Eight front page posts in half an hour? August 27, 2002 1:23 PM Subscribe
I've largely refrained from joining the chorus asking for some sort of throttle (one post per week, 2/3 posts per week, waiting period for newcomers, etc.), but Jiminy Christmas: Eight front page posts in half an hour? (number one, number eight.) Are you going to implement any of these post-flow-control ideas, Matt, or are we going to become "MetaFilter: A Firehose For The Thirsty"
I like that when you post something, it's instantaneous. I also like that I have the freedom of will to just ignore some of the posts, if they don't look interesting to me. Be like the cool kids, and pay no mind to things that you've already seen on Fark or POEnews. Adding new features rules is unnecessary.
posted by interrobang at 2:08 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by interrobang at 2:08 PM on August 27, 2002
sorry, that should read "new features AND rules".
posted by interrobang at 2:09 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by interrobang at 2:09 PM on August 27, 2002
There is a good piece on this topic and the new user influx from Massive's Adrian.
And I wrote about it yesterday on my weblog in response to Adrian's comments.
"As I write this (August 26th 5pm), of the 14 posts on the front page, 6 are from the 14k group, 4 are in the 10k-13k group and the rest are 10k and under. Is this too much? Are their posts "as good" as the other posts"
posted by mkelley at 2:36 PM on August 27, 2002
And I wrote about it yesterday on my weblog in response to Adrian's comments.
"As I write this (August 26th 5pm), of the 14 posts on the front page, 6 are from the 14k group, 4 are in the 10k-13k group and the rest are 10k and under. Is this too much? Are their posts "as good" as the other posts"
posted by mkelley at 2:36 PM on August 27, 2002
I don't really think that the quality of posts have gone down, despite the rise in quantity. But I do think that the community aspect of MeFi is being diluted, as we must now pick and choose which threads we are going to read and comment on. Sure, we have always opted to read some posts and ignore others, but now it almost seems like we have splintered into Team Politics and Team Wacky News and Team Technology. No one non-ColdChef man can possibly discuss everything MeFi now has to offer.
i think you're right, shadow.
i think i read about as many threads per day as i've always read. in other words, my reading behavior hasn't scaled with the growth of metafilter and the larger number of threads being posted here. but if posting were curtailed, somehow, i wonder if the number of posts per thread would increase? (there's no way to know unless you try, i guess.) maybe that's not so terrible.
how about an exposure clause in the guidelines? a good metafilter post is one that brings exposure to a source. that asks posters not to post something that's been widely reported on yahoo, obscurestore or elsewhere, while not excluding news entirely. it also helps to exclude the latest memes. (i'd prefer the only memes on metafilter be ones that start on metafilter, rather than an echo from somewhere else.)
that sounds highly subjective, and it really is. but we're smart people. i think it's possible that the people who often post links can also figure out if something's been posted in a lot of other sites and in a lot of other publications. the objection to this (voiced by myself, once or twice, i think) is that not everyone reads this or that site: it's unfair to penalize someone for that. and i agree. but that's why an exposure rule should be vague. if you'd find that on one or two other sites, that's not bad; but many sites, and the link shouldn't be used.
interrobang:
I also like that I have the freedom of will to just ignore some of the posts, if they don't look interesting to me.
often times, the front page on mefi looks like clutter to me. it gets annoying, after a while, to see a lot of threads which i'm not interested in. i'd like to see some measures taken, at this point.
posted by moz at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2002
i think you're right, shadow.
i think i read about as many threads per day as i've always read. in other words, my reading behavior hasn't scaled with the growth of metafilter and the larger number of threads being posted here. but if posting were curtailed, somehow, i wonder if the number of posts per thread would increase? (there's no way to know unless you try, i guess.) maybe that's not so terrible.
how about an exposure clause in the guidelines? a good metafilter post is one that brings exposure to a source. that asks posters not to post something that's been widely reported on yahoo, obscurestore or elsewhere, while not excluding news entirely. it also helps to exclude the latest memes. (i'd prefer the only memes on metafilter be ones that start on metafilter, rather than an echo from somewhere else.)
that sounds highly subjective, and it really is. but we're smart people. i think it's possible that the people who often post links can also figure out if something's been posted in a lot of other sites and in a lot of other publications. the objection to this (voiced by myself, once or twice, i think) is that not everyone reads this or that site: it's unfair to penalize someone for that. and i agree. but that's why an exposure rule should be vague. if you'd find that on one or two other sites, that's not bad; but many sites, and the link shouldn't be used.
interrobang:
I also like that I have the freedom of will to just ignore some of the posts, if they don't look interesting to me.
often times, the front page on mefi looks like clutter to me. it gets annoying, after a while, to see a lot of threads which i'm not interested in. i'd like to see some measures taken, at this point.
posted by moz at 2:42 PM on August 27, 2002
{My first MeTa post} I have no idea what my ID is, but I can tell you I joined MeFi about a month ago? I have been reading the site for over a year however. I recognize many of the members, and what to expect from them, just from my experience in reading the site for so long. I've also learned "how to behave" on this site, how to post, what to post (although I have yet to make a front page post... it can be a bit daunting), and what not to post... strictly from reading the site for a year.
I waited for a loooong time to become an active member of this site (as I think it's the best I've seen). I'm sure a lot of the new members feel the same way. Some probably just couldn't wait to participate. They have a loose trigger finger and may post without giving it enough thought.
That aside, I also have come to realize that there is a certain "art" to making a good front page post... an art some people don't recognize, while others choose to ignore. With practice, constructive criticism, and positive reinforcement, I think the quality of the FPPs will improve.
Any recent frustration with the quality and the quantity of the FPPs is directly linked (in my opinion) to the recent influx of new members.
I have two suggestions for the future.
1. Limit the number of new members even moreso than you already are (way moreso). Give the recent freshman class a chance to blend in. This will also force anyone interested in becoming a member to put in the time, like I had to, in really LEARNING the site... that it ISN'T just like any other message board or blog.
2. Have something on the MeFi front page that indicates that there are new topics available in MetaTalk. Just a little link that tells you that there are "three new topics in MetaTalk today". Perhaps this would provide the extra interest and extra incentive for more members to check it out and contribute.
{breathe Mike breathe}
posted by Witty at 2:58 PM on August 27, 2002
I waited for a loooong time to become an active member of this site (as I think it's the best I've seen). I'm sure a lot of the new members feel the same way. Some probably just couldn't wait to participate. They have a loose trigger finger and may post without giving it enough thought.
That aside, I also have come to realize that there is a certain "art" to making a good front page post... an art some people don't recognize, while others choose to ignore. With practice, constructive criticism, and positive reinforcement, I think the quality of the FPPs will improve.
Any recent frustration with the quality and the quantity of the FPPs is directly linked (in my opinion) to the recent influx of new members.
I have two suggestions for the future.
1. Limit the number of new members even moreso than you already are (way moreso). Give the recent freshman class a chance to blend in. This will also force anyone interested in becoming a member to put in the time, like I had to, in really LEARNING the site... that it ISN'T just like any other message board or blog.
2. Have something on the MeFi front page that indicates that there are new topics available in MetaTalk. Just a little link that tells you that there are "three new topics in MetaTalk today". Perhaps this would provide the extra interest and extra incentive for more members to check it out and contribute.
