What constitutes a doublepost? March 25, 2002 12:16 PM   Subscribe

What constitutes a doublepost?
posted by ZachsMind to Etiquette/Policy at 12:16 PM (37 comments total)

JollyWanker claims this post about Denzel & Halle being Oscar winners is the same as this post about the Oscars in general. Granted the subject matter may be similar, but the links are by no means identical. Further, 15784 is over 100 posts long at this posting, and is a more vague approach to the topic, whereas 15790 was a more pointed topic of discussion.

Gloege responded to JollyWanker by saying a second thread about the Oscars was needed, and he cited the self-evidence of the existence of both posts as proof. I must admit that's not sufficient objectively speaking, although it is enough for me personally.

I am by no means recommending either post be removed. I'd just like to start a discussion of where the lines are being drawn, both objectively and amongst the self-appointed topic police in here, like JollyWanker for example.
posted by ZachsMind at 12:22 PM on March 25, 2002

I think the focus is wholly different. I linked to the superb Oscar thread on my blog - it's just so interesting, regardless of where you're from - but the second post isn't a free-for-all; rather about a specific issue. Both are good and I'm glad they're separate and have checked both, enjoying the choice.
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:29 PM on March 25, 2002

Can't we just drop it? Jolly got no support for his position. One guy wants to post twice that he thinks the thread was posted twice, so what? Hmmm... besides, these links don't exactly qualify as great metafilter links anyway, do they? In terms of the whole unexpected, interesting link, etc etc. But it looks like everyone wants to make an exception to shoot the bull about the Oscars, so no biggie, right?

posted by Wood at 12:37 PM on March 25, 2002

Wood: I think JollyWanker does have a valid point, specially after the recent MeTa discussion on the two College Whores threads. The first Oscar post was wildly diverse - from boobs to cinéfile trivia - so it could easily have accommodated a sub-thread about the race question. Also, it was still going strong and on the top of the front page when the second post was entered.

I think Zach is raising an interesting question. It reminds me of plots and sub-plots in movies. Sometimes sub-plots are just different movies. A popular expression here in Portugal, when someone brings up an issue which is judged to be outside the matter at hand is "Isso já é outro film"(That's another movie entirely).

It's a close call and certainly worth discussing. Also I disagree with the fact that you say JollyWanker got no support, just because nobody posted a comment. This keeps happening and is highly illusory. 99% of MetaFilter readers(whether members, active posters or good old lurkers)do not send comments in. I'm sure a lot of people agreed with him. Judging the vast pool of readers by the comments that happen to be posted is fundamentally misleading.

Though I agree entirely with gloege's position, I think it's(sorry)absurd to pretend that JollyWanker's pertinent objection and ZachsMind's post aren't worth discussing because there apparently was "no support" for the former's position.

"Can't we just drop it?", if taken to the limit, would make the whole of MetaTalk irrelevant! ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 12:54 PM on March 25, 2002

just my two cents: are all 13,000 of us (or whatever) expected to participate in the same conversation?

i'd rather have two posts than one 100+ commented post.

(i know this won't happen, but i think subject-specific sections would help the problem)
posted by o2b at 1:00 PM on March 25, 2002

Can we drop it? I ignored Wanker at first but I'm increasingly frustrated with the need for people to fight out disagreements over MeFi IN MeFi when Matt gave us a perfectly reasonable place here at MeTa to have such meetings of the minds.

Such arguments threaten to derail a perfectly good thread. Whenever someone finds they're wanting to comment about the validity of a post rather than the topic of the post itself, they need to count to ten and consider bringing it here. And yes yes I'm sure someone could search through MeFi and find examples when I didn't do that, and no doubt I'll probably screw up in the future. I'm trying to learn from my mistakes.

I wanted to respond to JollyWanker, and chose to do it here instead. So no, Wood. We can't drop it. We can however move it to MeTa where it won't further disrupt MeFi.

And for the record I personally would have preferred about fifteen Oscar oriented MeFi FPPs, rather than one unwieldly thread that was over a 100 posts long and went all over the map. There should have been separate threads about the following:

* the Oscar free-for-all, sans the fashion commentary
* the historical significance of Halle Barry's award.
* wasn't Julia just hanging all over Denzel like a whore last night? Sheesh!
* Sidney Portier's illustrious career.
* Randy Newman vs Susan Lucci.
* Woody Allen showing up at the Oscars for the first time in, what? Ever?
* Oscar host Nathan Lane for 2003
* Whoopi's lackluster performance. Dayam, chile!
* What were Sutherland & Close doing on camera if they were only voiceover commentary?
* Fashion police talk and the quality of cleavage on the red carpet.

