What the heck is wrong with a double-post? August 5, 2001 4:41 PM   Subscribe

What the heck is wrong with a double-post? Recently there seems to be a crusade afoot to teach the unwashed masses that a double-post is the Greatest Sin of All.

(more inside)
posted by o2b to Etiquette/Policy at 4:41 PM (9 comments total)

A lot of times when someone says "Double post" they're doing it not so much to chastise (or kid) the poster as much as to label the thread so that Matt can easily spot it and delete it.

What's wrong with it is that it's against the rules.
posted by Steven Den Beste at 4:56 PM on August 5, 2001


I understand that re-posting a link or news item that is precisely the same as one posted quite recently is a Double Post, and should be avoided.

I certainly think that posting a link to a cool-ass site that was posted a year ago is not uncalled for, in fact I think it is highly beneficial. As someone said, only 20% of us were around a year ago.

I have done my share of ahem'ing, but only on recent and obvious Double Posts. I have even Double Posted myself. But as often as I visit Metafilter, I do not break my neck to see every post created. If you feel a "double post" is a waste of your time, then don't waste your time by following the link or reading the comments.

For every person who hates a "double post" there may be 4 people who have never seen it before.

I do see the point of view about the artists though.

Idea: A separate section with general threads on major topics (dubya, art, music, popular sites going down).

Expand on it?
posted by o2b at 4:57 PM on August 5, 2001


(if there is no "more inside" yet, it is probably because the author is still composing it. wouldn't it be polite to wait for it to show up? the author is being polite by not cluttering up the main page with long posts.)
posted by o2b at 4:59 PM on August 5, 2001


o2b: Read this.
posted by zempf at 5:33 PM on August 5, 2001


thanks zempf, but my comment stands.
posted by o2b at 6:17 PM on August 5, 2001


I think one reason, is that there are a lot of places online where you can find forums that allow people to go on and on about a topic ad infinitum.

Whereas metafilter is one of the few places on the Internet where topic matter and commentary remains fairly new and interesting.

Also sometimes people don't bother to search the archives to find that someone has already posted on that topic. It's kind of an insult to the original poster if people don't bother to do that (mistakes and hard-to-find posts excepted)

I have heard the argument that sometimes a post might bring something new to the topic. That is very occasionally true. More often though, it is not.

Without your linking to specific cases o2b, it's difficult to know exactly which category the posts that have attracted your attention fall into.

I don't think it's any biggie that Steven posted before the second part of your note. I'm sure he wasn't intentionally trying to be impolite. A good way to avoid this occurring it to write both notes prior to posting them. There was a fairly lengthy gap time-wise between the two and sometimes people forget.

Matt has something fairly good going. Plus don't forget we get to review last years posts in the "one year ago" link at the top of the side-bar. I encourage people to read it.
posted by lucien at 7:44 PM on August 5, 2001


I've commented before that I think the idea of a "statute of limitations" on double-post warnings is fair. Now that MeFi has been in existence for a long time, threads and links that are old and dusty aren't part of the collective memory of the users. Something that might have been noticed and commented upon two years ago may be worth a fresh look.

Something that someone else posted two days ago is still a right-out no-no.
posted by briank at 7:50 PM on August 5, 2001


o2b: It's a matter of respecting the rules of the site, really. Matt's put this place up here for us to use for free, it's the least that we can do to abide by his requests, even if it takes us a couple of minutes to search through the recent archives and make sure we're not doubleposting. Also, people come here for fresh, new, content; so it's also about respecting our time.

Fundamentally, though, it's about maintaining order. Online communities can go downhill really, really fast unless some strict "codes of conduct" are adhered too.

There's a reason why new members have to wait a couple of days before posting to the front page. There's a reason that we have rules. And while I'm usually a strong advocate of civility, and while I can sympathize with the people who get reamed... if you double post, you need to be politely reminded of what the rules are around here.

Of course, that's just my opinion.
posted by gd779 at 9:23 PM on August 5, 2001


A lot of times when someone says "Double post" they're doing it not so much to chastise (or kid) the poster as much as to label the thread so that Matt can easily spot it and delete it.

Problem is they don't get deleted, or if they do they already have 20+ comments in them already. Why not post something like "I just emailed Matt this is a double post, it'll get deleted soon so don't bother posting."

Now the problem is to get them deleted quickly. Moderators anyone?

Personally, anything after a 6 months should just be let go. Its probably not gonna be a year old news item and by then there will be new members and old ones who forgot/don't care.

posted by skallas at 1:54 AM on August 24, 2001


« Older Linking to Affiliate Codes   |   Another day, another link Newer »

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