the lonely fpp September 28, 2009 2:07 PM   Subscribe

hmmmm... why is this here, and what does it mean that there are NO comments? I saw this post earlier today, checked the link, and, frankly, had a "what the heck moment", I couldn't think of a single comment about that movie that made any sense...and, then, I wondered what would happen to this post, it just felt, well, odd in some way. I got busy and never got back to it until now (7 hours or so later), and it STILL has no comments. How often does it happen that a post garners NO comments, yet remains on the site? Because we can't or won't discuss it, does it necessarily make it a bad post, or unfit, in some way, for MetaFilter? Just curious....
posted by HuronBob to MetaFilter-Related at 2:07 PM (71 comments total)

This is basically the second post by this user that has made it to MetaTalk in as many days. As much as I think this is an interesting phenomenon, I'm not sure how much magnifying glass this user needs.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:10 PM on September 28, 2009


And I'm someplace with lousy internet and can't watch videos. cortex is on a plane and mathowie's a little MIA. Maybe you could explain what is wrong with the post and why it should not still be there?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:11 PM on September 28, 2009


Perhaps everyone who is interested in the post has commented = 0
posted by Cranberry at 2:12 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


I watched the video, even though I had no idea what it was going to be about. I still don't know what it was about.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:13 PM on September 28, 2009


I watched the video when it was posted. It was evocative, but there was a meh component.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 2:14 PM on September 28, 2009


I am ironically commenting on this post by not commenting. Wait. Damnit.

Anywho, I think the post is just lacking context. What is this project, what is its medium, who is "MIND" and who is "Jeff K-Ray", why are you sharing this with me, why would this interest me, etc. Make me want to click the links.
posted by pyrex at 2:17 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


Now I am worried about jessamyn - should we send the Coast Guard or the Ski Patrol or someone to rescue her? We can't just leave her in a place with lousy internet.
posted by Cranberry at 2:18 PM on September 28, 2009 [4 favorites]


I'm not saying it "shouldn't be here". It raised a couple of flags for me when I saw it.. It is, basically two links to the same video (feels a lot like a student film to me) that, although the video is odd, it didn't really communicate much (speaking for myself here), and one link to a pretty empty myspace page. The question became, why is this posted to MetaFilter, what are we supposed to gain from watching it.

I left it alone, thinking that I just wan't "getting it" (not unheard of for that to happen)..and was curious when I returned to find that not a single comment had been posted.

I was curious, on a meta level, how often posts remain with no comments, and if that speaks at all to if it should be here...
posted by HuronBob at 2:20 PM on September 28, 2009


I guess it's basically a music video and slight (insufficient) context. The music is kinda trip-hoppy instrumental, and the video seems to skirt around some emotionally scarring act.

It is not offensive or inappropriate for a metafilter post, simply poorly received.

Questions for other viewers: This video made me want to (indulge in | abstain from) crystal meth (circle as appropriate).
posted by boo_radley at 2:20 PM on September 28, 2009


Okay. I watched it. It's pretty much crap. It's a super-derivative amateur over-cinematized music video for... what do we call that, trance? I don't know my electronica subgenres too well. It's an online project, and part of the web, therefore, but by no means a best part of it, on any given day.
posted by Ambrosia Voyeur at 2:21 PM on September 28, 2009


Metafilter has a lot of quality posts - it feels like they have been getting better and better lately. I wonder if there is a way to do an average comment count on posts over time? It might not be perfect because some of the more contentious posts are very simple but bring out a lot of debate. But overall, I do think the amount of comments is a good gauge of 'interestingness.'

But this, it looks like a student project, backed up by a Myspace account. It brings down the average interestingness.
posted by infinitefloatingbrains at 2:23 PM on September 28, 2009


and, now I'm just pissed that y'all had to go ruin that very clean page by making comments... (crap, give you guys 7 hours and you've got nothing to say, post it in the grey place and you're all over it like white on a snowball).

