self-link FPP February 23, 2010 12:17 PM   Subscribe

self link FPP, isn't this a no-no?

http://thewvsr.com/index.php/8-ways-to-make-beatles-rock-band-more-appealing-to-14-year-old-boys/

"...based on the findings of my investigation. "

Seems like a GYOB thing, though the thread is going well.

Self-link is a serious no-no, ain't it? (Otherwise I've got a ton of rilly important FPPs to make.)
posted by lothar to Etiquette/Policy at 12:17 PM (49 comments total)

I just assumed that was a quote from the article, which perhaps not so coincidentally also contains that line.
posted by Sys Rq at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2010


It's a quote from the article. Read the link.
posted by carsonb at 12:22 PM on February 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


It's a quotation, not a self-link. If you load the page, you'll see the whole quoted paragraph:
And now I’m prepared to file a report.

Below are eight quick recommendations to make the next edition of Beatles Rock Band more appealing to fourteen year old boys, based on the findings of my investigation. And if you have others, please leave them in the comments section at the bottom of this article.
The poster could have used some quotation marks around it, put it in italics, or put a blockquote around the whole thing to make the attribution more obvious, but it is not in any way a self-link.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 12:23 PM on February 23, 2010


This is the FPP in question. I don't think it's a self-link. The part you're quoting is just a quote from the blog post. I did think it was a really stupid blog post though.
posted by ludwig_van at 12:23 PM on February 23, 2010


My impression is that this is just a case of a pull-quote of first-person writing from the source that was not clearly indicated as a quote by the poster. Which is often a bad idea, for specifically this sort of "what do you mean, 'my'?" spit-take reaction.

As far as I can tell the link had nothing to do with the poster. If I'm missing something, please let me know, but we go sniffing around pretty thoroughly at any sign of a self-link and nothing turned up here.
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:23 PM on February 23, 2010


But yeah, no, don't self-link. Use your blog or Projects or the wank booth at the porn store.
posted by carsonb at 12:24 PM on February 23, 2010


It's a non-attributed pullquote. We should maybe get a little more aggressive requiring that people use quotation marks or other ways of attributing.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:25 PM on February 23, 2010 [4 favorites]


You have seen much and done much.
posted by Mister_A at 12:27 PM on February 23, 2010


I wonder if a higher barrier to making MetaTalk posts is in order....

Maybe a 1 day waiting period after submission during which the poster can cancel the post. Once the waiting period is over, the post goes live. What? What do you mean y'all have better things to do than code up my every whim?

It's not that a little extraneous MetaTalk posting is a big deal, and I guess I could just stop looking at them, but I wanted to complain about something.
posted by Salvor Hardin at 12:40 PM on February 23, 2010


Metafilter: I guess I could just stop looking at them, but I wanted to complain about something.
posted by oinopaponton at 12:56 PM on February 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


I wonder if a higher barrier to making MetaTalk posts is in order....

Something. It's like we have six a day all the time now. Either start browbeating folks or extend the MeTa front page so things last longer there than eight hours.
posted by shakespeherian at 1:07 PM on February 23, 2010


Oinopaponton: I think that's the MetaTalk slogan, not the MetaFilter slogan.
posted by Johnny Assay at 1:10 PM on February 23, 2010


Have a question for a MeFi moderator/administrator? Email or MefiMail that person. Question for the community at large? Take it to MetaTalk.
posted by Roger Dodger at 1:11 PM on February 23, 2010


Question for the community at large? Take it to MetaTalk.

Who here likes cake?
posted by found missing at 1:26 PM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


What? Grumpy curmudgeons in metatalk? Say it ain't so.

Matt, cortex, and Jessamyn all went where I expected: non-attributed pull quotes are ungood. And while I could have received this information by emailing a mod, now it's being visibly discussed for all, which falls under the purpose of metatalk methinks.

My must-have-pony in this case would be that users making a FPP have something original to say about it. I know, I know, not going to happen.

Sorry for making you read a sixth useless thread in metatalk for the day. Mea culpa.
posted by lothar at 1:29 PM on February 23, 2010


okay, but you didn't apologize for not knowing how to hyperlink, even though there is a link button RIGHT THERE
posted by found missing at 1:32 PM on February 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


Who here likes cake?



get a baker.
posted by sgt.serenity at 1:34 PM on February 23, 2010


well, conversely, perhaps there should be a higher bar for submitting a MeTa post. This looks like the 3rd MeTa today that is near useless.
posted by edgeways at 1:41 PM on February 23, 2010


get a baker.

I heard if you eat uncooked baker, you'll get a stomach ache.
posted by nomisxid at 1:44 PM on February 23, 2010


I am not your cupcake provider.
posted by UbuRoivas at 1:53 PM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's a non-attributed pullquote. We should maybe get a little more aggressive requiring that people use quotation marks or other ways of attributing.

I've been a lot more careful about it since getting yelled at about it (I think by delmoi) a couple of years ago.
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:56 PM on February 23, 2010


Upon going and looking, it was caddis. Thanks, caddis!
posted by Pope Guilty at 1:57 PM on February 23, 2010


This looks like the 3rd MeTa today that is near useless.

