Comments: form, not substance

September 13, 2004 8:20 AM

It wasn't surprising to open this thread and find that almost all of the comments weren't about the subject of the FPP but about the form of it.
posted by cx to Etiquette/Policy at 8:20 AM (34 comments total)

Whether I agree or not on the use of images in FPPs and comments (and I don't) people should, IMO, use the Grey for all the metatalk. Not the Blue.
posted by cx at 8:23 AM on September 13, 2004

I posted about butts and so did many people after me. This callout does not apply to us. (Post about butts, friends, and you too shall be saved!)
posted by onlyconnect at 8:26 AM on September 13, 2004

Not just an image, but an image with no further explaination that leads to a New York Times link (Register Now!).
posted by falconred at 8:29 AM on September 13, 2004

Posting an unresized 350x529 image to the front page with no indication as to what the post is about, *and* it's a deep-linked, bandwidth leeching image from a site that is notorious for not maintaining its archives.

While I tend to agree with you, cx, *that* is an appallingly ill-considered post. It's probably more amazing that anyone kept on topic in the thread.
posted by filmgoerjuan at 8:32 AM on September 13, 2004

I agree that the FPP was bad form. No argument there. But the subject of the FPP wasn't all that bad, and though I admire the self-moderation and general friendly community spirit of Metafilter (I truly do) I guess I'm getting tired of reading metatalk in the Blue, because it really drowns out potential good discussions and comments about the subject matter.

For instance it really isn't really a contribution, IMO, to speculate in the Blue whether or not a FPP is going to be deleted. I mean, if it is, the comment is obviously also deleted, and if it isn't... well there's your answer.
posted by cx at 8:40 AM on September 13, 2004

Honestly, I'll take a post like Tlogmer's any day over a thudding, one-note, BushFilter Newsfilter, login-requiring jerkoff session like this one. Supporting links? Nah. Interesting source? Nope. Subtle or nuanced presentation? Not on your life.

Surprising that after all the discussions we've had, people still mindlessly, gleefully post links like that to the front page as if they're doing anyone a service--

Who am I kidding? It's unsurprising.
posted by dhoyt at 8:48 AM on September 13, 2004

So you're saying, cx, that if I were to post a flash animation of loud instrument-playing dancing kittens on the front page -embedded- not linked, and everyone used the attached thread to discuss the de-merits of this type of behaviour rather than the brilliance of the music and animation, I'd have just cause in posting a metatalk topic complaining about the off-topic posts?

*trots off to rathergood*
posted by Blue Stone at 8:55 AM on September 13, 2004

That's one conspicous butt, especially incongruous in art for such a sombre subject. It smacks of parody even. I ♥-ily applaud all the butt comments, especially the hilarious and spot-on first one.

As for people getting carried away with comments about the form of the post, sure, it looks bad, but it's tough for people to exercize restraint when there's a huge img on the front page. Especially with that huge butt sticking out of it.

He should have titled his work "Butts in the Sky!"
posted by Shane at 8:56 AM on September 13, 2004

Props to onlyconnect!
posted by Shane at 8:59 AM on September 13, 2004

It's good that the big image has been taken off the front page, but why is it no longer linked?

The one on the Times page is only half the size, and doesn't give any indication of the fantastic buttocks we were discussing. Neither does this one. Mefites who walk in here on Monday morning are gonna wonder what the big deal was.

Where did the original FPP image come from? Was it photoshopped? Did Dan Rather have anything to do with it?
posted by soyjoy at 9:32 AM on September 13, 2004

I stand by my comment. Behind it, too. Big behind it.
posted by iconomy at 10:18 AM on September 13, 2004

The part I found most striking was Tlogmer's, "It was late and I was tired" reasoning. I'm thinking that if it is late and you are tired you should go to bed instead of making a front page post to MetaFilter. I can only imagine the number of times mathowie had to count to ten before not deleting the offending users account.

A little restraint goes a long way.
yeah, that did sound cheeky
posted by geekyguy at 10:22 AM on September 13, 2004

buttocks!
posted by loquacious at 10:22 AM on September 13, 2004

and what dhoyt said.
posted by geekyguy at 10:23 AM on September 13, 2004

Did Dan Rather have anything to do with it?

...or Karl Rove?
Or the Masons?
Or the vertical perspective fetishists?
Or the North American Flag-Ass Love Association (NAFALA), aka the Flag-Hags?

Oh, come on. How could I leave this behind?
posted by chicobangs at 10:23 AM on September 13, 2004

I agree with loquacious. And chicobums.
posted by taz at 10:44 AM on September 13, 2004

I, for one, welcome our new Flag-Hag overlords.

Well, you know, since we're kicking dead horses..
posted by jazzkat11 at 11:56 AM on September 13, 2004

The Blue. The Gray. The Green.

None of it really seems to matter. No place is free of the sniping, off topic ranting that inevitably takes place.

It would seem that 90% of our registered members are always trying to prove that they are/were the funniest kid in the class. At least the non-account holding readers remain well-behaved.

Some posts invite this type of behavior but must we crap in nearly every post in every corner of Metafilter? I am all for a little humor but it never seems to fail at derailing a topic then people get upset and come over here and the same thing happens.

