more than five minutes and a couple visits to the dictionary

May 3, 2004 7:36 AM

The onology of mumbo jumbo FPPs
You know, if it takes more than five minutes and a couple visits to the dictionary to figure out what a post is about, it's not a very effective post. Am I just an idiot? I'd say one in ten posts lately is either so esoteric or so cryptically phrased as to exclude most mefi readers from it's hidden delights.
posted by Outlawyr to Etiquette/Policy at 7:36 AM (35 comments total)

If one in 10 posts is too tough for you to understand, then the answer to your question would have to be yes.

The one you linked, though, is a work of inscrutible genius.
posted by rcade at 7:52 AM on May 3, 2004

P.s. That post reminds me of Pseuds Corner, the column in Private Eye that makes fun of pseudo-intellectual BS in speech and writing, or as I like to call it, the demonstrable apogee of feculent phrenic diction and discourse
posted by rcade at 7:56 AM on May 3, 2004

Will blogvertizing be any better?

At least s/he didn't take it to askmefi.
posted by 111 at 8:06 AM on May 3, 2004

Better big words than lots of words. Bring it on, I say.
posted by PrinceValium at 8:22 AM on May 3, 2004

What the hell does "esoteric" mean? Talk simpler!
posted by filmgoerjuan at 8:37 AM on May 3, 2004

I hope we can compromise somewhere between the esoteric and misplaced apostrophes.
posted by scarabic at 8:42 AM on May 3, 2004

So, are we talking about wine or being here?
posted by y2karl at 8:45 AM on May 3, 2004

Agreed, some posts ae a little inscrutable. That said, even though the intent of the post may be impossible to glean, I find that dictionary search for firefox is a must have, as is firefox itself.
[/firefoxadvert]

So, Outlawr, what do you propose? That people stop posting unintelligle doublespeak, that people dumb down their posts, that this particular post be reworded or deleted? What's the point of your callout?
posted by ashbury at 8:47 AM on May 3, 2004

Ontology is a word everyone should know, just since it sounds so cool. Like ubiquitous. Or eschew. Or poignant. Or obfuscate;P

Snorky...talk..man.
posted by jbrjake at 8:49 AM on May 3, 2004

Well, for those who don't know, alms was aiming to be clever in alluding to the infamous (and false) "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" dictum. That ontology is quite a different thing than ontogeny is, perhaps, unimportant.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 9:06 AM on May 3, 2004

So, Outlawr, what do you propose? That people stop posting unintelligle doublespeak, that people dumb down their posts, that this particular post be reworded or deleted? What's the point of your callout?

Using "big words" doesn't necessarily mean you are more articulate. Judge a sentence/paragraph by how easy it is to understand the meaning of it.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:08 AM on May 3, 2004

Using "big words" doesn't necessarily mean you are more articulate. Judge a sentence/paragraph by how easy it is to understand the meaning of it.

Sometimes smaller words aid in clarity, but oftentimes larger and more complex words do the same by applying specific meanings that one- and two-syllable words cannot. In simpler terms: dumbing it down isn't always good or right.
posted by The Michael The at 9:20 AM on May 3, 2004

"So, Outlawr, what do you propose? That people stop posting unintelligle doublespeak, that people dumb down their posts, that this particular post be reworded or deleted? What's the point of your callout?"

I propose plain English. One need not dumb down their post to make it comprehensible to the vast majority of people. The point of the callout is to say, hey, I see a trend here that I would like reversed.

I'd give an example by rewording the post in question, but I honestly can't even figure out what the point is. But the very next FPP starts off "Advanced methods of bomb detection and investigation. New equipment developed to scan cars and people, . . ." The first sentence tells you what the post is about, then there's additional details. It's easy to decide if you want to click the link, and easy to get information just from the FPP itself without clicking the link. That seems to me so much more useful.
posted by Outlawyr at 9:32 AM on May 3, 2004

Sometimes smaller words aid in clarity, but oftentimes larger and more complex words do the same by applying specific meanings that one- and two-syllable words cannot. In simpler terms: dumbing it down isn't always good or right.

Well, look at it this way: if you read translations of the Tao, you won't see many words bigger than a couple of syllables. It certainly isn't dumb.

However, I don't think there's anything wrong with more complex words (as you put it) - as long as they appear in a sentence that conveys a clear meaning.
posted by SpaceCadet at 9:38 AM on May 3, 2004

I propose that we elevate the discourse, not necessary by using the fanciest words, but by using the right ones for the job at hand.

They could be fancy, though.

Miguel, make a post asking what everybody's favorite fancy word is! Chop chop!

ONCOLOGY DECAPITATES PHOTOGRAPHY
posted by Hildago at 10:06 AM on May 3, 2004

y2k: that was funny.

short worders: Hemingway's big, I hear.

Pusillanimize, I say!
posted by mwhybark at 10:14 AM on May 3, 2004

I propose plain English.

Bah, couldn't disagree more. I enjoyed alms' allusion and the obscurantism use of big words. It was an effectively snide way to point out the bankruptcy of the argument in the link in question.

And if you just review the last few days worth of posts, you'll see that your 1 in 10 ratio doesn't hold up. The majority of posts plainly state the subject matter in a link within the first sentence. That happens so regularly, it's safe to call it cliche. Take pleasure in posts that defy the formula, and in teasing out the meaning of an obscure link.
posted by eatitlive at 10:15 AM on May 3, 2004

Pseud's corner does not deal only with excess verbiage, but pseudo-intellect in terms of ideas, too. Take this example:

“And They Lived Ugly Ever After”: Cross-Species Desire in Shrek
Lecture to be delivered by NOREEN GIFFNEY of University College Dublin at the ‘Queer Matters’ Conference, King’s College London, May 2004

Generally, it is better to replace four words with one, if the one word conveys the meaning as or more accurately. That said, writers should strive for plain understandable language.