{breathe Mike breathe}
posted by Witty at 2:58 PM on August 27, 2002
Oh... and I'm not really comfortable about ANY kind of ranking system... with posts or members. I can't see what good it would really do. Especially if the higher-ranking posts caused them to rise to the top of the FPPs of the day. I like the chronological ordering of the FPPs the way it is.
Sometimes I check postings days after the discussion ended. I may not remember the title of the post, but I do know it was "the one right before the post about Lesbian Elephants" and I'm able to track it down that way.
posted by Witty at 3:04 PM on August 27, 2002
Sometimes I check postings days after the discussion ended. I may not remember the title of the post, but I do know it was "the one right before the post about Lesbian Elephants" and I'm able to track it down that way.
posted by Witty at 3:04 PM on August 27, 2002
as we must now pick and choose which threads we are going to read and comment on [...] Sure, we have always opted to read some posts and ignore others, but now it almost seems like we have splintered into Team Politics and Team Wacky News and Team Technology.
It isn't clear to me how these two statements are mutually exclusive. Or do you claim the "teams" didn't exist before?
No one non-ColdChef man can possibly discuss everything MeFi now has to offer.
Are they supposed to? I missed that memo. Wouldn't everybody commenting on everything create the same problem you're complaining about, just not on the main page?
and the posts were meted out, one every half an hour or so
Not to be overly negative, but this is absolutely pointless. And what happens at the end of the day? Do all of the posts still sitting in queue suddenly get dumped out? That's effective. If they just stay in queue, then it'll eventually build up enough that nothing will ever get posted even remotely close to its original submission time, which will lead to posts holding others back in the queue because they haven't been deleted because nobody can even see they exist yet and say something. Don't even suggest that Matt prune queue-dupes periodically.
You're not being served your entire dinner at once and being forced to wolf it down. You're being led to the buffet line and told to take what you want – and only what you want – when you want it, and you can go back for more later. You're not expected to eat all of the food just because it's there,
Moz: Yeah, it can be cluttered sometimes, but to continue the buffet analogy, I find pickled beets repulsive. Some people like them. I just keep walking.
Not that I object(I thought it was amusing), but Matt posted an Ebay auction yesterday. You're going to have a hard time pushing source limitations(no Yahoo, etc) through. The "[SITE] links suck" complaint has been shot down so many times and in so many ways that I seriously wonder how it keeps coming up. I think we should just name it Undead Controversy #2, and periodically post a link to an explanatory page somewhere so that people can go at it all over again without having to type out the whole argument.
posted by Su at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
It isn't clear to me how these two statements are mutually exclusive. Or do you claim the "teams" didn't exist before?
No one non-ColdChef man can possibly discuss everything MeFi now has to offer.
Are they supposed to? I missed that memo. Wouldn't everybody commenting on everything create the same problem you're complaining about, just not on the main page?
and the posts were meted out, one every half an hour or so
Not to be overly negative, but this is absolutely pointless. And what happens at the end of the day? Do all of the posts still sitting in queue suddenly get dumped out? That's effective. If they just stay in queue, then it'll eventually build up enough that nothing will ever get posted even remotely close to its original submission time, which will lead to posts holding others back in the queue because they haven't been deleted because nobody can even see they exist yet and say something. Don't even suggest that Matt prune queue-dupes periodically.
You're not being served your entire dinner at once and being forced to wolf it down. You're being led to the buffet line and told to take what you want – and only what you want – when you want it, and you can go back for more later. You're not expected to eat all of the food just because it's there,
Moz: Yeah, it can be cluttered sometimes, but to continue the buffet analogy, I find pickled beets repulsive. Some people like them. I just keep walking.
Not that I object(I thought it was amusing), but Matt posted an Ebay auction yesterday. You're going to have a hard time pushing source limitations(no Yahoo, etc) through. The "[SITE] links suck" complaint has been shot down so many times and in so many ways that I seriously wonder how it keeps coming up. I think we should just name it Undead Controversy #2, and periodically post a link to an explanatory page somewhere so that people can go at it all over again without having to type out the whole argument.
posted by Su at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
Witty: I agree. I've been reading MeFi for a while now, but also havn't got my membership until very recently. The urge for me to splurge my new found membership on links and comments is really strong. It's like I've been nominated for an oscar after a lifetime in film, and even though I know it's a bad thing, I just want to spend hours thanking everybody. There's no way to limit that sort of behaviour. The more you try and hold people back, the more they'll comment when you let them start commenting. Personally, I'd sit back, and wait for things to calm down. People on the site seem intelligent enough, it's just going to take time for the rules to (a) sink in and (b) not be ignored.
posted by seanyboy at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by seanyboy at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
Also, I'd like to point out that not every 14k+ member is guilty of metafilter-blasphemy.
posted by interrobang at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by interrobang at 3:18 PM on August 27, 2002
Witty, you're ID is 14524 (mouse over your user name).
I was just thinking today, as I read about the Pyramid Rover that it has gotten harder to read and explore the links presented in a post, then come back and reply. I often feel that by the time I get back, the comments have gotten to a point where I don't have anything new to contribute. So I end up lurking a lot.
Don't know if there is an easy solution, but maybe limiting users to one post a week will help focus the conversations and reduce the "drink from firehose" feeling.
posted by jazon at 3:20 PM on August 27, 2002
I was just thinking today, as I read about the Pyramid Rover that it has gotten harder to read and explore the links presented in a post, then come back and reply. I often feel that by the time I get back, the comments have gotten to a point where I don't have anything new to contribute. So I end up lurking a lot.
Don't know if there is an easy solution, but maybe limiting users to one post a week will help focus the conversations and reduce the "drink from firehose" feeling.
posted by jazon at 3:20 PM on August 27, 2002
I often feel that by the time I get back, the comments have gotten to a point where I don't have anything new to contribute. So I end up lurking a lot.
And this is bad, why?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:25 PM on August 27, 2002
And this is bad, why?
posted by Wulfgar! at 3:25 PM on August 27, 2002
No one non-ColdChef man can possibly discuss everything MeFi now has to offer.
Again, why is this a problem?
it gets annoying, after a while, to see a lot of threads which i'm not interested in. i'd like to see some measures taken, at this point.
Okay, no problem. Send Matt a list of the types of posts that you like, and he will hardcode the site to only accept those links.
WTF??
If it's annoying you, maybe you need to go away and take some deep breaths. What part of "other people like links that don't interest you" do you not understand?!?
posted by rushmc at 3:32 PM on August 27, 2002
Again, why is this a problem?
it gets annoying, after a while, to see a lot of threads which i'm not interested in. i'd like to see some measures taken, at this point.
Okay, no problem. Send Matt a list of the types of posts that you like, and he will hardcode the site to only accept those links.
WTF??
