How long do we wait for what's inside?

October 5, 2002 9:32 PM

So here's a minor issue, strictly for decompression purposes: How long should we wait for someone to post his/her "More Inside" supplement? Matt recently rebuked ZachsMind and indeed deleted his offending comment because he leapt too soon, saying: "(...)you didn't wait until I had gotten my chance to finish my "more" post(...)". Yesterday y2Karl played the same trick on me.

Should it be ten or fifteen minutes? Or doesn't it matter? My own opinion is that one should just wait until the supplement is posted - unless it's demonstrably not forthcoming. Isn't jumping the gun just another version of annoying, pre-emptive thread sabotage? Or is it, somehow, fun?
posted by MiguelCardoso to Etiquette/Policy at 9:32 PM (38 comments total)

Isn't jumping the gun just another version of annoying, pre-emptive thread sabotage? Or is it, somehow, fun?

Yes and yes.
posted by Stan Chin at 9:34 PM on October 5, 2002

You should already have the more inside written before you post the thread. That way for somebody to jump the gun, they'd have to do it within 1 or 2 seconds of the post going live.
posted by willnot at 9:43 PM on October 5, 2002

I say wait 30 minutes, then assume the person died. But of course willnot is right, just don't do it in Word, because apparently that's where the evil boxes come from. I wouldn't know, I don't have one of those fancy "word processors."
posted by rhyax at 9:48 PM on October 5, 2002

Perhaps there should be two text boxes on the submission page - one for the description (displayed on the main page), and another for the "more inside" part (displayed as the first comment in your thread, or even as just a continuation of your description). Seems like it would be easy to implement.
posted by madprops at 10:08 PM on October 5, 2002

What a great idea, madprops! Wouldn't it be wonderful (as well as bandwidth-saving and aesthetically pleasing) if the front page consisted of a menu of one (or, at the most, two-) line posts, all with a compulsory "more inside" supplement?

As long as users waited for the "more inside" (which could be long and full of links), then we'd be able to have a far richer and diverse front page. Perhaps Matt could limit the number of characters for the lead post itself (encouraging discipline and economy) and, by offering a second box, deal with the more verbose and linky posters...
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:34 PM on October 5, 2002

I may have pointed this out before, but Whedonesque has a brilliant solution to this. When composing a new thread at Whedonesque, there's the field for the initial equivalent of the Front Page Post and on the same page, there's a field for 'more inside' which is posted not on the front page but at the top of that page's thread. So both the inviting bullet and the detailed follow-up are composed at the same time, on the same page. Something that could be incorporated into MeFi, but it's probably more work than is necessary. Let's assume Matt leaves things as they are.

Though I joke occasionally, I hold fast to my belief that MeFi is fine the way it is. It's not the site that needs to be changed or have voting or other hardcoded things added to it. It's WE who need to change. And yes I include myself in that number. I'm trying. I'm not very good at it, but I'm trying.

There's no hard and fast rules here. There is common sense, but I think many look at it the wrong way. It's not beholden to the other posters to be patient, but the person posting should speed up his delivery. It's not difficult. Matt should know this, but the wording and delivery of his MetaTalk post earlier today (yesterday now?) was indicative of emotional reactivism. He was upset, and that's understandable.

Generally, if I know I'm going to do a 'more' post, I compose it in notepad first before putting the Front Page Post online. So there's a matter of seconds to a couple minutes at most between the posting of the original post and the internal comment. I do this because I think doing otherwise is 1) being unfair to other posters and 2) just asking for it. However, there have been times when I'm composing a post and don't know I'm doing [more] because I'm not slowing down and counting to ten, y'know? I hit the post button too fast. I'm not thinking clearly. We all do this. It's very human.

And before I learned my lesson, I'd have people beat me to the punch on more than one occasion. It's why I learned the hard way to compose the entire message in notepad first. It happens to all of us. Of course, I didn't have access to the delete button to zap out the 'offending players.' I found many of Matt's comments and actions today to be shooting from the hip with more emotional reactivism than he's shown in the past.

He's very emotionally tied to this virtual place. It's extremely important to him as well it should be. It's difficult to have a vision in mind, and attempt to convey that vision, but have others either misunderstand or disagree with what that vision should be. It's frustrating.