Never mind, Jess, I guess I just didn't wait that extra four minutes it took for someone to comment...
posted by HuronBob at 2:23 PM on September 28, 2009


I had one of mine get completely ignored. It happens sometimes.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 2:25 PM on September 28, 2009


I think it's safe to say that your MeTa post drew attention to that one.
posted by box at 2:26 PM on September 28, 2009


CP...there's a comment there...it wasn't "completely" ignored, just mostly... :)
posted by HuronBob at 2:27 PM on September 28, 2009


I have no idea what you're talking about, So here's a Nintendo DS performing a Daft Punk song.
posted by boo_radley at 2:29 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


I almost kind of liked the music, but they brought in a very annoying crash cymbal towards the end that did nothing for song and highlighted the fact that their drum programming needs work. I watched some of the video but was distracted by my need to tie my shoes. If you can objectively rate tying your shoes on some sort of scale of interestingness, you can then characterize my interest in the video as being "less". Does that help?
posted by doctor_negative at 2:29 PM on September 28, 2009


Post your post!
You always share your life
Never thinking of the future
Prove yourself!
You are the post you make
There's no comments - you're a loser.

See your post!
You are the links you make
You and you - and that's the only way.

Tag! Tag your post.
You're every tag you gave.
So the posting goes.

Owner of a lonely post!
Owner of a lonely post!
(Much better than a)
Owner of a crappy post
Owner of a lonely poosssst.


...You say you dont want to chance it
Been bahleted before...
posted by cashman at 2:35 PM on September 28, 2009 [16 favorites]


It happens. It's not really a big deal. I'm sure you could always comb the infodump to see all the other times it's happened.
posted by GuyZero at 2:44 PM on September 28, 2009


Prove yourself!
You are the post you make
There's no comments - you're a loser.


Hilarious.
posted by adamdschneider at 3:04 PM on September 28, 2009


Matthias Rascher is a confusionist. He must be stopped before it's too
posted by philip-random at 3:20 PM on September 28, 2009


So you're complaining that... someone else's link isn't popular? Guh?
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 3:37 PM on September 28, 2009


It's actually been noted in the past that sometimes really really good posts get few comments. Because, you know, they're interesting and send folks elsewhere on the web. Not everything good is comment fodder.
posted by freebird at 3:40 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


Come on, sheeple! The bigger issue is that "Matthias Rascher" is an anagram of "A Christmas hater".
posted by mr_crash_davis mark II: Jazz Odyssey at 3:43 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


"So you're complaining"

I'm sorry, I missed the part where I was complaining.. I think the word I used was "curious"..

"you could always comb the infodump"

I'm using your comb for that....
posted by HuronBob at 3:44 PM on September 28, 2009


I have no idea what you're talking about, So here's a Nintendo DS performing a Daft Punk song.

In high school, when we pissed the music teacher off real bad we were kept in detention until we could make the Korg say "coffee".
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 4:09 PM on September 28, 2009 [5 favorites]


I'm using your comb for that....
You can borrow mine. Here's the 2001-2005 list.
posted by tellurian at 4:28 PM on September 28, 2009


HuronBob to MetaFilter-related: hmmmm... why is this here...

Gosh, a video posted to the front page of Metafilter? How odd.

... and what does it mean that there are NO comments? I saw this post earlier today, checked the link, and, frankly, had a "what the heck moment", I couldn't think of a single comment about that movie that made any sense...

So apparently it means that you are not alone in not knowing what to say about it.

... and, then, I wondered what would happen to this post, it just felt, well, odd in some way.

Post is HAUNTED.

I got busy and never got back to it until now (7 hours or so later), and it STILL has no comments. How often does it happen that a post garners NO comments, yet remains on the site?

Gee, that never, ever happens.

Because we can't or won't discuss it, does it necessarily make it a bad post, or unfit, in some way, for MetaFilter? Just curious....

No. Or do you really think it's an awful video that's not worth a post? I don't. Didn't you just answer your own question? Just because something's odd in such a way that you can't really think of what to say about it doesn't mean it's not interesting enough to be a post.
posted by koeselitz at 4:31 PM on September 28, 2009


Because we can't or won't discuss it, does it necessarily make it a bad post, or unfit, in some way, for MetaFilter?

