is self-policing the best way? July 31, 2002 8:19 AM Subscribe
What is the best way to establish and enforce community standards on MetaFilter/MetaTalk?
I have to wonder do members become negative and sniping because that is the culture of MeFi, or does MeFi attract people who are negative and sniping thus creating a self-feeding negative cycle?
Its not an either/or, the answer is both things are true- I'm sure negative, snipey people are attracted to MetaFilter, and I'm sure at the same time, MeFi has turned some of the positive, constructive people into jaded, semi-constructive people and eventually negative, snipey people. Where's that old thing someon did about the lifespan of a MetaFilter user? (It had four stages I believe)
If public shame is not enough (I have yet to see the evidence that it is insufficient, except in the case of a few incorrigibles), there is Matt's administrative power, which you say is strained, and to use it he has to keep up with the maddening speed of the site. Maybe there needs to be some built-in community control. SportsFilter has several administrators. Would Matt be unwilling to share power a little bit with some other people, to lighten the load but increase the effectiveness of administrative discipline? Would this even be possible?
Would it be better for a few altruistic users to set up a server MeFi style but call it something else, as a way to blow off steam? Could Matt perhaps point, say, chatty.metafilter.com to somebody else's server, so it doesn't waste resources? Also, it would be open only to existing MetaFilter users.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:15 AM on July 31, 2002
Its not an either/or, the answer is both things are true- I'm sure negative, snipey people are attracted to MetaFilter, and I'm sure at the same time, MeFi has turned some of the positive, constructive people into jaded, semi-constructive people and eventually negative, snipey people. Where's that old thing someon did about the lifespan of a MetaFilter user? (It had four stages I believe)
If public shame is not enough (I have yet to see the evidence that it is insufficient, except in the case of a few incorrigibles), there is Matt's administrative power, which you say is strained, and to use it he has to keep up with the maddening speed of the site. Maybe there needs to be some built-in community control. SportsFilter has several administrators. Would Matt be unwilling to share power a little bit with some other people, to lighten the load but increase the effectiveness of administrative discipline? Would this even be possible?
Would it be better for a few altruistic users to set up a server MeFi style but call it something else, as a way to blow off steam? Could Matt perhaps point, say, chatty.metafilter.com to somebody else's server, so it doesn't waste resources? Also, it would be open only to existing MetaFilter users.
posted by insomnyuk at 9:15 AM on July 31, 2002
Administrative power for other users: Matt's answered this so many times, he should set up a macro. I'm not even going to bother rehashing my understanding of it.
External ChattyFilter: Eh. As for it being open only to existing users, that would mean Matt would have to give that place's admin(s) a copy of the user database. Yah, right.
Or the db could be mirrored periodically: Annoying and very inefficient.
Or he'd have to set up some way to allow external access to it, along with new fields for ChattyFilter-only administrative purposes(ie: banning): More work for Matt. Always a bad thing.
posted by Su at 9:59 AM on July 31, 2002
External ChattyFilter: Eh. As for it being open only to existing users, that would mean Matt would have to give that place's admin(s) a copy of the user database. Yah, right.
Or the db could be mirrored periodically: Annoying and very inefficient.
Or he'd have to set up some way to allow external access to it, along with new fields for ChattyFilter-only administrative purposes(ie: banning): More work for Matt. Always a bad thing.
posted by Su at 9:59 AM on July 31, 2002
Well clearly then it's a no-win situation Su, because doing more of the same is leading to 'more work' and so is doing anything else, short of ditching the 'filter.
posted by insomnyuk at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 10:01 AM on July 31, 2002
Hrm. I don't recall typing the no-win part.
I will, however, admit to not having a solution for you.
Also, refer.
posted by Su at 10:13 AM on July 31, 2002
I will, however, admit to not having a solution for you.
Also, refer.
posted by Su at 10:13 AM on July 31, 2002
A good starting point would be for *everyone* to read Matts' post today regarding this subject.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 10:21 AM on July 31, 2002
MetaFilter works on a system of public shaming
...and public praising, no? When I started reading comments, I paid at least as much attention to what folks said they liked about a post as I paid to what they disliked.
posted by mediareport at 11:19 AM on July 31, 2002
...and public praising, no? When I started reading comments, I paid at least as much attention to what folks said they liked about a post as I paid to what they disliked.
posted by mediareport at 11:19 AM on July 31, 2002
There are things that could be done to make the atmosphere conform more fully to something I personally would construe as "better" (your mileage may vary), but I doubt they'll be put into practice here (as supporting evidence I cite that one thread I started not terribly long ago but will refrain from linking to).