If it's annoying you, maybe you need to go away and take some deep breaths. What part of "other people like links that don't interest you" do you not understand?!?
posted by rushmc at 3:32 PM on August 27, 2002
Su:
Not that I object(I thought it was amusing), but Matt posted an Ebay auction yesterday. You're going to have a hard time pushing source limitations(no Yahoo, etc) through. The "[SITE] links suck" complaint has been shot down so many times and in so many ways that I seriously wonder how it keeps coming up.
i wasn't arguing for a no [SITE] links requirement. i used yahoo and obscurestore as examples, but not for the purpose of an outright ban. as i've said: an exposure rule should be vague.
i just don't want metafilter to be a mirror of the typical links you may find on a weblog; it has been that in the past, but times change and i think that's no longer appropriate for the site. metafilter should be less meta and more filter.
rush:
If it's annoying you, maybe you need to go away and take some deep breaths. What part of "other people like links that don't interest you" do you not understand?!?
rush, i don't mind skipping past threads. i do mind skipping past as many as i have been (for some time). i guess the part i didn't understand was the leap of logic you make by assumption that i must want to bend yours and the wills of all to mozfilter: almighty nexus. of course, if everyone were to post threads i like, i'd be pretty happy (i'm selfish that way). but if we could just have fewer popular newsy threads, that'd be cool too.
according to mefi's stats, there was a downward spike in june, which shot upwards in july. i don't know about august. posts in the 700s seem bad to me, though.
posted by moz at 3:57 PM on August 27, 2002
Not that I object(I thought it was amusing), but Matt posted an Ebay auction yesterday. You're going to have a hard time pushing source limitations(no Yahoo, etc) through. The "[SITE] links suck" complaint has been shot down so many times and in so many ways that I seriously wonder how it keeps coming up.
i wasn't arguing for a no [SITE] links requirement. i used yahoo and obscurestore as examples, but not for the purpose of an outright ban. as i've said: an exposure rule should be vague.
i just don't want metafilter to be a mirror of the typical links you may find on a weblog; it has been that in the past, but times change and i think that's no longer appropriate for the site. metafilter should be less meta and more filter.
rush:
If it's annoying you, maybe you need to go away and take some deep breaths. What part of "other people like links that don't interest you" do you not understand?!?
rush, i don't mind skipping past threads. i do mind skipping past as many as i have been (for some time). i guess the part i didn't understand was the leap of logic you make by assumption that i must want to bend yours and the wills of all to mozfilter: almighty nexus. of course, if everyone were to post threads i like, i'd be pretty happy (i'm selfish that way). but if we could just have fewer popular newsy threads, that'd be cool too.
according to mefi's stats, there was a downward spike in june, which shot upwards in july. i don't know about august. posts in the 700s seem bad to me, though.
posted by moz at 3:57 PM on August 27, 2002
14890 says: -- but seriously, it seems like that's what the emphasis is on these days. Damn, if only I'd been able to hold back a bit longer I could've been one of the early 15+K'rs!
I waited for a loooong time to become an active member of this site (as I think it's the best I've seen). I'm sure a lot of the new members feel the same way. Some probably just couldn't wait to participate.
Ding ding ding ding ding -- I think what you have right now is a lot of people suddenly overjoyed that they can talk after watching from behind glass for periods of six months or a year or who knows how long. I do think it would be a good idea to direct newbies more firmly towards MeTa -- and in a particularly inappropriate thread write something like "This post is being discussed in MeTa," which I've seen done already. I would be surprised if the level of posting/commenting is permanently heightened.
My own experience with "throttles" being imposed on email discussion lists (you can post one message per day of a certain size K etc. etc.) is that 1) the members feel patronized and frustrated and 2) the best discussion goes underground and/or is choked off before it goes anywhere interesting. Why not see what public shaming does to people considered too talkative by some before messing with the nature of the community itself in a drastic way?
I'm reminded of the cries that went up when AOLers came onto the Internet in droves or when Blogspot was born: "But now our community will be ruined!" Not ruined, just....different. I think a lot of it depends on how well someone can handle the idea of a cherished private thing suddenly becoming very public. (I don't usually handle that well myself at all. Let's call it the Nick Drake phenomenon.)
(I also think the idea of a ranking system sucks bowling balls. How would you make it be anything other than subjective? I didn't read the post about hairs on gecko's feet. How many other people took it as emblematic of what MeFi's true nature is? or just sorta-liked it?)
posted by redshoes3 at 4:11 PM on August 27, 2002
I waited for a loooong time to become an active member of this site (as I think it's the best I've seen). I'm sure a lot of the new members feel the same way. Some probably just couldn't wait to participate.
Ding ding ding ding ding -- I think what you have right now is a lot of people suddenly overjoyed that they can talk after watching from behind glass for periods of six months or a year or who knows how long. I do think it would be a good idea to direct newbies more firmly towards MeTa -- and in a particularly inappropriate thread write something like "This post is being discussed in MeTa," which I've seen done already. I would be surprised if the level of posting/commenting is permanently heightened.
My own experience with "throttles" being imposed on email discussion lists (you can post one message per day of a certain size K etc. etc.) is that 1) the members feel patronized and frustrated and 2) the best discussion goes underground and/or is choked off before it goes anywhere interesting. Why not see what public shaming does to people considered too talkative by some before messing with the nature of the community itself in a drastic way?
I'm reminded of the cries that went up when AOLers came onto the Internet in droves or when Blogspot was born: "But now our community will be ruined!" Not ruined, just....different. I think a lot of it depends on how well someone can handle the idea of a cherished private thing suddenly becoming very public. (I don't usually handle that well myself at all. Let's call it the Nick Drake phenomenon.)
(I also think the idea of a ranking system sucks bowling balls. How would you make it be anything other than subjective? I didn't read the post about hairs on gecko's feet. How many other people took it as emblematic of what MeFi's true nature is? or just sorta-liked it?)
posted by redshoes3 at 4:11 PM on August 27, 2002
I morphed into statwoman for the previous thread about this, compiling a weeks worth of info. As a 14Ker I was in favor of being smacked down some by you all and made to behave. I thought limits would be good. Now I tend to agree with seanyboy and redshoes3 that things will work out with a little time. I wonder if the end of summer will have any effect? (BTW, has anyone looked at posts from a year ago recently? I don't so much notice that there were fewer posts. I do notice that they were shorter, and all about the link.)
That said, limits are fine with me if that's what people want.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:17 PM on August 27, 2002
That said, limits are fine with me if that's what people want.
posted by onlyconnect at 4:17 PM on August 27, 2002
Redshoes: Hah. The outcry over AOL users being dumped onto the net was not helped by that little glitch in their software that posted every single thing they said seven times over.
Moz: as i've said: an exposure rule should be vague.
It *is* vague: "most people haven't seen it before". But of course, that's also the problem. You can't really apply degrees to the concept of "vague" without rapidly ending up at something specific. Like a site name. So far, what I read in your comments above is that you want a throttle on sources(read: exposure), yet you don't actually want to name those sources, which is the only way it could be done. Uh...
"Exposure" is only measurable empirically; it doesn't mean much when applied at the level of the user here. Yes, there might be a link to that thing all over the place. Unfortunately, "all over the place" tends to really mean "mainstream American mass media" when people say it. Not to mention that there seems to be the assumption that everybody religiously reads the as-yet-undefined MeFi Canon.
I don't read Yahoo News or Obscurestore. Ever. I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that. I also don't read Ananova or Kottke or BoingBoing, K5 rarely, and Slashdot less and less. The list goes on, and everybody has one of their own. The site(and by extension, Matt) isn't trying to make everybody happy(futile, etc, you know the quote). The practical approach is to be impartial, then, hence the buffet. You're the only person responsible for what you take. If something (ONE thing) is genuinely bad, speak up, and it's taken away, but if you ask the restaurant to stop serving a particular dish, they'll tell you to piss off.
posted by Su at 4:40 PM on August 27, 2002
Moz: as i've said: an exposure rule should be vague.