Shall I go on? I could come up with a few dozen more, but not necessarily links for all of them. Then there shoulda been a post thread about how long the Oscars were this time and how they could shorten it. In fact I looked for a link last night specifically about that topic and had I found a decent critique about the length of the Oscars I would have posted it to MeFi myself.

I think having two post threads is a suck compromise, but more than sufficient for most.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:04 PM on March 25, 2002

OK. It's just that most double-posts are pretty obvious. And since JollyWanker got in right away with the "dp" suggestion it sort of seemed like the votes were in that it was interesting and different to people. Anyway, I'm still claiming that the Oscars are the exception that proves the rule, anyway. :)

posted by Wood at 1:12 PM on March 25, 2002

Wood: "..most double-posts are pretty obvious.."

Not to me. Sometimes in the past when I hear someone whine doublepost I have no idea what they're talking about. To me, a doublepost is when someone accidently posts the same exact link as someone earlier. This is usually caused by people each happening upon the same link totally independent of one another, and then not properly searching MeFi or at least scanning the front page before posting.

When two FPPs about the same general subject matter appear on MeFi's front page in close proximity, that is NOT a doublepost, and I'd like more clarification on that.
posted by ZachsMind at 1:23 PM on March 25, 2002

Though JohnSlade's recent post might be consider over-diversification...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:24 PM on March 25, 2002

Right, it's been moved along. (It was about Jennifer Lopez's hairdo, comparing it to a shi-tzu dog).
posted by MiguelCardoso at 1:52 PM on March 25, 2002

It's Sidney Poitier, not "Portier". Sorry...had to get that off my chest.
posted by biscotti at 2:00 PM on March 25, 2002

I agree with ZachsMind that there needs to be clarification about double posts, however, since this is the ettiquite/policy section, I'd like to offer what I think is happening here.

In the old, glorious days, before google, when the web was exploding with useful information, we all checked metafilter because it would open our eyes to really cool stuff.

Now, due to a whole host of factors including changes in the world's political makeup, the rise of "community building websites" (this site and its founder included), and the growth of metafilter membership, the discussions have really taken the front seat away from the link part of posts.

That's why ZachsMind thinks the following

ZachsMind: And for the record I personally would have preferred about fifteen Oscar oriented MeFi FPPs, rather than one unwieldly thread that was over a 100 posts long and went all over the map. There should have been separate threads about the following:

[insert lots of innane possible topics here]

He doesn't think, I assume, that someone would go find interesting and unique websites where some dorky guy has spent the last 15 years tracking Woody Allen's absence at the Oscars.

March 1981: Woody was spotted at a Deli called Oscars on the Lower East Side. Oh the irony.

March 1982: Woody was traveling back from his house in London...

He thinks about all of us discussing our opinions of woody's final emergence as the 'star' we always knew he could be.

This impacts what ZachsMind considers to be a doublepost as well. He thinks that the post is the discussion, so if the discussion is framed differently (even if, say, the content were the same), a post to the front page is not a double link unless the URL is the same. Ok.

I'm not sure I agree.

I've been really quiet about this issue, but, more and more, metafilter is a place where I come and say "Oh, saw this." or "Oh, wasn't this in an article in today's AJC?" I think that most metafilterians would *not* want 15 threads on the Oscars, unless the links were substantial, meaty and less than well known. If discussion comes about because of the substance of the links, I'm all for it. For people to yammer on about March Madness is fine, and I skip threads (and links) that I don't like. But fifteen threads about the oscars? Isn't anything cool happening anywhere?

posted by zpousman at 2:01 PM on March 25, 2002

Gloege responded to JollyWanker by saying a second thread about the Oscars was needed, and he cited the self-evidence of the existence of both posts as proof. I must admit that's not sufficient objectively speaking, although it is enough for me personally.

Her opinion is of no importance - of course she doesn't think it's a double-post, she posted it, didn't she? I merely questioned whether a second front page post in two days to discuss ephemera of the Academy Awards was really necessary, as I believe I'm entitled to do. Since no one's calling you an "asshole" and an "assmunch" in a public forum, I'll reserve my comments for email to the poster, where they belong. That debate (such as it is...) is over.