For the record, I thought a one word response that linked to something I'd been working on by pure chance about the same time on a similar (but in Matt's words "antithesis") vein would not be offensive. However, ironically that became the entire point. Originally the idea of just posting a "MetaTalk" link with one word in a given thread would be seen as inconspicuous yet still get the point across. Apparently, even saying "okay" with a link is offensive, as is the use of "NewsFilter." All that's been discussed before of course. Matt proved my point by deleting my post. It is obtrusive. I didn't think it would be but I must admit now that it was. It's not possible to avoid derailing any thread even with a simple one word "MetaTalk" link. And Matt was right, it's like saying "I know better than you what belongs in MeFi." There's no way to police this site without becoming a target oneself.

Again. Frustrating. I know.

The answer's not in policing each other, but in policing ourselves. Trying to learn from our mistakes and on an individual basis, improve our interaction with one another. However, the learning curve is painfully wide and as newcomers come every day, we're never all gonna be on the same page. The guidelines' intent is to put us all on the same page. Hopefully Matt's new efforts on that, which are still forthcoming, will improve on that. Ultimately though it's up to each and every one of us and I readily admit I'm no poster child for clean living in MeFi.

I'm a mere triple digit participant. I should know better but despite my efforts I still piss everyone off. I've been in MeFi off and on for two years, and I'm still rubbing everyone the wrong way. Thank God I never decided to go into politics.
posted by ZachsMind at 10:50 PM on October 5, 2002

Perhaps I am misunderstanding your stance on these issues, but it seems that when people have a problem with an activity that's going on you spend a lot of words saying that there are guidelines, and that people should follow them on their own. That's fine I guess, I'm not opposed to people following guidelines, but if someone is complaining about something I don't see how saying "people should follow the guidelines" addresses the problem.

To bring this back to the actual post, Miguel is trying to create a consensus about how long to wait if there is an indication that the poster will add more. You're saying that people can post right away, so you should follow-up faster. Well, great, I'm sure everyone realizes this is a good idea, but wouldn't it be nice if there was some community consensus about waiting, and not being rude when they are obviously posting more? If you think everything is everyone's individual decision then, when there is a discussion about something, why participate? According to that philosophy you should be deciding on your own anyway. To summarize, it sounds like what you're saying is, "I don't want there to be a consensus about this" or "I don't think there needs to be a consensus about this," perhaps I am misunderstanding.
posted by rhyax at 11:26 PM on October 5, 2002

Zach: no offense, but your comments could sometimes be profitably abbreviated via a [more later]; a [more of the same implied]; a [more is less] or even a [more fool you]. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 11:38 PM on October 5, 2002

I don't really see that it's necessary to jump in just to whine that the "more inside" isn't done yet. Either comment on what's already provided or wait until there's more information that you'd like to comment on. Commenting that you can't comment because there's not enough to comment about is kind of pointless (not to mention rude).

Really. Just chill for a minute. Go to the bathroom, pretend to work, whatever. The world will not end if a MeFi post isn't completed on your timetable.
posted by stefanie at 12:44 AM on October 6, 2002

Perhaps there should be two text boxes on the submission page

K5 does this, but then they seem to encourage monster posts, rather than conversation starters. Although I can't see that a change like this alone would necessarily change the dynamic much.

That said, y'all could just learn to use notepad and quit bitching so much. I mean, what if you get halfway through your 'more inside' then realise that you need to change the FPP bit? Show a little pride in your work by attending to the details, puhlease.
posted by inpHilltr8r at 1:32 AM on October 6, 2002

Seams rather simple, if a post says [More Inside] and if on preview there isn't then wait until there is more inside.
posted by mss at 6:42 AM on October 6, 2002

What mss said. To do otherwise is tremendously rude and seems to assume that we shall all die if deprived of your sage words a couple extra minutes.

But then, perhaps I feel so strongly about this because I compose my comments on the fly and will *never* write them up in advance in Notepad.
posted by rushmc at 7:40 AM on October 6, 2002

I'm glad you brought this up, Miguel. This seems like such a clear case of etiquette to me, and yet look--- we have descension even on this one small point. If someone did find my post so exciting (ha!) they had to make a comment within 5 minutes of it being posted (the amount of time it would take me to do my more inside business) then I would just ignore that comment.