So for any of us who want something materially different, we have to go start our own game elsewhere. This is Matt's ball, Matt's playing court, Matt's rules.
There's a lot that's good here, though. (meaning: lots of good ideas worth stealing). And lots of disgruntled former and current users who might be interested in something different.
posted by beth at 11:42 AM on July 31, 2002
So for any of us who want something materially different, we have to go start our own game elsewhere. This is Matt's ball, Matt's playing court, Matt's rules.
There's a lot that's good here, though. (meaning: lots of good ideas worth stealing). And lots of disgruntled former and current users who might be interested in something different.
posted by beth at 11:42 AM on July 31, 2002
This is Matt's ball, Matt's playing court, Matt's rules.
You keep pointing that out, Beth, and while it's clearly true, you also keep *failing* to point out that what you call "Matt's playing court" is specifically set up to allow thousands of strangers a chance to interact through an incredibly broad range of discussion and thought. The achievement and generosity are amazing.
There are things that could be done to make the atmosphere conform more fully to something I personally would construe as "better"
Then start doing them, dammit. If you can't think of things to do as a MeFi member (not an administrator, which strikes me as a completely unnecessary move) to make the atmosphere "better," then all you're doing is complaining. Like MeFi needs more of that.
How do we "enforce" community standards? Lead by example, dammit. Praise good posts. Call out insults. Try to be fair and nice and apologize when you fail. Jeebus, this isn't rocket science here. What Matt has set up gives us all incredible power to affect the tenor of this site. Use it and quit moaning already.
posted by mediareport at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2002
You keep pointing that out, Beth, and while it's clearly true, you also keep *failing* to point out that what you call "Matt's playing court" is specifically set up to allow thousands of strangers a chance to interact through an incredibly broad range of discussion and thought. The achievement and generosity are amazing.
There are things that could be done to make the atmosphere conform more fully to something I personally would construe as "better"
Then start doing them, dammit. If you can't think of things to do as a MeFi member (not an administrator, which strikes me as a completely unnecessary move) to make the atmosphere "better," then all you're doing is complaining. Like MeFi needs more of that.
How do we "enforce" community standards? Lead by example, dammit. Praise good posts. Call out insults. Try to be fair and nice and apologize when you fail. Jeebus, this isn't rocket science here. What Matt has set up gives us all incredible power to affect the tenor of this site. Use it and quit moaning already.
posted by mediareport at 1:02 PM on July 31, 2002
Praise good posts. Call out insults.
Could we perhaps clarify this? It seems like everybody is ready to jump down everybody's throat over anything at the moment, and it's making for divisive little meta-flamefests in the threads. Wouldn't we be better off with everybody who has a problem with someone else's post taking it to MeTa rather than "calling them out" inline?
posted by hob at 1:12 PM on July 31, 2002
Could we perhaps clarify this? It seems like everybody is ready to jump down everybody's throat over anything at the moment, and it's making for divisive little meta-flamefests in the threads. Wouldn't we be better off with everybody who has a problem with someone else's post taking it to MeTa rather than "calling them out" inline?
posted by hob at 1:12 PM on July 31, 2002
Wouldn't we be better off with everybody who has a problem with someone else's post taking it to MeTa rather than "calling them out" inline?
I see your point, and do understand the need to take most of the meta discussion to MeTa, since it can quickly derail threads. I just think the line may need to be a teensy bit blurrier. The one problem I see with immediately taking any discussion of etiquette or appropriateness to MeTa is that it undermines the ability to use the more widely read MeFi as an avenue to offer guidance to members who seem to be off-track (and who aren't always newbies). Does that make sense?
posted by mediareport at 1:24 PM on July 31, 2002
I see your point, and do understand the need to take most of the meta discussion to MeTa, since it can quickly derail threads. I just think the line may need to be a teensy bit blurrier. The one problem I see with immediately taking any discussion of etiquette or appropriateness to MeTa is that it undermines the ability to use the more widely read MeFi as an avenue to offer guidance to members who seem to be off-track (and who aren't always newbies). Does that make sense?
posted by mediareport at 1:24 PM on July 31, 2002
and public praising, no?
No, I don't think so. At least I don't see it very often. It's an interesting idea. Maybe that is a direction the community should try to go.