On the topic of double-posting, though, it does go to the heart of the Age Old MeFi Debate: is it Come for the Links, Stay for the Discussion? Or, the other way around? In this case, since there was absolutely no new information in the linked article - which itself is just the AP wire - I objected. This isn't Usenet, no matter what Gloege may think, so just posting "discussion topics" is not enough. As Miguel so rightly points out, we would be headed - fast - downhill to a front page overloaded with non-links, all about the same base topic. "OscarFilter," anyone?
posted by JollyWanker at 2:04 PM on March 25, 2002

Isn't anything cool happening anywhere?

Do we know where to look?
posted by iceberg273 at 2:34 PM on March 25, 2002

Isn't anything cool happening anywhere?

I think the Oscars was a pretty cool happening. Coulda been better, but certainly it was noteworthy. Some believe it didn't deserve any mention in Mefi. I personally believe it deserves 15 threads. Most people agree it deserved one or two threads. That's ..a compromise.

Sorry about my Poitier typo, Biscotti. I type fast. =)

Zpousman, I appreciate your criticism of my perspective. You are quite accurate and astute. I know where MeFi originally began. I am aware of its intent and when I speak up to insure that the community discussion should get the front seat, it's to do what little I can as one voice in the maelstrom to help affect MeFi's future.

The sharing of links is what makes MeFi purposeful. In my pretentious opinion, it is the community interaction regarding those links that brings people back. What started MeFi is not necessarily what makes it live. In fact it's a marriage of links and community which enriches it. One cannot truly take a backseat to the other without harming the site's potential or destiny.

JollyWanker: "Her opinion is of no importance..."

Y'know, my knowing you have that attitude about other people's opinions causes me to have even less interest in yours. You say that you'll now reserve further utterances to email, but you didn't reserve your original distaste for the second post about a similar subject to email, OR here. You put it in MeFi. That's part of my point here. If you have a question of the relevance of a MeFi post, you can take it here. You can take it to MeTa. You can privately email Matt and see if he responds. You didn't originally. You put it in the MeFi thread itself. Voicing your concerns in the MeFi post threatens to derail the original thread, and believe it or not, some of us might disagree with you, but of course our opinions are of no importance are they?

I'll remember those words the next time I see you give your opinion in here.

And before anyone complains that my multiple replies in this thread are "moderating," I'm simply very emotionally charged on this issue. I disagree that it's the same thing.
posted by ZachsMind at 2:57 PM on March 25, 2002

Under what has been loosely defined here on MeFi as doublepost, my post does not constitute such a definition. Given that JollyWanker seems inable to comment on any post beyond trashing the initial poster (as well as anyone else' opinions that he can drag in), I responded in kind. Thank you Zachsmind for moving this debate to the appropriate forum. You were right and I apologize for not smacking JollyWanger here instead of on my post.

That said, everyone's opinion here counts. Why else would we have MeFi? I find it amusing that someone who seems to have little original thought and rarely contributes beyond the negative, piffling commentary feels he can judge my or any other's opines online as important or not.

I found the topic of race in Hollywood interesting. I tend to like to throw a vague topic out and see where it goes trusting the MeFi folks to read the article and get the just of the links and comment appropriately. All seem able to do this BUT JollyWanker which makes me wonder what he is doing here other than stirring up trouble and looking for reasons to call me a cunt in email.

Regarding this ignoramous dictating in any post or forum which discussions are or are not over, really folks - shall we not find this myopic degenerate pitiful and simply ignore him. It takes all kinds. I got a huge laugh out of a simple link to AP regarding what is a historical precedent set by the Academy in the awarding of two African Americans the top honors of the night as well as recognizing Sidney Poitier for his contribution to film becoming such an issue to JollyWanker. JollyWanker as usual, was looking for a smutfest - nothing more, nothing less.

I do not feel it is a doublepost, obviously, as I posted it. With 46 comments, all of which were pertinent save three (JollyWanker's two and my one response to him), I do not feel others believe it was a doublepost as NO ONE came out to support him. In times past, when posts were truly redundant, the fine folks (myself included) were more than happy to point out several times exactly where the doublepost occured.

