Why recent comments on old threads don't show up on front page April 16, 2002 8:28 AM Subscribe
Maybe it's just that the server didn't refresh or something else, but I just posted a message to an old thread (February 22, 2002), with some updated information, and it doesn't seem to have made it to the front page. Is there a limit to how far back the "Recent comments (on 20 threads)" looks?
Well, then whatever that amount of time is should be the limit for calling something a "double-post," if you can't add to older topics and have any chance of reviving them.
posted by crunchland at 8:58 AM on April 16, 2002
posted by crunchland at 8:58 AM on April 16, 2002
Perhaps a fresh front page post with your WP link, and a notation that it's an update to an old thread, to which you also link?
posted by JanetLand at 9:07 AM on April 16, 2002
posted by JanetLand at 9:07 AM on April 16, 2002
I did that once, JanetLand, when I had just started posting and here is what matt had to say:
"You referenced an earlier discussion in the thread. One thing I don't want the site to do is point at itself too often. I tend to delete all threads that circle back to the site, to prevent the site from becoming too self-referential, and when I noticed someone crying foul on the link, and asking what the purpose of posting it was, I figured it was time to ax it.
It's ok to reference earlier threads if it provides a small additional piece of information on an interesting outside link, but when it's the thrust of a post, it's too self-referential and will get deleted."
In this case though, crunchland's point seems correct to me, and so does yours, so I guess I am just confusing myself now, because so does Matt's. (point that is)
posted by bittennails at 9:20 AM on April 16, 2002
"You referenced an earlier discussion in the thread. One thing I don't want the site to do is point at itself too often. I tend to delete all threads that circle back to the site, to prevent the site from becoming too self-referential, and when I noticed someone crying foul on the link, and asking what the purpose of posting it was, I figured it was time to ax it.
It's ok to reference earlier threads if it provides a small additional piece of information on an interesting outside link, but when it's the thrust of a post, it's too self-referential and will get deleted."
In this case though, crunchland's point seems correct to me, and so does yours, so I guess I am just confusing myself now, because so does Matt's. (point that is)
posted by bittennails at 9:20 AM on April 16, 2002
Well, then whatever that amount of time is should be the limit for calling something a "double-post," if you can't add to older topics and have any chance of reviving them.
I think that this is a valid point. Does anyone know what the exact amount of time is?
posted by iceberg273 at 9:39 AM on April 16, 2002
I think that this is a valid point. Does anyone know what the exact amount of time is?
posted by iceberg273 at 9:39 AM on April 16, 2002
If I remember correctly, it only goes back the number of days you show on the front page. I did this so cult threads like 1142 wouldn't be constantly showing up, and so that flamewars a week old would eventually die down.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:41 AM on April 16, 2002
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:41 AM on April 16, 2002
I'm feeling a bit the moron, but what is "Recent comments (on 20 threads)"? Is this something I should be seeing on the front page?
posted by chipr at 3:24 AM on April 17, 2002
posted by chipr at 3:24 AM on April 17, 2002
Don't feel that way. Several friends I've introduced to Metafilter hadn't realized you can set up your default view when you hit the site to show the 20 most recently commented on threads, instead of sorted by date, which is the system default. Makes following all the hot topics much easier. I'm not sure how I made the setting stick, since there doesn't seem to be an option for it on the user profile page... or maybe I just missed it.
Back to the topic at hand... So because of one fucked up "cult" thread, and because of flamewars (which usually die on their own accord anyway), the length of time that an old thread can possibly be resurrected is a default of 7 days, and unless you update them purely for archival reasons, and not to re-ignite more discussion, there's no hope of ever bringing up old discussions? And furthermore, metafilter-referential threads are also frowned upon, too?
Oh well. I guess since no one ever brought this topic up here before maybe indicates that it's a non-issue. Do mefi-ers have such a short attention span, there's no reason to revisit old threads?
posted by crunchland at 5:39 AM on April 17, 2002
Back to the topic at hand... So because of one fucked up "cult" thread, and because of flamewars (which usually die on their own accord anyway), the length of time that an old thread can possibly be resurrected is a default of 7 days, and unless you update them purely for archival reasons, and not to re-ignite more discussion, there's no hope of ever bringing up old discussions? And furthermore, metafilter-referential threads are also frowned upon, too?
Oh well. I guess since no one ever brought this topic up here before maybe indicates that it's a non-issue. Do mefi-ers have such a short attention span, there's no reason to revisit old threads?
posted by crunchland at 5:39 AM on April 17, 2002
Ummm ... setup how? I see no setting on my Customize page that does this. What am I missing?
posted by chipr at 7:21 AM on April 17, 2002
posted by chipr at 7:21 AM on April 17, 2002
chipr: look for the pulldown above the textad on the homepage; change it to "Recent comments". I think your settings will stick if you're logged in.
crunchland: I get the impression that users of the archive are a bit of a rarity; for most people, if a thread is more than a week old, it may as well not exist. I'd hate to see that used as the doublepost statute of limitations, though. (Personally I'd dislike any statute of limitations, but I'm definitely in the minority on that one.)
posted by ook at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2002
crunchland: I get the impression that users of the archive are a bit of a rarity; for most people, if a thread is more than a week old, it may as well not exist. I'd hate to see that used as the doublepost statute of limitations, though. (Personally I'd dislike any statute of limitations, but I'm definitely in the minority on that one.)
posted by ook at 8:16 AM on April 17, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Signs point to yes.
posted by iceberg273 at 8:53 AM on April 16, 2002