SLYT? No thanks. March 3, 2010 8:55 AM Subscribe
Does anyone know of (or is anyone willing to write) a greasemonkey script that would automatically filter out posts with SLYT in them?
I don't care if they're on the site really, I would just prefer to not see them. I appreciate the "My Ask" tab in AskMefi that lets me weed out the categories I don't find interesting and am looking for a way to replicate that in the blue.
I don't care if they're on the site really, I would just prefer to not see them. I appreciate the "My Ask" tab in AskMefi that lets me weed out the categories I don't find interesting and am looking for a way to replicate that in the blue.
I agree, Jessamyn, and in general I advocate for just ignoring things that I don't like. I know that a lot of people like the YouTube posts so whatever to them being here. I just noticed that I was getting annoyed when I saw them and instead of being more mature and just ignoring them I thought maybe someone had a way to hide them so I didn't even really have to think about it.
posted by Kimberly at 9:06 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by Kimberly at 9:06 AM on March 3, 2010
Most people use the SLYT tag even when there is more than one link or video, so you may actually lose more content than actual SLYTs
posted by Think_Long at 9:20 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by Think_Long at 9:20 AM on March 3, 2010
A greasemonkey script could detect if it really was a single link to youtube, although I'm not sure that's exactly what's denoted by "SLYT" anymore.
posted by DU at 9:26 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by DU at 9:26 AM on March 3, 2010
What annoys me personally is when people put SYLT into their FPPs to begin with. I expect to be corrected if I am wrong, but I always thought SLYT was meant to be a derogatory term for a weak post with 1 link to a YT vid that arose after YT launched in 2005. Suddenly there was a rash of such posts that went against the grain of the site's preferred mini-school-report style of post with exposition and multiple links. People started saying things like "Ugh, not another SLYT."
Then somehow it got morphed into something akin to the NSFW warning we tend to put on our posts, and I just don't understand the utility of that. I can see it's a SLYT by the fact that there are no other links in your post other than this one to YouTube. So I don't feel the need to be "warned" of something that is obvious on mouseover.
You mouseover a link and you don't know if the content on the other side of it is safe for work or not so there is utility in marking your own post NSFW as a courtesy to other users. A SLYT is immediately obvious that it's a SLYT. If people need a warning that this single link to YouTube is, in fact, a solitary link to YouTube, then well, I just don't know. We don't usually stick SLNYT on FPPs that only have 1 link to the New York Times (I'm sure it's happened at some point).
posted by BeerFilter at 9:30 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Then somehow it got morphed into something akin to the NSFW warning we tend to put on our posts, and I just don't understand the utility of that. I can see it's a SLYT by the fact that there are no other links in your post other than this one to YouTube. So I don't feel the need to be "warned" of something that is obvious on mouseover.
You mouseover a link and you don't know if the content on the other side of it is safe for work or not so there is utility in marking your own post NSFW as a courtesy to other users. A SLYT is immediately obvious that it's a SLYT. If people need a warning that this single link to YouTube is, in fact, a solitary link to YouTube, then well, I just don't know. We don't usually stick SLNYT on FPPs that only have 1 link to the New York Times (I'm sure it's happened at some point).
posted by BeerFilter at 9:30 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Here, I made one: clicky. Anything with "slyt" above the fold will go away. I question the utility, but there you go.
Note: Won't hide posts that are just one link to youtube unless labeled as such, doesn't check tags (requires a page load for each thread), and will hide posts mislabeled as "slyt" (sometimes people do this in multi-link posts when only one link is youtube).
posted by cj_ at 9:41 AM on March 3, 2010
Note: Won't hide posts that are just one link to youtube unless labeled as such, doesn't check tags (requires a page load for each thread), and will hide posts mislabeled as "slyt" (sometimes people do this in multi-link posts when only one link is youtube).
posted by cj_ at 9:41 AM on March 3, 2010
I'd also like to point out that I seriously just spent a few minutes trying to figure out why this thread didn't show up on MeTa front page for me. It's early.
posted by cj_ at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2010 [4 favorites]
posted by cj_ at 9:47 AM on March 3, 2010 [4 favorites]
Thanks for this! I hope this doesn't come off as being a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth, but you bring up a good point -- is there any way to confine it to the blue only?
posted by Kimberly at 9:57 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by Kimberly at 9:57 AM on March 3, 2010
Can I get a greasemonkey script that hides feature requests?
posted by blue_beetle at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by blue_beetle at 10:00 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
You can change what URLs it works on from Tools > GreaseMonkey > Manage User Scripts. I think it's *.metafilter.com right now, just delete those and add http://www.metafilter.com/
posted by cj_ at 10:05 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by cj_ at 10:05 AM on March 3, 2010
A SLYT is immediately obvious that it's a SLYT.