If there is a solution it is for personal discipline on our members part. If you don't have anything to say then don't say anything.
posted by geekyguy at 1:01 PM on September 13, 2004

Tell that to John Cage.
posted by soyjoy at 1:16 PM on September 13, 2004

Not really an excuse, but I have my monitor at 1600x1200; didn't keep image hugeness in mind. (Obsessing over the butts on a statue? What's wrong with you people?)
posted by Tlogmer at 1:20 PM on September 13, 2004

What are you talking about geekyguy? The butt remarks were totally on topic in the blue. They might not be on *your* topic, but that's the risk you take in a community weblog. I am not ashamed.
posted by onlyconnect at 1:23 PM on September 13, 2004

geekyguy, if the medium, the message and the ass-play were that far out of line, pull another point out of the thread and bring us back on topic, then.

I thought we were actually critiquing the guy's (considerable, actually) artistic talents.

The whole booty worship angle was just an added bonus.
posted by chicobangs at 1:42 PM on September 13, 2004

Rather than discuss the art, (which in fact the booty worship was), it was determined that the posting technique/method should be discussed here. The thread here made it 39 minutes before the steamy snarky comments began.

What am I talking about? A quick look at post/comments from today turned up these gems in the blue, the gray and the green*? Not pointing at any particular comment. Can you find it?

* The one in the green seems to be removed but the first comment was "crap rock?"
posted by geekyguy at 3:59 PM on September 13, 2004

Not really an excuse, but I have my monitor at 1600x1200

I have my monitor at 1280x1024 and it was still freakin' huge.

How 'tired' do you have to be to notice that no-one ever posts images to the front page, as a community convention?

I dub thee : Sir Attention Whore. Now go forth and draw attention to thyself in new and more honourable ways!
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 4:02 PM on September 13, 2004

I shouldn't have posted the big image, yes. But it was a freakin' amazing sculpture; the reduced-size one would have been appropriate. (Why bother with words when you can just post the actual thing? It's not like the New York Times servers can't handle it.) Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities.
posted by Tlogmer at 8:26 PM on September 13, 2004

Sorry if I offended your delicate sensibilities.

Well, as long as you've apologized, I guess we can all...

Hey, wait a second, I have a nagging suspicion that "sorry" was less than sincere!

I think stav has you pegged. I've had FPPs about freakin' amazing works of art that I would have loved to plaster across the MeFi front page. But I restrained myself, as have the rest of us, because of this little thing called "community standards." (Or in your language, "delicate sensibilities.") It's like saying "I normally wouldn't self-link, but I just came up with this freakin' hilarious post on my blog! Plus it's late and I'm tired! Enjoy!"

The fact that you refuse to grasp this basic concept - the MeFi front page is not your personal sandbox - is, I must say, undermining a lot of the goodwill generated by that truly classic, amazing ass.
posted by soyjoy at 8:42 PM on September 13, 2004

Now that it's been all edited and the poster has been completely dressed down: nice post! Me likem das art.
posted by scarabic at 9:35 PM on September 13, 2004

Bad call perhaps, but I think the poor sod has suffered enough now.
posted by scarabic at 9:36 PM on September 13, 2004

There's no such thing as "suffering enough" on metafilter. We will badger him until he leaves, or some other idiot does something equally as stupid.
posted by crunchland at 10:24 PM on September 13, 2004

Hm. I have a guess about which will come first, if not come instantaneously.
posted by scarabic at 10:48 PM on September 13, 2004

I'm gutted I missed the giant bottom. No sign of it in the post's link now (unless my bottom size judgements differ from the community standard).

Also, regarding NYT links, perhaps a valuable pony would be some sort of warning when folk try to post a link to that organ pointing them to the nice NYT link generator thingy. I know I get bored of having to click the bookmarklet from that page to get me through to the many NYT links on here. (I assume it's legit to use them on MetaFilter, but have a faint recollection that the service was originally meant for LiveJournal users?) Apologies if this has been suggested before...
posted by jack_mo at 4:39 AM on September 14, 2004

I like big pics, and I cannot lie.
posted by chicobangs at 8:51 AM on September 14, 2004

Adrift,
Treading water,
Off the grey MeTa coast,
Bobbing in the relentless chop
Of the Scornful Niggle Wake,
Harassed by Scolds riding black jet skis,
Dodging unsuccessfully their fist-flung gobs of scrime,
I am tiring now,
Dreaming of a sleek shiny yacht,
Glistening,
Gliding towards me,
Noislessly,
Through the sunshine,
Crewed by naked angels with beautiful asses;
Dahlia will be her name, I think,
And as she slows, her plump white sails will billow suggestively,
And suddenly I'll be aboard, surrounded by smiles,
And gentleness,
And beautiful,
Beautiful,
Asses.
posted by Opus Dark at 3:08 AM on September 15, 2004

Possibly I will someday discover how to type 'noiselessly' without screwing up. Spellchecking is not an option - it makes poople laissez.
posted by Opus Dark at 3:41 AM on September 15, 2004