Use of the anchor tag

February 14, 2003 11:16 AM

y2karl, meet the anchor tag. Say hello!
posted by Pretty_Generic to Etiquette/Policy at 11:16 AM (31 comments total)

The only thing that may be a little questionable is the inclusion of the two stanzas on the front page (for which, I know, there is precedent, but I still think it's incongruous). The amount of links in the actual post isn't anything to complain about.

The [more] sections were excessive, but so what? Don't we tell people not clutter up the front page, but to post it in the thread itself?
posted by Hildago at 11:44 AM on February 14, 2003

i was trying to post the entire bible (king james version) in the comment window but it keeps breaking . . . advice, anyone?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 11:51 AM on February 14, 2003

I moved the space hogging stuff inside the post.

You can unclench now.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:53 AM on February 14, 2003

/me reminds self not to discuss policy or etiquette in metatalk
posted by Pretty_Generic at 12:10 PM on February 14, 2003

Ahh, come off it.
posted by Hildago at 12:47 PM on February 14, 2003

Unclench? WTF Matt? You're free to delete or not as you see fit, but I think snarky remarks in response to a genuine complaint made in the appropriate place are a bit uncalled for.
posted by sennoma at 1:40 PM on February 14, 2003

sennoma:
While it might be uncalled for, I have the right to call someone a twit in my house. They don't have to stay and take it, but it's my house and my rights regardless. It's Matt's house, ok. Unclench.
posted by mkelley at 2:10 PM on February 14, 2003

Uhhh, I think Matt was just riffing off a common little diddy by Quonsar.
posted by machaus at 2:48 PM on February 14, 2003

One forgotten smiley, and you're hitler. I was kidding around.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 3:08 PM on February 14, 2003

I was kidding around.

I'm glad. For a second there I was gonna go searching for the pod.

^Remember, you're the one who discouraged inline tags.^
posted by frykitty at 3:16 PM on February 14, 2003

I actually looked to see if it's possible in Mozilla to turn off JavaScript on a site-by-site basis. Do we actually need all 31 Rules of Love, which appear on the linked-to page anyway, in a popup?
Would it at least be possible to add the usual 1-2second-ish delay that usually applies to titles to the NiceTitles script so we don't have to see the things unless we want to?
posted by Su at 3:21 PM on February 14, 2003

Unclench? WTF Matt?

Damn, if Matt can't inject a little humorous jab into this place, who can?
posted by mischief at 3:38 PM on February 14, 2003

You know, I like pushing the envelope on what's possible to do with a post now and then. If I'm showing ego, preening because I write about what interests me and write to please myself, so be it. But I'm not into random Googling and I do tend to post about things that interest me. We all have a different idea of what constitutes the filter part. I cast a wider net and usually go for making a bookmark post, chock full of related links.

There is a point to self policing but who shall self police the self policers? Maybe we need a MetaMetaTalk after all. I can appreciate people getting annoyed with the length of the tags and all but there is a point when all this MetaTalk becomes just a Don't Rock The Boat group enforced mediocrity.
posted by y2karl at 3:55 PM on February 14, 2003

One forgotten smiley, and you're hitler.

You old goosestepper, you.
posted by timeistight at 4:12 PM on February 14, 2003

MetaFilter: You can unclench now.
MetaFilter: One forgotten smiley, and you're hitler.

well, SOMEONE was gonna...
posted by quonsar at 4:29 PM on February 14, 2003

I can appreciate people getting annoyed with the length of the tags and all but there is a point when all this MetaTalk becomes just a Don't Rock The Boat group enforced mediocrity.

Defensiveness doesn't become you.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:43 PM on February 14, 2003

EncyclopediaFliter.
posted by hama7 at 4:57 PM on February 14, 2003

Hey quonsar! I forgot to say congrats. Don't forget to spoil the grandkids.
posted by timeistight at 5:38 PM on February 14, 2003

Go ahead and rock all the envelopes you want. When you put a brick in the envelope, the post office is going to say something. It is not unreasonable to request you not create titles which cover one-fourth of a 1024x768 screen and run off the edge. We have to look at them now, or change our behavior by not mousing over links, or in some cases not open new windows lest we be forced to reload every time. That's not an acceptable solution. While your large titles, which aren't a new thing, weren't that intrusive before because of the delay in seeing them, their new immediacy requires that you consider the reader.
If you want to push the envolope, have there be a compelling/amusing/creative reason for the title to be that big, rather than just duplicating content en masse from your link targets.