In the theoretical case, not necessarily. A SLYT could have a [more inside] which could contain additional links or not.
posted by juv3nal at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2010
In the theoretical case, not necessarily. A SLYT could have a [more inside] which could contain additional links or not.
posted by juv3nal at 10:07 AM on March 3, 2010
Thanks for this! I hope this doesn't come off as being a case of looking a gift horse in the mouth, but you bring up a good point -- is there any way to confine it to the blue only?
This may be of use to you.
posted by gman at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2010
This may be of use to you.
posted by gman at 10:08 AM on March 3, 2010
A SLYT could have a [more inside] which could contain additional links or not.
In that case it's not a Single Link anything and the poster is an idiot for calling it as such.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:10 AM on March 3, 2010
In that case it's not a Single Link anything and the poster is an idiot for calling it as such.
posted by Rhomboid at 10:10 AM on March 3, 2010
In that case it's not a Single Link anything and the poster is an idiot for calling it as such.
Sure, but beerfilter was talking about the case where no SLYTs are labeled.
posted by juv3nal at 10:11 AM on March 3, 2010
Sure, but beerfilter was talking about the case where no SLYTs are labeled.
posted by juv3nal at 10:11 AM on March 3, 2010
Hey, can you modify this to hide any post mentioning dogs? I don't really like dogs, and posts about them make me SO MAD.
posted by graventy at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by graventy at 10:18 AM on March 3, 2010
Uh...before anyone does any helpful work... HAMBURGER
posted by graventy at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2010
posted by graventy at 10:19 AM on March 3, 2010
I want a script that only shows SLYTs. Nothing else. And no posts longer than four words. And only comments written by me.
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 10:21 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by The Winsome Parker Lewis at 10:21 AM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Then somehow it got morphed into something akin to the NSFW warning we tend to put on our posts, and I just don't understand the utility of that.
I think this is the kind of phenomenon where writing SLTY after a link started off ironically/preemptively, as in "Yes, I am aware you could criticize this post for being a SLYT, but it is still a worthwhile FPP."
Then enough people saw the SLYT label, and it morphed into a tag type thing, like NSFW.
posted by milestogo at 10:39 AM on March 3, 2010
I think this is the kind of phenomenon where writing SLTY after a link started off ironically/preemptively, as in "Yes, I am aware you could criticize this post for being a SLYT, but it is still a worthwhile FPP."
Then enough people saw the SLYT label, and it morphed into a tag type thing, like NSFW.
posted by milestogo at 10:39 AM on March 3, 2010
SLYT, dogs, et al
There have been existing script(s) which will hide any content you want around for years now. For example, use Mondo Meta, to filter out SLYT in the content of any message, and gone. Same with dogs.
If you wanted to mess around with regular expressions, you could add a couple of entries for it that would hide all posts containing content other than SLYT that was from The Winsome Parker Lewis, although I seem to detect a subtle hint that perhaps the request is not a fully serious one.
posted by mdevore at 11:27 AM on March 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
There have been existing script(s) which will hide any content you want around for years now. For example, use Mondo Meta, to filter out SLYT in the content of any message, and gone. Same with dogs.
If you wanted to mess around with regular expressions, you could add a couple of entries for it that would hide all posts containing content other than SLYT that was from The Winsome Parker Lewis, although I seem to detect a subtle hint that perhaps the request is not a fully serious one.
posted by mdevore at 11:27 AM on March 3, 2010 [2 favorites]
PONY REQUEST: Hidden post metadata on the front page for the benefit of client-side scripts.
posted by ryanrs at 12:53 PM on March 3, 2010
<div class="copy">
<span class="hidden-title">The Post Title</span>
<span class="hidden-tags">pony metadata pagingpb</span>
Four score and seven ponies ago our
mods brought forth on this website...
