There's always ... January 30, 2011 1:55 PM   Subscribe

Question : why does [more inside] still exist? What did it ever do in the first place?

It seems vestigial to me. Almost every post has [more inside] now. Besides that, what purpose is it supposed to serve? Does anybody ever choose to/not to click on something based on whether or not it has [more inside]? I mean, it's not an intrusive element, doesn't really bother me or anything. I'm just curious as to why it's still there.
posted by Afroblanco to MetaFilter-Related at 1:55 PM (77 comments total)

I agree. It isn't worth the pixels its written on.
posted by AugustWest at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2011


(and yes, I'm talking about the [more inside] indicator, not the ability to place text below the fold)
posted by Afroblanco at 1:58 PM on January 30, 2011


I use it in AskMe. If a question is missing valuable information above the fold and there's no More Inside, I don't bother to go into the thread. Without the More Inside, I'd have to go into the thread to find out that the info is still missing. This would frustrate me and I'd begin to not go into those threads at all, meaning I wouldn't be answering questions that did provide that information on the inside.
posted by dobbs at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2011 [10 favorites]


Initially there wasn't a space "inside" AskMe or any other place on the site so people would end their post with [more inside] and then add their additional information in the first comment. Once we added the more inside functionality, we did a little behind the scenes magic, moved the first comments to the more inside space we'd just created and, moving forward, people would just use that space. There are some people who still ask questions without using the more inside space, but they're definitely becoming the exception rather than the rule.

It was still a ways after we had the more inside space in AskMe that we made it available in MeFi proper where it's not used as often. At some level it seems like good ui to include an indicator that there is actually something not on the front page and [more inside] was sort of industry standard. You'd be surprised how many people still don't even fill in the form correctly in the first place, we think having things that seem normallish and that people are used to works well for something that's supposed to be unobtrusive but easy to understand.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


Boy, it's a whole lot less stressful now, what with the [more inside] field than it was back in the day when you made your post, promised additional stuff inside, and then had to rush to make sure that your correctly formatted additional stuff was the first comment. I don't miss that.
posted by .kobayashi. at 2:00 PM on January 30, 2011 [9 favorites]


To be super clear, I know there are other ways to indicate that there is additional text "below the fold" We wanted to go with one that we figured everyone would understand instead of some "You just click on the ellipsis to see more" "The what?" situation.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:02 PM on January 30, 2011


I like it. It keeps the front page clean and free of multi-paragraph posts while providing context to most links without having to link through.
posted by maryr at 2:05 PM on January 30, 2011 [6 favorites]


As of when i checked a few minutes ago... only 18 out of 50 posts on the front page had [more inside], meaning more than half didn't. That's a long way from "almost every" one having it.
posted by brainmouse at 2:05 PM on January 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


"Almost every?" At the moment, of the 50 posts on the front page of the Blue, only 17 have [more inside].

Perhaps you meant on Ask, where it's more pervasive—36 out of 40 questions on the front page at the moment have [more inside]. In any case, I still find it useful on the Green—I have the unfortunate tendency to begin to formulate answers as soon as I read the "above the fold" part of the question. The "[more inside]" reminds me to slow down and consider the details inside which may change my answer (or, indeed, whether I am able to offer an answer at all). For the few questions that lack a [more inside], I know I don't have to click through to the thread before I begin research or otherwise formulating an answer.

(And you didn't ask, but in case anyone's wondering, it's perfectly fine if you don't have a [more inside] if your question/post is short enough.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:06 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Also, and maybe this is too crazy, but over the past year questions have become longer and longer. What about limiting the length of posts. Sorry, I don't mean to hijack this thread, but it has become more common to click through a post and see a wall of text.
posted by TheBones at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2011


We should really get rid of it. It's important to conserve space here on the internet.
posted by NoraReed at 2:08 PM on January 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


If the question needs to be long, it needs to be long. Let people have their long posts/questions. If I don't like it I don't have to read it. And I usually don't because they're usually relationship problems where the answer is either to break up or communicate better.

