[MeFi Site Update] April 19th April 19, 2023 6:00 PM   Subscribe

Hi there, MetaFilter!

Welcome to your monthly Site Update! You’ll find some updates regarding the site below. I’m looking forward to your feedback and questions.

Reminder: I will be the only mod monitoring this thread so please be patient as I reply to your feedback and questions.

Moderation

- I’m working with the Mod team to review and update the FAQs. Please give us your suggestions.
- The Community Guidelines, Microaggressions and Content Policy are due for a revision that adjusts to the present. I'll start a Meta Tread about this to gather feedback from the community in the next couple of weeks.

General updates

- Jessamyn and I have been working through accounting and systems to make sure everything is set up properly under the MetaFilter LLC legal structure.
- Jessamyn and I are working through the site’s legal compliance as well, we’ll make sure to give you an update with more details soon. For now, all we can say is that this takes time and thank you for your patience.
- Taxes have been filed and paid.
- Username/Name change policy for users who are transitioning or have transitioned has been changed and we'll update the FAQs shortly.

Technical changes

- frimble has made several updates and improvements to how admin/site emails work
- Updated IRL to show a month worth of events rather than two weeks
- Fixes to email/account verification

BIPOC Advisory Board

- The Global BIPOC board meets this Saturday, April 29th
- I’m working with Thyme and frimble to catch up with the backlog of BIPOC Advisory Board minutes that haven’t been uploaded to the site. We’re aware this is not working the way we’d like and are working on it.

If you have any questions or feedback not related to this particular update, please Contact Us instead. If you want to discuss a particular subject not covered here with the community, you’re welcome to open a separate MetaTalk thread for it.
posted by loup (staff) to MetaFilter-Related at 6:00 PM (38 comments total) 6 users marked this as a favorite

FAQ suggestions:

The rule that Cross-site talk/comments are generally removed should be documented if it's a thing.

Having four different pages for "FAQs", "Community Guidelines", "Microaggressions" and "Content Policy" is confusing. Would be better if they were combined, or at least made clearer that there are others.

In general it seems a bit complicated. Someone on the subreddit created a Miro Board and suggested simplifying the rules into 4 rules and 4 principles:

Rules:
  • No hate speech
  • No harassment
  • No misuse of another's account
  • No spam
Principles:
  • Speak authentically
  • Be gracious
  • Practice self-awareness & inclusion
  • Be respectful of all people and cultures
posted by TheophileEscargot at 3:07 AM on April 20, 2023 [26 favorites]


I think that summarization of the rules/principles is excellent! Much clearer than the existing multiple pages.

I would support combining the existing rules into a single page that uses those groupings. It would also make sense to tie them in to the flagging UI - so a flag could be "Breaks the guidelines -> Be respectful of all peoples and cultures"

I searched metafiltermeta to see who deserves credit for the reformulation - it looks like it was in this comment.
posted by siskin at 4:02 AM on April 20, 2023 [8 favorites]


Not directly related to the topics of the day, but still "state of the site related"... I have an observation about the prompt text on the "About" section on profile pages.

Our kiddo observed that "tell everyone when you first started using the internet" has gone from a pretty good conversation starter in early Gen X times to something akin to "Do you remember the first time you used electricity?" in these times. It dates us pretty hard.

I think they're probably right on that one.
posted by DirtyOldTown at 7:41 AM on April 20, 2023 [34 favorites]


There's actually two FAQ pages, clicking FAQ from the blue takes you to https://www.metafilter.com/faq.mefi, but that links to the full Metafilter FAQ at https://faq.metafilter.com/.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 7:49 AM on April 20, 2023 [1 favorite]


I don't agree with that summation as a replacement. You can't summarize your way around knowledge people don't already have. Part of the problem with microaggressions, for example, is that people don't always realize what they are doing.

I do think the various pages could be combined better.
posted by Chrysopoeia at 7:58 AM on April 20, 2023 [7 favorites]


I support a summary, and then more detailed information available as a single page (could have the headers of the current ones.)

It is just really not at all realistic that people are going to read all those pages before they sign up, or before they post. I'm sure there are a handful of anxious people who have in the history of the site, but this is pretty well known user behaviour.

The purpose of having succinct principles is to signal the type of community you have. I might add a tiny bit of detail (no spam, no self-promotion except in Projects) to a couple of the points.

So when does the education happen? Users will look for the fine details of the guidelines is a) if people call them out in a thread or in Metatalk or b) when a comment/post (theirs or anyone else's) is deleted. A link from the posting box would also be useful although I suspect not commonly clicked on.