I don't think so, necessarily. It can mean the wording of the FPP didn't jump out at anyone, that they posted it on a weekend, or that the content couldn't really elicit a response on the positive or negative spectrum. Bad posts tend to attract comments, if only to say "this is a terrible post".
posted by Marisa Stole the Precious Thing at 4:31 PM on September 28, 2009


(By the way, Google returns about 168 posts in the last year with zero comments.)
posted by koeselitz at 4:35 PM on September 28, 2009


yeah, but the vast majority of those are projects.
posted by gman at 4:38 PM on September 28, 2009


many of those 168 are projects. There were 4 FPPs. Although that date search doesn't seem to work quite right farther back - for example here is a search from Jan 1 2007 until now that seems to include posts from 1999. Back then there were lots of commentless posts.
posted by GuyZero at 4:38 PM on September 28, 2009


We now have thirty comments in post B, which asks why there are only five comments in post A.
Shall we head over to MetaChat and start post C to probe the significance of this irony?
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 4:39 PM on September 28, 2009


Come on, sheeple! The bigger issue is that "Matthias Rascher" is an anagram of "A Christmas hater".

No, no. "Are Christmas hat?"

Well? Are it?
posted by Sys Rq at 4:39 PM on September 28, 2009 [3 favorites]


And, not to beat a dead horse, things like
(0 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite
indicate, I think, that lack of comments and lack of interest don't correlate.
posted by koeselitz at 4:41 PM on September 28, 2009


GuyZero: many of those 168 are projects. There were 4 FPPs. Although that date search doesn't seem to work quite right farther back - for example here is a search from Jan 1 2007 until now that seems to include posts from 1999. Back then there were lots of commentless posts.

Yeah, just noticed that.
posted by koeselitz at 4:42 PM on September 28, 2009


Still, if it happens four times a year, it's not exactly unheard of. And it still happened ten days ago, as I said... although anybody is free to go in and ruin the commentless streak if they want to, of course.
posted by koeselitz at 4:43 PM on September 28, 2009


Comment count is not a measure of post worthiness.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:00 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


I had a musician friend back in the 1980s who claimed that his idea of the perfect live performance was one where, upon completion of the final song, the room would be dead silent; neither cheers, no boos, just mute slack-jawed astonishment. Not that he ever achieved this as far as I know.

Maybe it's the same with perfect post.
posted by philip-random at 5:03 PM on September 28, 2009


Near perfect post by me.
posted by Sailormom at 5:34 PM on September 28, 2009 [2 favorites]


And, not to beat a dead horse, things like

(0 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

indicate, I think, that lack of comments and lack of interest don't correlate.


Unless all the "favorite" tags are really "WTF is going on here I need to come back and see if it is ever explained" tags, as discussed in the "How do YOU use tags?" threads.

I didn't have beef with the post, because my scrolly scrolling thingie is working, but I am definitely on Team Didn't Get It.
posted by Sidhedevil at 6:04 PM on September 28, 2009


While we're looking for explanations, could someone explain this New Yorker cartoon? It was supposed to be William Safire's favourite, but I don't get it.
posted by timeistight at 6:19 PM on September 28, 2009 [1 favorite]


It was Safire's favorite because it's the only one where the caption couldn't be improved with 'Christ, what an asshole.'
posted by box at 6:20 PM on September 28, 2009


could someone explain this New Yorker cartoon
Isn't it because the question is irrelevant to the situation? He has nabbed them all equally.
Who's in charge here? – Determine a band's leader by analyzing a publicity photo.
posted by tellurian at 6:35 PM on September 28, 2009


timeistight: While we're looking for explanations, could someone explain this New Yorker cartoon? It was supposed to be William Safire's favourite, but I don't get it.

tellurian: Isn't it because the question is irrelevant to the situation? He has nabbed them all equally.

I might think that, but look at the odd assortment of stuff in the picture. They appear to have tried to use a gun, a crow-bar, and a small hand drill to break into a huge vault - stupid stuff. But then who is this guy on the left with the bandanna, and what's he holding? The right side of my brain says he's an engineer, and that this is just a cheap pun, but all that work for a cheap pun that's a real stretch? I don't know.