Likewise, if someone doesn't know how to use paragraphs then I just skip it most of the time.
posted by theichibun at 2:12 PM on January 30, 2011


Why do men have nipples? WHY?
posted by found missing at 2:13 PM on January 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


As far as AskMe is concerned, I'm actually a big fan of the [more inside] link. I don't see why it's so hard for people to use and understand. In fact, I am annoyed when someone posts a long question before the break. I feel like the short question should be able to summarize your question so that potential answerers know whether or not it's a question they can answer. Otherwise you are wasting my precious, precious time. C'MON!!

I don't mind it for MeFi, but then again I'm mostly on the green.
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:13 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


> Why do men have nipples? WHY?

Don't question the autosomes, just enjoy it when the structures they direct the body to generate are tweaked.
posted by Burhanistan at 2:15 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Yeah, a lot of the human relations questions especially tend to be long, but I'd prefer to have that then to force people to edit down their questions. Sometimes what the poster deems a minor detail—which might be left out if there was a maximum length to the question—is noted by the answerers as symptomatic of a much larger issue.

Although I do think we could get along without the "tl;dr" summaries I sometimes see at the end of such questions. If a person isn't going to bother to read the whole thing, they shouldn't be trying to answer it.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:16 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


(maryr, 2lats, see Afroblanco's followup here. He's not proposing to get rid of the ability to put additional text in the post which does not appear on the front page, only getting rid of the [more inside] indicator specifically.)
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:19 PM on January 30, 2011


I don't see why the tl;dr part can't be put about the fold... only without "tl;dr". Isn't that just a summary of the whole question? Why do I have to skim the whole question to find that part?
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


"Why do men have nipples? WHY?"

Look, you can spend your time asking questions, or you can spend your time rubbing them.
posted by klangklangston at 2:20 PM on January 30, 2011 [10 favorites]


Ah, thank you, DA. In regards to that, then what should it be replaced with? I find [more inside] to be concise and informative.
posted by maryr at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2011


Oh, sorry Afroblanco! What do you propose to use instead? Should we have to click comment/answer to see the rest?
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:21 PM on January 30, 2011


It's Metafilter's gall bladder. We can live without it, as long as we avoid fatty posts, but it's better if we keep it and avoid potential post op complications.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 2:22 PM on January 30, 2011 [7 favorites]


Hi twolights! Nice to see you read/reply at about the same rate I do.
posted by maryr at 2:22 PM on January 30, 2011


In regards to that, then what should it be replaced with?

Why have anything there at all? Either there's more inside, or there isn't. Doesn't effect my decision making process or how I perceive the site. It just seems kind of useless at this point.

And I'm not necessarily saying that we get rid of it, I'm just curious as to why it's still there.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:24 PM on January 30, 2011


Yes, and you owe me a coke. :D
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:25 PM on January 30, 2011


DevilsAdvocate writes "Yeah, a lot of the human relations questions especially tend to be long, but I'd prefer to have that then to force people to edit down their questions."

That would just create GRAR without actually doing anything as people would just add all their over size details in the first comment.
posted by Mitheral at 2:29 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Doesn't effect my decision making process or how I perceive the site. It just seems kind of useless at this point.

Having an indicator that there is more content one click away is helpful to some people and not much of a detriment to anyone else, is my thinking on this.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:31 PM on January 30, 2011 [11 favorites]


I don't know, maybe I'm a little... dumb, but I'm a little confused when there's no [more inside]. I panic a little, like where IS THAT LINK!? I don't want to ANSWER, I just want to see the REST.

But then I relax and realize that there's nothing else and that I shouldn't answer the question.

Where's the padded room, again?
posted by two lights above the sea at 2:31 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Having an indicator that there is more content one click away is helpful to some people

Yeah, it looks like there are a few people in this thread who find it useful, which kinda answers my question.

