Do single link front page posts irritate the heck out of anyone but me? July 5, 2004 7:55 AM   Subscribe

Do single link front page posts with no addtional text and no clue to contents of the destination in the link text irritate the heck out of anyone but me?
posted by Mitheral to Etiquette/Policy at 7:55 AM (60 comments total)

Not really.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 7:58 AM on July 5, 2004


I just usually take it to mean that the content is not too serious and that writing a paragraph about it is likely just a waste of time when you could be looking at the pretty pictures.
posted by Space Coyote at 8:00 AM on July 5, 2004


I can't say I'm really that bothered by it. They are usually accompanied by the text "posted by [user]" which tends to be enough info for me.
posted by davehat at 8:05 AM on July 5, 2004


Only if someone else does it.
posted by cbrody at 8:27 AM on July 5, 2004


Glib?
posted by Smart Dalek at 8:44 AM on July 5, 2004


Doesn't bother me in the least. I do it because, as I've said before, I think you're all reasonably smart enough to digest your own opinions on the content, and don't need me butting my own opinions in. Of course, none of my posts require the voluminous explainations that are required in posts by y2karl, or Miguel, with his ubiquitous question marks.

And while some would say that explainations are necessary to let you know if you should click the links I post or not ... well, the fact that I posted it in the first place means that I think you should click it. If I didn't, I wouldn't have.
posted by crunchland at 9:11 AM on July 5, 2004


If the post is not worth writing 3 or 4 words of description,
it probably is not worth clicking.
posted by mischief at 9:28 AM on July 5, 2004


nope.
posted by angry modem at 9:36 AM on July 5, 2004


they often have a somewhat endearing, koan-like charm.
and again, it's the quality of linked content that makes them live or die, not their brevity
posted by matteo at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2004


Yep. But you know what? It's really no skin off my ass, so I don't MetaWhinge about it.

I guess I just don't feel much need to have everyone do exactly as I would do.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:47 AM on July 5, 2004




You really fucked up with that lonely comma, Stoatfarm. Otherwise, nice associations.
posted by trharlan at 10:03 AM on July 5, 2004


,
posted by hama7 at 10:07 AM on July 5, 2004


trharlan: If I were this guy, I'd sweat it. ;)

OK, enough of that. I still hate that posting style, it still annoys the tar outta me, but I'll say this: it requires a bit of work. So, it's kind of like a mock-apple pie: hard work for a result that is mediocre at best, both vexing and pointless at worst.
posted by Stoatfarm at 10:23 AM on July 5, 2004


You know what irritates the heck out of me? When I go to the store to buy soda and the brand that I like (I'm a Diet Coke with Lime person) isn't on sale, but the competing brand is. Take last night, for instance. Wild Cherry Diet Pepsi was on sale at my favorite store, four twelve-packs for ten bucks. Was Diet Coke with Lime on sale? No. It was still $3.99 a twelve-pack, so I had to drive to a competing store to buy it on sale. Why can there only be one brand of soda on sale at each store at any given time? That's pretty fuckin' irritating.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 11:19 AM on July 5, 2004


crash, that bugs me too. But your post is off-topic, which means you should've posted it as a new MeTa thread.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 11:26 AM on July 5, 2004


ehh, they don't annoy me really, but i don't click them. I don't get on the web to click random links, i like to choose where I go.
posted by rhyax at 11:37 AM on July 5, 2004


Many of the "amusing shit of the day" links I come across are best experienced without a lot of introduction coloring my view of them. If you're going to link to "All your Base," do you really want to say: an absurdly amusing remix of some grammatically questionable dialogue from an old video game's opening cinematic sequence ?
posted by scarabic at 11:43 AM on July 5, 2004


Many of the "amusing shit of the day" links I come across are best experienced without a lot of introduction coloring my view of them. If you're going to link to "All your Base," do you really want to say: an absurdly amusing remix of some grammatically questionable dialogue from an old video game's opening cinematic sequence ?