It would help if we could figure out what that torch-looking thing on the ground is, and what it is the bandanna-wearing guy is holding.
posted by koeselitz at 7:15 PM on September 28, 2009


I was curious, on a meta level, how often posts remain with no comments
Several of mine have come close. I like to think it's because the MeFi readership were stunned into silent admiration, but I do accept I may just post a load of old shite.
posted by Abiezer at 7:40 PM on September 28, 2009


By the way, I discover through research that while The New Yorker does indeed claim that the 1945 Chon Day cartoon "Who's In Charge Here?" was the one he picked as his favorite New Yorker cartoon when polled, another fellow named George Price had drawn a cartoon with the caption "Who's In Charge Here?" about two years before in 1943, and had even published a collection of his cartoons under that title. So: perhaps Chon Day's cartoon was somewhat referential. Moreover, I discover that William Safire himself actually referred to the George Price cartoon (an image of which I unfortunately cannot find) in a 1994 essay called "Imagine A GOP Senate" and described it thus:
With the lady in the old George Price cartoon, contemplating a zookeeper inside a monkey cage trying to get his hat back from the gleeful monkeys, we can ask: "Who's in charge here?"
I have no idea where all of this goes, or whether it actually matters.
posted by koeselitz at 7:41 PM on September 28, 2009


HuronBob: I was curious, on a meta level, how often posts remain with no comments, and if that speaks at all to if it should be here...

Abiezer: Several of mine have come close. I like to think it's because the MeFi readership were stunned into silent admiration, but I do accept I may just post a load of old shite.

Knowing you, Abiezer, and knowing Metafilter, I think it's entirely possible that it's both.
posted by koeselitz at 7:43 PM on September 28, 2009


Whooo-Hoooo *pumps fist*

Yep, that's right folks! Step right up and take a picture with your reigning champeen!

The proud owner of the Ninja Award!

Of course it's not a real award, but cortex said it and I claimed it!
posted by P.o.B. at 7:45 PM on September 28, 2009


I think it's entirely possible that it's both.
It's, like, a Zen paradox. With the amount of dynamic tension generated I can now kick sand in the face of anyone on life's beach.
posted by Abiezer at 7:53 PM on September 28, 2009


Like koeselitz, I had assumed that Safire meant the much better-known George Price "Who's in charge here?" cartoon, but didn't know he had actually cited it in his work.

This strikes me as oddly typical of the NYer's current shitty fact-checking department.
posted by Sidhedevil at 7:55 PM on September 28, 2009


Looks like he also talks about it in a 1993 story about renaming the zoo the 'Wildlife Conservation Park', and does mean the George Price cartoon.

On Language; Save Our Zoo From Language Predators
By William Safire
Published: Sunday, February 21, 1993

Exerpt: "It's short and snappy -- zoo -- and we know we created a problem," said the Wildlifeconservationkeeper, "but in the American Heritage Dictionary the word zoo has a secondary meaning of a situation or place marked by rampant 'confusion or disorder.' We are not confused or disordered. . . . We need a sea change."

For people desperate to be on the cutting edge, every change is a sea change ; this trope, coined by Shakespeare in "The Tempest," is a vogue term as overused as cutting edge . Mr. Conway is abandoning the noun backformed from zoological , first used in the name of the Zoological Gardens in Regent's Park in London. Why? Not because of the longtime pronunciation problem -- the first syllable of zo-OL-o-gy is pronounced "zoh," while the clip picked up the second o to make it "zoo" -- but because he and his Bronxophobe ilk feel sullied by the second sense of the word.

That sense, indeed, connotes disorder, as first used by John Galsworthy in a 1924 novel: "You won't keep me in your Zoo, my dear." Its meaning was illustrated by the classic George Price cartoon in The New Yorker of a zookeeper helplessly trying to get his cap back from the monkeys while a matron outside the cage taps her cane and asks, "Who's in charge here?"
posted by cashman at 8:11 PM on September 28, 2009


what that torch-looking thing on the ground is
Isn't that a vintage blow torch?
what it is the bandanna-wearing guy is holding
Isn't it an old torch like these?
posted by tellurian at 8:18 PM on September 28, 2009


Good grief, he loved that cartoon. He references it again and again. Here's a reference from 1976 in the NYT. "One of the great George Price cartoons of a generation ago pictured a hapless zoo-keeper inside a monkey cage trying to get his hat back from the monkeys, who were gaily tossing it around, as an irate lady visitor outside tapped her umbrella on the ground and demanded, "Who's in charge here?" That is the question Jimmy Carter will have to answer as he turns his attention to the U.S. Department of State. Either he will put his own people in at most of the top positions, or he will leave the bureaucracy untouched, in charge of a professional union called the American Foreign Service Association."
posted by cashman at 8:42 PM on September 28, 2009


