9000th post celebrated here May 20, 2001 8:54 PM   Subscribe

MetaFilter surpasses 9000! Today! Unfortunately, there's no info on who gets the door prize.
posted by heather-old to MetaFilter-Related at 8:54 PM (11 comments total)

That makes about 1400 new subscribers since the start of the month. About 66 a day. Most of them haven't posted links or even commented.. Phew! It'd be a complete landslide if they all did.
posted by wackybrit at 10:42 PM on May 20, 2001

9000 users, and we still love you, Matt. Just keep that in mind when the Kaycee news breaks big on Salon and Wired in the next few days.
posted by anildash at 12:15 AM on May 21, 2001

I don't know if the Kaycee story will really make it big, but I do believe that the two Kaycee threads have been among the most civil and productive (well, productive as in not drifting too far from its topic) MeFi threads I've seen in recent months. So if yet another influx of new people come to MeFi as a result of Salon/Wired stories, these two threads will hopefully set a good example of how the members here conduct themselves.

I hate to hijack this thread with more Kaycee talk, but could anyone point me towards other Kaycee discussions on the Web? I'd like to compare MeFi against how other places handled such a sensitive topic. (And this is considering MeFi now has 9000 members, too.) Even with all the recent growth, I don't think Matt's creation is faring too badly at all--but since I'm not a sub-1000 user, what do I know? :-)
posted by DaShiv at 12:58 AM on May 21, 2001

since I'm not a sub-1000 user, what do I know? :-)

hehe.. how about them sub-6000 users. :P

posted by a11an at 6:00 AM on May 21, 2001

Uhm, call me a newby, but why am I (green, green as grass) a sub-9000 user when Heather has noticed someone who is actually number 9000? Are people being dumped?
posted by schoolie at 6:03 AM on May 21, 2001

Oops, sorry, I'm 9083 I now see. I was fooled by the byline on the homepage, I think. Your typical KayCee-dupee probably. Please disregard.
posted by schoolie at 6:05 AM on May 21, 2001

What is up with number 9000? To reopen an old argument, shouldn't people have some identifying info attached to them? Almost nobody (new people) I've checked on lately has any contact information at all. In terms of "accountability" we seem to be getting worse, not better.
posted by rodii at 10:15 AM on May 21, 2001

rodii, the first members here were people I personally knew, so they trusted me and entered in all their info. As the site started along, these same people gave openly in the form of comments and links.

As it grows, more people will show up that are used to the entirely commercial web, the one where you don't trust anyone because they'll sell your data, the one where you put fake info in so no one can really contact you, etc.

Hopefully they see that the vibe here is a trusting one (despite recent, ahem, events) and that it's ok to "give away" your info.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:04 AM on May 21, 2001

Good explanation. It's unfortunate, though, that it lowers the overall level of trust among participants--at least, that's the way I see it--and encourages people to see "dissenting" participants as all-purpose troll/flamers. But we've had this discussion already, so I won't go over it all again.
posted by rodii at 11:20 AM on May 21, 2001

Hey, in the old British TV show 'The Prisoner' (think PBS) everyone had a number and that was it. We're lucky to even have nicknames!
posted by wackybrit at 2:00 PM on May 21, 2001

People trust you, Matt?
posted by fooljay at 8:05 PM on May 21, 2001

« Older Links to NYT broken   |   Maybe long threads should be broken into chunks Newer »

You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments