought up but after giving it some more thought now I'm not so sure. Do we really need more whining noobs on MeTa? MetaTalk is not exactly hidden in the navigation links everybody sees at the top of any MetaFilter page and if someone is dedicated enough to want to have a say as to how the site should develop in the future they will find their way over here.
posted by sveskemus at 7:32 AM on September 26, 2007
you are saying I'm only in it for the $5 cash -- that I love new subsites because it means more new members.
That's not what I meant, and I'm sorry if it came across that way (though I don't blame you for taking it that way, given the amount of nastiness tossed your way on a regular basis). I realize that's not why you create new subsites, and I know the site isn't all about the benjamins for you. I meant exactly what I said: that you welcome anything that adds new members. Why would you not? But the inevitable effect of addition is dilution, and that tends to make the site less like what it was back when we all sat around the campfire roasting the severed hands of flameouts and singing "John Henry" in 15,000-part harmony. I hope that's clearer and less heartburn-inducing.
posted by languagehat at 9:13 AM on September 26, 2007
That's not what I meant, and I'm sorry if it came across that way (though I don't blame you for taking it that way, given the amount of nastiness tossed your way on a regular basis). I realize that's not why you create new subsites, and I know the site isn't all about the benjamins for you. I meant exactly what I said: that you welcome anything that adds new members. Why would you not? But the inevitable effect of addition is dilution, and that tends to make the site less like what it was back when we all sat around the campfire roasting the severed hands of flameouts and singing "John Henry" in 15,000-part harmony. I hope that's clearer and less heartburn-inducing.
posted by languagehat at 9:13 AM on September 26, 2007
okay, i'm not longer drunk. rather, i'm hungover. too hungover for caps. but i still get excited when i see such long comments from cortex, jess and matt. oh goody, i go. this will make for 40 seconds pleasure reading. you're among my favorite posters and i don't care who knows it. lucky mefites, with our awesome, thoughtful mods.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:15 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 9:15 AM on September 26, 2007
No, you're still drunk.
posted by languagehat at 9:16 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by languagehat at 9:16 AM on September 26, 2007
Zing!
I just bounced over here to second putting the meetups on the front page of the blue (and maybe the green, though I don't think it's so important).
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2007
I just bounced over here to second putting the meetups on the front page of the blue (and maybe the green, though I don't think it's so important).
posted by klangklangston at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2007
At least she's an affectionate drunk.
posted by hermitosis at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by hermitosis at 9:58 AM on September 26, 2007
We weren't talking about meetups, just MeTa threads.
Also, I really, really disagree with that idea.
posted by hermitosis at 10:00 AM on September 26, 2007
Also, I really, really disagree with that idea.
posted by hermitosis at 10:00 AM on September 26, 2007
*pushes lhat in the face, plants one on hermitosis, knocks over a lamp and blames it on klang*
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:08 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 10:08 AM on September 26, 2007
if there is a significant number of users who are unfamiliar with the pleasures of the gray, should we consider adding the meetup list to the sidebar of the blue and/or green (or a link to it)?
Absolutely. 3ded
posted by jouke at 10:27 AM on September 26, 2007
Absolutely. 3ded
posted by jouke at 10:27 AM on September 26, 2007
Apart from the odd self-link callout, isn't self-policing pretty much dead?
The flagging system is essentially self-policing.
posted by smackfu at 10:45 AM on September 26, 2007
The flagging system is essentially self-policing.
posted by smackfu at 10:45 AM on September 26, 2007
Hey, I have supersecret knowledge about the percentage of site traffic that metatalk receives! It's 5%. It's been 5% for at least a year.
You too can learn these esoteric facts. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page.) If your face melts like a grail-stealing Nazi because you intend to use them for great evil, I disclaim all responsibility.