Still, once one or two people chime in with a "great post" comment, I'd certainly be disinclined to add my "me too" to the mix. I don't know about other people, but I don't generally post a comment unless I think I have something new to add or where there is significant disagreement on both sides of an issue, and I want to weigh in with my vote. For some reason, "hey, great post" doesn't seem to fall within those reasons I may contribute a comment parameters.
I think most times, people look at the number of comments as an indicator of how the community feels about a post. Lots of comments must mean good thread, so we get people who are trying to construct posts that will lead to a lot of comments. We've hashed this out before, but even knowing that there is generally an inverse relationship between the number of comments and the quality of the post/thread, I still find myself thinking wow, 87 comments. I wonder what's going on in here. Or, "Oh, only 3 comments. That's too bad. It was a great post too".
With respect to the question should somebody be called out for bad behavior within the thread or on MeTa, I've rarely seen somebody called out within the thread where people don't get extremely defensive about it. Sometimes a double post will get a "sorry, my bad", but this post is shit only leads to petty bickering and thread derailment. And, with the trolls or attention seekers that are just looking for high comment counts, those types of thread can certainly generate a high comment count, so calling them out is ultimately self-defeating in my opinion.
Maybe rather than public shaming, public shunning is the answer. I don't think we're going to get a moderation system. There's all kinds of reasons for this, and most of them I agree with. But, what about a make this thread go a way link? Part of my problem is that the front page gets so cluttered with threads I'm not interested in, it gets hard to find the ones that I am. If I could click a link and hide that thread for my user, I would be thrilled. If the post kept a running tally of the number of times a post has been hidden, then you could tell the poster through the number of times a post has been hidden whether the community liked it or not. So, my post got 10 comments, but it was hidden 350 times. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't post threads like that in the future.
The community is enabled to say hey this sucks, but it leaves the thread free from mindless snipes and yawns. It also leaves MetaTalk less cluttered so that it can focus on broader, generalized issues instead of specific this one behavior was wrong types of issues.
posted by willnot at 1:56 PM on July 31, 2002
No, I don't think so. At least I don't see it very often. It's an interesting idea. Maybe that is a direction the community should try to go.
Still, once one or two people chime in with a "great post" comment, I'd certainly be disinclined to add my "me too" to the mix. I don't know about other people, but I don't generally post a comment unless I think I have something new to add or where there is significant disagreement on both sides of an issue, and I want to weigh in with my vote. For some reason, "hey, great post" doesn't seem to fall within those reasons I may contribute a comment parameters.
I think most times, people look at the number of comments as an indicator of how the community feels about a post. Lots of comments must mean good thread, so we get people who are trying to construct posts that will lead to a lot of comments. We've hashed this out before, but even knowing that there is generally an inverse relationship between the number of comments and the quality of the post/thread, I still find myself thinking wow, 87 comments. I wonder what's going on in here. Or, "Oh, only 3 comments. That's too bad. It was a great post too".
With respect to the question should somebody be called out for bad behavior within the thread or on MeTa, I've rarely seen somebody called out within the thread where people don't get extremely defensive about it. Sometimes a double post will get a "sorry, my bad", but this post is shit only leads to petty bickering and thread derailment. And, with the trolls or attention seekers that are just looking for high comment counts, those types of thread can certainly generate a high comment count, so calling them out is ultimately self-defeating in my opinion.
Maybe rather than public shaming, public shunning is the answer. I don't think we're going to get a moderation system. There's all kinds of reasons for this, and most of them I agree with. But, what about a make this thread go a way link? Part of my problem is that the front page gets so cluttered with threads I'm not interested in, it gets hard to find the ones that I am. If I could click a link and hide that thread for my user, I would be thrilled. If the post kept a running tally of the number of times a post has been hidden, then you could tell the poster through the number of times a post has been hidden whether the community liked it or not. So, my post got 10 comments, but it was hidden 350 times. Hmm, maybe I shouldn't post threads like that in the future.
The community is enabled to say hey this sucks, but it leaves the thread free from mindless snipes and yawns. It also leaves MetaTalk less cluttered so that it can focus on broader, generalized issues instead of specific this one behavior was wrong types of issues.
posted by willnot at 1:56 PM on July 31, 2002
I really like your idea willnot. It's not moderation, quite. Just a nudge. Perhaps the number of times it was hidden should only be available to the thread poster and Matt though, to avoid pile-ons. Also, it should be possible to indicate one likes a thread without commenting. The positive numbers probably could be public. I don't know how much work this would take, or how it would affect the server. Front page is spun out individually anyway, and the user pages are probably looked at infrequently.
posted by walrus at 2:09 PM on July 31, 2002
posted by walrus at 2:09 PM on July 31, 2002
What is the best way to establish and enforce community standards on MetaFilter/MetaTalk?