Beyond any accusations of ego stroking, which I actually disagree with, your last few posts were simply annoying, and clearly not only to me. The standard "then don't read/look at it" retort is not valid here. "Don't mouse around?" The creator handily reworked the script the other night so it's also triggered by tabbing through the links. If I view source, I have to slog through them anyway to get at the actual content, whose context is now grossly distorted. What's left? Change my software(lynx), or change my current software's preferences(turn JavaScript off). Not acceptable. And we haven't even gotten into the technical/semantic reasons for not using the titles like this. We're still at the simple "Don't piss off the user" principle.

Funny enough, this thing was built upon ideals of "Unobtrusive DHTML." Unfortunately, the unobtrusive part only refers to code and the browser.
posted by Su at 8:42 PM on February 14, 2003

sheesh, folks, step away from the computer and get some air, why doncha?

Or start pissedoff-filter or something.
posted by konolia at 9:04 PM on February 14, 2003

well, SOMEONE was gonna...

quonsar is so soft today! Congrats q!
posted by qbert72 at 10:32 PM on February 14, 2003

um, no one has gotten back to me on how to post the entire holy bible as a front page post. what's up with that?
posted by _sirmissalot_ at 11:07 PM on February 14, 2003

<miniscule>
in the beginning...
...
...
</miniscule>
posted by quonsar at 11:18 PM on February 14, 2003

I liked the post, and the mouseovers. Those of us with slower computers find it nice to be given a detailed idea of what a link is going to contain before we go to the trouble of loading it. And I don't think the occasional in-depth, non-newsy, non-snarky post is going to kill MeFi. Really. I didn't read all the links either, but it was nice having them there. Long-form is good — isn't substance what we come here for? or is that just me? — as long as the majority of it is in a [more].
posted by IshmaelGraves at 11:45 PM on February 14, 2003

um, no one has gotten back to me on how to post the entire holy bible as a front page post. what's up with that?

Try parsing it through Mozilla at 3500 Hegahertz per bit, use Adobe centrifuge if possible, then condense it to html via Coldfusion or Flash, what you should end up with is a vector graphic reversible scan of bandwidth-friendly notation. Once you get that, just open trillian, follow the prompts, log on, and post away!
posted by hama7 at 1:58 AM on February 15, 2003

I hope that helps, _sirmissalot_!
posted by hama7 at 1:59 AM on February 15, 2003

Those of us with slower computers find it nice to be given a detailed idea of what a link is going to contain before we go to the trouble of loading it.

Uh...even if it means you're downloading a good portion of it, anyway, and then downloading it again when you click? This is saving you bandwidth/time how? A good/detailed idea does not generally require several paragraphs, unless you're pointing to Kant, or something.
posted by Su at 2:07 AM on February 15, 2003

You know, I like pushing the envelope on what's possible to do with a post now and then.

this includes posting a considerable portion of the post inside a title attribute without commentary of any sort? how is that pushing the envelope, exactly? it's nothing more than needless incorporation of previously-existing (and directly linked-to) material.

there's a time and a place for everything, and metafilter is not a self-contained encyclopedia. there was absolutely no reason for you to include some of your additional post content. if you were making some sort of critique on the subject, then yeah, i'd buy that. but you didn't. i don't.
posted by patricking at 2:22 AM on February 15, 2003

It's all one to Hippocleides.
posted by y2karl at 8:29 PM on February 15, 2003

Karl, that might be an excellent front page post...in moderation of course.
posted by Wulfgar! at 8:38 PM on February 15, 2003

¦þ
posted by y2karl at 11:08 PM on February 15, 2003