(Personally, I learned how to post by reading posts, which is what properly got me hooked to this place. I almost left metafilter altogether after reading my first multi-hundred comment blazecock pileon. If such a thread had been linked in the first posts I read here, I would have hightailed it the hell out of here pretty quick. Whether you consider that an argument for or against front page links to metatalk is entirely up to you. Also, we've discussed this whole meetups on the front page before, and the consensus I recall is that people were generally okay with it, but only if the information was only visible to logged-in members.)
posted by melissa may at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007
You too can learn these esoteric facts. (Scroll down to the bottom of the page.) If your face melts like a grail-stealing Nazi because you intend to use them for great evil, I disclaim all responsibility.
(Personally, I learned how to post by reading posts, which is what properly got me hooked to this place. I almost left metafilter altogether after reading my first multi-hundred comment blazecock pileon. If such a thread had been linked in the first posts I read here, I would have hightailed it the hell out of here pretty quick. Whether you consider that an argument for or against front page links to metatalk is entirely up to you. Also, we've discussed this whole meetups on the front page before, and the consensus I recall is that people were generally okay with it, but only if the information was only visible to logged-in members.)
posted by melissa may at 10:49 AM on September 26, 2007
The flagging system is essentially self-policing.
No it's not. The flagging system is notifying admins, who then do any policing they feel is warranted.
posted by sveskemus at 11:12 AM on September 26, 2007
No it's not. The flagging system is notifying admins, who then do any policing they feel is warranted.
posted by sveskemus at 11:12 AM on September 26, 2007
Sure, it is. The flagging system is notifying admins, who then do any policing they feel is warranted.
posted by breezeway at 11:43 AM on September 26, 2007
posted by breezeway at 11:43 AM on September 26, 2007
As I understand it self-policing means the community deciding what's out of line and what's cool. Flagging helps the admins make decisions about deletions and what not but they are still ultimately the admins' decision to make. Which means flagging != self-policing.
posted by sveskemus at 12:05 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by sveskemus at 12:05 PM on September 26, 2007
What would be "self policing?" Karma points? You can mod up and down comments? And you can submit stories to a queue and trusted members can vote on? Oh wait, that's Plastic.com.
posted by ALongDecember at 12:43 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by ALongDecember at 12:43 PM on September 26, 2007
Well, MeFi is the Plastic.com it's okay to like. No, I think self-policing means public shaming in MeTa when somebody steps out of line to make sure that people don't do the same stupid shit again and again. And I think it used to work but the problem with that sollution is that it doesn't scale well. So now we have moderation and MeTa is mostly used for whining and pony requests. That's fine I guess. I just don't see a need to draw any more attention to MetaTalk than there already is.
posted by sveskemus at 1:02 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by sveskemus at 1:02 PM on September 26, 2007
The flagging system is essentially self-policing.
See, that's what makes me want to give up, a bit. It is fundamental to my point that this is not the case -- that flagging is an appeal to authority, which is something very different. Not worse, perhaps, one might argue, given issues of scaling and so on, but certainly not the same.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:34 PM on September 26, 2007
See, that's what makes me want to give up, a bit. It is fundamental to my point that this is not the case -- that flagging is an appeal to authority, which is something very different. Not worse, perhaps, one might argue, given issues of scaling and so on, but certainly not the same.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 1:34 PM on September 26, 2007
True, technically, the flagging should go to some sort of meta-moderation queue to be self-policing, like slashdot has. (Or had, I'm not sure if they still do that.)
posted by smackfu at 1:50 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by smackfu at 1:50 PM on September 26, 2007
"See, that's what makes me want to give up, a bit. It is fundamental to my point that this is not the case -- that flagging is an appeal to authority, which is something very different. Not worse, perhaps, one might argue, given issues of scaling and so on, but certainly not the same."