Two words: spanking machine.
posted by kirkaracha at 6:40 PM on July 31, 2002
whos not for the cackle of small arms fire? (Gets my attention)
I'm not hip on snakes.
whats really funny, had a job offer, a nautical job. I'm in the market for a cutlass.
'who seem to be off-track'
what does that mean? In the VA-nacular i know, but what is 'Off-track' within in MeFi? Are we talking toy trains or them cool 70's slot cars i know alot of you all had. are we all chasing electric bunnies here? two people have power on MeFi
-ones self
-matt
...a nautical job...really. (I'd get a hat:)
posted by clavdivs at 7:17 PM on July 31, 2002
I'm not hip on snakes.
whats really funny, had a job offer, a nautical job. I'm in the market for a cutlass.
'who seem to be off-track'
what does that mean? In the VA-nacular i know, but what is 'Off-track' within in MeFi? Are we talking toy trains or them cool 70's slot cars i know alot of you all had. are we all chasing electric bunnies here? two people have power on MeFi
-ones self
-matt
...a nautical job...really. (I'd get a hat:)
posted by clavdivs at 7:17 PM on July 31, 2002
"I'm in the market for a cutlass."
Found. Do I get a finder's commission?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:26 PM on July 31, 2002
Found. Do I get a finder's commission?
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:26 PM on July 31, 2002
Cutlass? I prefered the Scimitar myself Clavdivs.
posted by bittennails at 8:36 AM on August 1, 2002
posted by bittennails at 8:36 AM on August 1, 2002
'who seem to be off-track'
what does that mean? In the VA-nacular i know, but what is 'Off-track' within in MeFi?
Well, I was actually thinking of the relatively gentle way raaka poked at the number of links I included in this post. It made me think (even if my last comment about it was kind of snarky) and it didn't involve MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 4:17 PM on August 1, 2002
what does that mean? In the VA-nacular i know, but what is 'Off-track' within in MeFi?
Well, I was actually thinking of the relatively gentle way raaka poked at the number of links I included in this post. It made me think (even if my last comment about it was kind of snarky) and it didn't involve MeTa.
posted by mediareport at 4:17 PM on August 1, 2002
Then start doing them, dammit.
But, but... I'm like, lazy and stuff.
Too busy plotting world domination. And taking naps. And eating Oreos.
And what fun would it be if I didn't have anything to complain about anymore?
posted by beth at 9:32 PM on August 1, 2002
But, but... I'm like, lazy and stuff.
Too busy plotting world domination. And taking naps. And eating Oreos.
And what fun would it be if I didn't have anything to complain about anymore?
posted by beth at 9:32 PM on August 1, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Also, public shaming falls flat on its face when you run across members who are shameless, or so desperate for attention that even negative attention is embraced and loved. Is there anything short of administrative action from an already overworked/stressed Matt that can curtail this type of members errant activities?
Public shaming also seems to have the effect of turning a lot of people off to MetaFilter. Some people both on and off MeFi seem to get the impression that the community is a bunch of glum, bitter whiners who are on the edge of their seats waiting to pounce on people. Being immersed in the community like I am, I don't see that as being as pervasive an attitude as some people seem to see, but I do recognize that those tendencies to exist and frequently bloom out of control.
I have to wonder do members become negative and sniping because that is the culture of MeFi, or does MeFi attract people who are negative and sniping thus creating a self-feeding negative cycle?
Laid against all of this are the members who want to stretch the culture and standards of MeFi. Like a bad relationship, they are initially attracted to some subdominant element of the personality and immediately want to change MeFi to emphasize that element. They want it to be more chatty, or more focused on discussions, or more focused on links, or whatever your vision of the perfect MeFi balance is. Each member has that vision. Each member is working with or against all of the other members to bring that vision about. The standard answer has been to defer to Matt. It is his site. But Matt tends to take a hands off approach as much as possible, and who can blame him. And, if members have the attitude that whatever Matt doesn't address is approved, or when members have the attitude that Matt is but one opinion in a community of opinions, then how do you reconcile positions that are directly in conflict with each other?
So, I ask you. Is there a better way?
posted by willnot at 8:19 AM on July 31, 2002