I happen to get an enormous chuckle out of the fact that the only comments this particularly Mefi'er submits are ONLY to Oscar forums. Is he a newbie? Shall we attempt to educate him as to some common decency and respect on MeFi? Nah.. he is simply not worth the trouble in my humble opinion. And that opinion, I feel has worth as do all of yours.
posted by gloege at 4:56 PM on March 25, 2002

Under what has been loosely defined here on MeFi as doublepost, my post does not constitute such a definition.

The decline of Metafilter part I: the mechanism.

I tend to like to throw a vague topic out and see where it goes

The decline of Metafilter part II: the result.
posted by rodii at 5:13 PM on March 25, 2002

Rodii, the only cause of decline for MeFi is people whining about the illusion of its decline.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:30 PM on March 25, 2002

Bite me, Zach.
posted by rodii at 5:36 PM on March 25, 2002

What was "loosely defined here as doublepost" was wrong here, Zach, your recalcitrance apart.

A doublepost is a not-sufficiently-different link to an identical topic, unless someone comes up with a better one.
posted by walrus at 5:48 PM on March 25, 2002

No worries about the typo, ZachsMind, proofreading is part of what I do for a living, sometimes it gets the better of me. :>

I think more than one Oscar thread shouldn't necessarily count as a double post, since there was more than one Oscar-related topic that could have been discussed (fashion, Halle Berry's hysterics, who won what and whether they should have etc.). In some cases it would be overkill, but in this case, with so many different aspects that could have been worthy of discussion, not so much. I think things like this need to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, I don't think there's a universal right answer. And it's not like you have to read every post, if you don't want to read more than one Oscar thread, don't.
posted by biscotti at 7:33 PM on March 25, 2002

i think there needs to be a mefi-police police.

like a mefi-gestapo, but with pastel suit jackets.

thank god for the preview funcion, i almost said pastel suit jackals.
posted by jcterminal at 8:10 PM on March 25, 2002

pastel suit jackals

Good name for a band.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 8:43 PM on March 25, 2002

posted by jcterminal at 8:54 PM on March 25, 2002

sorry, moment of lunacy.
posted by jcterminal at 4:23 AM on March 26, 2002


Bad name for a band.
posted by iceberg273 at 7:30 AM on March 26, 2002

Rodii, the only cause of decline for MeFi is people whining about the illusion of its decline.

Horseshit. If the so-called "Mefi police" sometimes aka "people whining," were even remotely as effective and stifling as some people claim, we'd have twelve thousand meek, lockstepping members who would all be loath to break the few, simple rules Matt established for the site.
posted by Skot at 8:26 AM on March 26, 2002

MeFi police called the pastel suit jackals. Sheer perfection jcterminal.
posted by gloege at 8:26 AM on March 26, 2002

"MeFi Vice"?
posted by Dean King at 9:53 AM on March 26, 2002

pastel suit jackals

Good name for a band.

Great name for a blog. if you start one JC, that better be it's name.
posted by jonmc at 10:06 AM on March 26, 2002

My point Skot is that whining about MeFi decline is like Chicken Little worrying about the sky falling.

And Rodii? Ah luv yew tew! *big sloppy kiss*
posted by ZachsMind at 2:53 PM on March 26, 2002

*rolls eyes*
posted by rodii at 3:07 PM on March 26, 2002

too late jon. my journal's name is 'pigeonfarm'. but i dunno. pastel suit jackals is definately a good name for the mefi-police.

hey... can we call them PSJs just for the hell of it? and maybe some photoshop magic?
posted by jcterminal at 3:27 PM on March 26, 2002

"It's Magic Time!"

*dances a jig*
posted by ZachsMind at 3:43 PM on March 26, 2002

hey... can we call them PSJs

"Oh no! The PSJs just KOed another FPP!"

This, IMHO, is not a good thing. OTOH, YMMV (IANAL)
posted by iceberg273 at 7:03 PM on March 26, 2002

A quickie PSJ photoshop remix.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 7:24 PM on March 26, 2002

Metafilter, if it existed 40 years ago:

Everybody, turn on Cronkite - President Kennedy assassinated in Texas!
posted by FrankA at 12:42 EST on November 22

Old news? I think we discussed this five minutes ago.
posted by Joe B at 12:49 EST on November 22
posted by GriffX at 9:17 PM on March 26, 2002

« Older will googlebombing ruin google?   |   Any of you'se bloggers catch the cartoon in the... Newer »

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