Why was my comment removed? March 25, 2013 7:07 AM   Subscribe

First time I've ever felt a need to visit MetaTalk - but, I made a comment on the MeFi Tarantino Penguin book cover thread that was removed and I'm confused about it. I feel that this design meme (current art dressed up with old school graphic design) is just a tired cliche at this point, so I made the simple comment, "Played out". That comment was removed, and yet, a subsequent comment which essentially makes the same point, "This is beginning to get old" remains untouched. I feel a bit stupid even caring about this, but why was my comment removed?
posted by davebush to MetaFilter-Related at 7:07 AM (28 comments total)

What did the mods say when you asked them?
posted by lazaruslong at 7:09 AM on March 25, 2013 [13 favorites]


Hi. I didn't remove it but it seemed to me to be a two word "this sucks" sort of comment early on in the thread which are the sorts of content-free comments we'll sometimes remove. Totally fine if you don't like a post or the content doesn't move you or whatever, but you're welcome to just flag and move on (no one flagged the post, a few people made comments implying they thought it sucked, however) or contribute something that is actually part of a discussion and not just "Well I don't like it."
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:12 AM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


"This is beginning to get old" was removed, too.
posted by gubo at 7:16 AM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


"This is beginning to get old" was removed, too.

For the sake of clarity: it hadn't been at the time this MeTa was posted. As of now there is still a comment quoting that comment in the thread.
posted by beryllium at 7:23 AM on March 25, 2013


For posts that are not actual doubles but really thin or rehashy, what's the appropriate way to flag them if you feel really, really inclined to do so? Just as "other"?
posted by 23 at 7:25 AM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Thanks for responding. I actually wasn't commenting on the quality of the artwork or the post itself for that matter - my comment was aimed at the concept, which I've seen so many times that it's now derivative and falling short of clever. I can understand how the brevity of my comment might have put it in a "this sucks" frame, but that wasn't my intent.
posted by davebush at 7:26 AM on March 25, 2013


I can understand how the brevity of my comment might have put it in a "this sucks" frame, but that wasn't my intent.

Cool -- you can totally recomment and just explain more what you were thinking, no big deal.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 7:31 AM on March 25, 2013 [10 favorites]


In your head, the comment may have been aimed at the concept, but when all you give anybody else to go on is two words, we can't tell. I imagine a substantive comment explaining why you think it's played out -- sort of like what you put in this post -- would stand.
posted by duien at 7:31 AM on March 25, 2013 [5 favorites]


I don't understand how the FPP was allowed in the first place--the posters are for sale, pretty clearly. I recall my Prattonia post where I was told not to link to the seller's etsy shop. What's the diff?
posted by Ideefixe at 8:18 AM on March 25, 2013


Thread: shat in.



^^ (see what I did there?)
posted by trunk muffins at 8:22 AM on March 25, 2013


I don't understand how the FPP was allowed in the first place--the posters are for sale, pretty clearly. I recall my Prattonia post where I was told not to link to the seller's etsy shop. What's the diff?

I don't recall the specifics of that, , but I think the difference is that linking to an Etsy store sends us down the "Does this person know the person with the Ets store and is this post just a pretext for linking to their store...?" and we'd have to check that out and it's usually better for a post that doesn't require a store link to not have one. But there's nothing really deleteworthy about linking to something for sale, it's just that they often don't make great posts and if they seem super Pepsi-blueish they may get deleted anyhow.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:35 AM on March 25, 2013


For posts that are not actual doubles but really thin or rehashy, what's the appropriate way to flag them if you feel really, really inclined to do so? Just as "other"?

Yep, that's fine.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:28 AM on March 25, 2013


the way i use flags, as if anyone asked -

when i feel like it's not a good post for metafilter, i flag as "breaks the guidelines" because making good posts is one of the guidelines.

for comments, i basically always flag as "derail" or "noise" unless there's something specifically sexist/racist/etc about it.
posted by nadawi at 10:02 AM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


Bollywood films as vintage Penguin book covers
US presidents as vintage Penguin book covers
the 11 best fruits as vintage Penguin book covers
municipal zoning codes as vintage Penguin book covers
recent Penguin book covers as vintage Penguin book covers
posted by threeants at 11:06 AM on March 25, 2013 [9 favorites]


I would click the hell out of any of those hypothetical links.
posted by Slap*Happy at 11:15 AM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]


my comment was aimed at the concept, which I've seen so many times that it's now derivative and falling short of clever.