Aside from the dubious benefits of social disapprobation felt by the few who read MeTa, isn't all the grousing still ultimately an appeal to authority?
posted by klangklangston at 2:03 PM on September 26, 2007
Aside from the dubious benefits of social disapprobation felt by the few who read MeTa, isn't all the grousing still ultimately an appeal to authority?
posted by klangklangston at 2:03 PM on September 26, 2007
As I understand it self-policing means the community deciding what's out of line and what's cool. Flagging helps the admins make decisions about deletions and what not but they are still ultimately the admins' decision to make.
Well, yeah, the community decides what's out of line and what's cool, flags what's out of line, and the mods make a decision on how to police it, based some on their own feelings of how the community should run, but mostly on what the community thinks (based on current and past flags and discussions). Then we have Metatalk, where the community holds mods' decisions up to a magnifying glass and talks about how they could do a better job reflecting community standards whenever a mod makes a decision based on their own feelings rather than those of the community. On a case-by-case basis, there is a direct correllation between what we say by flagging posts and commenting here, and what the mods do in response. The mods are, with notable and well-discussed exceptions, tools of the community in this regard.
That's self-policing.
posted by breezeway at 2:53 PM on September 26, 2007
Well, yeah, the community decides what's out of line and what's cool, flags what's out of line, and the mods make a decision on how to police it, based some on their own feelings of how the community should run, but mostly on what the community thinks (based on current and past flags and discussions). Then we have Metatalk, where the community holds mods' decisions up to a magnifying glass and talks about how they could do a better job reflecting community standards whenever a mod makes a decision based on their own feelings rather than those of the community. On a case-by-case basis, there is a direct correllation between what we say by flagging posts and commenting here, and what the mods do in response. The mods are, with notable and well-discussed exceptions, tools of the community in this regard.
That's self-policing.
posted by breezeway at 2:53 PM on September 26, 2007
mathowie: "Here's where Matt's interests and ours (for values of "us" that include "liking the site the way it used to be") diverge irreconcilably: Matt welcomes anything that adds a bunch of $5 n00bs
I built ask mefi to be useful for existing members! Just like music is a way for existing members to showcase their creative work and jobs is to get each other hired, and projects is for showing off our work. I build the sites to help people like you. I've talked a bunch of times before about how every new member is a bit of a drag and certainly not the driving factor in anything (revenue-wise, it's a tiny amount, since only 10 or so a day join normally)..."
But since that time, MeFi has gone from being a sideline for you to being what supports your family. You would be insane not to welcome new members, because new members means more traffic, which means more ad impressions (I am assuming that this is where the big bucks come from, of course). Sure, they're a drag at first sometimes, but they put meals on your table.
I don't believe for a second that either languagehat or stavros are saying you are doing anything wrong or blaming you - I'm pretty certain that any one of us would act the same way as you are in your position. The site has evolved into something different to what it was a few years ago, that's all and there are many of us who were attracted here because of what it was then, who may not have been interested if we had come across the place in its current form. Because we are emotionally invested in the community here, we stay, but I share the feeling that things aren't what they once were and that's not a net positive for some of us. A long time ago, I wrote this - I wouldn't say that now.
timeistight: "MetaTalk is the real site; everything else is superfluous."
Interesting comment - I think there are some of us who have retreated to a certain extent into MeTa, because it is really the only place where that community feeling we miss is still alive. It's a much smaller group of participants who are generally comfortable in each others presence. Kind of like the old days in many ways. I like it here.
posted by dg at 3:13 PM on September 26, 2007
I built ask mefi to be useful for existing members! Just like music is a way for existing members to showcase their creative work and jobs is to get each other hired, and projects is for showing off our work. I build the sites to help people like you. I've talked a bunch of times before about how every new member is a bit of a drag and certainly not the driving factor in anything (revenue-wise, it's a tiny amount, since only 10 or so a day join normally)..."
But since that time, MeFi has gone from being a sideline for you to being what supports your family. You would be insane not to welcome new members, because new members means more traffic, which means more ad impressions (I am assuming that this is where the big bucks come from, of course). Sure, they're a drag at first sometimes, but they put meals on your table.
