On preview: who cares? February 4, 2003 4:32 PM Subscribe
On preview: who cares? [more inside]
Err..."the 'on preview' part." Ironically, I missed this...on preview.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:34 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by kirkaracha at 4:34 PM on February 4, 2003
I don't know if the correct cliché here is splitting hairs, mountain out of molehill, or tempest in teapot.
On preview, splitting hairs.
posted by Hildago at 5:00 PM on February 4, 2003
On preview, splitting hairs.
posted by Hildago at 5:00 PM on February 4, 2003
It's often used after having composed a lengthy comment, which is then rendered redundant, confusing, etc. by someone else's comment that was posted in the meantime. Much easier to just add a quick "On preview: what Hildago said." or "On preview: this obviously wouldn't work in the rabid wombats situation" than to rewrite your long comment.
posted by chrismear at 5:05 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by chrismear at 5:05 PM on February 4, 2003
Much easier to just add a quick "On preview: what Hildago said." or "On preview: this obviously wouldn't work in the rabid wombats situation" than to rewrite your long comment.
Of course. Because, as we all know, what's easiest for the commenter is therefore what's best for Metafilter.
posted by jjg at 5:31 PM on February 4, 2003
Of course. Because, as we all know, what's easiest for the commenter is therefore what's best for Metafilter.
posted by jjg at 5:31 PM on February 4, 2003
And God knows we wouldn't want to suggest any standards that might promote thoughtful participation.
posted by jjg at 5:33 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by jjg at 5:33 PM on February 4, 2003
Also, it saves re-editing and rewriting a long post to account for the new material; just add an addendum.
Often has been the time I've revised a post after preview, then had to preview and revise again... and again...
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:25 PM on February 4, 2003
Often has been the time I've revised a post after preview, then had to preview and revise again... and again...
posted by Yelling At Nothing at 6:25 PM on February 4, 2003
i for one would like to welcome the imminent demise of the on preview: overlord.
posted by quonsar at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by quonsar at 6:26 PM on February 4, 2003
I agree with kirkaracha. Who cares? Nobody sees you reading anything "on preview" except you. Threads like these might alter that habit, or at least make people more aware of it.
posted by hama7 at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by hama7 at 6:30 PM on February 4, 2003
On preview: I have been known to pour piss from a boot before reading the directions.
posted by mischief at 6:58 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by mischief at 6:58 PM on February 4, 2003
I've never watched anything on Pay Per View. And I certainly don't see how it applies here.
On preview: Neeever miiiiiiiind.
</ Emily Litella >
posted by vraxoin at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2003
On preview: Neeever miiiiiiiind.
</ Emily Litella >
posted by vraxoin at 8:01 PM on February 4, 2003
no, i like it even from a third person perspective. if one person posts at 6:58 and another at 7:02 i expect the 7:02 commenter to have read the previous comment, no matter how large the 7:02 comment is. If the original 7:02 comment would seem weird after the 6:58 one then an "on preview" explanation makes sense.
posted by rhyax at 8:51 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by rhyax at 8:51 PM on February 4, 2003
Metafilter: for all your rabid wombat situations.
posted by blue_beetle at 9:06 PM on February 4, 2003
posted by blue_beetle at 9:06 PM on February 4, 2003
Of course. Because, as we all know, what's easiest for the commenter is therefore what's best for Metafilter.
kirkaracha asked why people do it. I explained. I never said it was the best way to do things. Although, as Yelling At Nothing said, if you do spend more than a few seconds revising your post, then you sometimes fall into an infinite loop of previewing and revising.
posted by chrismear at 4:10 AM on February 5, 2003
kirkaracha asked why people do it. I explained. I never said it was the best way to do things. Although, as Yelling At Nothing said, if you do spend more than a few seconds revising your post, then you sometimes fall into an infinite loop of previewing and revising.
posted by chrismear at 4:10 AM on February 5, 2003
...if one person posts at 6:58 and another at 7:02 i expect the 7:02 commentor to have read the previous comment...
Only if you refresh every 5 minutes. Or if you are not distracted by things such as *cough*work*cough* which, as some of us can attest to, occasionally makes contiguous MeFi activities difficult for a sustained period. Or if the thread has got so long that it takes over 5 minutes to read all the comments thoroughly, consider carefully all the aspects of the comments and follow all the links included in comments, which we all do of course.
posted by dg at 5:04 AM on February 5, 2003
Only if you refresh every 5 minutes. Or if you are not distracted by things such as *cough*work*cough* which, as some of us can attest to, occasionally makes contiguous MeFi activities difficult for a sustained period. Or if the thread has got so long that it takes over 5 minutes to read all the comments thoroughly, consider carefully all the aspects of the comments and follow all the links included in comments, which we all do of course.
posted by dg at 5:04 AM on February 5, 2003
blame andrew cooke
this appears to be the first use of "on preview"
posted by internal at 10:07 AM on February 5, 2003
this appears to be the first use of "on preview"
posted by internal at 10:07 AM on February 5, 2003
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Just curious, not complaining.
posted by kirkaracha at 4:32 PM on February 4, 2003