The mod notes would work perfectly for putting links to the specific section (I don't even think it needs to be the specific bullet point, but that could be anchored too) consistently. Hopefully they could have a template or eventually an automated sort of drop down to manage it more efficiently.
posted by warriorqueen at 8:11 AM on April 20, 2023 [9 favorites]


clicking FAQ from the blue takes you to https://www.metafilter.com/faq.mefi, but that links to the full Metafilter FAQ at https://faq.metafilter.com/.

Thanks for that. There should definitely only be one faq and we thought we had dug out all the links to the old one. Can you say specifically where you're finding/clicking that link on the blue, Chrysopoeia, and (if you know) which theme you are using? We'll get frimble to fix that.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:19 AM on April 20, 2023 [2 favorites]


Whoops, my bad, that is one of those site-specific FAQs that confuses people (including me) so we'll have to think on how to best make the FAQ make sense then. Appreciate it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:12 AM on April 20, 2023 [3 favorites]


I support a summary, and then more detailed information

for the record, I gave up on trying to track and/or make sense of the site's rules/principles a long time ago. Just too much stuff too jerry-rigged. Not that I don't support most of them, but then, I've been around for a while -- I've had time to figure a lot of stuff out.

But for someone new, or maybe just not as likely to hang out in METAs tracking what's going on -- TOO CONFUSING BY ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE.

So the notion of four (or three or maybe seven, whichever makes most sense) basic principles (which could also serve as flagging prompts), with further details/explanations from there -- this makes almost too much sense (ie: why haven't we done this already?).

But then rather like a street map of London, if you know the history (ie: it all just sorta evolved from foot paths and cart tracks and whatnot), what appears as absurd actually makes a lot of sense.
posted by philip-random at 9:30 AM on April 20, 2023 [4 favorites]


I don't agree with that summation as a replacement. You can't summarize your way around knowledge people don't already have.

I don't think it's a good replacement, but it could be an excellent introduction or structuring tool.

Rules:
  1. No hate speech
    1. Specific rules about hate speech go here
    2. Even more rules
    3. Yes, those coded references are also hate speech

  2. No harassment
    1. This thing counts as harassment
    2. So does this
    3. Doing it offsite doesn't magically make it okay

  3. No misuse of another account
    1. Even if you've got some "hilarious" chaos planned

  4. No spam
    1. Disclose your relationship with the post
    2. Or take it to Projects, it exists ya know?!

etc.
posted by a snickering nuthatch at 10:26 AM on April 20, 2023 [11 favorites]


What exactly are "cross-site talk/comments"?
posted by jzb at 11:38 AM on April 20, 2023 [1 favorite]


Rules:
No hate speech
No harassment
No misuse of another's account
No spam

Principles:
Speak authentically
Be gracious
Practice self-awareness & inclusion
Be respectful of all people and cultures


I think when it comes to principles, generally speaking, less is more. Less granular and more of an overarching framework or "ethos". This looks ideal to me.
posted by Ahmad Khani at 11:45 AM on April 20, 2023 [2 favorites]


What exactly are "cross-site talk/comments"?

Who-said-what on Reddit, Twitter/Mastodon, instant messages, Slacks/Discords, etc, is my assumption based on previous MetaTalk threads.
posted by curious nu at 12:09 PM on April 20, 2023 [3 favorites]


- The rule that Cross-site talk/comments are generally removed should be documented if it's a thing.
- What exactly are "cross-site talk/comments"?

Yes, this should be defined clearly and put into the policy. In general, we're referring to linking to external sites that host threads, conversations, or screenshots of said conversations or otherwise external links that make reference to or copy internal/private conversations with staff or other members.

Keep the feedback coming. :)
posted by loup (staff) at 1:38 PM on April 20, 2023 [2 favorites]


Loop’s definition of “cross-site talk” seems considerably narrower than what is actually currently enforced by moderators. At the moment, moderators delete links to any discussions of Metafilter outside of Metafilter, most notably the MetafilterMeta subreddit.

Of course, even this policy is inconsistently enforced (like most “policies” on Metafilter), as can be seen in the first comment in this thread.
posted by crazy with stars at 1:46 PM on April 20, 2023 [8 favorites]


Rules:
...
Principles:
...


I think this is an excellent way to organise these and would like to see the whole mess on one page so, at least if it's still a mess, it's easier to find and figure out. Separating rules from principles should also come with some guidance as to what a likely penalty is if you transgress. If you wanted to get all fancy, you could categorise each undesirable behaviour into levels to be somewhat clear about how important each rule is to the community.

