NY TimesFilter? August 17, 2002 1:09 PM Subscribe
NY TimesFilter? Is it just me or are we getting way too many single link NY Times editorial posts? [and other papers too - the Times is just more obvious to me]
Amen.
The NYTimes has the benefit as a news company to research and report (generally with depth and incision) on all sorts of cool things. Many people already use the NYT as a web-resource, but it's not the end-all-be-all. It's a great jumping off point for posts as srboisvert suggests.
I think the NPR model is a good one -- hear a good story in the morning on the way to work, research it instead of working in the morning, post interesting web resources instead of working in the afternoon...
We're a distributed model of research, reflection, and diversion here at metafilter. We don't need the NYT to do it all for us.
posted by zpousman at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2002
The NYTimes has the benefit as a news company to research and report (generally with depth and incision) on all sorts of cool things. Many people already use the NYT as a web-resource, but it's not the end-all-be-all. It's a great jumping off point for posts as srboisvert suggests.
I think the NPR model is a good one -- hear a good story in the morning on the way to work, research it instead of working in the morning, post interesting web resources instead of working in the afternoon...
We're a distributed model of research, reflection, and diversion here at metafilter. We don't need the NYT to do it all for us.
posted by zpousman at 1:24 PM on August 17, 2002
...especially since, lately, they seem to do it wrong. Our research is much more reliable these days.
posted by evanizer at 1:49 PM on August 17, 2002
posted by evanizer at 1:49 PM on August 17, 2002
I think this is symptomatic of the decrease of venues providing free content on the web and will likely only get (much, much) worse, as more sites disappear, and the competetive disadvantange of not offering free content essentially reaches nil. That's when you'll see most of the resources the blogging community uses regularly (NYTimes, BBC, The Register spring to mind) start charging for access. The question, I think, is will that trumpet a new beginning for independent original - not just personal - content on the web, or will the absence of advertising dollars make it too costly to have a site which receives the combined traffic a fark or metafilterlink can bring?
posted by Sinner at 3:27 PM on August 17, 2002
posted by Sinner at 3:27 PM on August 17, 2002
I think this is symptomatic of the decrease of venues providing free content on the web
Have you really seen a noticeable decrease in those venues in, say, the last 8 months? There will always be good, independent free content on the Web; that seems like a no-brainer. The medium is just too powerful a tool for committed folks *not* to use it that way.
I think the real problem (for those of us bored with the significant percentage of one-link news posts at MeFi) is the people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to find a worthwhile link to some relevant context before rushing to post to the front page. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some great single-link posts to in-depth articles or analysis in the mainstream press, but they're the exception.
Is there anything approaching a community consensus on encouraging folks to spend some time finding interesting additional links for daily news stories? (Note the positive framing.) One plus to that approach is that even if a story's appeared all over blogdom, the MeFi way of dealing with it would be significantly more interesting.
posted by mediareport at 3:53 PM on August 17, 2002
Have you really seen a noticeable decrease in those venues in, say, the last 8 months? There will always be good, independent free content on the Web; that seems like a no-brainer. The medium is just too powerful a tool for committed folks *not* to use it that way.
I think the real problem (for those of us bored with the significant percentage of one-link news posts at MeFi) is the people who can't be bothered to take five minutes to find a worthwhile link to some relevant context before rushing to post to the front page. Don't get me wrong, I've seen some great single-link posts to in-depth articles or analysis in the mainstream press, but they're the exception.
Is there anything approaching a community consensus on encouraging folks to spend some time finding interesting additional links for daily news stories? (Note the positive framing.) One plus to that approach is that even if a story's appeared all over blogdom, the MeFi way of dealing with it would be significantly more interesting.
posted by mediareport at 3:53 PM on August 17, 2002
My first instinct is usually to skip NYT posts. *shrug* If people wanna post 'em that's fine. I don't waste my time. =) I'm glad people have taken to marking NYT posts though, so I know when they come by and I don't have to be disappointed when I click on it.
posted by ZachsMind at 4:48 PM on August 17, 2002
posted by ZachsMind at 4:48 PM on August 17, 2002
Some people want discussion. Some people want links. The ones that want discussion find an interesting story on one of the sites they read, and rush to post it on MeFi. Since a lot of people read the NYT, a lot of links come from there.