It *is* vague: "most people haven't seen it before". But of course, that's also the problem. You can't really apply degrees to the concept of "vague" without rapidly ending up at something specific. Like a site name. So far, what I read in your comments above is that you want a throttle on sources(read: exposure), yet you don't actually want to name those sources, which is the only way it could be done. Uh...
"Exposure" is only measurable empirically; it doesn't mean much when applied at the level of the user here. Yes, there might be a link to that thing all over the place. Unfortunately, "all over the place" tends to really mean "mainstream American mass media" when people say it. Not to mention that there seems to be the assumption that everybody religiously reads the as-yet-undefined MeFi Canon.
I don't read Yahoo News or Obscurestore. Ever. I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that. I also don't read Ananova or Kottke or BoingBoing, K5 rarely, and Slashdot less and less. The list goes on, and everybody has one of their own. The site(and by extension, Matt) isn't trying to make everybody happy(futile, etc, you know the quote). The practical approach is to be impartial, then, hence the buffet. You're the only person responsible for what you take. If something (ONE thing) is genuinely bad, speak up, and it's taken away, but if you ask the restaurant to stop serving a particular dish, they'll tell you to piss off.
posted by Su at 4:40 PM on August 27, 2002
I'm a 14K'er. I've been reading MeFi and MeTa for a long time (9 months now?), without the ability to post. I've been okay with that, being primarily a lurker, since the main reason I wanted to join is to get the added features (new post counts, etc) of the site. I tend to read posts with the most discussion. Having more posts with fewer comments usually means that I spend more time on the front page without drilling down, and I wind up not reading as much of the site. I really enjoy MeFi - both intelligent discussions and "train wreck" flame wars. Color me strange...
posted by Woney at 4:56 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by Woney at 4:56 PM on August 27, 2002
Nobody believes in organic development, or decline, to leave things well alone?
posted by semmi at 5:02 PM on August 27, 2002
posted by semmi at 5:02 PM on August 27, 2002
Nobody believes in organic development, or decline, to leave things well alone?
But aren't these MetaTalk threads part of that whole ?
posted by vacapinta at 5:04 PM on August 27, 2002
But aren't these MetaTalk threads part of that whole ?
posted by vacapinta at 5:04 PM on August 27, 2002
As a new member, I have a little internal vetting system I use before I choose to post comments. Basically, way back when signups were closed for -- how long? since January? 6 or 7 months -- and I was patiently waiting for the chance to join up, reading posts, I'd check metafilter (and metatalk) a few times a day.
Sometimes I'd read the comments and literally laugh out loud with glee, or completely disagree, or really feel I had something that hadn't been said and was worth mentioning. And although it didn't ruin my day that I couldn't contribute, it kind of sucked and made the waiting harder. Now that I could theoretically post comments and even front page posts as often as I darn well please, I find I pick and choose my postings based on the question, "Would I have been straining to comment on this back when I couldn't?" If the answer is no, generally I won't comment.
posted by contessa at 5:22 PM on August 27, 2002
Sometimes I'd read the comments and literally laugh out loud with glee, or completely disagree, or really feel I had something that hadn't been said and was worth mentioning. And although it didn't ruin my day that I couldn't contribute, it kind of sucked and made the waiting harder. Now that I could theoretically post comments and even front page posts as often as I darn well please, I find I pick and choose my postings based on the question, "Would I have been straining to comment on this back when I couldn't?" If the answer is no, generally I won't comment.
posted by contessa at 5:22 PM on August 27, 2002
su:
You can't really apply degrees to the concept of "vague" without rapidly ending up at something specific. Like a site name. So far, what I read in your comments above is that you want a throttle on sources(read: exposure), yet you don't actually want to name those sources, which is the only way it could be done. Uh... "Exposure" is only measurable empirically; it doesn't mean much when applied at the level of the user here.
when i was thinking of the term exposure, here's what i had in mind: there's a link on yahoo, but not many sources have covered it. it's buried in a news wire. if i didn't dive into either the reuters of the ap feeds at yahoo, i'd never know. that sounds cool to me. but you're right: maybe this is sort of a useless rationale, because it's so unlikely to happen. newspapers exist in part to sort the wheat from the shit on newswires.
I don't read Yahoo News or Obscurestore. Ever. I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that.
i mention yahoo because most stories you find on yahoo will have mass exposure. the fact that it's on yahoo is beside the point: yahoo carries news wire feeds, which are also used by most newspapers.
i like your restaurant and metafilter analogy. it doesn't seem to work, though, does it? i don't think many people complain about things they find on a buffet either. so why do people complain here? is it because we're all wrong, or because the analogy doesn't hold?
we might look at it differently. the buffet analogy that relates more closely to my metafilter experience is one in which you're asked to taste all of the foods on the table. i'd rather not -- well, not the stuff that i already know i don't like.
posted by moz at 8:52 PM on August 27, 2002
You can't really apply degrees to the concept of "vague" without rapidly ending up at something specific. Like a site name. So far, what I read in your comments above is that you want a throttle on sources(read: exposure), yet you don't actually want to name those sources, which is the only way it could be done. Uh... "Exposure" is only measurable empirically; it doesn't mean much when applied at the level of the user here.
when i was thinking of the term exposure, here's what i had in mind: there's a link on yahoo, but not many sources have covered it. it's buried in a news wire. if i didn't dive into either the reuters of the ap feeds at yahoo, i'd never know. that sounds cool to me. but you're right: maybe this is sort of a useless rationale, because it's so unlikely to happen. newspapers exist in part to sort the wheat from the shit on newswires.
I don't read Yahoo News or Obscurestore. Ever. I'm sure I'm not the only person who can say that.
i mention yahoo because most stories you find on yahoo will have mass exposure. the fact that it's on yahoo is beside the point: yahoo carries news wire feeds, which are also used by most newspapers.
i like your restaurant and metafilter analogy. it doesn't seem to work, though, does it? i don't think many people complain about things they find on a buffet either. so why do people complain here? is it because we're all wrong, or because the analogy doesn't hold?
we might look at it differently. the buffet analogy that relates more closely to my metafilter experience is one in which you're asked to taste all of the foods on the table. i'd rather not -- well, not the stuff that i already know i don't like.
posted by moz at 8:52 PM on August 27, 2002
So now that some 1,500 new members have signed up, is it almost time to start discussing when to close sign-ups again? Just curious about a consensus.
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:10 AM on August 28, 2002
posted by Ufez Jones at 7:10 AM on August 28, 2002
Redshoes: Hah. The outcry over AOL users being dumped onto the net was not helped by that little glitch in their software that posted every single thing they said seven times over.
Heh indeed....I hadn't remembered that part, being a Compuserve baby and getting onto the net even later than all the aohellers.
Re linking to a yahoo or "mass exposure" story -- sometimes I get annoyed when I see yet-another-link to a yahoo or cnn or nytimes.com news source, but there are generally interesting comments. Isn't the point what people say about the news story, rather than how over- or under-exposed it is? Otherwise, what you get is an insulated environment of people vying to find ever-more obscure links -- obscurity for the sake of obscurity. Although in this information-saturated culture, a little obscurity is a good thing. The Coulter story was a good example for me of something I looked at and didn't think was really necessary (even though I wound up commenting on it)....but would I want to say to that person, "You can't post that!"? No.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom" -- the more dishes, so to speak, the more interesting stuff you'll probably be able to find. It often seems to me like the real issue is, do people want Metafilter to remain a closed community, small and familiar (I'm not necessarily implying this is a bad thing) or do they want it to open up to larger numbers of people, with all the good and bad things that entails? I think the phenom of so many people wanting to join the party for so long adds more pressure than usual in this kind of situation, but it's a question most internet communities have to deal with anyway sooner or later.
posted by redshoes3 at 8:45 AM on August 28, 2002
Heh indeed....I hadn't remembered that part, being a Compuserve baby and getting onto the net even later than all the aohellers.