You know what's also derivative and falling short of clever? Snarky comments presented with no explanation.
posted by futureisunwritten at 11:17 AM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


I thought it was Hitler.
posted by laconic skeuomorph at 11:59 AM on March 25, 2013 [3 favorites]


futureisunwritten - I sincerely thought "Played out" wouldn't require an explanation. It was my genuine (and succinct) observation.
posted by davebush at 1:30 PM on March 25, 2013


Brevity is the sole of lolwut.
posted by drlith at 1:37 PM on March 25, 2013 [4 favorites]


my comment was aimed at the concept, which I've seen so many times that it's now derivative and falling short of clever.

You know what's also derivative and falling short of clever? Snarky comments presented with no explanation.


I think if you've spent any time on MeFi or on the Internet you've seen this style of design in posters, book covers, Photoshop contests, and a million other places. So no further explanation needed.
posted by Charlemagne In Sweatpants at 3:03 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


i don't think the "just explain more" argument holds much water, because it discourages making a point with only as much simplicity as necessary, the idea of "economy of words". i have a comment where i said "thin post" yet it remains on the blue to this day.
posted by cupcake1337 at 10:58 PM on March 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


It not getting deleted doesn't make it a particularly good comment, though; "thin post" is in fact just about contentless and didn't make that thread any better, even if people had the good sense to just step around it and carry on with the discussion.

Economy of words is fine as far as that goes—I'm all for concision in the service of good communication—but shorter is not inherently better and criticism is generally clearer and more interesting when it's substantiated a bit than when it's littered in abortive spurts in the middle of conversations.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:09 PM on March 25, 2013 [2 favorites]


Try "first post" instead. That should end well...
posted by sodium lights the horizon at 12:53 AM on March 26, 2013




Possibly worth pointing out that "played out" isn't really a helpful criticism, inasmuch as it either (a) assumes that everyone is on the same page as you and that there aren't a lot of people for whom this is new; or (b) is merely intended to announce that this is no longer cool, which is also not helpful.

On the other hand, if the issue is that similar or nearly identical things are being posted to Metafilter way too often, that's something else entirely and probably should just be reported to the mods.

While I had the identical reaction ("played out") when I saw this artwork linked elsewhere, as I'm sure many do who have seen a lot of these now, and can relate to the urge to broadcast this sentiment, I feel that to do so would only contribute equally tiresome noise and nothing remotely useful to anyone. And if I were to impulsively post a comment like that (which I have certainly done in the past), I'd actually be kind of grateful if it were quietly deleted.
posted by El Sabor Asiatico at 12:47 PM on March 26, 2013


It is my perception that "filtering out abuse" has crept over toward "filtering out criticism." There is a censorious vibe rising on this site.
posted by yclipse at 8:04 PM on March 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


There is a censorious vibe rising on this site.

As the site has grown larger, the number of people who think it's okay to show up in threads with early threadcrapping or lulzy "I didn't click the links but here is my joke about the words I did read" comments has increased. We have been painfully clear that it's fine to be critical, but if all your criticism amounts to is a tl;dr comment, we'd like you to try harder. This is because early threadcrapping sets a tone for people to just riff off of the early jokes/snark and then no one engages with the topic at all. We've seen this happen in the past, and it started to happen a lot. People complained, we decided to see if there was something we could do about that.

Sometimes threads turn into that, which is fine. Sometimes threads start out that way because the content is jokey or funny or snarky. That is also fine. Derailing a post someone put some effort into because you think you're someplace else is ungreat. We can't make you care about the place, but we can make the results of your actions not make the place worse for other people.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:16 AM on March 27, 2013


davebush, fair enough. And man, the tone of my comment yesterday was really bitchy. Sorry about that. Canadian high five?
posted by futureisunwritten at 11:43 AM on March 27, 2013


« Older Plenty of good grazing come Spring and Autumn   |   Get thee behind me FPP! Newer »

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