I don't think there's any way to stop it or even slow it. Others have tried before and resoundingly failed. I'm more concerned about the recent spate of PR type stories getting posted here. Yes, people will talk about the things that interest them, and product announcements clearly fit that bill. It just seems so contrary to the site's Don't Promote Stuff vibe though. I'm amazed when a thread like that In-n-Out story survives.
posted by willnot at 4:52 PM on August 17, 2002
I don't think there's any way to stop it or even slow it. Others have tried before and resoundingly failed. I'm more concerned about the recent spate of PR type stories getting posted here. Yes, people will talk about the things that interest them, and product announcements clearly fit that bill. It just seems so contrary to the site's Don't Promote Stuff vibe though. I'm amazed when a thread like that In-n-Out story survives.
posted by willnot at 4:52 PM on August 17, 2002
Since a lot of people read the NYT, a lot of links come from there.
But at the same time, a lot of people don't read it, or not all of it, or maybe just not the particular section(s) you do. Someone has previously stated appreciation for NYT posts because those people sometimes find things s/he overlooked.
There is a very important distinction to be drawn between questioning content or topics for links, and questioning the venues the links come from, or their quality.
If you can show that the editorials that are getting linked are crap, then that's one thing. Sure, it would be nice if there were supporting links and what not, but it's not always going to happen. It's a matter of how much work people put into their links. If you don't like it, why don't you go out and find a supplemental one and add it to the comments?
posted by Su at 5:04 PM on August 17, 2002
But at the same time, a lot of people don't read it, or not all of it, or maybe just not the particular section(s) you do. Someone has previously stated appreciation for NYT posts because those people sometimes find things s/he overlooked.
There is a very important distinction to be drawn between questioning content or topics for links, and questioning the venues the links come from, or their quality.
If you can show that the editorials that are getting linked are crap, then that's one thing. Sure, it would be nice if there were supporting links and what not, but it's not always going to happen. It's a matter of how much work people put into their links. If you don't like it, why don't you go out and find a supplemental one and add it to the comments?
posted by Su at 5:04 PM on August 17, 2002
Swift demonstrates subtle irony.
I only ignore links if they are from NYT and written by Paul Krugman. Generally, I give the grey lady the benefit of the doubt, although this may be a mistake.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:06 PM on August 17, 2002
I only ignore links if they are from NYT and written by Paul Krugman. Generally, I give the grey lady the benefit of the doubt, although this may be a mistake.
posted by insomnyuk at 5:06 PM on August 17, 2002
"I'm more concerned about the recent spate of PR type stories getting posted here. Yes, people will talk about the things that interest them, and product announcements clearly fit that bill. It just seems so contrary to the site's Don't Promote Stuff vibe though..."
I got a press release from Aeone in email a couple days ago. Hadn't heard from her mailing list in ages and now she's got a new CD. Almost posted a FPP about it cuz I was so excited but then thought better of it cuz I figured I'd get attacked for posting a press release about a CD. It's not like I'm her agent or anything, but people in MeFi seem to look for reasons to diss a thread.
Live & let live.. and duck & cover. My motto for the moment. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 5:29 PM on August 17, 2002
I got a press release from Aeone in email a couple days ago. Hadn't heard from her mailing list in ages and now she's got a new CD. Almost posted a FPP about it cuz I was so excited but then thought better of it cuz I figured I'd get attacked for posting a press release about a CD. It's not like I'm her agent or anything, but people in MeFi seem to look for reasons to diss a thread.
Live & let live.. and duck & cover. My motto for the moment. =)
posted by ZachsMind at 5:29 PM on August 17, 2002
I think it's interesting that the Times automatically asks for a registration/password when I click links from here, but if I hit it from my, er, bookmarks list it doesn't; they're onto us, I think.
I probably see about half the Times links before they turn up here. Frankly, it's the same (or more) for Slate, Salon, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post. I bet a lot of us are that way; for me, it's partly a narrowing of available sites, and partly a narrowing of interests.