I'd like that.
posted by The God Complex at 11:49 AM on July 5, 2004


I'm forced to take mischief's option in most cases.

My fustration is that for links like youwhores I can't take the risk of clicking it at work. Even reading the comments gives me no clue as to the contents though at least one person thinks the link is a big waste of time so I guess I'll go with that.

Normally I'm more water off a duck back about it but five in one day tipped me over into rant mode. A FPP of just a "." would probably be the worst it could get so I guess there isn't much farther to go.

I actaully like the all words are a link type of post. It's the one work, one link that I pass over.
posted by Mitheral at 12:03 PM on July 5, 2004


Wow crash, I'd like to know where you shop. Around here, a 12-pack of diet soda for $3.99 is considered a sale price! And why don't we get to have diet cherry Pepsi? Not fair, I tell you! [/whine]
posted by Lynsey at 12:05 PM on July 5, 2004


Though some description is appreciated, single link posts seem to me better, for the most part, than rambling, op-ed, multi-link posts with plenty of editorializing on the front page. To me, MeFi is (or could be) about 2 things: 1)good links 2) interesting comments on them by the community, not the poster.
posted by signal at 1:00 PM on July 5, 2004


Put a real slice of lemon in a diet Pepsi and quit whining.
posted by konolia at 1:16 PM on July 5, 2004


"Rock Paper Saddam: a satirically captioned series of images, taken from Saddam's hearing, which make him appear to be having quite a heated debate with others in the courtroom about the finer points of the classic game/contest: Rock, Paper, Scissors, followed by several zany matches of same." [*warning: JPEG images, profanity, images of Saddam Hussein]

Let there be no surprises (nor fun, at least, not without due warning of impending fun).
posted by scarabic at 1:39 PM on July 5, 2004


...And, hey, what's the deal with airline food?
posted by keswick at 2:11 PM on July 5, 2004


It's funny because it's true.
posted by gleuschk at 3:40 PM on July 5, 2004


A FPP of just a "." would probably be the worst it could get
*Counts down until someone does just that, having been given the idea*

Come on people, we must work towards the ultimate goal of homogenisation, where every post is identical in composition and where you know exactly what is included in the link before clicking on it. After all, we can't have people making their own judgements on things, can we?
posted by dg at 3:53 PM on July 5, 2004


"Do single link front page posts with no addtional text irritate the heck out of anyone?"

Only cranky little Internet ankle biters who want to be spoon-fed the World Wide Web.

Personally I prefer some chaos and wonder.
posted by y6y6y6 at 4:13 PM on July 5, 2004


Mmm, tasty chaoswonderburgers.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 4:49 PM on July 5, 2004


Of course, none of my posts require the voluminous explainations that are required in posts by y2karl, or Miguel, with his ubiquitous question marks.

And while some would say that explainations are necessary to let you know if you should click the links I post or not ..


*quietly explains to crunchland that explain is the verb but the noun is explanation, wondering whether his overall lack of language skills is what keeps him mercifully laconic.* ;)
posted by MiguelCardoso at 4:54 PM on July 5, 2004


So, tell us Miguel, what's your favorite kind of toilet?
posted by crunchland at 5:13 PM on July 5, 2004




As sad as it may be, we must blame the eternal trumpet player, Miguel.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 5:16 PM on July 5, 2004


"...what's your favorite kind of toilet?"

Preferably one that doesn't have a baby in it.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:01 PM on July 5, 2004


More importantly, do people in America and Europe feel differently toward their toilets? How do they feel toward each other's toilets?
posted by scarabic at 6:04 PM on July 5, 2004


.
posted by bargle at 7:33 PM PST - 2 comments (2 new)- Post a Comment

7 and a half hours, from conception to execution.
posted by dash_slot- at 7:42 PM on July 5, 2004



Let there be no surprises (nor fun, at least, not without due warning of impending fun).