As my Bible of English The English Way puts it:

14. Pomposity
This name is given to the use of unnecessarily lofty language, or a disproportionately lofty manner of treating a simple subject. It is always a sign of poor craftsmanship. Do not call a business deal a mercantile transaction; courage, intrepidity; cowardice, pusillanimity.

On the other hand, the use of a classical word is legitimate to avoid repetition, or if there is no simple English equivalent. Doctor may, in most cases, replace physician; but eye-doctor is inferior to oculist, and such a phrase as the study of earthquakes is conveniently condensed into seismology.

It does emphasise the preference for accuracy, too, but in the case of the post in question; "hit-and-run media leads to uninformed polarization" is hardly an example of precise writing.

I don't know about other examples, but the post poor Outlawyr links to is a fair call, as far as I can see.
posted by nthdegx at 10:18 AM on May 3, 2004

"When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." - Humpty Dumpty
posted by mischief at 10:20 AM on May 3, 2004

words mean what they refer to...
posted by dmt at 11:04 AM on May 3, 2004

I like a little mumbo jumbo. Most of the time.
posted by Shane at 11:48 AM on May 3, 2004

If we want content on the 'Filter to be in plain English, Matt had better delete hama7's latest post before certain people discover it and our multanimous macaronic magnality metagrobolizes a metanoia into morology, monogony and macrology.

As for me, I'd like to see less mumbo jumbo and more madamjujujive.
posted by wendell at 11:57 AM on May 3, 2004

I laughed when I read that particular FPP, in a good way. Then again, I grew up near where alms lives and maybe that "ontogeny recapitulates philogeny" thing is in the water. I have to side with rcade, genius.
posted by jessamyn at 1:07 PM on May 3, 2004

Ontology is a word everyone should know, just since it sounds so cool. Like ubiquitous. Or eschew. Or poignant. Or obfuscate;P -jbrjake

Agreed. I'd also like to add voluptuous. There's no M in it. I'm tired of hearing "ve-lump-tuous".

And rangiferine. I can only work that one in around Christmas, but it's usually worth the wait. Zabernism could have been used in any number of posts lately, as could dapocaginous.

I say more words, higher standards and link to the dictionary for everyone!
posted by dejah420 at 1:33 PM on May 3, 2004

It's all about strategy. The ambitious FP poster is like any headline writer, trying to come up with a hook that will drag the reader into the body of his or her work. In the case of Metafilter's FP, as with any print medium, clarity and simplicity serve the reader best. At this advanced stage in the history of the net, clicking through is the equivalent of getting out of one's chair and changing the channel in the days before television remote control. It's a pain in the butt, and you'd better give me a good reason to do it. The convoluted, the cryptic, the one-word no longer do it. Tell me what I'm gonna get.
posted by Faze at 2:11 PM on May 3, 2004

That said, writers should strive for plain understandable language.

If, of course, ease of comprehension is the writer's goal. Personally, I'm waiting for the post created entirely of punctuation marks.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 2:36 PM on May 3, 2004

I really wish you hadn't said that.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 2:55 PM on May 3, 2004

I must cast my vote for the using words that best fit no matter what reading level they come in at. Despite the languor of some, learning new things is good for you.
posted by john at 4:23 PM on May 3, 2004

!

...

?

?... ?

: .

:)
posted by mwhybark at 5:42 PM on May 3, 2004

Mmmm, inscrutalicious!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:52 PM on May 3, 2004

With so much talk about the problems with people being the opposite of articulate and intelligent, it seems a little silly to come down on someone for being too verbose or whatever. i mean, really. Signal vs noise. This is signal, however complex. Lets worry about the noise, eh?
posted by lazaruslong at 6:52 PM on May 3, 2004

I wouldn't want to hijack a weblog designed for a certain format by posting against policy, but my understanding was that MetaFilter was more flexible than that.

I don't see MetaFilter as an exercise in journalism. I don't phrase my posts as stories. I don't do headlines. I don't treat it as an opportunity for peer review of a source either, but it can serve in that capacity given the wide range of very intelligent people and domain specialists who participate in discussions here.

Outlawyr's comment also seems to assume that every post is an attempt to draw the entire community into the thread. In many cases my intended audience is much smaller. Many of my posts have a dialectical form. A lot of people hate those and don't click through to read them, but I know the people that do and they're why I post. I value what they have to say about my questions and my links. They frequently make me laugh and they always make me think.

Some members post here in a style that is designed to overstate an opinion to the point where they are really making an argument through reductio ad absurdum. Some members carefully bait their comments to try to get others to reply with a statement that serves a similar purpose. I appreciate the Socratic tradition embodied in those posts as well. Some people merely try to disrupt the argument in any way that they can, perhaps to re-establish proper perspective in an argument that has degenerated into wrangling over minutiae, or perhaps simply for the comedic value.

There are many different kinds of front page posts and comments here. Do we really want to dictate the format of a post and reduce that magnificent diversity?
posted by snarfodox at 8:17 PM on May 3, 2004

Reader's Digest says that it pays to increase your word power.
posted by troutfishing at 9:08 PM on May 3, 2004

*tries to write a Megadeth parody called "It Pays to Increase Your Word Power... Who's Buying?"*

*fails miserably*
posted by arto at 9:20 PM on May 3, 2004

"Many of my posts have a dialectical form. "
Color me impressed.
posted by Outlawyr at 7:45 AM on May 4, 2004