"follow-up" mechanism? September 17, 2002 3:59 AM Subscribe
Have you ever considered a "follow-up" mechanism of some sort?
I wrote a long post saying why I think this isn't a good idea, then realized that I misunderstood the idea. Ooops.
It happens, though, that part of what I was talking about in the deleted post, Newsfilteritis, is still germane.
Clearly Newsfilter is the way the site has been going in recent times, much to my chagrin and that of others. I think this would push Metafilter further in that direction, and anything that would do that would be regrettable, and needlessly clutter things up.
I also suspect that putting an "Allow Comments?" tickbox on the post page (which is how I envision something like this being implemented, default being 'on') would be rife with possibility for abuse (trolling and otherwise), and be more of a hassle than it's worth.
So my vote : [this is bad], but perhaps I'm still being obtuse...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 AM on September 17, 2002
It happens, though, that part of what I was talking about in the deleted post, Newsfilteritis, is still germane.
Clearly Newsfilter is the way the site has been going in recent times, much to my chagrin and that of others. I think this would push Metafilter further in that direction, and anything that would do that would be regrettable, and needlessly clutter things up.
I also suspect that putting an "Allow Comments?" tickbox on the post page (which is how I envision something like this being implemented, default being 'on') would be rife with possibility for abuse (trolling and otherwise), and be more of a hassle than it's worth.
So my vote : [this is bad], but perhaps I'm still being obtuse...
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 AM on September 17, 2002
what I was talking about in the deleted post
...and no I don't have superpowers (nickname aside) which allow me to delete my posts - I deleted before I commented, I meant. Sorry.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 AM on September 17, 2002
...and no I don't have superpowers (nickname aside) which allow me to delete my posts - I deleted before I commented, I meant. Sorry.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:28 AM on September 17, 2002
I've thought about this too. Recent threads that are examples of things that I would like to hear about, should they be resolved, are the list of states Google Questions poser, and the ascii crop circle art mystery. My guess is that if somebody posted a thread saying "remember this? well here's the answer", they wouldn't be booed off the stage, but still, it seems like an interesting idea to designate a spot for these sorts of follow-ups.
posted by taz at 6:43 AM on September 17, 2002
posted by taz at 6:43 AM on September 17, 2002
And yes, Stavros, I agree; the abuse factor looms darkly... but it would be awfully nice if some genius could figure out how to make something like this work. It would definitely be a feature that I would check out regularly. I know that disallowing comments would do something to discourage trolling, but still, inappropriate follow-ups would be posted, and metatalked, etc., and this is exactly what you are concerned about. The only solutions I can think of would require somebody to be assigned caretaker of such a function, and then everything becomes quite complicated.
posted by taz at 6:58 AM on September 17, 2002
posted by taz at 6:58 AM on September 17, 2002
the sort by "recent comments" pull-down takes care of this without cluttering up the already cluttered front-page. As long as people post the updates to the original thread, of course.
posted by whatnot at 7:13 AM on September 17, 2002
posted by whatnot at 7:13 AM on September 17, 2002
" ... it seems like an interesting idea to designate a spot for these sorts of follow-ups."
Maybe a redirection mechanism of some sort that essentially resurrects the old thread for further posting, instead of creating a new one.
Nightmare to implement, I suspect.
Stavros has a good point. Though I will say that some of the things I'm refering to aren't necessarily "newsie" items, though I can see a new tier of MeFi crime: "You should have linked this to a similar thread we had four months back!"
Perhaps there's an eloquent solution I'm not seeing.
posted by RavinDave at 7:17 AM on September 17, 2002
Maybe a redirection mechanism of some sort that essentially resurrects the old thread for further posting, instead of creating a new one.
Nightmare to implement, I suspect.
Stavros has a good point. Though I will say that some of the things I'm refering to aren't necessarily "newsie" items, though I can see a new tier of MeFi crime: "You should have linked this to a similar thread we had four months back!"
Perhaps there's an eloquent solution I'm not seeing.
posted by RavinDave at 7:17 AM on September 17, 2002
the sort by "recent comments" pull-down takes care of this without cluttering up the already cluttered front-page
as long as the thread is not older than 30 days.
posted by taz at 7:25 AM on September 17, 2002
as long as the thread is not older than 30 days.
posted by taz at 7:25 AM on September 17, 2002
ravin:
We get plenty of stories here that have follow-ups in the news a few days later. (I'm currently thinking of the thread about the Georgia lady reporting "terrorist" activities).
As it stands, if anyone wants to update what might be a fascinating story, they have to attach it to the original old thread (which is probably no longer read) or start an entirely new one (which is redundant).
How about a third alternative? A FPP that merely points to updated material by contains no link to a discussion?
i vote no. my reason is this: if the update to the story is fascinating in and of itself, it should be worthy of front page posting. but if it's only good enough for a footnote in the thread or as a lesser post, as you suggest, then i say it's not worth posting in the first place. i think news followups like this are contrary to the spirit of metafilter, for this site doesn't exist to keep us abreast of news. but if the followup really is fascinating enough to warrant a post on the front page, then i say put it up.
posted by moz at 8:22 AM on September 17, 2002
We get plenty of stories here that have follow-ups in the news a few days later. (I'm currently thinking of the thread about the Georgia lady reporting "terrorist" activities).
