I hear your words but they don't link what you think they link

May 15, 2002 3:10 AM

Posts that don't actually point to their topic? The item itself is kind of interesting, but the links don't provide anything in terms of supporting the issue.
Discuss.
posted by Su to Etiquette/Policy at 3:10 AM (12 comments total)

I'm not really criticising here, just asking the question.
It's quite possible that there isn't actually an article anywhere addressing these new ads yet, so was wondering what people thought of the situation.
posted by Su at 3:11 AM on May 15, 2002

Su, he links to the site in discussion, and it is open for discussion. Quite a few poeple have contributed to it.

What is your point in bringing this to MetaTalk? You seem to be posting for posting's sake.
posted by Frasermoo at 5:58 AM on May 15, 2002

I think Su has a good point. This is like linking to the front page of cnn.com or nytimes.com. There's nothing newsworthy here, nor a link most people haven't seen. The discussion is fine, but the original post should bring some value to the table beyond saying "discuss THIS."
posted by rodii at 6:21 AM on May 15, 2002

I'd consider this a linkless post, for all intents and purposes.
posted by mcwetboy at 6:25 AM on May 15, 2002

Fraser: No, he doesn't. The site is not up for discussion. The software, and a specific thing it's doing, are. He links to a company front page, which is pretty universally considered a bad thing. Two front pages, in fact. There is no link to anything mentioning, even as a simple program specification, much less critical article, the new audio ads he's bringing up. Therefore, the post is based on pure hearsay.
So let's turn the Obvious Meter up a few notches:

Yesterday, Windows did [Annoying Thing], so I'm switching to Linux.
Last week, Adobe won [some stupid lawsuit], so I'm switching to Macromedia products.
Note that the important thing, is not what has the link. Let's have a day of posts just like this.

What I'm questioning is whether the post is valid, given that there is "no" link(a company's own front page is not the place to support your criticisms of them.) Considering what I've heard of Kazaa in recent months, I'm sure it really did spit an audio ad at him. If so, I do believe it's worth discussing. But, the post is lacking any link to any mention of any sort to what he is talking about.
In my understanding, the point of MeFi is the link, which then might lead to a discussion.
In that order.
Sometimes a post like this gets saved by someone finding source material. Generally not. though. And yes, I looked.

Take another look at the thread. There's really nothing going on there, other than a bunch of people making a quick comment as to what their fileshare program of choice is. Spicy. There is nothing to discuss. And is anyone else curious that there hasn't there been a "Me, too" yet?

----
In regards to posting for its own sake, please do have a look at my posting history. I brought it here because I consider the post bad, and this is where these things get discussed. I do think the topic is fine(in fact, I've had web sites pull this audio stunt), and had hoped this thread existing might motivate someone to find a supporting link. As it currently stands, I still find the thread tossable.
posted by Su at 8:21 AM on May 15, 2002

I sort of agree, but then he links to sites that I have never heard of, highlighting a problem that would appear not to be linkable to anything.

I appreciate there may be a fine line here.
posted by Frasermoo at 8:22 AM on May 15, 2002

There isn't any sort of fine line. If the subject for discussion isn't linkable, it doesn't belong on MetaFilter. I think there's ample precedent for this position.
posted by jjg at 8:59 AM on May 15, 2002

ok. i agree the linking was not good, but a good post can be defined as might warrant discussion from others - which it appears to have done. I'm sorry it wasn't 'Spicy' - ;o)

posted by Frasermoo at 9:11 AM on May 15, 2002

Frasermoo, the full quote of that line is "AND it might warrant discussion from others" which, as I interpret it, means that the other two conditions [interesting link, people haven't seen it before] have to also be met. Boolean operators are a bitch, but they're ours to live with. I agree, it was a linkless post. Tracking down a Google Groups or some bbsforum link to people ranting about this same problem would have been a niftier way to introduce the same bit of information which was in itself, interesting.
posted by jessamyn at 10:33 AM on May 15, 2002

Su Su Su, i admire the amount of mileage you've got out of the post, and I'm glad you've spent so much time over it (what an irony, you spending so much time over such a non-informative post...). But please, donate to charity, help a old person, do a good deed or something. There are far more important things to worry about than pointing this out...
posted by wibbler at 3:28 PM on May 16, 2002

Oh, Jesus, Wibbler.
That little tactic didn't work for Joe Clark. It didn't work on me in high school, either. Um...so nyah!
If this thread is so unimportant, then why the hell are you here making a non-comment in it? Go help an old lady cross the street so she can make a donation, or something.

The post was suboptimal. Just eat it. Take a look at the guidelines and tell me you seriously think it was appropriate. This was not a personal thing. Make a better one next time. It's that simple.
posted by Su at 4:02 PM on May 16, 2002

Apologies, Su. I bow to your wisdom, and shall try to raise myself to your standards.
Forgive me.
posted by wibbler at 12:07 AM on May 17, 2002