I would never comment before someone else's (more inside) comment was added.

That's it for my personal self-policing policy.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 7:49 AM on October 6, 2002

I hate to throw cold water here, but it really doesn't matter what we decide. Suppose every single person on this thread -- hell, everyone who ever visits MeTa -- agrees on a policy (say, a 15-minute wait). That's still a small fraction of the MeFi membership, and the odds will remain about the same that someone will step in before the poster has added the More Inside. And frankly, I don't see what the big deal is. So somebody added a comment before you were finished? If it bothers you that much, you should be taking the steps people have mentioned. If it happened to me, I'd just say "On preview..." if I wanted to address the hasty commenter's points; otherwise, I'd ignore it.
posted by languagehat at 8:20 AM on October 6, 2002

i think the time spent exploring the links usually takes care of the problem...by the time anyone gets back to the thread the "more inside" is posted (along with some comments from others).
posted by amberglow at 8:41 AM on October 6, 2002

Perhaps there should be two text boxes on the submission page

Yeah, let's have Matt code something cuz you're too damn lazy or obstinate to fire up notepad/pico/simpletext and use cut and paste.
posted by machaus at 9:32 AM on October 6, 2002

I always have my more inside ready and two MetaFilter windows open and waiting when I post my heartbreaking posts of staggering genius, thank you, Miguel--and stop picking on me! I didn't see how old the post was, ya big meanie!--and blah blah woof woof etc... God how people can yak so at length about so little here of late, it's like the place is turning into that Seinfeld episode about the pilot--Metafilter: It's about nothing.

Like MrBalihai's latest, though...
posted by y2karl at 9:48 AM on October 6, 2002

Yeah, let's have Matt code something

Yeah

cuz you're too damn lazy or obstinate to fire up notepad/pico/simpletext and use cut and paste.

Exactly. That's what computers are good at and people are not.
posted by holloway at 11:50 AM on October 6, 2002

Exactly. That's what computers are good at and people are not.

It's not like we're talking about complex calculations or endless repetitive tasks here. It takes like 5 extra seconds.

And anyway, I just compose everything in the same box in the Metafilter window and then cut and paste from there. Hey, I cut out an extra step!
posted by Hildago at 12:17 PM on October 6, 2002

Exactly. That's what computers are good at and people are not.

Computers are also tools, not crutches.
posted by Dark Messiah at 1:23 PM on October 6, 2002

I support any measures that may discourage the scourge of [more inside]. These include, but are not limited to, the public humiliation of those who engage in such behavior and can't even get it right.

Unless you're The Haughey, Metafilter isn't your personal soapbox. Publish your diatribes and dissertations somewhere else. I hear Blog*Spot accounts are free.
posted by jjg at 1:41 PM on October 6, 2002

crutches are tools.
posted by mdn at 1:44 PM on October 6, 2002

jjg: I'm just speaking for myself here, but I don't care much for discussion-starter posts that offer no opinion from the author. If the link seemed so important and worthy of being posted, how come you haven't made your opinion known? I prefer the "show me yours, and I'll show you mine" philosophy when it comes to opinions -- at least, as far as online discussion goes.

And, the "scourge of [more inside]"!? Admittedly, I don't read every single FPP, but I don't think the [more inside] phenomenon is all that rampant.

mdn: while both clever and accurate, I think you know what I mean... We shouldn't use our tools as crutches. (i.e. don't depend on the computer / script coder to make up for lapses on your part.)
posted by Dark Messiah at 2:04 PM on October 6, 2002

Small beer.

Suck it up. (",)

[I favour only saying ther's more inside, when there is.]
posted by dash_slot- at 2:13 PM on October 6, 2002

My own opinion is that one should just wait until the supplement is posted - unless it's demonstrably not forthcoming.

Yes. What's the point of attacking someone's argument before you've even heard it? People deserve that much respect. It reminds me of that guy (or gal) who won't let you finish a sentence without interjecting his own opinion.