</div>
span.hidden-title, span.hidden-tags {
display: none;
}posted by ryanrs at 12:53 PM on March 3, 2010
I have no idea why it wouldn't work in Chrome. It's pretty basic. Maybe try the Mondo Meta though, that sounds better. I didn't know about it.
I still sorta think this is pointless as there really aren't very many SLYT posts, but I understand the sentiment. In the runup to the last election I did something similar to hide all politics links on reddit using a massive array of banned keywords. In the end though, I found just not reading the site a better solution (not suggesting you do that here of course).
posted by cj_ at 1:03 PM on March 3, 2010
I still sorta think this is pointless as there really aren't very many SLYT posts, but I understand the sentiment. In the runup to the last election I did something similar to hide all politics links on reddit using a massive array of banned keywords. In the end though, I found just not reading the site a better solution (not suggesting you do that here of course).
posted by cj_ at 1:03 PM on March 3, 2010
What would the hidden metadata give you that you can't get now? Is there a specific use-case you have in mind?
posted by pb (staff) at 1:03 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by pb (staff) at 1:03 PM on March 3, 2010
Fixedgear, should work on Chrome fine if you have extensions enabled (tested on 4.1.249.1021). You can test it on marxchvist's March 2nd post. I may be imagining things, but it seems to leave a barely noticeable double white space between posts if it's removed a SLYT or slyt post. Don't ask me what happens if a bunch show up in a row.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:04 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:04 PM on March 3, 2010
Works fine on Google Chrome 4.1.249.1021, but Mondo Meta wouldn't work. The 'options' button was greyed out.
posted by fixedgear at 1:25 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by fixedgear at 1:25 PM on March 3, 2010
What would the hidden metadata give you that you can't get now?
The title and tags. You can try to extract the title from the URL, but you lose any punctuation. That can make it a bit opaque, especially if the poster thinks they're clever. Tags aren't available on the front page.
Including the [more inside] content in a hidden div would also be pretty nifty. That would enable a simple client-side click-to-expand button.
Is there a specific use-case you have in mind?
You could use tags to highlight posts you don't want to miss:
posted by ryanrs at 1:33 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
The title and tags. You can try to extract the title from the URL, but you lose any punctuation. That can make it a bit opaque, especially if the poster thinks they're clever. Tags aren't available on the front page.
Including the [more inside] content in a hidden div would also be pretty nifty. That would enable a simple client-side click-to-expand button.
Is there a specific use-case you have in mind?
You could use tags to highlight posts you don't want to miss:
var nsfw = document.getElementsByClassName('hidden-tags');
for (var i = 0; i < nsfw.length; i++) {
if (/\bNSFW\b/i.test(nsfw[i].textContent)) {
nsfw[i].parentNode.style.backgroundColor = '#f66';
}
}posted by ryanrs at 1:33 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Right now you could grab tags and titles from the RSS feed, and it would save us serving those extra bytes on every pageview. It was also save us from potentially angering the Google for stuffing the page with hidden content—a common SEO tactic.
posted by pb (staff) at 1:55 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by pb (staff) at 1:55 PM on March 3, 2010
Mathowie just send me an email saying he's reluctant to add hidden text because it might tickle Googlebot's spam detection algorithm.
So here's another way of doing it:
posted by ryanrs at 1:55 PM on March 3, 2010
So here's another way of doing it:
<div class="copy" mefititle="The Post Title" mefitags="pony metadata pagingpb"> Four score and seven ponies ago our mods brought forth on this website... </div>I think the non-standard attributes might piss off HTML validators. But fuck 'em, no browser will care (and the front page isn't valid anyway).
posted by ryanrs at 1:55 PM on March 3, 2010
Can't you simply search posts for the instance of "youtube.com" and "SLYT" or actually count links in a post and if there is only one link and it leads to youtube.com it will set the display to none?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:02 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by mathowie (staff) at 2:02 PM on March 3, 2010
For the instant pony, yes. But I'm thinking of ways to make additional metadata available to client-side scripts. I'm not dying to implement the various uses cases I have mentioned.
posted by ryanrs at 2:14 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by ryanrs at 2:14 PM on March 3, 2010
Looks like Chrome is going to support localstorage soon. That should mean most of the remaining problematic Greasemonkey scripts which save and load persistent values should work under Chrome when the DOM storage support is officially rolled out. Either the GM API support will be tweaked or authors can roll their own GM_setvalue/GM_getvalue replacements. So that's something to look forward to.
posted by mdevore at 3:29 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by mdevore at 3:29 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
pb writes "What would the hidden metadata give you that you can't get now? Is there a specific use-case you have in mind?"