Incidentally, I think the best NY Times watch is maintained by Mickey Kaus, whose posts I watch on Slate. I think the only Times articles that are viewed critically on Metafilter are the ones that mention it by name.
posted by coelecanth at 10:26 PM on August 17, 2002
I probably see about half the Times links before they turn up here. Frankly, it's the same (or more) for Slate, Salon, CNN, NY Times, Washington Post. I bet a lot of us are that way; for me, it's partly a narrowing of available sites, and partly a narrowing of interests.
Incidentally, I think the best NY Times watch is maintained by Mickey Kaus, whose posts I watch on Slate. I think the only Times articles that are viewed critically on Metafilter are the ones that mention it by name.
posted by coelecanth at 10:26 PM on August 17, 2002
coelacanth, if you have a cookie set, it shouldn't ask you for a password regardless. What subdomain do you have bookmarked? It could be one that they let through for partners, depending on abuse.
I would only link to the NYT if their take were particularly interesting or noteworthy. The big problem is the password; for many mere "news" stories, Yahoo or Reuters or Nando would be a better choice for the primary link (the NYT link may be supplied as an alternative for those who are signed up). It's a lot easier for one person to spend a couple of minutes googling before posting than it is for 5000 people to have to do so individually to find an accessible site. It's one subset of a larger problem of people doing too little with the post they're giving to the community.
I should note that I do have a NYT password and use it. But I recognize the barrier for those who don't. They shouldn't be a bar to the occasional NYT post, but if we become NYTfilter it will become one regardless.
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2002
I would only link to the NYT if their take were particularly interesting or noteworthy. The big problem is the password; for many mere "news" stories, Yahoo or Reuters or Nando would be a better choice for the primary link (the NYT link may be supplied as an alternative for those who are signed up). It's a lot easier for one person to spend a couple of minutes googling before posting than it is for 5000 people to have to do so individually to find an accessible site. It's one subset of a larger problem of people doing too little with the post they're giving to the community.
I should note that I do have a NYT password and use it. But I recognize the barrier for those who don't. They shouldn't be a bar to the occasional NYT post, but if we become NYTfilter it will become one regardless.
posted by dhartung at 10:56 PM on August 17, 2002
I know how it ought to be, but it ain't that way. I've got my own registration set in a cookie. I can take the address out of an HREF tag, open a new browser, paste in the address and go to it without problem; but if I go follow the link out of metafilter or metatalk, it takes me to the registration page. I get this behavior in IE and Opera. I've been curious to see if anyone else gets that.
posted by coelecanth at 11:27 PM on August 17, 2002
posted by coelecanth at 11:27 PM on August 17, 2002
What dhartung said, all of it. I have an NYT account as well, but I turned my IE cookies onto selective, and even though I thought I reset everything, it's still all broken.
posted by insomnyuk at 11:33 PM on August 17, 2002
posted by insomnyuk at 11:33 PM on August 17, 2002
Wasn't there a similar unwritten agreement regarding CNN front pages?
posted by hama7 at 12:37 AM on August 18, 2002
posted by hama7 at 12:37 AM on August 18, 2002
<OT>
Sinner: That's when you'll see most of the resources the blogging community uses regularly (NYTimes, BBC, The Register spring to mind) start charging for access
The BBC already charges UK users for access, at least those of us who have televisions. The rest of you are being subsidised by our licence fees.
</OT>
posted by ceiriog at 2:47 AM on August 18, 2002
Sinner: That's when you'll see most of the resources the blogging community uses regularly (NYTimes, BBC, The Register spring to mind) start charging for access
The BBC already charges UK users for access, at least those of us who have televisions. The rest of you are being subsidised by our licence fees.
</OT>
posted by ceiriog at 2:47 AM on August 18, 2002
Sinner: I think this is symptomatic of the decrease of venues providing free content on the web
mediareport: Have you really seen a noticeable decrease in those venues in, say, the last 8 months?
Well, nothing really springs to mind in terms of sites which have ceased to publish, although I'm sure I could think of some given the time. But
I wish this were true, but I'm not certain. It's not the "independent free" part of independent content I'm worried about, it's the "good."
posted by Sinner at 8:54 AM on August 18, 2002
mediareport: Have you really seen a noticeable decrease in those venues in, say, the last 8 months?
