How to recall conversations with other users June 15, 2008 8:51 AM   Subscribe

Is there any way to identify threads that contain comments by me and another user? I'm picturing a world where I could click on someone else's profile, and there would be a link "conversations you've had with this user." I suspect I am missing something, but I can't find it.
posted by one_bean to Feature Requests at 8:51 AM (46 comments total)

That isn't possible, sorry.
posted by Meatbomb at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2008


There's no built-in function for this, no. If you want to find out, you can search the data in the Infodump to suss it out. This'd be extra easy via null terminated's "mefi data playground", but it seems to be sort of down at the moment.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:56 AM on June 15, 2008


Maybe a search string like this is a good stopgap?
posted by danb at 9:06 AM on June 15, 2008 [2 favorites]


I can't believe you didn't save all our conversations. You said you were stalking me and no one else!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:14 AM on June 15, 2008


yes
posted by delmoi at 9:19 AM on June 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


(oops, danb beat me)
posted by delmoi at 9:20 AM on June 15, 2008


(So close to a full 36 hours without a new metatalk thread.)
posted by Dave Faris at 9:52 AM on June 15, 2008


(So close to a full 36 hours without a new metatalk thread.)

(Let's never do that again.)
posted by Eideteker at 10:16 AM on June 15, 2008


Why the obsession with not having MetaTalk threads as long as possible? If you don't like reading MetaTalk threads, maybe you shouldn't read MetaTalk.
posted by grouse at 10:24 AM on June 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


So close to a full 36 hours without a new metatalk thread
Nothing wrong with MetaTalk threads. It's the inane, shit stirring ones that make the place reek.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:24 AM on June 15, 2008


It's the inane, shit stirring ones that make the place reek.

I happen to enjoy the rich, earthy scent of freshly-stirred shit.

The thing is, though, if you don't enjoy it, you just don't actually click on those threads and read them. Then you can't smell a thing!
posted by dersins at 10:53 AM on June 15, 2008


I happen to enjoy the rich, earthy scent of freshly-stirred shit.

But would you like to smell it everyday?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:57 AM on June 15, 2008


Why the obsession with not having MetaTalk threads as long as possible?

It's a sign that things are running smoothly - the FAQ is being FAQd, disputes are being settled amicably via meffymail, spammers are discovering they actually like the site and are having second thoughts after posting that third throwaway comment, mods are snugly tucked in and sleeping in their cute little bunk beds...all is right with the world when MeTa is silent.

If you don't breathe a long contented sigh when the MeTa calendar ticks over a day without a post, you're missing out on one of the minor - but very satisfying - joys of the MetaFilter experience.
posted by mediareport at 11:00 AM on June 15, 2008 [1 favorite]


I suspect we are all missing something, but can't find it.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:03 AM on June 15, 2008


Or, perhaps we are missing something and don't even know it?
posted by Burhanistan at 11:04 AM on June 15, 2008


But would you like to smell it everyday?

Of course not. That's why, on the days I don't want to smell it I don't read the shit-stirring metatalk threads. It's kind of amazing how easy that is.
posted by dersins at 11:06 AM on June 15, 2008


If you don't breathe a long contented sigh when the MeTa calendar ticks over a day without a post, you're missing out on one of the minor - but very satisfying - joys of the MetaFilter experience.

I don't know about that, there have been weeks at a time when MeTa is the only part of the site I can bring myself to read.
posted by [NOT HERMITOSIS-IST] at 11:13 AM on June 15, 2008 [3 favorites]


The only problem with doing a Google search for 'posted by one_bean' and 'posted by box' or 'posted by danb' or 'posted by delmoi' or whatever is the false positives.
posted by box at 11:28 AM on June 15, 2008


Of course not. That's why, on the days I don't want to smell it I don't read the shit-stirring metatalk threads. It's kind of amazing how easy that is.
posted by dersins


HERESY!!!!!!!!
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 12:11 PM on June 15, 2008


But would you like to smell it everyday?

Dude, why are you stirring?
posted by loquacious at 12:12 PM on June 15, 2008


The only false positive I can think of is if someone uses the string "posted by Foo" in a comment. Surely that can't come up to often. Besides that edge case if you do a site specific search for two posted by strings you'll only get threads that contain comments by both target posters. Is there another false positive I'm over looking?
posted by Mitheral at 12:27 PM on June 15, 2008


We can close this one up since the term "edge case" has been utilized. TF2 anyone?
posted by BeerFilter at 12:44 PM on June 15, 2008


I suspect I am missing something, but I can't find it.