It would be nice to be able to hover over a post and get the more inside. Posts like this one for example which requires knowledge of what Steam is as it relates to Macs and has it's explanatory text in the more inside would be less Mystery Meatish.
posted by Mitheral at 5:11 PM on March 3, 2010
It would be nice to be able to hover over a post and get the more inside. Posts like this one for example which requires knowledge of what Steam is as it relates to Macs and has it's explanatory text in the more inside would be less Mystery Meatish.
posted by Mitheral at 5:11 PM on March 3, 2010
i>keep the penacostals out of my MetaFilter
Noticed that at the time, and thought about picking a different post example that might be potentially less embarassing, but I figured if anybody can get away with typo'ed post, it's user #1, so what the hell.
posted by mdevore at 5:30 PM on March 3, 2010
Noticed that at the time, and thought about picking a different post example that might be potentially less embarassing, but I figured if anybody can get away with typo'ed post, it's user #1, so what the hell.
posted by mdevore at 5:30 PM on March 3, 2010
Be nice if I didn't have a typo in my own post screwing up the italics, too.
posted by mdevore at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2010
posted by mdevore at 5:31 PM on March 3, 2010
mathowie: Can't you simply search posts for the instance of "youtube.com" and "SLYT" or actually count links in a post and if there is only one link and it leads to youtube.com it will set the display to none?
Yeah, I made a version that does that here. If # of youtube.com links == # of links, it nukes it. I think this makes more sense than looking for "slyt" which is often used improperly. You'll lose multi-link youtube posts, but if I understand the objection here, that's desirable?
BrotherCaine: I may be imagining things, but it seems to leave a barely noticeable double white space between posts if it's removed a SLYT or slyt post
This is fixed too, forgot about the <br> between each post.
I should really get back to real work but this is more fun somehow.
posted by cj_ at 5:41 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
Yeah, I made a version that does that here. If # of youtube.com links == # of links, it nukes it. I think this makes more sense than looking for "slyt" which is often used improperly. You'll lose multi-link youtube posts, but if I understand the objection here, that's desirable?
BrotherCaine: I may be imagining things, but it seems to leave a barely noticeable double white space between posts if it's removed a SLYT or slyt post
This is fixed too, forgot about the <br> between each post.
I should really get back to real work but this is more fun somehow.
posted by cj_ at 5:41 PM on March 3, 2010 [1 favorite]
I always thought SLYT was meant to be a derogatory term for a weak post with 1 link to a YT vid
We're taking it back!
*Hoists placard*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on March 3, 2010
We're taking it back!
*Hoists placard*
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:38 PM on March 3, 2010
Looks like Chrome is going to support localstorage soon. That should mean most of the remaining problematic Greasemonkey scripts which save and load persistent values should work under Chrome when the DOM storage support is officially rolled out. Either the GM API support will be tweaked or authors can roll their own GM_setvalue/GM_getvalue replacements. So that's something to look forward to.
The version of Chrome that I have "4.1.249.1021 unknown (40167)" already supports localstorage. I think they built it into gears and are keeping the interface the same for the HTML5 transition (not that I know what I'm talking about here). I kludged together a GM_setValue GM_getValue wrapper and stuck it in your mondo meta script, and when I look at storage under the developer tools I see:
Version: Version 2.01, Mondo Meta
dropdownPeekABoo: false
...
Sadly there are a couple uncaught errors and it's way beyond me after that, but the expand/collapse links works.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:32 AM on March 4, 2010
The version of Chrome that I have "4.1.249.1021 unknown (40167)" already supports localstorage. I think they built it into gears and are keeping the interface the same for the HTML5 transition (not that I know what I'm talking about here). I kludged together a GM_setValue GM_getValue wrapper and stuck it in your mondo meta script, and when I look at storage under the developer tools I see:
Version: Version 2.01, Mondo Meta
dropdownPeekABoo: false
...
Sadly there are a couple uncaught errors and it's way beyond me after that, but the expand/collapse links works.
posted by BrotherCaine at 1:32 AM on March 4, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:59 AM on March 3, 2010