Re linking to a yahoo or "mass exposure" story -- sometimes I get annoyed when I see yet-another-link to a yahoo or cnn or nytimes.com news source, but there are generally interesting comments. Isn't the point what people say about the news story, rather than how over- or under-exposed it is? Otherwise, what you get is an insulated environment of people vying to find ever-more obscure links -- obscurity for the sake of obscurity. Although in this information-saturated culture, a little obscurity is a good thing. The Coulter story was a good example for me of something I looked at and didn't think was really necessary (even though I wound up commenting on it)....but would I want to say to that person, "You can't post that!"? No.
"Let a thousand flowers bloom" -- the more dishes, so to speak, the more interesting stuff you'll probably be able to find. It often seems to me like the real issue is, do people want Metafilter to remain a closed community, small and familiar (I'm not necessarily implying this is a bad thing) or do they want it to open up to larger numbers of people, with all the good and bad things that entails? I think the phenom of so many people wanting to join the party for so long adds more pressure than usual in this kind of situation, but it's a question most internet communities have to deal with anyway sooner or later.
posted by redshoes3 at 8:45 AM on August 28, 2002
Isn't the point what people say about the news story, rather than how over- or under-exposed it is?
In my opinion, no. The link is the point. It's saying "look what I found when I was surfing", not "Look! I'm the first one to post this story from CNN.com! Let's talk about it!"
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:06 AM on August 28, 2002
In my opinion, no. The link is the point. It's saying "look what I found when I was surfing", not "Look! I'm the first one to post this story from CNN.com! Let's talk about it!"
posted by Kafkaesque at 11:06 AM on August 28, 2002
I really don't see how ranking posts is going to help. If the problem is that some members aren't really thinking before posting, then what leads anyone to think that those members will think before ranking?
Instead of the drastic solution of closing sign-ups again, which seems almost to feel like an admission of failure, I have two suggestions, one of which has been made before but I don't think Matt's responded to yet: A month or two waiting period that allows comments but not posts. The other may seem a little silly, but I think it'll work. Before allowing someone to become a member, send them through a series of pages of posting guidelines (not rules), and make them check off "Yes, I get it" at the bottom of each one. Like so:
Linking to a single op-ed piece as your entire post is discouraged.
Yes, I get it ___
(new page appears)
Finding cool, odd, toylike Web sites is encouraged.
Yes, I get it ___
(new page appears)
While a single link to breaking news is sometimes a good post, MeFi is not Yahoo! or CNN; we don't have to "get it first." When posting a breaking news story to the front page, please consider taking 5-10 additional minutes to find interesting additional links that provide context and depth to the story.
Yes, I get it___
Etc. I can't begin to push for this strongly enough to convey how much I think it should happen, and how much I think it would help. We can hash out the details of each page here, and I think *every* member should be sent through the resulting process, not just the new ones. I also think a permanent, prominent link on the front page (and perhaps on the post preview pages) to "Fifteen excellent MeFi posts" of a variety of kinds would help a lot. Basically, instead of new rules or drastic changes, I think it might be worth trying a more in-your-face approach to the guidelines that have served the site so well for so long. We *can* scale this baby up.
posted by mediareport at 11:07 AM on August 28, 2002
Instead of the drastic solution of closing sign-ups again, which seems almost to feel like an admission of failure, I have two suggestions, one of which has been made before but I don't think Matt's responded to yet: A month or two waiting period that allows comments but not posts. The other may seem a little silly, but I think it'll work. Before allowing someone to become a member, send them through a series of pages of posting guidelines (not rules), and make them check off "Yes, I get it" at the bottom of each one. Like so:
Linking to a single op-ed piece as your entire post is discouraged.
Yes, I get it ___
(new page appears)
Finding cool, odd, toylike Web sites is encouraged.
Yes, I get it ___
(new page appears)
While a single link to breaking news is sometimes a good post, MeFi is not Yahoo! or CNN; we don't have to "get it first." When posting a breaking news story to the front page, please consider taking 5-10 additional minutes to find interesting additional links that provide context and depth to the story.
Yes, I get it___
Etc. I can't begin to push for this strongly enough to convey how much I think it should happen, and how much I think it would help. We can hash out the details of each page here, and I think *every* member should be sent through the resulting process, not just the new ones. I also think a permanent, prominent link on the front page (and perhaps on the post preview pages) to "Fifteen excellent MeFi posts" of a variety of kinds would help a lot. Basically, instead of new rules or drastic changes, I think it might be worth trying a more in-your-face approach to the guidelines that have served the site so well for so long. We *can* scale this baby up.
posted by mediareport at 11:07 AM on August 28, 2002
Maybe redirect them to a page full of MeTa threads in which people have been flogged mercilessly into submission for thread posting faux pas, and not let them proceed further until they've read each on in its entirety?
It's worked for me. The more often I visit MeTa, the more I think it'll be another couple of years before I actually make my first front page post. If ever, even.
posted by precocious at 11:43 AM on August 28, 2002
It's worked for me. The more often I visit MeTa, the more I think it'll be another couple of years before I actually make my first front page post. If ever, even.
posted by precocious at 11:43 AM on August 28, 2002
Precocious has a point. MeTa can have a chilling effect.
I was in the first 20 of the 14K class and my first front page post included a link to an op-ed piece, a yahoo link, and was a little too long. If some of the MeTa discussions that occurred in early August were posted yet I would have never posted it.
I read a great article in the NYT on my handspring yesterday at work and was mentally thinking about the other links I could probably find to defend my argument that the news item missed some important points. And thought that the Metafilter members were the perfect audience to discuss the topic at hand.
But then I thought I'd get slaughtered for posting a nytimes link.
posted by birdherder at 1:39 PM on August 28, 2002
I was in the first 20 of the 14K class and my first front page post included a link to an op-ed piece, a yahoo link, and was a little too long. If some of the MeTa discussions that occurred in early August were posted yet I would have never posted it.
I read a great article in the NYT on my handspring yesterday at work and was mentally thinking about the other links I could probably find to defend my argument that the news item missed some important points. And thought that the Metafilter members were the perfect audience to discuss the topic at hand.
But then I thought I'd get slaughtered for posting a nytimes link.
posted by birdherder at 1:39 PM on August 28, 2002
MeTa can have a chilling effect.
For this reason, I think Witty's second suggestion is a good one, with a minor edit: "...incentive for more members to check it out and get informed."
posted by Dean King at 2:09 PM on August 28, 2002
For this reason, I think Witty's second suggestion is a good one, with a minor edit: "...incentive for more members to check it out and get informed."
posted by Dean King at 2:09 PM on August 28, 2002
birdherder:
I was in the first 20 of the 14K class and my first front page post included a link to an op-ed piece, a yahoo link, and was a little too long. If some of the MeTa discussions that occurred in early August were posted yet I would have never posted it.