Every time P.o.B posts I briefly imagine that pb purchased a sockpuppet account to talk smack in MeTa, and finally someone is going to be like what the fuck, pb, what's the "o" stand for and he's going to be all like O NO YOU DIDN'T! BLAMMO!
posted by nanojath at 8:52 PM on September 28, 2009




I agree. With Safire that is. It's root existentialism, the single most important question a man (or woman) ever asked, and it applies to every cartoon ever drawn (if not every situation ever stumbled upon).

ie:

METAFILTER: Who's in charge here?

posted by philip-random at 9:16 PM on September 28, 2009


I remember that when I saw Schindler's List, no one in the theater said a word until we were ll out in the parking lot. Maybe that happened here. They watched the video and were just too overwhelmed to speak, for fear of breaking into tears amidst their friends.
posted by Pater Aletheias at 10:10 PM on September 28, 2009


why is this here, and what does it mean that there are NO comments?

Who cares?
posted by msalt at 10:15 PM on September 28, 2009


What's kind of interesting is that an overtly bad post will draw all kinds of "WTF get this off here" fire. Clearly the goal should be to aim for total confusion.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:29 PM on September 28, 2009


Clearly the goal should be to aim for total confusion.

shhh!
posted by philip-random at 10:32 PM on September 28, 2009


No one is talking about my favorite phenomenon, when a bunch of people favorite an Ask post cause they think it'll have good answers later but then no one comments ever.
posted by The Whelk at 5:54 AM on September 29, 2009


Honestly, I flagged the post as I felt it was pretty much Pepsi Blue. Two links to promotional websites with no real background on the featured video. Just a "Look, we make enigmatic video and soundtracks" post.
posted by Thorzdad at 5:56 AM on September 29, 2009


Good grief, he loved that cartoon.

It's no "I say it's spinach and I say to hell with it!"
posted by octobersurprise at 6:10 AM on September 29, 2009


And, not to beat a dead horse, things like

(0 comments total) 9 users marked this as a favorite

indicate, I think, that lack of comments and lack of interest don't correlate.


Unless all the "favorite" tags are really "WTF is going on here I need to come back and see if it is ever explained" tags, as discussed in the "How do YOU use tags?" threads.


Wouldn't it count as "interest" if you care enough to come back looking for an explanation? If there was a total lack of interest, no one would bother.
posted by owtytrof at 7:18 AM on September 29, 2009


(By the way, Google returns about 168 posts in the last year with zero comments.)

Many of these "0 comments" posts are not, in fact, commentless.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:31 AM on September 29, 2009


Also, interesting tidbit, whenever I do a google search that contains -intitle:"comments on" (and by the way, it can be almost any quote that contains the word "comments", including -title:"your momma comments" or even just -intitle:"comments"), suddenly I am sending an automated query. WTF?

The query -intitle:comments without quotes works just fine.
posted by Deathalicious at 7:40 AM on September 29, 2009


How often does it happen that a post garners NO comments, yet remains on the site? Because we can't or won't discuss it, does it necessarily make it a bad post, or unfit, in some way, for MetaFilter?

Do not go gentle into that no-comment night,
Rage, rage against the dying of the light!
posted by Fuzzy Monster at 9:07 AM on September 29, 2009


and now this

would someone talk to him, really...
posted by HuronBob at 9:16 AM on September 29, 2009


I think he misunderstands the broad culture of MetaFilter (though I feel silly about claiming any profound knowledge, being a member less than a year). There are no strange people on MeFi, just MeFites.

Here's a link to the Movie "Untitled" post without the #comment tag.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:28 AM on September 29, 2009


flt...thanks for fixing the link, my bad...
posted by HuronBob at 9:31 AM on September 29, 2009


METAFILTER: Clearly the goal should be to aim for total confusion.
posted by philip-random at 9:34 AM on September 29, 2009


« Older Plea for a tagging flag   |   QuizMe Newer »

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