I started off going all 'hell yeah' to the idea of explicitly banning cross-site comments, but then I saw that awesome Miro Board and changed my mind. I do think it's a real problem when people use conversations elsewhere as a 'gotcha', but a more situational approach rather than blanket banning it might be more appropriate.
posted by dg at 9:43 PM on April 20, 2023 [4 favorites]


Question re username changes: is that only offered to people who have transitioned, and if so is proof requested? I got a whole new account in part because my old username was from my teen years and I've outgrown it, but it's not due to anything gender-related (my own personal gender situation aside).
posted by creatrixtiara at 1:29 AM on April 21, 2023 [1 favorite]


I want to propose that account name changes are "you get [to do it] on[c]e, for almost any reason". As someone whose username predates transition (albeit my presence on Metafilter does not), the implication I might have wanted to change it feels weird (not icky exactly, but "wtf, why would I have done that?") and so it feels unfair that I get a carve out when someone who outgrew their username for other reasons (as creatixtiara said) doesn't. Transitioning can cause you to outgrow a username (gendered or not), but so can time.

Or maybe the trans-people-specific policy should be "we'll waive the $5 if you want a fresh start"?
posted by hoyland at 5:33 AM on April 21, 2023 [1 favorite]


"At the moment, moderators delete links to any discussions of Metafilter outside of Metafilter, most notably the MetafilterMeta subreddit."

Ah... OK. I wouldn't have known to avoid this, though I don't think I've ever done it. It also wouldn't really be covered by some of the simplified rules/principles approaches or inherently obvious from them.
posted by jzb at 6:40 AM on April 21, 2023


I think maybe “Be gracious” should be “Be gracious. Assume good faith.” I’m not sure what be gracious means, but when I read the list I first thought “assume good faith” was missing, and then I thought “be gracious” is probably trying to get at the same thing.
posted by doomsey at 7:59 AM on April 21, 2023 [2 favorites]


Someone on the subreddit created a Miro Board...

I like the basic idea, but one of the post-its further detailing one if the basic principles was basically "don't use analogies!" which is effectively telling me (and presumably some number of others whose brains work like mine) not to participate in a lot of discussions. Analogy is how I think.



As someone whose username predates transition (albeit my presence on Metafilter does not), the implication I might have wanted to change it feels weird (not icky exactly, but "wtf, why would I have done that?") and so it feels unfair that I get a carve out when someone who outgrew their username for other reasons (as creatixtiara said) doesn't.

I had my username very graciously changed (by jessamyn, I think?) WAY back when, like maybe a decade ago, specifically because I asked for it when I was early in transition. It was because my old username was explicitly gendered (it wasn't "Mr. Dysk" but that gives you the idea - it was a gendered component that was dropped, not a total change). I suspect the policy is more addressed at that kind of situation than an "ehh, this name isn't really 'me' anymore" type thing. I can see how the implications would be weird without that context? I specifically wanted to keep my posting history, was willing to live with whatever jank from people addressing me before, and offered to pay $5 because it wasn't about the money, it was about ungendering my username and account, while keeping it, so waiving the fee for a new account wouldn't have helped me.
posted by Dysk at 8:18 AM on April 21, 2023 [3 favorites]


If name changes are possible, could they be made part of revenue? E.g. $25 to change your name, fee waived for transitioners.
posted by TheophileEscargot at 8:27 AM on April 21, 2023 [3 favorites]


Regarding technical changes, I hate to ask but there was a lot of discussion over the past (several?) years about improving the flag UI (even in minor ways such as spelling out the word "flag") and also increasing transparency about the status of various discussed development tasks. Any updates on that? (Apologies if there have been and I've missed them.)
posted by trig at 1:31 PM on April 21, 2023 [2 favorites]


I suspect the policy is more addressed at that kind of situation than an "ehh, this name isn't really 'me' anymore" type thing.

That's my presumption to be honest, with the phrasing chosen so as to not put the mods in the position of ruling on what is considered a gendered username. Staying out of the business of deciding whether a username is gendered is certainly something I approve of, but it doesn't really explain what would be wrong with giving everyone a one-time name-change if they so desired. But given that the $5 account fee isn't an actual source of income for the site, it seems like we might as well be nice to everyone who's been inclined to change their username and preserve their account history.
posted by hoyland at 3:58 PM on April 21, 2023


I could not quickly find any content on the differences between buttoning, closing an account formally, and just never coming back one day. Is there a difference in how accounts and comments are handled? Which one gets comments left up forever vs which one needs a reminder that the internet archive lives forever even if comments are removed from here?
posted by beaning at 4:48 PM on April 21, 2023


Also the COVID FAQ info seems outdated. Also makes me wonder if a general comment about topics/phrasing MF doesn't do well /tolerate would be useful.
posted by beaning at 4:49 PM on April 21, 2023 [1 favorite]


Retroactive name changes mess with the sense of the archives. IE users refer to other users by name in comments and that gets busted when an account changes name. I'd prefer people just start new accounts which linked to their old account for that reason.

Buttoning and closing are just two different names for the same thing. Functionally there isn't any difference between that and just walking away except for the note on the profile page and the removal from public view of much of the content of the user's profile.

Some people who button also ask for all their posts and comments to also be deleted but that isn't done automatically just because a user closes their account.

