Is it OK to have one of the links be a self link to photos that relate to the post? August 10, 2004 5:23 PM   Subscribe

Question: Is it a self link to post your own photos of an event you had nothing to do with, except by your presence? I even discovered the event online.
posted by effugas to Etiquette/Policy at 5:23 PM (18 comments total)

Even better question: Does anyone else find taking yourself to MetaTalk somewhat masturbatory?
posted by ColdChef at 5:36 PM on August 10, 2004

Yes. The Internet was not made so you could go linking willy-nilly to websites.
posted by keswick at 5:37 PM on August 10, 2004

I'm just shitting you. I think that if you only use your own site as support for another link, it should stand. But, it ain't my party.
posted by ColdChef at 5:38 PM on August 10, 2004

Even better question: Does anyone else find taking yourself to MetaTalk somewhat masturbatory?

Gee, I hope not. I've done it twice. I better stop before I go blind.
posted by jonmc at 5:58 PM on August 10, 2004

While it is generally frowned upon in 99% of the cases, it seems ok in this one.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 6:01 PM on August 10, 2004

Your pictures only round out the post, in a sense. The mere fact that someone was doing such a thing would have been post-worthy. Offering your pictures of it in action is just gravy.

To decide whether something is okay or not, you need to imagine how it might be abused. Do we want to see people posting a link to their Rennaissance Faire pictures? No. Will I be posting my Burning Man photo album a month from now? No. Those events aren't post-worthy unto themselves, because (even if they aren't double-posts) everyone's heard about them.

But if you've documented something genuinely cool, mostly unknown, and fun to discuss, I'd say take a shot at sharing your pics of it.
posted by scarabic at 6:26 PM on August 10, 2004

A simple rule of thumb ... Can you link to your own content in a thread? On the front page, no. Inside the thread, yes.
posted by crunchland at 6:54 PM on August 10, 2004

Matt-- Thanks!

scarabic -- Perfect, thanks! Good to have a sense of this tiny exception to the self-post rule (hopefully people won't abuse it).

XQ -- It's the difference between courtesy and fear. I was pretty confident it'd be OK, but it was just unusual enough of a situation that I thought I'd proactively raise the question.

Crunch -- There wasn't any great or descriptive content outside of my own shots -- even the photos on the main page were from another time and place -- or else I'd have put my photos as comment #1. This was one of the more amusing things I'd seen in some time, so I really wanted people to get an idea as to what was going on (remember, comments aren't syndicated).
posted by effugas at 7:24 PM on August 10, 2004

Since you're thinking about whether or not the comments are syndicated, I get the feeling you're more into promoting your content than you're letting on.
posted by crunchland at 8:25 PM on August 10, 2004

crunch - I see your point, but if the "self" content is additive, incidental to the post, ie: the post could survive without it, then I'd at least consider the mitigating factors.

Although yeah, effugas, that last parenthetical rubs me the wrong way too.
posted by scarabic at 8:32 PM on August 10, 2004

Well, I had some stuff that actually _was_ about me get Slashdotted about a month too early, and it caused all sorts of headaches because the supporting documentation wasn't there. So that's where the "don't post things without supporting coolness" instinct comes from.

Yeah, I did think about the comments, but I also thought about the fact that my photos page doesn't splatter all sorts of stuff about my own work in with the imagery. I work on alot of stuff that's actually moderately public and popular, and keep it off MeFi because that's Matt's policy and, as ColdChef said, it ain't my party. But I still felt kind of nervous about the post, and wanted to know from the source.

Anyway, no malice or self-aggrandization on my side (I don't even mention those are my photos, except for in here), but it's good to understand better the line I was quite knowingly skirting.
posted by effugas at 9:00 PM on August 10, 2004

So let me get this straight: someone has photos of Coldchef masturbating to MetaTalk? And they're posting them for free?!?!

[this is good]
posted by filmgoerjuan at 9:17 PM on August 10, 2004

The only mitigating point I've seen so far in this case is that the project itself was post-worthy but there weren't any better pictures available online than your own. In those circumstances, I can overlook a partial self-link. Your other points (about how you could have been even more self-aggrandizing if you'd tried) make you sound a little pompous.
posted by scarabic at 9:24 PM on August 10, 2004

thinks this post is self related
posted by clavdivs at 9:29 PM on August 10, 2004

ColdChef = old man. shake that fist.
posted by Satapher at 9:47 PM on August 10, 2004

I just masturbated, and it was fantastic.
posted by pemulis at 2:51 AM on August 11, 2004

scarabic -- I don't think I was saying I could be "even more" self aggrandizing...just that I was doing everything I could to keep myself out of the picture...

But I think I'm just digging myself deeper in here. I now return you to your regularly scheduled filmgoerjuan fantasies.
posted by effugas at 3:26 AM on August 11, 2004

effugas, you are so, so wrong about so many things.
posted by taz at 10:01 AM on August 11, 2004

« Older Please delete this spoofed comment   |   Em dash question Newer »

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