Adding double posts to the original?

July 11, 2003 8:58 AM

A new way to deal with double posts: instead of deleting them (or not) could the double and its comments be added as comments to the original post?
posted by timeistight to Feature Requests at 8:58 AM (26 comments total)

Hasn't this been suggested before already?

okay, sorry
posted by yhbc at 9:20 AM on July 11, 2003

If the original is more than 30 days old the comments are turned off, so adding X many posts before the double is spotted and moved would probably not be very good or helpful.
If the original is less than 30 days old the double's comments could derail the possiblly active current thread or be a duplicate of original posts comments.
This could be easily abused and I think it would be quite a bit of work for Matt.
posted by sailormouth at 9:24 AM on July 11, 2003

Hasn't this been suggested before already?

I don't recall seeing it if it has. Do you have a link?
posted by timeistight at 9:30 AM on July 11, 2003

…or were you just pulling my leg?
posted by timeistight at 9:31 AM on July 11, 2003

Hasn't this been suggested before already?

Hasn't this comment been made before?

_{Maybe we could store duplicate comments as comments to the original comments, and preserve all comments below the comments while commen— okay, never mind.}
posted by DrJohnEvans at 9:55 AM on July 11, 2003

I think it would encourage double-posting on purpose, or the dreaded dpop, for short.
posted by iconomy at 10:43 AM on July 11, 2003

we should all be thankful XQWERTYUIOP isn't a traffic engineer.

"When it's OBVIOUS there's an intersection, how about people YIELD?"
posted by quonsar at 12:24 PM on July 11, 2003

I agree with the problems people mentioned. But what about inserting the double as a sidebar in the original? More headaches?
posted by soyjoy at 12:33 PM on July 11, 2003

Coudl XYZWHATEVER just lighten up?
posted by xmutex at 12:46 PM on July 11, 2003

Grudges are unbecoming, xmutex.

From what I remember, the thirty-day rule was instituted to cut down on the server load caused by 1000+ comment cult threads. I don't really think merging comments will anymore derailing or redundant than what we already have. And mathowie could still delete double-on-purpose threads or other abuses.

I don't know enough about databases to know how hard this would be to implement. I'm guessing that it wouldn't be that hard.

Currently there are two "Michael Savage got fired" threads from Monday this week. I presume that mathowie thought they were both worth keeping, but it means that Savage fans and foes have to carry on their discussion in two places.
posted by timeistight at 1:00 PM on July 11, 2003

Savage fans and foes have to carry on their discussion in two places

oh. the horror.
posted by quonsar at 1:29 PM on July 11, 2003

Pick a side, quonsar, pick a side.
posted by timeistight at 1:39 PM on July 11, 2003

I presume that mathowie thought they were both worth keeping

worth keeping, or not worth deleting?
posted by eddydamascene at 1:47 PM on July 11, 2003

iconomy, at least it's not the even more dreaded POP3!!!
posted by billsaysthis at 2:33 PM on July 11, 2003

My pony is dead.
posted by me3dia at 2:54 PM on July 11, 2003

bumper cars, XSQUEEZE! it's fun stuff! stop throwing bubblegum onto the platform and grab a car!
posted by quonsar at 4:17 PM on July 11, 2003

Another thing this could be used for is consolidating the "developing stories," like the six or seven Blair Hornstine threads.
posted by timeistight at 4:20 PM on July 11, 2003

It's a good idea. I just can't work because we're bad people.
posted by luser at 4:39 PM on July 11, 2003

I think it's a brilliant idea with some kinks.
posted by namespan at 5:45 PM on July 11, 2003

time, server load was one of a few reasons Matt gave. Here is what he said.
I think there are more grey areas (of what is acceptable) than people may be aware of, and there are technical issues. Both of those translate to more work for Matt.
posted by sailormouth at 7:42 PM on July 11, 2003

MetaFilter: A brilliant idea with some kinks.
posted by skyscraper at 10:47 PM on July 11, 2003

MetaFilter: More work for Matt.
posted by skyscraper at 10:48 PM on July 11, 2003

when there's a double post, we all know that we don't "yield at the intersection," but rather "plow our cars into as many other cars as possible because we all know the tow truck's coming anyway."

Good heavens. That's the most accurate and succinct description of what happens in a soon-to-be-deleted post I've seen (this is a close second, but I think XQ nails it here).
posted by namespan at 11:13 PM on July 11, 2003

we don't "yield at the intersection," but rather "plow our cars into as many other cars as possible because we all know the tow truck's coming anyway."

This is where I would imagine the main flaw lies in this idea. Merging two threads rather than simply deleting one is already more work for Matt without having to a) conciously add a load of dross to one thread for the sake of completeness or b) weed out all the noise before merging.

Also, it's worth considering the idea that not all undeleted double posts or weak posts are deliberate decisions on Matt's part. They may just have slipped under the radar.
posted by MUD at 5:33 AM on July 12, 2003

I think there are more grey areas (of what is acceptable) than people may be aware of

MetaTalk: More grey area than people may be aware of.
posted by vraxoin at 8:53 AM on July 12, 2003

So, uh, why wasn't that 2nd Savage thread - the one posted four posts after the first one (mine) - deleted? Is it just because it set a record?
posted by soyjoy at 8:26 PM on July 13, 2003