I read a great article in the NYT on my handspring yesterday at work and was mentally thinking about the other links I could probably find to defend my argument that the news item missed some important points. And thought that the Metafilter members were the perfect audience to discuss the topic at hand.
But then I thought I'd get slaughtered for posting a nytimes link.
in thinking about it, there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things. neither of them seem to care much for the other. the find people seem to be the most openly bitter: they complain about visual clutter and rehashed topics.
a discuss person might see the op/ed and see an issue, and they might comment on it or on something that was noted in the thread. a find person rolls their eyes, and moves on; or possibly comes here to complain. (and, now having something to discuss, the discuss people fight back.) the ideologies seem exclusive. (the proof for me is the long-running fantasy some cultivate of a NewsFilter.) i often feel like metafilter's being grabbed by both arms and pulled in opposite directions. in fact, by being so vocal about what my preference is, i feel like i'm a part of the problem. does anyone else ever feel that way?
posted by moz at 2:40 PM on August 28, 2002
I was in the first 20 of the 14K class and my first front page post included a link to an op-ed piece, a yahoo link, and was a little too long. If some of the MeTa discussions that occurred in early August were posted yet I would have never posted it.
I read a great article in the NYT on my handspring yesterday at work and was mentally thinking about the other links I could probably find to defend my argument that the news item missed some important points. And thought that the Metafilter members were the perfect audience to discuss the topic at hand.
But then I thought I'd get slaughtered for posting a nytimes link.
in thinking about it, there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things. neither of them seem to care much for the other. the find people seem to be the most openly bitter: they complain about visual clutter and rehashed topics.
a discuss person might see the op/ed and see an issue, and they might comment on it or on something that was noted in the thread. a find person rolls their eyes, and moves on; or possibly comes here to complain. (and, now having something to discuss, the discuss people fight back.) the ideologies seem exclusive. (the proof for me is the long-running fantasy some cultivate of a NewsFilter.) i often feel like metafilter's being grabbed by both arms and pulled in opposite directions. in fact, by being so vocal about what my preference is, i feel like i'm a part of the problem. does anyone else ever feel that way?
posted by moz at 2:40 PM on August 28, 2002
moz -
you are onto something with the discuss / find types of people.
it's not binary since i enjoy some of both, but it does explain some of the goings on on the blue pages. if all of the posts for in a day catered to find people, the discuss people would freak out thinking there's too many posts and whatnot. same goes for the discuss types.
with 15,000+ users (lord knows how many are 'active' ), simply limiting the number of posts a person makes in a week won't limit the number of posts on the front page. there are a few people that post more than once a week but most people seem to regulate themselves.
banning links to yahoo or nytimes, etc won't stop this from being newsfilter or stop posts appearing here and at other sites. the "big stories" are picked up by other outlets so the "kid trapped in well" and the "sharks attack with anthrax" type stories will make it through.
the only way to limit the number of stories to each day would be to code metafilter to accept x number of posts each day. and the only way to limit the size of front page posts would be to limit the text entry to a certain number of characters/words.
i don't like either. perhaps a gentle reminder on the add post screen that says something like "there are already 34 posts today, why not wait until tomorrow?" and allow the post to go through if the person insists. the preview screen could have a note saying "damn, that's a long post, perhaps you should place some of that within the post."
to me the 'reminder' versus strict rules are like the peeing at jim beam story. you should only go to the bathroom on breaks, but if you really have to go...
ideally, this will help keep the front page a little cleaner. the content is still up to the user which is how it should be. to the reader, they should be able to be able to scan the discuss or finds posts that interest them.
posted by birdherder at 3:52 PM on August 28, 2002
you are onto something with the discuss / find types of people.
it's not binary since i enjoy some of both, but it does explain some of the goings on on the blue pages. if all of the posts for in a day catered to find people, the discuss people would freak out thinking there's too many posts and whatnot. same goes for the discuss types.
with 15,000+ users (lord knows how many are 'active' ), simply limiting the number of posts a person makes in a week won't limit the number of posts on the front page. there are a few people that post more than once a week but most people seem to regulate themselves.
banning links to yahoo or nytimes, etc won't stop this from being newsfilter or stop posts appearing here and at other sites. the "big stories" are picked up by other outlets so the "kid trapped in well" and the "sharks attack with anthrax" type stories will make it through.
the only way to limit the number of stories to each day would be to code metafilter to accept x number of posts each day. and the only way to limit the size of front page posts would be to limit the text entry to a certain number of characters/words.
i don't like either. perhaps a gentle reminder on the add post screen that says something like "there are already 34 posts today, why not wait until tomorrow?" and allow the post to go through if the person insists. the preview screen could have a note saying "damn, that's a long post, perhaps you should place some of that within the post."
to me the 'reminder' versus strict rules are like the peeing at jim beam story. you should only go to the bathroom on breaks, but if you really have to go...
ideally, this will help keep the front page a little cleaner. the content is still up to the user which is how it should be. to the reader, they should be able to be able to scan the discuss or finds posts that interest them.
posted by birdherder at 3:52 PM on August 28, 2002
I can see where a large number of posts happening each day can be annoying, especially to those of you who have been in this community from the beginning. It seems like topics come up and then are gone way down on the nether scroll, before they were thoroughly chewed, let alone leisurely digested.
But I think the overall quality of the posts is good, and you can just scroll on by those you don't care about. Especially if people make posts that give you a good clue as to what the link is about.
A feature I would like to see, would be having reference for what date you are scrolling through. Maybe adding the date to the post time as is done for the comments page. Or have a slightly different background color for alternating days. This would help when trying to find a particular thread you are trying to keep track of. The way it is, I am always wondering whether I need to scroll up or down to find what I am looking for.
I don't know whatever would be the least amount of hassle to implement. What I do on my blog is have named anchors for each day, and navigation arrows for the next or previous day. It works nicely but it is a hassle for me to set up each day. I'm no code genius, I don't know what it would take to make this happen automatically.
posted by gametone at 3:52 PM on August 28, 2002
But I think the overall quality of the posts is good, and you can just scroll on by those you don't care about. Especially if people make posts that give you a good clue as to what the link is about.
A feature I would like to see, would be having reference for what date you are scrolling through. Maybe adding the date to the post time as is done for the comments page. Or have a slightly different background color for alternating days. This would help when trying to find a particular thread you are trying to keep track of. The way it is, I am always wondering whether I need to scroll up or down to find what I am looking for.
I don't know whatever would be the least amount of hassle to implement. What I do on my blog is have named anchors for each day, and navigation arrows for the next or previous day. It works nicely but it is a hassle for me to set up each day. I'm no code genius, I don't know what it would take to make this happen automatically.
posted by gametone at 3:52 PM on August 28, 2002
Any possiblility people are posting frequently partly because they're still on summer break? My instincts say that a different user pattern might well emerge in mid-September.
posted by sheauga at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by sheauga at 4:27 PM on August 28, 2002
i just want the people who are planting burning apple macs
in my front garden to STOP IT NOW.
here is a solution :
ban everyone from posting for a month except those
who write in to complain about new users, incorrect grammar etc
and lets see if there is an upsurge in quality , eh?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:28 PM on August 28, 2002
in my front garden to STOP IT NOW.
here is a solution :
ban everyone from posting for a month except those
who write in to complain about new users, incorrect grammar etc
and lets see if there is an upsurge in quality , eh?