I think this just comes out my noticing that the [more inside] link just takes you to the comments, same as if you clicked on the "X comments" link -- which seemed kind of redundant to me.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:36 PM on January 30, 2011


I'd like to take this opportunity to vent one of my biggest frustrations with how people make posts: the abuse of [more inside]. When it happens on the blue, it looks like this:
Check out the frobs that fooco made for under 50 quatloos! [more inside]
---
I especially like the blue ones.
There was absolutely no reason to taunt me like that with a [more inside] that contains jack shit. You could have put all of the [more inside] in the above the fold part and it would have been perfectly fine. It's like people think that either there has to be a [more inside] or that the part above the fold can't possibly be more than a sentence or two, when it's blatantly obvious that this is not true. Sometimes people do this with the "Found via example.com" as the entirety of the [more inside] which is equally infuriating. Put that shit as a [via] in the main post and don't include a more inside if you don't actually have more to be inside.

This happens on the green in the form of:
Can you help me identify this plant? [more inside]
---
Link here.
FFFFFFFUUUUUUUUUUUU Put the link on the front page you dolt! You don't need a more inside if your question is only a few sentences.
posted by Rhomboid at 2:37 PM on January 30, 2011 [12 favorites]


And, next up on Random UI Questions : Why do we have an (X new) link, when its meaning is non-obvious and it's never accurate?

Discuss amongst yourselves.
posted by Afroblanco at 2:38 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Related follow-up: why do you show up in MeTa claiming you're not bothered and then acting a lot like you're bothered?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:40 PM on January 30, 2011 [8 favorites]


I'm surprised you'd say that, since I'm pretty sure you've seen me when I actually *was* bothered.

[afroblanco did not feel bothered at any point in this thread. no afroblancos were harmed, and any resemblance to any bothered person, either real or fictional, is purely coincidental. needless to say, it is a violation of federal law to duplicate this thread. please stay tuned for previews.]
posted by Afroblanco at 2:47 PM on January 30, 2011


Although I do think we could get along without the "tl;dr" summaries I sometimes see at the end of such questions.

I'd like to retract this—after clicking through the last few pages' worth of human relations questions, I didn't find a single example of this, so if it happens at all it happens much less frequently than I thought. Perhaps I was thinking of seeing tl;dr summaries on long comments, which I don't mind so much.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 2:48 PM on January 30, 2011


Rhomboid writes "There was absolutely no reason to taunt me like that with a [more inside] that contains jack shit."

See jessamyn reflecting that many people don't know how the posting form interacts with site norms.
posted by Mitheral at 2:50 PM on January 30, 2011


Besides that, what purpose is it supposed to serve?

It kept crunchland from birthin' no cows.
posted by y2karl at 2:52 PM on January 30, 2011


I think it looks cool, and is part of the AskMe feel. Sometimes style matters.
posted by Mikey-San at 3:15 PM on January 30, 2011


I think this just comes out my noticing that the [more inside] link just takes you to the comments, same as if you clicked on the "X comments" link -- which seemed kind of redundant to me.

Sometimes redundancy is useful; making sure people who aren't immediately experts on the interface can get to where they expect to with a click on a link is a good thing, generally.

Or, to look at it another way, sometimes redundancy is a more acceptable design outcome than the alternative. If we made a point of having "more inside" link somewhere other than "comments" just for the sake of avoiding the duplication of functionality, that'd be kind of silly, for example.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:22 PM on January 30, 2011


I think this just comes out my noticing that the [more inside] link just takes you to the comments, same as if you clicked on the "X comments" link -- which seemed kind of redundant to me.

Actually, they don't. They just take you to the top of the page. I think it makes sense for them both to do that, because a lot of people like to read the question and what other people are saying before they answer/comment.
posted by two lights above the sea at 3:34 PM on January 30, 2011


Look, you can spend your time asking questions, or you can spend your time rubbing them.

Why are you rubbing the questions?
posted by cooker girl at 3:39 PM on January 30, 2011


So they'll ejaculate an answer.
posted by jonmc at 3:40 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


I propose replacing [more inside] with [more...]
posted by yeoz at 3:50 PM on January 30, 2011


It doesn't seem redundant or vestigial to me, it's how we indicate from the front page that what you see isn't the whole post or the entire question, that there's much more inside.

Ideally, that link of "more inside" would jump to the top of the additional text, but I found many blogging engines did that behavior and I'd often forget a detail or two from the original front page text and I'd have to scroll up. I found myself doing it so often I figured it'd be easier to just include the first couple sentences from the front page in the viewport on the link, so we don't go down to an extended area target.