Our comments don't have reply-to headers.
posted by dirigibleman at 12:44 PM on June 15, 2008


the FAQ is being FAQd,

Okay, that doesn't even make any sense.
posted by tkolar at 1:00 PM on June 15, 2008


Mitheral: I suspect box was just screwing around, adding a bunch of "posted by foo" strings to his comment to create false positives. Generally, you're right.
posted by danb at 1:19 PM on June 15, 2008


Is this crisis handled? Is it time to wish those to whom it applies a Happy Fathers Day? Okay? Consider it wished.
posted by Cranberry at 1:43 PM on June 15, 2008


I have this ability. I will not share it. Do not ask.
posted by blue_beetle at 2:11 PM on June 15, 2008


The FAQ is being FRAU*ed or FRATS**ed

*Frequently Read And Understood
*Frequently Read And Taken Seriously
posted by wendell at 2:52 PM on June 15, 2008


That's why, on the days I don't want to smell it I don't read the shit-stirring metatalk threads.

Sure, but the shit smell tends to drift around, sprouting new crop in some other thread. So yeah, you can not read it, but it would be better if it didn't come up as much. This does not mean the site is overrun, about to fall apart and slide into some zombie holocaust. It simply means it would be nice if Metatalk has less shit in it.

Dude, why are you stirring?

Not.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:00 PM on June 15, 2008


"'the FAQ is being FAQd,'

Okay, that doesn't even make any sense."


Didn't you study your Van Winkle? "I tried to get away, but the FAQ was FAQd."
posted by Eideteker at 3:51 PM on June 15, 2008


FQ'd seemed dirty.
posted by mediareport at 4:44 PM on June 15, 2008


How many days have their been without a MeTa thread?
posted by empath at 4:59 PM on June 15, 2008


How many days have their been without someone asking how many days there have been without a MeTa thread?
posted by tkolar at 5:31 PM on June 15, 2008


How many days have there been without someone asking how many... ah, fuck it.
posted by nebulawindphone at 6:00 PM on June 15, 2008


Brevity; Soul, Wit.
posted by Dizzy at 6:15 PM on June 15, 2008


Mom; Apple Pie.
posted by tkolar at 7:13 PM on June 15, 2008


there*

am I a grammar nazi?</small?
posted by lunit at 7:37 PM on June 15, 2008


aw, dammit.
posted by lunit at 7:37 PM on June 15, 2008


OBAMA!!!1
posted by Meatbomb at 10:52 PM on June 15, 2008


Weird. I tried a Google search for me and the user I was trying to identify, but since it didn't come up with anything, I thought it just didn't work. Apparently I loathe this person for reasons altogether unrelated to any argument I must have imagined I'd had with them. I wonder why.
posted by one_bean at 11:11 PM on June 15, 2008


one_bean monomania is so confining. If you try you can find other mefites to loathe. I would volunteer to be loathe-able except for prior commitments.
posted by Cranberry at 12:10 AM on June 16, 2008


Apparently I loathe this person for reasons altogether unrelated to any argument I must have imagined I'd had with them. I wonder why.

Probably because I'm an asshole.
posted by dersins at 12:13 AM on June 16, 2008


MetaFilter:This'd be extra easy via null terminated's "mefi data playground"
posted by sluglicker at 12:21 AM on June 16, 2008


Apparently I loathe this person for reasons altogether unrelated to any argument I must have imagined I'd had with them. I wonder why.

Well, going from the Metafilter demographic data, I'd say it's for one of the following reasons:

40% They're an insufferably arrogant "professional"
20% They're a hippy freak who thinks they live in the sixties
20% They're an establishment sell-out who thinks greed is good
10% They're an anti-religious fanatic
5% They're a religious fanatic
5% They give lots of crappy answers in AskMe
posted by tkolar at 8:54 AM on June 16, 2008


3% They tend to pull statistics out of their ass

2% They can't count to 100...
posted by nebulawindphone at 9:54 AM on June 16, 2008


Nope, because we're not Facebook. =)
posted by cholly at 11:28 PM on June 16, 2008


« Older Metafilter: All opinion?   |   Don't ask me!! Newer »

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