Well, nothing really springs to mind in terms of sites which have ceased to publish, although I'm sure I could think of some given the time. But
- I do notice that a lot of sites like fark and metafilter have been using the same few sources more and more, which to me is not solely indicative of users becoming more lazy.
- I know that a lot of the remaining .com's, including some for whom I've worked, are limiting the amount of content they provide and are giving much more serious consideration to for-fee only content.
I wish this were true, but I'm not certain. It's not the "independent free" part of independent content I'm worried about, it's the "good."
posted by Sinner at 8:54 AM on August 18, 2002
Bill Gates Destiny
Well, Bill," said God, "I'm really confused on this one. I'm not sure whether to send you to Heaven or Hell. After all, you enormously helped society by putting a computer in almost every home in the world, and yet you created that ghastly Windows. I'm going to do something I've never done before. I'm going to let you decide where you want to go."
Bill replied, "Well thanks, God. What's the difference between the two?"
God said, "You take a peek at both places briefly if it will help you decide."
Shall we look at Hell first?"
"Sure" said Bill, "Let's go!" Bill was amazed! He saw a clean, white sandy beach with clear waters. There were thousands of beautiful men and women running around, playing in the water, laughing and frolicking about. The sun was shining and the temperature was perfect. "This is great!" said Bill.
"If this is Hell, I can't wait to see heaven." God replied, "Let's go!" and so off they went to Heaven. Bill saw puffy white clouds in a beautiful blue sky with angels drifting about playing harps and singing. It was nice, but surely not as enticing as Hell. Bill Gates thought for only a brief moment and rendered his decision. "God, I do believe I would like to go to Hell."
"As you desire," said God. Two weeks later, God decided to check up on the late billionaire to see how things were going. He found Bill Gates shackled to a wall, screaming amongst the hot flames in a dark cave. He was being burned and tortured by demons. How ya doin', Bill?" asked God.
Bill responded with anguish and despair, "This is awful! This is not what I expected at all! What happened to the beach and the beautiful women playing in the water?" "Oh THAT!" said God. "That was the Screen saver, Bill."
posted by Mack Twain at 9:11 AM on August 18, 2002
Well, Bill," said God, "I'm really confused on this one. I'm not sure whether to send you to Heaven or Hell. After all, you enormously helped society by putting a computer in almost every home in the world, and yet you created that ghastly Windows. I'm going to do something I've never done before. I'm going to let you decide where you want to go."
Bill replied, "Well thanks, God. What's the difference between the two?"
God said, "You take a peek at both places briefly if it will help you decide."
Shall we look at Hell first?"
"Sure" said Bill, "Let's go!" Bill was amazed! He saw a clean, white sandy beach with clear waters. There were thousands of beautiful men and women running around, playing in the water, laughing and frolicking about. The sun was shining and the temperature was perfect. "This is great!" said Bill.
"If this is Hell, I can't wait to see heaven." God replied, "Let's go!" and so off they went to Heaven. Bill saw puffy white clouds in a beautiful blue sky with angels drifting about playing harps and singing. It was nice, but surely not as enticing as Hell. Bill Gates thought for only a brief moment and rendered his decision. "God, I do believe I would like to go to Hell."
"As you desire," said God. Two weeks later, God decided to check up on the late billionaire to see how things were going. He found Bill Gates shackled to a wall, screaming amongst the hot flames in a dark cave. He was being burned and tortured by demons. How ya doin', Bill?" asked God.
Bill responded with anguish and despair, "This is awful! This is not what I expected at all! What happened to the beach and the beautiful women playing in the water?" "Oh THAT!" said God. "That was the Screen saver, Bill."
posted by Mack Twain at 9:11 AM on August 18, 2002
(It's better when the punchline is "That was just the demo.")
posted by dhartung at 11:31 AM on August 18, 2002
posted by dhartung at 11:31 AM on August 18, 2002
I think we should clone vacapinta and have this be VacaFilter. There's obviously no shortage of interesting things on the internet. Very few of them are in the New York Times, which frankly, I think everyone should be reading every morning anyway. (I'm a snob).