I cam to this conclusion of adding the link and text after watching a bunch of first-time users of metafilter over the years. I met people that had casually looked at the front page for months and never noticed the 10pt tiny text that said "34 comments" nor did they realize you could see what everyone was saying about the post and read additional text about it. I know that might sound stupid that someone wouldn't see it, but honestly, until you've looked over a dozen people's shoulders that have seen metafilter.com for the first time, it's a pretty teeny tiny link to comments and if you're unfamiliar with blogs you wouldn't know to hunt for it or what it means intuitively.

So I added the link, maybe around 2005 or so to make it clearer and I think it's a pretty minimal bit of UI that old-timers can ignore but clears the site up for many more newcomers.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 4:12 PM on January 30, 2011 [4 favorites]


On the blue, people often put a very short cutsie come-on that doesn't give any indication of what the SLYT (or whatever) I'm to click on is about, or in fact anything much describing the post at all. I blow past these but if I see a lot of comments piling up I get interested, and if there's a 'more inside' to let me know I may find out what it's about there's a better chance I'll check it out.
posted by dancestoblue at 4:16 PM on January 30, 2011


Wake up, Sheeple! We have nothing to lose but our chains!
posted by TrialByMedia at 4:18 PM on January 30, 2011


Keep it, if only so I can keep working on beating the system, which will entail me making a pun in my post that uses [more inside] but doesn't get deleted or edited to look good in RSS feeds. This post was a perfect opportunity and you blew it.
posted by doublehappy at 4:55 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Dear doublehappy,

That will never happen.

Love,

the system
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 5:07 PM on January 30, 2011 [5 favorites]


HOW ABOUT INSTEAD OF "MORE INSIDE"
IT SAYS "LESS INSIDE"
BECAUSE WE'RE ALWAYS GETTING CLOSER
TO THE SWEET EMBRACE OF DEATH
("LESS INSIDE" WOULD THEN
REFER TO THE AMOUNT REMAINING OF YOUR LIFESPAN)
posted by Sticherbeast at 5:08 PM on January 30, 2011 [10 favorites]


I like [more inside] both because it identifies each little thread as a special place of its own (inside is a place and you can come in and have a discussion or provide some insight), and because it tells me that the person has (in an ideal world - not the world we have) taken some time to essentialize what they are saying, and then gone on to offer the necessary/obvious further information or statement that they are allfuckingready in therapy.

In short, as a five-year (or something) user of the site, I like [more inside] and what I take it to mean, and don't want it to go away - or rather, don't see the benefit of removing it.

Frankly, it boggles that [more inside] could provoke a complaint... or it would have boggled, but now I've seen how Disney and Google see things. Something funny happens when you hit 50k to 50/a brazillion-million kinds of numbers... like monkeys, keyboards, and Shakespeare, all possible complaints, irritations, boggledoms, and bullshits come to roost. People are born, people die, and people act up a storm. Statistically speaking, the whole curve is on display, and the loudest and furthest out make lively.

The trick, it seems, is to mine trends but avoid confirmation bias while avoiding ever-growing cynicism at your ever-more-predictable sitemates. Hell of a dance, I say. Good on these mods that seem a step ahead of awfulness.
posted by fake at 5:28 PM on January 30, 2011


Almost every post has [more inside] now.

Really? When did this happen?
posted by Artw at 5:29 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


There are currently 49 posts on the front page, of those 18 have [more inside]. Draw your own conclusions based on the current sample set.
posted by Burhanistan at 5:32 PM on January 30, 2011


(meaning, AfroBlanco is WRONG)
posted by Burhanistan at 5:33 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


back in the day when you made your post, promised additional stuff inside, and then had to rush to make sure that your correctly formatted additional stuff was the first comment.

