'add update' link on closed threads? May 25, 2010 7:39 PM   Subscribe

Suggestion for a process to update closed threads:

What if we add something like the 'add photos' option that meetup threads have to all closed threads, that says something like 'add update'.

You can post a link and a few lines of text only, and anyone who was subscribed to the original thread in recent activity will see it show up, and maybe you could see something on your activity sidebar like "So-and-so has updated thread such-and-such".

There's usually very little discussion in the metatalk update threads beyond 'thanks for the update' and 'why are you posting this here?' anyway, so re-opening the thread doesn't seem necessary.

The main thing I'd be concerned about is people using it to longboat long dead threads, but I hope people wouldn't be that obnoxious.
posted by empath to MetaFilter-Related at 7:39 PM (19 comments total)

Do you mean that only the original poster would have this power, or anyone?
posted by andoatnp at 7:49 PM on May 25, 2010


There's usually very little discussion in the metatalk update threads beyond 'thanks for the update' and 'why are you posting this here?' anyway, so re-opening the thread doesn't seem necessary.

Actually the mods decided that there should be no more metatalk update threads, although the word hasn't really gotten out.
posted by smackfu at 7:52 PM on May 25, 2010


I have a hard time with this because I feel that it will be used just like a big old comment box. And that defeats the purpose of closing the thread.
posted by deezil at 7:54 PM on May 25, 2010


If limited to original posters, and not "anyone who was subscribed to the original thread," it's not a bad idea.
posted by cribcage at 7:58 PM on May 25, 2010


I often discover older threads thanks to these updates; does that I would not see them anymore if I missed them the first time?
posted by ddaavviidd at 8:07 PM on May 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


Here's something I've seen come up as a concern: what about weird SEO spammers, either those looking for their third comment or those looking to spam a post remotely related to their client?

So you'd definitely want to limit it to the person who started the thread, but what if they don't realize there's an update and can't be reached by MeMail? You'd probably want to be able to email the mods and ask them to update, which means more work on their part.

The whole thing, really, is more work on their part because they'd have to monitor the updates and make sure nothing hinky was going on. On the other hand, it's not like they don't monitor every MeTa thread and that's work, too.

I'm not really opposed to this idea, and so I think more discussion about it (to draw out potential problems or potential upsides) is a good idea.
posted by librarylis at 8:13 PM on May 25, 2010


I'd rather just lose the concept of updates. If you think something is worthy of being an FPP then make it one. Add a 'previously on mefi' link in the body. People will either like it or not. If not, it'll get flagged and maybe deleted.

I don't see why the fact that it was discussed once before needs to trigger a whole different framework. Stuff that is interesting on the web gets linked on the front page. The mods, with user input, decide to leave it or excise it.

I think a big reason the volume of updates placed in MetaTalk happened is that there is a maybe, umm, overzealous response in thread to anything perceived as a double.

If you don't like a post or you think it's a double FIAMO. Or do nothing and move on. A lot of people are gunshy of posting anything on the blue because there are umpteen different ways one might get called out for breaking protocol.
posted by Babblesort at 8:24 PM on May 25, 2010 [5 favorites]


I agree with Babblesort and would like to subscribe to his newsletter.

Just make a new post--if the update is worth posting to MetaTalk, it should be worth posting to the main page. Do some critical thinking, find some links or something that explain the impact or whatever of the updated-ness, and POST!
posted by that girl at 10:35 PM on May 25, 2010


Speaking of updates, puking guy is guilty.
posted by Burhanistan at 11:00 PM on May 25, 2010


I personally find it shocking that people, events, ideas and nations have the temerity to continue with their lives after receiving the ultimate accolade of a MeFi FPP - once this ne plus ultra has been attained if they had any shred of decency or decorum they would mark out the rest of their time in solemn contemplation or quiet retreat, and we certainly shouldn't be encouraging those that insist on forward development.
posted by Abiezer at 11:22 PM on May 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


Updates in MetaTalk may be weak because weak updates are, as far as I can see, just politely closed rather than deleted.

1. The person who posts a weak update catches no official shit for it, maybe just a little grumbling from other members, and has the satisfaction of seeing the update remain in place. Mission Accomplished. From the poster's point of view, there's little reason not to post an update about an ax they haven't quite finished grinding and polishing to the sheen they desire.

2. The weak update itself remains as encouragement for others. "Hmm. If that dumbass didn't catch shit for posting an update about that dumbass story again, and the update is still there, I guess I can should must post my brilliant update about this ever so important issue that I am obsessed with."

The solution is to delete all updates from MetaTalk. If the update is a story worthy of another FPP, that's what will happen. Otherwise, the story is history.
posted by pracowity at 11:56 PM on May 25, 2010 [1 favorite]


I think things are always closed rather than deleted from metatalk, because it's the policy-discussion end of the site and otherwise we'd get into 'who watches the watchmen?' territory pretty quickly.

Also, leaving closed update threads visible in metatalk is kind of like putting the heads of the barbarians you've killed next to the front gate of your castle. It warns other barbarians that it's maybe not an okay place for them to be.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:07 AM on May 26, 2010


That watchmen stuff applies to site-related commentary. If it's just another newsfilter update, however, it doesn't belong on MetaTalk.
posted by pracowity at 12:17 AM on May 26, 2010


I think things are always closed rather than deleted from metatalk, because it's the policy-discussion end of the site and otherwise we'd get into 'who watches the watchmen?

No, the mods will delete stuff from MetaTalk (can't think of any examples right now though), but it does have a higher bar. Hell, they'll even delete comments from MeTa, but again, it's a higher bar than the rest of the site.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 3:55 AM on May 26, 2010


Actually the mods decided that there should be no more metatalk update threads

I'm pretty sure they said there's still something of an exemption for updates to threads that had a significant impact on the community, by which I understand them to mean threads that go beyond having a relatively large number of comments into "wow this really resonated with the community" territory.
posted by mediareport at 6:30 AM on May 26, 2010


Updates for blue and grey, no, I don't support that. New post or let it go.

I like Ask, and the personal involvement it provides, and with personal involvement comes a desire for closure. So for Ask, I endorse closed thread updates as proposed: the OP only can add one final comment to a closed thread, which will then add a "closure' tag. (So if a thread already has a "closure" tag, no more closure comments, easy technically.)

Sure, the mods can do that with a request, but the tag allows searching on closure threads, as well as removing that "i don't want to bother the mods" barrier to posting a final status.
posted by seanmpuckett at 6:40 AM on May 26, 2010


The previous Meta on the subject of updates. Which really didn't come to much of a consensus. But the mods have been closing update threads.
posted by smackfu at 6:55 AM on May 26, 2010


Leave old threads open. After 90 days, let anyone comment who has been a member for more than a month.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:41 AM on May 26, 2010


blue beetle: That was roughly the policy for quite a long time, and the result was the Great Monkey of the Beast, 9622, which was mostly commented upon by long-time members.
posted by kaibutsu at 12:42 PM on May 26, 2010


« Older Sometime before hurricane season would be nice...   |   Throwing away good email accounts Newer »

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