A valid point. But should one bad practice somehow excuse another?
posted by Stoatfarm at 7:47 PM on July 5, 2004


That FPP should be a banning offense. Just because you can be an ass doesn't mean you should be.
posted by smackfu at 7:49 PM on July 5, 2004


Well, I laughed.
posted by DrJohnEvans at 7:57 PM on July 5, 2004


I was wondering who had died.
posted by brownpau at 8:04 PM on July 5, 2004


You got it all wrong, smack; that should read:

Just because you should be an ass doesn't mean you can be.
posted by mischief at 8:08 PM on July 5, 2004


Having seen this thread and then this one, I heard Baby Jesus cry.
posted by page404 at 8:14 PM on July 5, 2004


Nope, Mitheral, it's not just you. As long as you're asking.

A TITLE in the linktext might be helpful, but I'm not inclined to click blind "go read this" links, and the URL in the status bar often doesn't provide much of a clue as to what it's all about.

BTW, I see the "." FPP seems to be gone now. I clicked that link to see what that was all about, but as I have ActiveX disabled, it wouldn't display, so it was a bigger waste of time than this comment is.
posted by StOne at 12:54 AM on July 6, 2004


When I see posts as describe in this thread I immediately think that the person should get their own blog, especially if the poster doesn't comment in their own thread. I don't need a list of links. I want someone to tell me why the link/story they found made them laugh, cry, scream, or spew a beverage of their choice over their monitors.
posted by terrapin at 7:13 AM on July 6, 2004


Why? Metafilter is a community blog, that gets so many more eyeballs than anyone's personal blog. Why should I go to the trouble of setting up a blog when the mechanism and the audience is already here?
posted by crunchland at 7:27 AM on July 6, 2004


Shhh! Don't encourage them, crunchland. This site sees enough agenda as is; no need to make it the unwritten rule.
posted by BlueTrain at 7:30 AM on July 6, 2004


That's rich. BlueTrain complaining about agendas on Metafilter.
posted by crunchland at 7:39 AM on July 6, 2004


You suck, crunchland!
posted by BlueTrain at 8:33 AM on July 6, 2004


y6y6y6:: Only cranky little Internet ankle biters who want to be spoon-fed the World Wide Web.

We'll internet ankle biter is a new one on me. We'll have to get together some time to reminince about 150 Baud and rant about how anyone who can't send mail by telnetting into the SNTP server doesn't deserve email anyways :D

dg I'm not wanting homoginization. Just a clue or two whether I can open the link at work or whether I can open the link at home over my glacial 28.8 (on a good day) connection.
posted by Mitheral at 9:53 AM on July 6, 2004


Why? Metafilter is a community blog, that gets so many more eyeballs than anyone's personal blog. Why should I go to the trouble of setting up a blog when the mechanism and the audience is already here?

With that logic painters should only paint grafitti because the walls are already there and more people will see the work than if was hanging on a silly wall in a studio.

Even Matt has his own weblog where he posts things that he doesn't find here, or doesn't feel the need to post on MeFi.

Look, I don't read blogs where the author writes "I think this is cool!" and the word cool is linked to the hamster dance, but I don't know that until I click and see the stupid freakin hamster dance for the billionth time. I would read the site if the author wrote, "I find the hamster dance amazing. It is childish but also surreal. There is something about the way the hamsters...." I might even click the link knowing that it might be the hamster dance.

When I see a crunchland or a hama7 link with no text--and worse, no comment in the thread--I ignore the link. No matter how tantilizing the linked word may be I am 1) not interested in links for the sake of links or 2) risking a link that may or may not be safe for me to click at work.

Obviously the site is a "Community Weblog" but it is also a weblog as discussion. If one doesn't discuss their feelings or opinions about a site that has piqued their interest so much that they absolutely had to post it to MetaFilter, why should I bother?

But like any other post that doesn't interest me, I ignore it.

