Bad article, bad link, bad post. May 20, 2002 6:20 AM   Subscribe

Woo-hoo! A new thread points to Google! Even better, the poster forgot the "http:/ /" part, and the site doesn't even reflect his point!

My question is this: was it appropriate for me to comment on the thread, ask a pertinent question, provide a couple relevant links, and then immediately come here and slag the thread?
posted by gohlkus to Etiquette/Policy at 6:20 AM (11 comments total)

of course, my link was ignored in the following post.... sigh.
posted by gohlkus at 6:22 AM on May 20, 2002

Seems to me that the post was fine. The poster was directly commenting on a new "holiday" Google logo. Although the botched url is probably grounds for a good thrashing...
posted by bshort at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2002

google-filter perhaps? if we have an unspoken rule about not posting "site-foo has had a redesign" stories, can't we get a similar unspoken rule against the endless supply of Google posts?
posted by macadamiaranch at 7:45 AM on May 20, 2002

endless supply of Google posts

What's the average now? About three Google posts a day?
posted by eyeballkid at 8:10 AM on May 20, 2002

To answer your questions: Yes, it was quite appropriate.This is the forum where the great minds gather to discuss the complexities and mechanisms of this finest of all institutions, electronicbolshevism, where it's one person/one post, from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs, yada yada...and where at the end of the day the Chairman may send an attaboy or the death squad.
posted by Mack Twain at 11:07 AM on May 20, 2002

I don't get posted to MeTa to call out the thread, or ask a question, or both? Either way, why? The post met the loose guidelines (hell, if we allow for 3-5 Star Wars posts, an X-Files post that has no depth, etc. etc. etc., what's the problem with this?).

The poster screwed up the link and we need a MeTa thread? Perhaps we're overreacting, or have an itchy trigger finger...

if we have an unspoken rule about not posting "site-foo has had a redesign" stories, can't we get a similar unspoken rule against the endless supply of Google posts?

That rule has probably existed for a very long time, but like most unspoken rules around here, it goes ignored by a few posters.

posted by BlueTrain at 12:11 PM on May 20, 2002

Gohlkus: I'd say you're fine for posting here after making an attempt to improve it. It's perfectly common for someone to provide supplementary links to even a good thread, so there's no reason people wouldn't read it the same way in this case. The call-out still needs to be made. Besides, we have to show that this doesn't happen every day, right? Especially if you add in the nihilist un-thread from yesterday.

I think a more important issue with this particular post is that it's inherently link rot. Site redesigns at least last a few months or so. Google's logo mods are up for about a week. Take the time to try and find something that will stick around. Although, if that had happened, I wonder if the post would have been made. It seems to me that the explanatory page is pretty clear on the matter.
posted by Su at 12:52 PM on May 20, 2002

By gar it's bin a while since we had us a good ol' fashioned hangin' rounn' these parts...
posted by Spoon at 2:01 PM on May 20, 2002

I suggest that those who do not find posts interesting move on.

The post was not great, but some people were trying to start a discussion about things like logos and how Google break the rules of "traditional" marketing, etc.

Unless the link is a dp or complete rubbish move on and comment on something in which you are interested.
posted by johnny novak at 1:05 AM on May 21, 2002

I suggest that those who take issue with a comment re-read said comment and make sure it actually says what they think it does. Calling a post "uninteresting" is not the same thing as questioning the post's quality/appropriateness. This is the second time you've made an assumption like this in regards to the thread, Johnny. The complaint re: posting about Google is pretty valid, but the real issue Gohlkus was bringing up was with the link itself, which pointed at a front page(effectively a null link), and not the topic of the post.

You'll note that he was the first person to actually try and give the thread a reason to live. Really, Pracowity gave the CafePress link, but it wasn't clear to me at the time that he had got there from the Google Dilbert page.
posted by Su at 2:17 AM on May 21, 2002

Minor point: when I posted, the cartoon hadn't yet gone up on the US site.

From what I can tell, all the posts and comments were just fine, then. Thanks.
posted by gohlkus at 5:57 AM on May 21, 2002

« Older If MeFites could be more like Japanese...   |   Trolling: secret agreement, or an excuse to beat a... Newer »

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