I don't believe for a second that either languagehat or stavros are saying you are doing anything wrong or blaming you - I'm pretty certain that any one of us would act the same way as you are in your position. The site has evolved into something different to what it was a few years ago, that's all and there are many of us who were attracted here because of what it was then, who may not have been interested if we had come across the place in its current form. Because we are emotionally invested in the community here, we stay, but I share the feeling that things aren't what they once were and that's not a net positive for some of us. A long time ago, I wrote this - I wouldn't say that now.
timeistight: "MetaTalk is the real site; everything else is superfluous."
Interesting comment - I think there are some of us who have retreated to a certain extent into MeTa, because it is really the only place where that community feeling we miss is still alive. It's a much smaller group of participants who are generally comfortable in each others presence. Kind of like the old days in many ways. I like it here.
posted by dg at 3:13 PM on September 26, 2007
Do we have any data on the percentage of users who flag things?
posted by sveskemus at 3:33 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by sveskemus at 3:33 PM on September 26, 2007
As of right about now, 4,469 different mefites have flagged one or more times.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:47 PM on September 26, 2007
Interesting. Can you determine how many flags have been made by, say, each of the top 10 flaggers?
posted by brain_drain at 3:52 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 3:52 PM on September 26, 2007
You would be insane not to welcome new members, because new members means more traffic, which means more ad impressions (I am assuming that this is where the big bucks come from, of course).
I welcome them in the sense that anyone can sign up, but they are most certainly not a driving force. New members don't mean more traffic necessarily and they don't map to income in any direct relationship. Driving up memberships has never been a priority. I don't think about how to get more people on here, because as I said, it's getting harder and harder to run the place the more people that participate. There's a diminishing returns thing at play.
I wrote about this extensively here -- most ad revenue comes from random people looking for info covered on ask mefi and mefi in the past, and once they look at a page, they will never view another page at MetaFilter ever again. It's a really odd dynamic but that's how these things play out.
It's not that we cater to new members or discount what older members have to say, your user_id number doesn't even come into play when we look at posts or flags, we're just trying to do the best within the community norms or, as breezeway points out above, we'll end up with a discussion here about how something didn't go the way the community thinks it should have gone.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:54 PM on September 26, 2007
I welcome them in the sense that anyone can sign up, but they are most certainly not a driving force. New members don't mean more traffic necessarily and they don't map to income in any direct relationship. Driving up memberships has never been a priority. I don't think about how to get more people on here, because as I said, it's getting harder and harder to run the place the more people that participate. There's a diminishing returns thing at play.
I wrote about this extensively here -- most ad revenue comes from random people looking for info covered on ask mefi and mefi in the past, and once they look at a page, they will never view another page at MetaFilter ever again. It's a really odd dynamic but that's how these things play out.
It's not that we cater to new members or discount what older members have to say, your user_id number doesn't even come into play when we look at posts or flags, we're just trying to do the best within the community norms or, as breezeway points out above, we'll end up with a discussion here about how something didn't go the way the community thinks it should have gone.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:54 PM on September 26, 2007
Can you determine how many flags have been made by, say, each of the top 10 flaggers?
A lot. Looks like somewhere in the range of a couple hundred users fit the 100+ flags group, with the whole thing tailing off into the distance. The distribution of flags-per-flagger is (like pretty much anything else I've seen where you're measuring an elective, resource-unlimited behavior) skewed hard to the most active with a quick dropoff and a long tail. And it's a long tail indeed: while the top flaggers have a lot of flags each, they still represent a small slice of the total community flagging presence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:30 PM on September 26, 2007
A lot. Looks like somewhere in the range of a couple hundred users fit the 100+ flags group, with the whole thing tailing off into the distance. The distribution of flags-per-flagger is (like pretty much anything else I've seen where you're measuring an elective, resource-unlimited behavior) skewed hard to the most active with a quick dropoff and a long tail. And it's a long tail indeed: while the top flaggers have a lot of flags each, they still represent a small slice of the total community flagging presence.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:30 PM on September 26, 2007
Thanks, mathowie - that goes some way to explaining your position. It interests me that the drive to compel people to re-visit sites after the first time seems to have gone the way of the dodo - perhaps that critical mass of 'net uses has been achieved so that it is no longer imperative to retain viewers as much, because there are plenty to go around.