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:56 PM on August 18, 2002
posted by RJ Reynolds at 2:56 PM on August 18, 2002
DHartung is right. "demo" is the joke. Sorry Mack.
Now that I've seen this thread I'm actually more consciously aware of how overused NYT has been. I mean I been ignoring those threads for the most part as I said before, unless the topic was of interest to me. But that kinda... Well filtering news just isn't what MeFi's all about is it?
A long time ago I used to get into arguments with people in here cuz I personally would like to believe that anyone who comes to MeFi should be allowed to post whatever the heck they want. Sure it's Matt's sandbox and [insert twelve paragraphs of circular logic & three years of diatribes and debates here] all of that, but it'd just be nice if everyone just posted whatever came to mind. Yeah I know.
It really pisses me off though when people do things that prove me wrong. NYT links are proving to be an example. When you compare an average NYT link thread to the recent one about the Automat, NYT links just pale in comparison.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:52 PM on August 18, 2002
Now that I've seen this thread I'm actually more consciously aware of how overused NYT has been. I mean I been ignoring those threads for the most part as I said before, unless the topic was of interest to me. But that kinda... Well filtering news just isn't what MeFi's all about is it?
A long time ago I used to get into arguments with people in here cuz I personally would like to believe that anyone who comes to MeFi should be allowed to post whatever the heck they want. Sure it's Matt's sandbox and [insert twelve paragraphs of circular logic & three years of diatribes and debates here] all of that, but it'd just be nice if everyone just posted whatever came to mind. Yeah I know.
It really pisses me off though when people do things that prove me wrong. NYT links are proving to be an example. When you compare an average NYT link thread to the recent one about the Automat, NYT links just pale in comparison.
posted by ZachsMind at 5:52 PM on August 18, 2002
Two... more today... plus an MSNBC and AP single link posts for good measure.
I know I can skip them (I often even do!), but I do think they suck and are far too common. Put a little effort into the posts people, at least back them up with some links.
posted by malphigian at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2002
I know I can skip them (I often even do!), but I do think they suck and are far too common. Put a little effort into the posts people, at least back them up with some links.
posted by malphigian at 5:53 PM on August 18, 2002
There have been four links to articles in the New York Times posted today.
There have been three links to articles on Yahoo! posted today.
There have been two links to articles on MSNBC posted today.
And this is Sunday, a relatively slow day.
I usually abhor the whining about the decline of MetaFilter and the advent of NewsFilter, but flooding MeFi with links to major news stories on major news sites seems excessive, particularly when they drown out great posts like Art-o-mats.
posted by Danelope at 5:56 PM on August 18, 2002
There have been three links to articles on Yahoo! posted today.
There have been two links to articles on MSNBC posted today.
And this is Sunday, a relatively slow day.
I usually abhor the whining about the decline of MetaFilter and the advent of NewsFilter, but flooding MeFi with links to major news stories on major news sites seems excessive, particularly when they drown out great posts like Art-o-mats.
posted by Danelope at 5:56 PM on August 18, 2002
Glad you picked up on the idea Dhartung & Zach...when it's been around and everyone's seen it, putting a little different spin on it really don't add much to the mix. Nuff said.
posted by Mack Twain at 8:11 PM on August 18, 2002
posted by Mack Twain at 8:11 PM on August 18, 2002
Well, I thought twice about it, having seen srboisvert's complaint, but then I noted that srboisvert turned around and posted a Times link, so I figured it wasn't evil in itself; furthermore, what I was linking to was not a news story that could have been found somewhere else if I weren't so lazy, but an interesting take on statistics coming out of Africa that Onishi, who's been reporting out of Africa for years, deserves credit for. However, should this explanation prove insufficient, I would like a cigarette before you raise your rifles -- no blindfold, thanks! (I don't even smoke, but I've seen the movies and I know how it's done.)
posted by languagehat at 5:22 AM on August 19, 2002
posted by languagehat at 5:22 AM on August 19, 2002
And frankly, I don't see what's so terrible about Times links. Whether news links are appropriate at all is another question (the NewsFilter debate), but if they are, then what's wrong with the Times? For all its faults, it's a good paper as papers go, and they have some excellent foreign correspondents. If you're going to post a news link, why is CNN or whatever any better than the Times? And if it's not, why is this a MeTa issue? (When I look down the front page, Times links are way, way down on the list of things I could live without. But when I see the umpteenth Flash or band-of-the-moment link, I just... ignore it.)