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:28 PM on August 28, 2002
Any possibility people are posting frequently partly because they're still on summer break?
What's a summer break?
posted by timeistight at 4:40 PM on August 28, 2002
What's a summer break?
posted by timeistight at 4:40 PM on August 28, 2002
sgt.serenity, I frequently like your comments, but any chance you can shitcan the linebreaks?
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:51 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:51 PM on August 28, 2002
in thinking about it, there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things. neither of them seem to care much for the other.
Excellent point moz. Since I went to this school, I guess I don't have much of a choice about whether I'm a discusser or a finder (sort of like hunter and gatherer? squeeze-from-the-middle vs. squeeze-from-the bottom? sub or dom?). I must admit I get disconcerted when someone says flat out No discussion's not the point the links are. Otherwise, the point of a community blog seems a little lost....but that's probably just my own prejudice of a community being based on shared communication/discussion.
posted by redshoes3 at 4:52 PM on August 28, 2002
Excellent point moz. Since I went to this school, I guess I don't have much of a choice about whether I'm a discusser or a finder (sort of like hunter and gatherer? squeeze-from-the-middle vs. squeeze-from-the bottom? sub or dom?). I must admit I get disconcerted when someone says flat out No discussion's not the point the links are. Otherwise, the point of a community blog seems a little lost....but that's probably just my own prejudice of a community being based on shared communication/discussion.
posted by redshoes3 at 4:52 PM on August 28, 2002
consider the linebreaks banished forthwith, my dear boy.
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:55 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by sgt.serenity at 4:55 PM on August 28, 2002
Now there's a gentleman!
*doffs tophat to sgt. serenity*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:16 PM on August 28, 2002
*doffs tophat to sgt. serenity*
posted by MiguelCardoso at 5:16 PM on August 28, 2002
So now that some 1,500 new members have signed up, is it almost time to start discussing when to close sign-ups again? Just curious about a consensus.
That's an interesting question. I'd have to assume that anyone--like myself--who was waiting for a long period of time (in my case over a year, perhaps as long as eighteen-twenty months though I can't remember exactly when I started in on the Blue and Gray) has probably already registered if they read the site with any regularity.
I also agree with the sentiment that if registration is stopped, either for a long period of time or for a month or two, the newer members--who may not have read the site for as long as myself (and other lurkers) and don't understand the ins and outs of posting etiquette expected by the old guard--will start to settle down and learn the ropes, so to speak. (Damn that was a clunky little sentence.)
in thinking about it, there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things. neither of them seem to care much for the other. the find people seem to be the most openly bitter: they complain about visual clutter and rehashed topics.
That probably applies to a large portion of the members, but I think there's probably at least a few other people like myself who enjoy both aspects of the site. While I have yet to contribute a post to the front page, I definitely look forward to finding something in the future to share with the people here. It's the least I can do for the countless times I've found something of interest here.
Personally, I'd hate to see the op/ed and news items cut down for the sake of keeping people who dislike those discussions happy. I happen to be one of those people who doesn't scour a million sources every day (I, in fact, don't read any blogs *gasp*) and happen to enjoy coming to metafilter to see what eclectic collection of links (news or otherwise) have been assembled, and, more than that, what you people have had to say about those (quirky, fun, time-consuming) sites and issues.
On the whole, I have a great deal of respect for the people who compose this site and appreciate interacting with them, reading what they have to say, and, most of all, learning a thing or two--the sheer range of expertise I might find from any of the members on a given topic is a bit daunting, even. It would be a real shame to see that disappear because there aren't a lot of places where you can find a good mix of opinions put forth in a manner that usually approaches something civil and is held together by a pretty fair set of rules that the community seems to embrace and actively discuss.
That doesn't mean I can't understand the anger/frustration of the older members when they visit the site and see it comprised of 75% news links (most with nothing but a link to a single article and nothing more). But as the saying goes, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? I'd prefer to see exactly what is happening in this thread instead: some intelligent discussion of the site's direction that the new members will (hopefully) read and learn a few things from.
(I've probably, as I too often do, lost a cohesive point when assembling this post as I seem to do most times when posting to message boards. Perhaps I should have written it in word so you'd have some pretty little boxes™ to look at. Or maybe I could have included the phrase "begs the question" so the anal-retentive-grammar partrol could have cuffed me and dragged me to the clink. At any rate, I'll stop while I'm still making sense.)
posted by The God Complex at 9:00 PM on August 28, 2002
That's an interesting question. I'd have to assume that anyone--like myself--who was waiting for a long period of time (in my case over a year, perhaps as long as eighteen-twenty months though I can't remember exactly when I started in on the Blue and Gray) has probably already registered if they read the site with any regularity.
I also agree with the sentiment that if registration is stopped, either for a long period of time or for a month or two, the newer members--who may not have read the site for as long as myself (and other lurkers) and don't understand the ins and outs of posting etiquette expected by the old guard--will start to settle down and learn the ropes, so to speak. (Damn that was a clunky little sentence.)
in thinking about it, there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things. neither of them seem to care much for the other. the find people seem to be the most openly bitter: they complain about visual clutter and rehashed topics.
That probably applies to a large portion of the members, but I think there's probably at least a few other people like myself who enjoy both aspects of the site. While I have yet to contribute a post to the front page, I definitely look forward to finding something in the future to share with the people here. It's the least I can do for the countless times I've found something of interest here.
Personally, I'd hate to see the op/ed and news items cut down for the sake of keeping people who dislike those discussions happy. I happen to be one of those people who doesn't scour a million sources every day (I, in fact, don't read any blogs *gasp*) and happen to enjoy coming to metafilter to see what eclectic collection of links (news or otherwise) have been assembled, and, more than that, what you people have had to say about those (quirky, fun, time-consuming) sites and issues.
On the whole, I have a great deal of respect for the people who compose this site and appreciate interacting with them, reading what they have to say, and, most of all, learning a thing or two--the sheer range of expertise I might find from any of the members on a given topic is a bit daunting, even. It would be a real shame to see that disappear because there aren't a lot of places where you can find a good mix of opinions put forth in a manner that usually approaches something civil and is held together by a pretty fair set of rules that the community seems to embrace and actively discuss.
That doesn't mean I can't understand the anger/frustration of the older members when they visit the site and see it comprised of 75% news links (most with nothing but a link to a single article and nothing more). But as the saying goes, do you throw the baby out with the bathwater? I'd prefer to see exactly what is happening in this thread instead: some intelligent discussion of the site's direction that the new members will (hopefully) read and learn a few things from.
(I've probably, as I too often do, lost a cohesive point when assembling this post as I seem to do most times when posting to message boards. Perhaps I should have written it in word so you'd have some pretty little boxes™ to look at. Or maybe I could have included the phrase "begs the question" so the anal-retentive-grammar partrol could have cuffed me and dragged me to the clink. At any rate, I'll stop while I'm still making sense.)
posted by The God Complex at 9:00 PM on August 28, 2002
I don't know - I've been around here awhile now and I was just thinking as I read MeFi in the last couple of weeks that this infusion of new blood is invigorating the place! Agree with moz - some come for the links to new things, some stay for the discussion. I like new things, which is why I joined up. I don't care for the discussion as much because it turns so nasty so often. I also fear posting MeFi linksfor the same reason. I actually think the best discussions are over here on MeTa, FWIW!
posted by Lynsey at 9:26 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by Lynsey at 9:26 PM on August 28, 2002
I'm definetly one of the "discuss/read" ones. But I don't mind the people who find things. I've really gotta side with Lynsey here; there've been so many posts that I find myself mostly lurking in threads, busy churning through the links. 9I don't mind op-ed, as long as the post offers new material.)