People can also ask for their account to be reinstated if they close it.
posted by Mitheral at 9:31 PM on April 21, 2023 [2 favorites]


Thank you for the clarification, Mitheral. So those who button/formally close out would have to pay $5 for a new account OR contact the mods for an exception, similar to those who want a new user name? And if they had previously asked for content to be removed, it cannot be restored? Whereas those who just never return will have their account and comments available as long as MeFi permits.

It might be nice to have this stated in the FAQ, for reference as needed.
posted by beaning at 12:51 PM on April 22, 2023


The couple of times I've taken a break by closing my account I just hit the mods up via the contact form and just asked them to turn my account back on when I was ready. If one was closing weekly or something one might get a talking to but I don't think the occasional temporary closing is a problem. That was quite a while ago though, before the last management change I think, so things might have changed.
posted by Mitheral at 5:56 PM on April 22, 2023 [1 favorite]


I love this part of the update: "Taxes have been filed and paid." I mean of course they have. Right? Maybe there was some problem in the past. Either way it's just a reassuring statement that stuff is being run professionally. Thank you.
posted by Nelson at 8:29 AM on April 23, 2023 [5 favorites]


So those who button/formally close out would have to pay $5 for a new account OR contact the mods for an exception, similar to those who want a new user name? And if they had previously asked for content to be removed, it cannot be restored?

Yep, those are true.

- If you close your account a mod can re-open it for you (just drop an email), you are also welcome to re-open a new account if you prefer. Your posts/comments stay on the site.
- You can ask a mod to remove past posts/comments if you have concerns about them. Some concerns might be: revealing too much personal information, other people's privacy, historical things you don't want attached to your account
- If you get an account wipe, your content can not be restored and that account is closed. In most cases a user can open a new account after an account wipe.

Also if you get banned (i.e. your account gets closed NOT of your own choosing) you can often come back with a new username (Brand New Day policy). Even if you are banned, you can request an account wipe. Some of this is in the FAQ in various places. It's always a balancing act to figure out how much information to place where in the FAQ.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:13 AM on April 23, 2023


in a lot of content/UI discussions it comes up that FAQs are a generally terrible structure both for organizing information and for finding stored information. they're a dumping ground and lack hierarchy or other clear visual or content-based referents for users to figure out whether they should even expect to find an answer to their given question (not to mention what happens if they've chosen to phrase their question differently from what's on the page!)

the MeFi FAQ is to me a pretty strong demonstration of the failure of FAQs as a format. I'm fully on board with approaches here that effectively stop treating it as such and instead build it like a user's guide or manual, with subsections and opt-in granularity that would allow expectations to be much stronger that people actually engage with the top-line important stuff while also having access to the details where they need it.
posted by Kybard at 11:37 AM on April 23, 2023 [3 favorites]


in a lot of content/UI discussions it comes up that FAQs are a generally terrible structure both for organizing information and for finding stored information.

Oh hey, I’ve never heard that and am now curious! Can you point out any links that talk about better ways to organize this information?
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 11:56 AM on April 23, 2023


Speaking just for myself, not any sort official mod or staff.
posted by Brandon Blatcher (staff) at 12:02 PM on April 23, 2023


Here's one about avoiding FAQs, which has some links on it including this one (which is one I remembered reading.)
posted by warriorqueen at 12:31 PM on April 23, 2023 [5 favorites]


thanks warriorqueen -- yeah A List Apart is a pretty well-regarded UX resource and that's a great piece.

a few others re: making better FAQs and/or not using them in ways to which they're not well suited, from the U.K. government and the U.S. government
posted by Kybard at 1:17 PM on April 23, 2023 [2 favorites]


for the record, I gave up on trying to track and/or make sense of the site's rules/principles a long time ago.

This strikes a chord with me. When I joined in 2001 the culture of the site was less welcoming. There were policies in place about being a friendly site but a lot of mean-ness got through.

I’ve never read or trusted this site’s “regulations” I just base my participation here on how the conditions are skewing. It seems more necessary now to add my posts to the skew so it keeps going the way I want it to.

It never used to skew, actually, which is a story - probably a doctoral thesis - about everything the last ten years have shown us.
posted by bendy at 5:42 PM on April 24, 2023 [4 favorites]


Mod note: Regarding technical changes, I hate to ask but there was a lot of discussion over the past (several?) years about improving the flag UI (even in minor ways such as spelling out the word "flag") and also increasing transparency about the status of various discussed development tasks. Any updates on that? (Apologies if there have been and I've missed them.)

Yes! This is something frimble is still working on. I'll give you a more detailed update in the next week.
posted by loup (staff) at 12:52 PM on April 28, 2023


« Older Proposal to make it easier to make lists on...   |   Community Free Chat Threads Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments