A lot of doubleposts lately (Jan. 2003)?

January 27, 2003 11:47 PM

There seem to be a lot of double posts lately and more interestingly many aren't getting deleted. Has the policy changed, or is it just arbitrary?
posted by jonson to Etiquette/Policy at 11:47 PM (17 comments total)

You probably wouldn't notice if someone didn't point it out.
posted by Stan Chin at 11:55 PM on January 27, 2003

Perhaps mathowie has been too busy dealing with pointless bickering to delete doubles.
posted by timeistight at 12:28 AM on January 28, 2003

Would you prefer that jackbooted thugs delete those posts?

because, uh, I know some people to call...
posted by hama7 at 2:21 AM on January 28, 2003

well obviously there's something to these rumors about matt laying off half of the Double Post Police department.
posted by gluechunk at 2:46 AM on January 28, 2003

I don't get it. None of those 4 posts share any common links, nor do they seem even remotely related.
posted by mischief at 4:48 AM on January 28, 2003

In my MeFi viewing history, it seems that Matt has spared the odd repost, given that the original post was a long time ago, and that something new has been added or it was really fun and worth revisiting. No biggie.
posted by vraxoin at 5:47 AM on January 28, 2003

mischief - all four of them, all culled from the past 48 hours, are doubles (or triples, in the case of the Rockbandica), all previously posted within the past year. Just curious why some dp get pulled and others don't. I'm not calling for them to be pulled, in fact, given the influx of new people here, I'd be up for a much liberaler dp policy. Just curious, is all.
posted by jonson at 7:47 AM on January 28, 2003

Given Matt's workload, it's reasonable to assume that he's not able to recognize (or even read) every post. I made the mistake recently of assuming he still did that and so am more sensitive to what might appear to be a "hands off" approach which is, in fact, a "I don't have time to read everything" approach. Even if it's noted in the thread itself that it's a double-post, I guess we shouldn't assume he knows. If a particular repeat troubles you, why not just be more proactive and drop Matt an email - yeah, I know, like he needs more email to dig through but I'd guess you stand a far better chance of him responding than if you simply called out the perpetrator in the thread itself.
posted by JollyWanker at 8:18 AM on January 28, 2003

with the growth of the site the double post 'rule' is destined for modification anyway. there's too big an archive now to expect every new poster to be familiar with what has gone before. i think a year is a reasonable time and anything prior to that is probably fair game.
<slippery slope>
and now, i'm off to mine the 1999 archives for some good posts.
</slippery slope>

posted by quonsar at 8:27 AM on January 28, 2003

I don't have time to read everything. Of the links posted, I've only read one, and while it was a double, everyone seem cordial about it and there were already a dozen posts talking about it so I left it.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:44 AM on January 28, 2003

Metafilter: everyone seem cordial
- 8:44 AM PST on January 28, 2003
posted by madamjujujive at 9:22 AM on January 28, 2003

There is a big difference between a *repost* and a *double post*. While there is no need for a call out when something gets reposted a year later, usually with different links and thrust, there were some dark days in the past when double, triple, and even quadruple posts on exactly the same subject were made within minutes/hours of each other. In accordance with MF resolution 4417, such inattention to current posts was declared a material breach of good manners and it was often dealt with quite harshly. While the inspections are somewhat dormant at present, the threat of sanctions remains as a deterrent to the scofflaws.
posted by Mack Twain at 10:39 AM on January 28, 2003

Very clearly explained, Mack. Thanks!
posted by jonson at 10:49 AM on January 28, 2003

"Metafilter: everyone seem cordial
- 8:44 AM PST on January 28, 2003
posted by madamjujujive at 9:22 AM PST on January 28"

- rare instance of a worthwhile [positive re-inforcement] tagline.
posted by dash_slot- at 3:06 PM on January 28, 2003

There is a big difference between a *repost* and a *double post*. While there is no need for a call out when something gets reposted a year later

This is news to me. I've been reading MeFi a long time, and in my experience there has been no such distinction. If Matt noticed a thread that had already been posted, he deleted it. If he's changed his mind about this, I'd like to hear it from him. I thought the criterion was "something new" or "something that hasn't already been discussed here," not "something that's so cool I think we should give it another whirl."
posted by languagehat at 4:34 PM on January 28, 2003

For me the best links here are frequently ones where all the posts are "double posts". Give it a break. If something was posted a year ago or even six months ago, and someone wants to post it again - so what? Especially considering that Mefi is also at least in part about the conversations these links engender and not just about some people's desire to collect cool links.
posted by xammerboy at 6:11 PM on January 28, 2003

From the FAQ:

Is there a statute of limitations on doubleposting?

"It's a double, and posts beyond the 30 days that lead to the same article are still doubles, no need to proclaim moratoriums on anything."
--Mathowie
posted by languagehat at 9:28 PM on January 28, 2003