Which is why I think we need a posting throttle. I'm not sure how to implement it, though. In scrolling through the last several days of posts, I think the only duplicate posters I saw were vowe and BGM. So a personal one-per-week limit may not solve much.
As far as limiting membership, I know it would have pissed me off to have to wait to post. I mean, a buddy showed me the sight, and I immediately created an account because I thought I had something to say about US foreign policy.
So maybe we need one or the other; I favor the posting throttle, but I don't see how it can be effective.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:38 PM on August 28, 2002
Which is why I think we need a posting throttle. I'm not sure how to implement it, though. In scrolling through the last several days of posts, I think the only duplicate posters I saw were vowe and BGM. So a personal one-per-week limit may not solve much.
As far as limiting membership, I know it would have pissed me off to have to wait to post. I mean, a buddy showed me the sight, and I immediately created an account because I thought I had something to say about US foreign policy.
So maybe we need one or the other; I favor the posting throttle, but I don't see how it can be effective.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:38 PM on August 28, 2002
That nine should really be a parenthases.
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:39 PM on August 28, 2002
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 9:39 PM on August 28, 2002
moz: there's really two camps of metafilter readers (and there have been since i've been here) at work on this: people who like to discuss topics and people who like to find things.
Precisely. Which is why no ranking system could ever really work - who's doing the ranking? and for whom? which "MeFi readership community" is going to drive that process such that a high ranking means "great discussion!" or "cool obscure link!"?
Perhaps we should acknowledge that there are these two basic types of MetaFilter posts and accept them both as valuable to some significant portion of the population. Then the only issue is giving readers some indication of which posts/threads are which (or, really, which were originally intended to be which; you can never predict where a MetaFilter thread might go...)
My observation - though utterly unsupported by any methodical research of past postings - is that a "current events" post is one which will engender extended discussion; a "general interest" post is one which has half a dozen or so comments, follow ons or suggested companion links. We've joked about "NewsFilter" (we were joking, right?!), but if the reality is that the population is so cleanly split between those who link and those who discuss, perhaps the right thing to do is to formally recognize that split in how the information on the site is organized.
At the risk of being repetitious, I propose a variant of what I said in the recent MeTa thread on banning Op/Ed content. Namely: posters given the opportunity to flag their posts with a simple binary option, "General Interest" ("Come for the links!) or "Current Events" ("Stay for the discussion!"). To be sure, you're relying on the posters to determine which is which, but it's an indicator of what to expect. Add another pop up on the front page to user select "General Interest posts," "Current Event posts," or "All MetaFilter posts" and there you have it: a MetaFilter front page custom designed for the link people, the discussion people and the people who genuinely want to see both kinds of links.
posted by JollyWanker at 6:02 AM on August 29, 2002
Precisely. Which is why no ranking system could ever really work - who's doing the ranking? and for whom? which "MeFi readership community" is going to drive that process such that a high ranking means "great discussion!" or "cool obscure link!"?
Perhaps we should acknowledge that there are these two basic types of MetaFilter posts and accept them both as valuable to some significant portion of the population. Then the only issue is giving readers some indication of which posts/threads are which (or, really, which were originally intended to be which; you can never predict where a MetaFilter thread might go...)
My observation - though utterly unsupported by any methodical research of past postings - is that a "current events" post is one which will engender extended discussion; a "general interest" post is one which has half a dozen or so comments, follow ons or suggested companion links. We've joked about "NewsFilter" (we were joking, right?!), but if the reality is that the population is so cleanly split between those who link and those who discuss, perhaps the right thing to do is to formally recognize that split in how the information on the site is organized.
At the risk of being repetitious, I propose a variant of what I said in the recent MeTa thread on banning Op/Ed content. Namely: posters given the opportunity to flag their posts with a simple binary option, "General Interest" ("Come for the links!) or "Current Events" ("Stay for the discussion!"). To be sure, you're relying on the posters to determine which is which, but it's an indicator of what to expect. Add another pop up on the front page to user select "General Interest posts," "Current Event posts," or "All MetaFilter posts" and there you have it: a MetaFilter front page custom designed for the link people, the discussion people and the people who genuinely want to see both kinds of links.
posted by JollyWanker at 6:02 AM on August 29, 2002
Similar suggestion at the end of the NewsFilter thread six months ago. I remain newsfilter agnostic, but this sort of solution could be fairly unobtrusive.
As for the closing-the-memberships question: if we assume that only twenty percent of the pre-August membership was actually active on the site (which we've heard some evidence for before), we're fast approaching a doubling of the active MeFite population. If a town doubled in size in a month, you'd expect some growing pains.
posted by rory at 7:05 AM on August 29, 2002
As for the closing-the-memberships question: if we assume that only twenty percent of the pre-August membership was actually active on the site (which we've heard some evidence for before), we're fast approaching a doubling of the active MeFite population. If a town doubled in size in a month, you'd expect some growing pains.
posted by rory at 7:05 AM on August 29, 2002
Except most of them would involve physical things, like food shortages and shortage of living space.
posted by crunchland at 7:20 AM on August 29, 2002
posted by crunchland at 7:20 AM on August 29, 2002
What's this thread about, if not 'living space'? Surely you're not suggesting 'physical things gooood, virtual things baaa-aa-aad,' crunch.
On the other hand, you may be onto something. Urge to feed self... urge to feed tamagotchi... urge to feed MeFi...
posted by rory at 7:56 AM on August 29, 2002
On the other hand, you may be onto something. Urge to feed self... urge to feed tamagotchi... urge to feed MeFi...
posted by rory at 7:56 AM on August 29, 2002
I'm a discusser not a finder, but I can see that the link has to be valuable. Otherwise you may as well have no links at all, just a topic and the word 'discuss' at the end.
posted by Summer at 8:18 AM on August 29, 2002
posted by Summer at 8:18 AM on August 29, 2002
urge to feed MeFi...
Now THAT is a fascinating notion. I smell a dissertation for someone....
posted by rushmc at 10:54 AM on August 29, 2002
Now THAT is a fascinating notion. I smell a dissertation for someone....
posted by rushmc at 10:54 AM on August 29, 2002
« Older Would user-defined style sheets be possible? | Characters turning into question marks. Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I don't really think that the quality of posts have gone down, despite the rise in quantity. But I do think that the community aspect of MeFi is being diluted, as we must now pick and choose which threads we are going to read and comment on. Sure, we have always opted to read some posts and ignore others, but now it almost seems like we have splintered into Team Politics and Team Wacky News and Team Technology. No one non-ColdChef man can possibly discuss everything MeFi now has to offer.
And I don't even (necessarily) think we need less posts. But eight in 30 minutes is a overwhelming. Even if there was a queue of some sort, and the posts were meted out, one every half an hour or so -- that would help. But right now I feel like I'm getting served my Hors d'Oeuvres and salad and soup and sorbet and entree and dessert all at the same time. I'd prefer to enjoy the meal at a leisurely pace.
That's my take, anyhow. And why, as of today, I have become a throttleteer.
posted by Shadowkeeper at 2:04 PM on August 27, 2002