As it stands, if anyone wants to update what might be a fascinating story, they have to attach it to the original old thread (which is probably no longer read) or start an entirely new one (which is redundant).
How about a third alternative? A FPP that merely points to updated material by contains no link to a discussion?
i vote no. my reason is this: if the update to the story is fascinating in and of itself, it should be worthy of front page posting. but if it's only good enough for a footnote in the thread or as a lesser post, as you suggest, then i say it's not worth posting in the first place. i think news followups like this are contrary to the spirit of metafilter, for this site doesn't exist to keep us abreast of news. but if the followup really is fascinating enough to warrant a post on the front page, then i say put it up.
posted by moz at 8:22 AM on September 17, 2002
I just posted to the Google Answers MeFi thread, as it looks like there may soon be a solution declared for that puzzle.
Now, if I understand it correctly, this means that the MeFi thread has had it shelf-life extended by 30 days, which, newsy threads, is good for follow-ups, no?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:07 AM on September 17, 2002
Now, if I understand it correctly, this means that the MeFi thread has had it shelf-life extended by 30 days, which, newsy threads, is good for follow-ups, no?
posted by dash_slot- at 9:07 AM on September 17, 2002
dash_slot- It's thirty days from the original posting, not from the last comment. See this example.
posted by timeistight at 9:41 AM on September 17, 2002
posted by timeistight at 9:41 AM on September 17, 2002
i vote no. my reason is this: if the update to the story is fascinating in and of itself, it should be worthy of front page posting. but if it's only good enough for a footnote in the thread or as a lesser post, as you suggest, then i say it's not worth posting in the first place. i think news followups like this are contrary to the spirit of metafilter, for this site doesn't exist to keep us abreast of news. but if the followup really is fascinating enough to warrant a post on the front page, then i say put it up.
I agree with this. And I'd add that if you're that interested in the topic, you can always keep up on it yourself. Write a note and check some news site on your own for the next few days.
I'm not overly concerned about the proliferation of news-oriented material on Metafilter, but I will say that I think it's at a reasonably comfortable level (perhaps even a bit too high, to contradict myself) and this would make for some really boring--not to mention annoying and long--journeys through the front page.
Mostly the first part though, you lazy bastard. ;)
posted by The God Complex at 12:33 PM on September 17, 2002
I agree with this. And I'd add that if you're that interested in the topic, you can always keep up on it yourself. Write a note and check some news site on your own for the next few days.
I'm not overly concerned about the proliferation of news-oriented material on Metafilter, but I will say that I think it's at a reasonably comfortable level (perhaps even a bit too high, to contradict myself) and this would make for some really boring--not to mention annoying and long--journeys through the front page.
Mostly the first part though, you lazy bastard. ;)
posted by The God Complex at 12:33 PM on September 17, 2002
this would make for some really boring--not to mention annoying and long--journeys through the front page.
I think RavinDave was asking about ideas for this that would avoid following up earlier threads with a front page post:
RD: As it stands, if anyone wants to update what might be a fascinating story, they have to attach it to the original old thread (which is probably no longer read) or start an entirely new one (which is redundant).
How about a third alternative?
posted by taz at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2002
I think RavinDave was asking about ideas for this that would avoid following up earlier threads with a front page post:
RD: As it stands, if anyone wants to update what might be a fascinating story, they have to attach it to the original old thread (which is probably no longer read) or start an entirely new one (which is redundant).
How about a third alternative?
posted by taz at 12:55 PM on September 17, 2002
T-i-T...you made me titter...
posted by dash_slot- at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2002
posted by dash_slot- at 2:04 PM on September 17, 2002
T-i-T...you made me titter...
Hmm... Well, I'll take a laugh even though I don't know how I got it.
posted by timeistight at 2:30 PM on September 17, 2002
Hmm... Well, I'll take a laugh even though I don't know how I got it.
posted by timeistight at 2:30 PM on September 17, 2002
Tittering tits in the night, jiggling until dawn, nipping about under cover of nightie...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:51 PM on September 17, 2002
posted by MiguelCardoso at 3:51 PM on September 17, 2002
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
We get plenty of stories here that have follow-ups in the news a few days later. (I'm currently thinking of the thread about the Georgia lady reporting "terrorist" activities).
As it stands, if anyone wants to update what might be a fascinating story, they have to attach it to the original old thread (which is probably no longer read) or start an entirely new one (which is redundant).
How about a third alternative? A FPP that merely points to updated material by contains no link to a discussion?
Not a burning issue, I grant -- but I recall several times when something interesting happened, but I never heard when (or if) it was resolved. (bad example: Did that guy really launch himself into space?)
posted by RavinDave at 4:05 AM on September 17, 2002