There's more to listening than just waiting for your turn to talk.
posted by The God Complex at 2:21 PM on October 6, 2002

Waaaay off-topic question (that doesn't justify its own thread): How many people d'ya think visit MeFi per day, or how many d'ya figger read a post (etc.)?
posted by Shane at 2:52 PM on October 6, 2002

Rules for posting on Metafilter:

1. Don't write short posts.

2. Don't write long posts.

3. If you need to make a long post, use the More Inside label.

4. Don't use the More Inside label.

5. Don't post news.

6. Don't yell at people who do post news.

I'm glad we have this understanding.
posted by PrinceValium at 11:07 PM on October 6, 2002

7. Don't post lists of MetaFilter rules to MetaTalk when other people have already done so.

<snicker>
posted by Danelope at 11:12 PM on October 6, 2002

Computers are also tools, not crutches.

I'd don a silly hat and take an anthropolical view on it. You can push people to change the way they use computers, but it usually doesn't work. People are already demonstrating their relaxed state. It's better to treat them (users) like animals and build your corral at the end of a box canyon. It's also good not to tell them you think of them as cows. They hate that.

"Don't walk on the grass"

posted by holloway at 11:42 PM on October 6, 2002

Miguel, the answer to your original question is something I thought was sufficiently obvious: wait until the more inside is posted, however long it takes.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:50 PM on October 6, 2002

For the most part, I find [more inside] is unnecessary.

"Of course, more is inside; that's the idea. Duh!"

... but whatever turns your screw.

posted by mischief at 4:02 AM on October 7, 2002

Mischief, the [more inside] is just a way of saying "this is a long post, so I'll conserve the front page." A lot of posters make their FPP and that's it, and of course there is more content to follow. But with [more inside], the poster hasn't finished the post. Whether you jump in to write "chirp chrip chirp" or you rebuttal to the way the post is sounding, it's incredibly rude because the poster hasn't finished refining the point. The post isn't finished.

On the other hand, I don't want to see [more inside] comments used regularly on MeFi just because there's usually no need for them. On MeTa however, I can see where a point needs to be made that is somewhat lengthy in its explanation. For MeFi, the issue that Miguel brought up would happen all the time unless either the poster had his/her material already written or if there was an extra box for a first impression.
posted by samsara at 6:57 AM on October 7, 2002

I'm just speaking for myself here, but I don't care much for discussion-starter posts that offer no opinion from the author. If the link seemed so important and worthy of being posted, how come you haven't made your opinion known?

I prefer it when someone posts a provocative link without providing their own spin. It gives the discussion a better chance to be about the link rather than the poster's agenda.
posted by rcade at 7:13 AM on October 7, 2002

I agree with matt, and disagree with holloway.

If someone posts 'more inside', then wait for them. They are being considerate by not filling up the front page.

I've had people jump on threads I put 'more inside' less than 30 seconds after I posted, so that when I clicked to add my comment, they already had posted "What? Nothing's here! you moron!"

And I'm thinking, "Actually, no, you're the impatient idiot."
posted by rich at 11:22 AM on October 7, 2002

the time spent exploring the links

Hahahahahahahahahaha. You mean people actually do that (apart from me)? From a lot of the discussions I see, I thought perhaps most users have a browser that does not display links or something ;-)

How is it difficult to see that, when someone says "more inside", you should wait for them to show up? There are dozens of reasons why the extra information is delayed a few minutes and it does not kill anyone to be polite.
posted by dg at 3:27 PM on October 7, 2002

And anyway, I just compose everything in the same box in the Metafilter window and then cut and paste from there. Hey, I cut out an extra step!
posted by Hildago

Heh! This seems so obvious now-- why didn't I think of that? Thanks for the (common sense) tip.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 6:44 PM on October 7, 2002

yep, hildago is a genius, up until today he has been using his mind control gun to make me see his name as hidalgo. i'm shattered.
posted by rhyax at 9:52 PM on October 7, 2002

Thanks for the technique tips, fellow members. I've just made the perfect More Inside post, where the time-stamp (7:23) for the post is the same as that for the follow-up comment.

Don't give'em an inch seems to be the best rule around here. ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 10:58 PM on October 7, 2002