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on August 19, 2002
posted by languagehat at 7:27 AM on August 19, 2002
languagehat:
The point is not that its the Times (or any other news site). Its posts that are nothing more than a single link to a news site that everyone knows about with, essentially, "discuss!"
Besides, comparing the single-news-link posts to other cruddy posts doesn't make the case, eh? The news links are far more common than the Flash and band links too. And, besides, at least those often go to sites people might not know about.
The point is that the poster is putting in essentially no effort to making the post itself interesting, why not back up your post with some related links on the topic? Even in the post you made, there's ample opportunity to link to related sites, articles, etc.
Yes yes, we can ignore it, but these kind of posts are all over, and this sort of comment is what meTa is for, yes?
posted by malphigian at 8:21 AM on August 19, 2002
The point is not that its the Times (or any other news site). Its posts that are nothing more than a single link to a news site that everyone knows about with, essentially, "discuss!"
Besides, comparing the single-news-link posts to other cruddy posts doesn't make the case, eh? The news links are far more common than the Flash and band links too. And, besides, at least those often go to sites people might not know about.
The point is that the poster is putting in essentially no effort to making the post itself interesting, why not back up your post with some related links on the topic? Even in the post you made, there's ample opportunity to link to related sites, articles, etc.
Yes yes, we can ignore it, but these kind of posts are all over, and this sort of comment is what meTa is for, yes?
posted by malphigian at 8:21 AM on August 19, 2002
Suggestion: Why not try crafting interesting posts around stories from the dozens and dozens of alternative weeklies listed in the right-hand sidebar at Romenesko's site? It'd make a nice change, and I haven't found the ratio of crap to gold that much lower than it is in the dailies which constantly show up on the front page.
Sinner: I do notice that a lot of sites like fark and metafilter have been using the same few sources more and more
Why is that less attributable to laziness than to a a dramatic decline in the number of quality free sites? I just haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of the decline you're hinting at here, Sinner. Salon is the only one you've mentioned and they're still around.
posted by mediareport at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2002
Sinner: I do notice that a lot of sites like fark and metafilter have been using the same few sources more and more
Why is that less attributable to laziness than to a a dramatic decline in the number of quality free sites? I just haven't seen any evidence whatsoever of the decline you're hinting at here, Sinner. Salon is the only one you've mentioned and they're still around.
posted by mediareport at 12:22 PM on August 19, 2002
Oops, I meant "dozens and dozens of alt weeklies, many of which are linked at Romenesko's site." Blah.
posted by mediareport at 12:24 PM on August 19, 2002
posted by mediareport at 12:24 PM on August 19, 2002
malphigian: I understand your point, and I agree there are a lot of "look, here's a news story, discuss" posts, but I don't think mine was one of them. I did in fact put in the effort "to making the post itself interesting" -- obviously (from the slim response) it didn't evoke much reaction from other people, but that's a different issue (see previous MeTa thread). As for "related links on the topic," I did check to see if I could find any that were both relevant and useful, and maybe if I'd tried harder I could have, but I don't feel it's necessary to do that; as a matter of fact, if I'm remembering a previous MeTa thread correctly, there are a substantial number of users who prefer short posts with few links to long ones with lots of links. I thought the Onishi piece was interesting enough to stand on its own, and I still think that. If I'd picked it up from the LA Weekly or some other site with street cred, you might even agree with me.
posted by languagehat at 1:45 PM on August 19, 2002
posted by languagehat at 1:45 PM on August 19, 2002
languagehat: I didn't mean to sound like I was attacking your post in particular (and I promise you it would have made zero difference to me if it was from another newspaper). Your post was at least on a relatively obscure topic, and was certainly on an interesting topic.