Here's a challenge for you, cortex - how does the data on users who have contributed 100+ flags correspond with the users who regularly comment in MeTa? In other words, is there a common core of users who contribute at that meta level across the site, contributing to discussion about how things work as well as chipping in by paying attention to things that break the guidelines?
posted by dg at 4:46 PM on September 26, 2007
Here's a challenge for you, cortex - how does the data on users who have contributed 100+ flags correspond with the users who regularly comment in MeTa? In other words, is there a common core of users who contribute at that meta level across the site, contributing to discussion about how things work as well as chipping in by paying attention to things that break the guidelines?
posted by dg at 4:46 PM on September 26, 2007
Glancing through the names at the top of the flagging distribution, it's actually a mix of folks I recognize as fairly active metatalkers, folks who are pretty active on the site in general but not much for policy wonkery in the grey, folks I recognize by handle but who aren't crazy prolific, and folks who I barely (or just plain don't) recognize.
So the short, less-work answer: there's definitely some overlap between conspicuous metatalk commentors and highly active flaggers, but it's not obviously proportionally larger than the overlap between metatalk commentors and blue/green commentors/posters.
One thing I haven't looked at at all that would be interesting to see would be how flags break down by subsite, per user; I suspect there'd turn out to be some strong groups of askme vs. mefi flaggers, for example, probably corresponding pretty directly to general reading preferences—my (probably not very provocative) theory being that you flag what you read. Whether some folks mostly flag posts vs. comments is a question as well.
(I sat down the other day and filled up a page in a notebook with all the little things I could think of that might be worth checking out for the heck of it. Don't get me started.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2007
So the short, less-work answer: there's definitely some overlap between conspicuous metatalk commentors and highly active flaggers, but it's not obviously proportionally larger than the overlap between metatalk commentors and blue/green commentors/posters.
One thing I haven't looked at at all that would be interesting to see would be how flags break down by subsite, per user; I suspect there'd turn out to be some strong groups of askme vs. mefi flaggers, for example, probably corresponding pretty directly to general reading preferences—my (probably not very provocative) theory being that you flag what you read. Whether some folks mostly flag posts vs. comments is a question as well.
(I sat down the other day and filled up a page in a notebook with all the little things I could think of that might be worth checking out for the heck of it. Don't get me started.)
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:58 PM on September 26, 2007
The flagging of comments could be skewed by timezones also - I almost never flag comments because I tend to be out of sync with when most of the comments are made and I figure that anything needing flagging has already been done to death. Although, I rarely comment anywhere but here, anyway, so maybe the link is that people flag where they comment (which, for most, would be the same thing as flagging what they read, I guess).
posted by dg at 5:10 PM on September 26, 2007
posted by dg at 5:10 PM on September 26, 2007
Thanks for the responses, Matt and Jessamyn. Seeing you guys ponder the life and times of MeTa for several paragraphs, is, I think, all I needed. If the original bone of contention was that everyone should come here, then yeah, I agree that's not efficient, wise, or going to happen. I think I misinterpreted your tone, Jessamyn. My misinterpretation was: dwindling and insignificant attendance and rightly so. But if you meant that this place is only of interest to a small passionate meta-meta crowd interested in internal community issues and that's natural, I agree. I guess all I want to say in addition to that is to underscore the impact that passionate core has. The core is always crucial.
posted by scarabic at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2007
posted by scarabic at 7:25 PM on September 30, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Dave Faris at 4:00 PM on September 25, 2007 [2 favorites]