Your post sucks

June 10, 2002 12:18 PM

I just thought your tired old thread wasn't good enough to comment in, or post relevant information. After all, everyone knows a thread is dead after 4 hours.

C'mon, this just seems inappropriate.
posted by mikhail to Etiquette/Policy at 12:18 PM (11 comments total)

I agree. There's no reason to create more clutter on the front page when Punkrockrat had already posted the link in another relevant discussion on the SAME day, just an hour before this link was posted on the front page.

Perhaps a little more vigilance is required of us as community members to keep the clutter off the front page? Double posting topics and taking links from inside threads to start new threads seems to have become a little more common lately.


posted by dejah420 at 12:43 PM on June 10, 2002

Over the past year, the Official Group Consensus^tm by which I of course mean my own personal, utterly subjective, and probably unimportant impression thereof seems to have gone from "All double-posts are bad" through "A double-post of something old enough that most of the current MeFi readership won't have seen it is acceptable" to "so long as it's a month or so old, okay, as long as it's interesting" (with a slight detour past "we're so sick of people complaining about double-posts that we'll put up with them just to avoid the bickering") all the way to "if it's not actually visible on the front page at the moment, it's fair game."

May this be the point at which the pendulum begins swinging the other way.
posted by ook at 1:26 PM on June 10, 2002

Come on, it is easy to see how kfury's double-up of punkrockrat's link could have been "buried" in the original thread. There were eighteen posts. Eighteen!

Rude, is all.
posted by Catch at 1:33 PM on June 10, 2002

Bad decision to repost this. But we'll get over it.
posted by rushmc at 2:19 PM on June 10, 2002

And, Kevin was a Yahoo employee. It's kind of a self-link. Burn him!
posted by anildash at 2:50 PM on June 10, 2002

amen.

*grabs matches and pitchfork*
posted by zpousman at 6:49 PM on June 10, 2002

Oh, c'mon. I didn't see the original link, and I found it interesting even if just to laugh at how lame this update was. And everyone knows that people who point out double-posts are kissing cousins to the people who "first post!" on slashdot and fark.
posted by GriffX at 8:40 PM on June 10, 2002

I was pointing it out not as a double post, but more that Kevin intentionally and figuratively pissed all over the original thread and got away with it. And to what end? Just to elicit the usual biting commentary about how crappy the new design is and how everyone could have done it better? This needed it's own thread? I'm sorry, but that all could have taken place in Irontom's original thread.

And GriffX, as far as kissing cousins are concerned, kiss my arse. =)
posted by mikhail at 9:23 PM on June 10, 2002

I think the relevant thing is that a Yahoo employee wanted to distract from a thread where nasty things were said about the "Leader" (mostly by me). Yahoo people hate it when old Yahoo people trash the New Paradigm. :)

Also, he got to put Yahoo's brand in front of thousands of people twice, and got who knows how many people to do free market research for his company by filling out that survey form on the link. So, nice work by a Yahoo employee...I'm sure there's a bonus in it for him. Brilliant viral marketing...brilliant.

And, yeah, he got away with it.
posted by dejah420 at 8:08 AM on June 11, 2002

It should have been pulled immediately. Double Posts suck and you know what? They suck even more when they're on purpose. How hard is it to scroll down a half a screen to check if it has been posted? How hard is it to check the archives?
posted by mkelley at 8:16 AM on June 11, 2002

Oh, please. I was joking. Kev's leaving Yahoo anyway, so I doubt there's a bonus, conspiracy theorists be damned.
posted by anildash at 10:11 AM on June 11, 2002