Lothar could have searched for the post text in the link and avoided some of the collateral grief in here for asking, or gone the contact form with us which is also fine when there's a specific "is this thing okay?" question, but this is generally a perfectly fine use of Metatalk.

And I'd rather someone take a "wait what the hell is up with this?" question to Metatalk if they're not sure about something than to toss it into the thread itself and start a potential derail or something. This (a) keeps the policy stuff out of the main conversation where it's pretty never ideally seated and (b) puts a policy/etiquette question where it can do the most good, even if the answer is fairly simple and straightforward.

It feels like it's been a busy week on metatalk, yeah. That happens sometimes and it's not necessarily a sign of anything other than it being a busy week by chance. If someone wants to go infodumpsterdiving to look up metatalk posting rates over time they could drop some science on us, of course, but short of compelling evidence of a significant long-term shift there's not really much to do here. Metatalk is a community resource by design.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:00 PM on February 23, 2010


shakespeherian writes "Something. It's like we have six a day all the time now. Either start browbeating folks or extend the MeTa front page so things last longer there than eight hours."

It's been a busy month:
22:9
21:4
20:8
19:3
18:2
17:7
16:5
15:9
14:2
13:3
12:3
11:3
10:5
9:4
8:5
7:5
6:2
5:8
4:8
3:4
2:7
1:5
posted by Mitheral at 2:02 PM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


It's like we have six a day all the time now. Either start browbeating folks or extend the MeTa front page so things last longer there than eight hours.

Personally I would like to see a small sidebar section for some of the more "important" or long term MeTa threads that people might miss, such as the mix CD swaps and whatnot. Unless you constantly check all the time it's hard to pick those ones out from the sea of meetups, callouts, pony requests, etc.
posted by burnmp3s at 2:07 PM on February 23, 2010


I think it's probably been discussed before but I wonder if meetups would fit better in their own subsite?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:11 PM on February 23, 2010


It's been a busy month:

An average of 5 a day, which means on balance a post lasts 48 hours on the front?
posted by shakespeherian at 2:14 PM on February 23, 2010


This looks like the 3rd MeTa today that is near useless.

It seemed like it was useful to lothar*.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:26 PM on February 23, 2010 [3 favorites]


We are all special starfishes.
posted by not_on_display at 2:37 PM on February 23, 2010 [2 favorites]


I'm not.
posted by shakespeherian at 2:40 PM on February 23, 2010


If this will turn into a new meme, I would just like to say that I was here at the beginning.
posted by found missing at 2:41 PM on February 23, 2010


So someone should throw you back in the ocean?
posted by Babblesort at 2:43 PM on February 23, 2010


I think it's probably been discussed before but I wonder if meetups would fit better in their own subsite?

*cough-10-cough*
posted by Sys Rq at 3:12 PM on February 23, 2010


We should maybe get a little more aggressive requiring that people use quotation marks or other ways of attributing.
posted by moss at 4:20 PM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


lothar
As the said poster of the FPP in question, I did not find this post useless. It never occurred to me that my post could be construed in this way and you made me aware that I SHOULD have added quotes since I did pull from the author's intro.

I am still learning the many rules of MetaFilter (gladly!) and I am fully aware that self-linking is not tolerated. Just to clear the smoke, NOT a self link, just a n00b working it out.

TY to Jessamyn and Mathowie for looking deeper and understanding where the mistake was made on my part.
posted by will wait 4 tanjents at 4:25 PM on February 23, 2010


Lothar, get back to doing what you do best.
posted by Mister_A at 5:01 PM on February 23, 2010 [1 favorite]


I'd like to just pop in here, if I may, and say I like cake.
posted by Nabubrush at 8:42 PM on February 23, 2010


You may not pop in here. Go back to the kitchen and make me a crepe.
posted by davejay at 11:11 PM on February 23, 2010


I made y'all cookies but I eated them. Yes, all of them. *burp*
posted by deborah at 11:18 PM on February 23, 2010


but Ubu, darlink, have you forgotten you were my cupcake just yesterday?
posted by infini at 12:07 AM on February 24, 2010


and in other news, when I do a longish pullquote I usually find that a /via [url] works well
posted by infini at 12:08 AM on February 24, 2010 [1 favorite]


Remember that in Brahma time, a day is more than 100,000 kalpas.

*nods sagely*
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:17 AM on February 24, 2010


Speaking of Kalpa...sweet.
posted by UbuRoivas at 12:20 AM on February 24, 2010


you are certifiable aussie
posted by infini at 5:38 AM on February 24, 2010


oh hey look, cupcakes!
posted by lonefrontranger at 9:25 AM on February 25, 2010


Lothar could have searched for the post text in the link ...

Or he could have just asked The Hand People.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:28 PM on February 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


Alternatively, he could have asked The Hill People.
posted by Nabubrush at 7:11 PM on February 26, 2010


Oh, too bad, Nabubrush.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 4:46 AM on February 27, 2010


Well, that went much better than I might have expected, considering how that one double-comment went.
posted by Nabubrush at 8:40 PM on February 27, 2010


« Older Get a Lawyer! Really, you need a lawyer! Hey, you...   |   Religion derail Newer »

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