That brings back memories. *sniffle*
posted by Gator at 5:45 PM on January 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Sticherbeast - you're older than you've ever been and now you're even older.
posted by maryr at 6:46 PM on January 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


meaning, AfroBlanco is WRONG

This being the first time that's ever happened, I am truly crushed.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:08 PM on January 30, 2011


[more inside] is beneficial, I'd like to keep this working pit pony around please.
posted by arcticseal at 7:57 PM on January 30, 2011


Hey, shouldn't somebody count all the current FPP's on the blue and see how many have [more inside] so we can find out if Afroblanco is right about it being so prevalent?
posted by Pater Aletheias at 8:25 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Stylistically I view the front page content as the essential part of what I want to post, and try to limit it to the main links of the post, and then with More Inside I try to provide tangential information, previous examples of the content on Metafilter, and lengthy pull-quotes and backstory. The front page post is the headline, the more inside is the supplemental content. Think of the fascinating multi-link posts and how irritating it would be to scroll through that every time you browsed the front page. Metafilter is a site for people with a lot of diverse interests, and you're probably not interested in everything on the front page, so More Inside lets people be verbose without imposing on the disinterested.
posted by codacorolla at 8:47 PM on January 30, 2011


Maybe on the green it could be changed to [special snowflake details].
Two birds/one stone.
posted by ctmf at 8:57 PM on January 30, 2011 [3 favorites]


doublehappy, you have been beaten to it. This post is not only a hilarious use of "more inside," but the CORRECT ANSWER to the question is also "more inside."
posted by range at 10:13 PM on January 30, 2011 [2 favorites]


Gator, I was going to make the link if someone hadn't already. I wasn't here then but that's so integral to MeFi history.
posted by Night_owl at 10:16 PM on January 30, 2011


It seems vestigial to me. Almost every post has [more inside] now. Besides that, what purpose is it supposed to serve? Does anybody ever choose to/not to click on something based on whether or not it has [more inside]? I mean, it's not an intrusive element, doesn't really bother me or anything. I'm just curious as to why it's still there.

Awesome that you have the hang of this now, but you're not the only person who navigates Metafilter.
posted by desuetude at 10:38 PM on January 30, 2011 [1 favorite]


Wow. I just clicked on the [more inside] for the first time. Did you guys realize there were all these people posting comments and responses to the Metafilter posts?
posted by Slarty Bartfast at 12:48 AM on January 31, 2011 [1 favorite]


Can the site display a different [more inside] indicator based on the amount of text inside? I'm thinking [a little more inside], [some more inside], [more inside], [a lot more inside], and [might wanna take your bathroom break now, maybe grab a snack or something to drink; what I'm trying to say is you're going to be here a while].
posted by owtytrof at 7:41 AM on January 31, 2011


[∞ inside] (for special Westphalian interjections).
posted by Gator at 7:43 AM on January 31, 2011


can we change it to [moar incite]?

PS: Everyone needs a pug.
posted by taz at 9:34 AM on January 31, 2011


Do people read the posts down here?
posted by l33tpolicywonk at 9:52 AM on January 31, 2011


I don't think so. If they did there would be more alphabet shenanigans going on.
posted by Sailormom at 9:59 AM on January 31, 2011




Afroblanco is wrong inside?
posted by owtytrof at 12:46 PM on January 31, 2011


If we start a meme that says that Afroblanco is wrong inside, will he fucking hate it? Let's watch!
posted by SpiffyRob at 4:17 PM on January 31, 2011


You have no idea what I'm like inside. That's between myself and a special doctor that I see once a year now that I'm over 30.
posted by Afroblanco at 9:22 PM on January 31, 2011


I would have guessed "dark", but if you're seeing the right kind of doctor, maybe not so much.
posted by maryr at 9:27 PM on February 1, 2011


There are lots of colonoscopy vids on YouTube. Pick one and pretend that it's his.
posted by Burhanistan at 9:37 PM on February 1, 2011


This one?
posted by Artw at 10:20 PM on February 1, 2011 [1 favorite]


Get your mind out of my ass.
posted by Afroblanco at 12:36 AM on February 2, 2011


(and he said he wasn't recording. I WANT ROYALTIES!)
posted by Afroblanco at 12:40 AM on February 2, 2011


« Older Let's talk about Egypt now, not America then.   |   Here's the skinny Newer »

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