It's a matter of preference, of course. I'd much rather see posts like this one, or this one (if it was just the laweekly link, it would be a lousy post, IMO).
Far better, to my mind, then MeFi being a proxy discussion site for news web sites that don't have a "comments" link.
posted by malphigian at 1:55 PM on August 19, 2002
It's a matter of preference, of course. I'd much rather see posts like this one, or this one (if it was just the laweekly link, it would be a lousy post, IMO).
Far better, to my mind, then MeFi being a proxy discussion site for news web sites that don't have a "comments" link.
posted by malphigian at 1:55 PM on August 19, 2002
I like seeing breaking news as homepage post, even if it is from such a mainstream source as the NYT. Sometime just the fact that it is the NYT, is the story of interest. But then again, I've let the Times site cookie me, so I don't go through damn password agony every time.
I go to places like first headlines to get breaking mainstream news, but it is nice to have the headlines digested by this civilized mob. I get the joy of seeing people of intelligence spit out linked confirmation, refutations, spins, and jokes, often before I can even read the damn article. I love it.
I do want the poster to give their two sentence take on the story, explaining why they thinks it is worth a look, making me click blind is a sin. Adding supporting links would be great, but if it's a groundbreaking article or opinion, I say get it up there fast.
Being new to MeFi, I am fascinated by the homeostasis of its civility. For the most part, even in the most inflammatory posts don't seem to degenerate into barbarity, but all things can be discussed. I've not explored this Metatalk section of the site before. I assume it is where this civility maintains it's spirit.
posted by gametone at 2:05 PM on August 19, 2002
I go to places like first headlines to get breaking mainstream news, but it is nice to have the headlines digested by this civilized mob. I get the joy of seeing people of intelligence spit out linked confirmation, refutations, spins, and jokes, often before I can even read the damn article. I love it.
I do want the poster to give their two sentence take on the story, explaining why they thinks it is worth a look, making me click blind is a sin. Adding supporting links would be great, but if it's a groundbreaking article or opinion, I say get it up there fast.
Being new to MeFi, I am fascinated by the homeostasis of its civility. For the most part, even in the most inflammatory posts don't seem to degenerate into barbarity, but all things can be discussed. I've not explored this Metatalk section of the site before. I assume it is where this civility maintains it's spirit.
posted by gametone at 2:05 PM on August 19, 2002
where ... civility maintains it's spirit
New tagline?
posted by timeistight at 2:13 PM on August 19, 2002
New tagline?
posted by timeistight at 2:13 PM on August 19, 2002
Caught my typo ook. But at least you can see I knew to leave it out earlier in the paragraph.
posted by gametone at 8:40 AM on August 20, 2002
posted by gametone at 8:40 AM on August 20, 2002
This just in from 'The Onion'....
"...Survey: Teens say marijuana easy to get....For the first time since the study began in 1996, marijuana edged out cigarettes and beer as the easiest drug for teenagers to buy..."
Oh, sorry, I mean CNN
posted by dash_slot- at 11:40 AM on August 20, 2002
"...Survey: Teens say marijuana easy to get....For the first time since the study began in 1996, marijuana edged out cigarettes and beer as the easiest drug for teenagers to buy..."
Oh, sorry, I mean CNN
posted by dash_slot- at 11:40 AM on August 20, 2002
I get the joy of seeing people of intelligence spit out linked confirmation, refutations, spins, and jokes, often before I can even read the damn article. I love it.
This leads to the question "What is MeFi for? The community or the content?".
Do we link to current events to hear the community's take on things, or do we show the community new and interesting things, or do we do both?
posted by cCranium at 2:52 PM on August 20, 2002
This leads to the question "What is MeFi for? The community or the content?".
Do we link to current events to hear the community's take on things, or do we show the community new and interesting things, or do we do both?
posted by cCranium at 2:52 PM on August 20, 2002
cCranium, you're framing the question in an overly simplistic way. Regardless of what MeFi is "for," members who put almost no effort into making front-page posts are a problem.
posted by mediareport at 3:02 PM on August 20, 2002
posted by mediareport at 3:02 PM on August 20, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by srboisvert at 1:11 PM on August 17, 2002