Anyway, just my $.02 answer to the question about such "posts."
posted by terrapin at 11:05 AM on July 6, 2004


what terrapin said.

(mitheral, so it's not really so much that i find them irritating as that i ignore them)
posted by crush-onastick at 1:29 PM on July 6, 2004


well, your loss, terrapin.
posted by crunchland at 2:21 PM on July 6, 2004


If you want an explanation of a link what you should do is move the little elongated white thing on your desk around so that the arrow on your screen is floating over the word "comments". Then press down on the left button. (Note: The buttons should be facing away from you. This also makes pointing easier.)

Once you click on "comments" you'll then be able to read not just one, but possibly 50-100 varying explanations.
posted by Space Coyote at 5:36 PM on July 6, 2004


i am endlessly amused by a majority of metatalk threads, but especially the ones with people complaining about the length of posts/comments. whether it's eb being too wordy in comments or y2karl making overly-long posts or crunch making short ones, it's cracks me up that people get so nutty over it. go outside. play in the fresh air. cranky insane bastards.
posted by bargle at 6:01 PM on July 6, 2004

Once you click on "comments" you'll then be able to read not just one, but possibly 50-100 varying explanations.
Or, 50-100 comments of pure horseshit that say nothing whatsoever about the link. ;-P
posted by mischief at 8:13 PM on July 6, 2004


With that logic painters should only paint grafitti because the walls are already there and more people will see the work than if was hanging on a silly wall in a studio.

And most of them do.
posted by ook at 8:44 PM on July 6, 2004


Once you click on "comments" you'll then be able to read not just one, but possibly 50-100 varying explanations.

So it will be like reading 50-100 bad reviews of a movie I not only haven't seen, but have no desire to see? Wow. That sounds like fun... NOT!

Or maybe it would be more like going to a movie review site where the critic simply linked to the movie's commerical web site without bothering to write a review of the film. Then expecting me to read comments from people who viewed the commerical website--and not the movie--so I can read 50-100 people go on and on about how if they had made the movie it would have been redder and starred their favorite Muppet(TM)

I think I'll continue with the ignore. If the author of the post can't be bothered to write a few words about why the link somehow measures up as best of the web, then I can't be bothered either.
posted by terrapin at 7:32 AM on July 7, 2004


Might as well start eating predigested baby food, too. If the cook can't be bothered to regurgitate, then you shouldn't be bothered to swallow.
posted by crunchland at 7:48 AM on July 7, 2004


Crunchland: Perhaps a better bad analogy would be if the chef decide not to bother cooking the food and expected me to eat it. Don't blame me because YOU can't be bothered to cook and I don't like sushi ;)
posted by terrapin at 9:27 AM on July 7, 2004


I thought afterward that I should have said the waiter should regurgitate your food. He doesn't cook it, he just brings it to you.

Anyway, where's your sense of exploration and adventure? Must you have your hand held before you venture out into the internet? You make it sound like I'm lazy for not informing you of what you're going to see, and how you should feel about it when you get there... Isn't it enough that for each link I post, I spend upwards of 45 minutes searching for interesting things on backwater blogs and less travelled websites to post here? Only to have namby-pampy milquetoasts complain because I don't tell them what to think and how to think it.
posted by crunchland at 9:49 AM on July 7, 2004


Furthermore, your attitude reminds me of a guy I knew in college. He admitted that when it came to old movies, he pretty much felt that if a movie is black & white, it's really not worth watching. His small-minded, provincial, and arbitrary decision on the style over the substance does protect him from the lousy films shot on black & white film, I guess... or whatever it is he fears about them. But his arbitrary and close-minded dismissal of a whole class of films means he'll miss out on some of the gems. But he prefers to watch only color movies ... recent movies, so he'll be blissfully ignorant that he's missing the gems.
posted by crunchland at 10:12 AM on July 7, 2004


« Older Is anybody else getting an unstyled Metafilter?   |   FPPs as unordered lists in html Newer »

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