The use of small tags in front page posts bothers me December 22, 2004 2:55 AM   Subscribe

The use of small tags in front page posts bothers me. If something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly. A lot of the time it is used for unnecessary commentary about the post itself. Don't! Other times it's used to lessen the impact of a longer post on the front page, but preserving front page space by simultaneously posting less useful content seems like backwards logic to me. In preferences, I've set my small font size the same as my general font size, but it doesn't work.
posted by nthdegx to Etiquette/Policy at 2:55 AM (85 comments total) 1 user marked this as a favorite

It's supremely annoying, yes. And there have been other Metatalk pleas to not do it.

But the people who did it know that their stories are life-changing important and you can't be trusted to click on the link. So posting the entire news article on the front page is for your own good. Because you're ignorant and you'll be a better person if you read your 412th WaPo story about how the administration's corrupt or how people are dying in Iraq, especially if you read it in tiny type.
posted by Mayor Curley at 4:12 AM on December 22, 2004


Of course, you could be talking about anybody.
posted by XQUZYPHYR at 4:55 AM on December 22, 2004


Mayor Curley has a point. This has already been talked to death.
posted by Smart Dalek at 5:30 AM on December 22, 2004


But it needs further discussion, no?
posted by trharlan at 5:59 AM on December 22, 2004


Oh for god's sake. Let's get all the complaining out of the way right here, so that MeTa can calm down for the holidays. Posts:
1) Are too long
2) Are too short
3) Use too much small type
4) Link to sources everybody reads
5) Editorialize
6) Are too cryptic
7) Don't use enough letters of the alphabet
8) Use too many weird letters like "x" and "z"
9) Sometimes have odd numbers of words and sometimes even, which throws off my sense of balance

Come on, let it all out! Don't hold back! We can attain perfection!
posted by languagehat at 6:13 AM on December 22, 2004


I agree with 3, 4 and 5. I'm baffled by the suggestion that thoughts on how to improve the accessability of MetaFilter are somehow unsuitable for MetaTalk, and that this has anything to do with what time of year it is. It's not a big deal; but on a website about a website, is anything?
posted by nthdegx at 6:17 AM on December 22, 2004


I'm sorry it bothers you. Others like it, or are indifferent to it. Other than attempting to persuade people to your point of view (and the tone of your post is more nagging and demanding than persuasive), what do you hope to achieve with this observation? Do you seriously feel you have the right to impose your preference upon other people who don't share it (by persuading mathowie to codify it, or by rousing a cadre to bully offenders)?
posted by rushmc at 6:17 AM on December 22, 2004


I agree. In fact, the regular type here is much too small as well. Everybody please post using a larger font size.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:23 AM on December 22, 2004


Oh for god's sake. Let's get all the complaining out of the way right here

That post that doesn't exist yet on Pitchfork's top 50 albums of the year is going to suck.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 6:28 AM on December 22, 2004


what do you hope to achieve with this observation?

There's always the hope for a chorus of "Ooh! I hate that," followed by the main perpetrators saying "Perhaps I am being condescending and rude by trying to force people to read my post. I resolve to do it no longer!"

Of course, the chances of that happening are slim. So as for my participation, it's more to make it part of the public record that I think you're a douchebag if you do that and I will not read your post.

If you agree that it's a shitty practice, please join me in stating it and resolve not to read or participate in any thread which features a big excerpt in small type.
posted by Mayor Curley at 6:30 AM on December 22, 2004


Count me in as actually finding it useful. Since quotes are already italicized, that doesn't leave much else to highlight an aside or comment within a comment. I can empathize with your sentiment nthdegx. Theres a few things I find annoying in posts but this isn't one of them.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:31 AM on December 22, 2004


I'm sorry it bothers you.

Me too.

Others like it, or are indifferent to it.

Idiots. (Kidding!)

Other than attempting to persuade people to your point of view (and the tone of your post is more nagging and demanding than persuasive), what do you hope to achieve with this observation?

Nothing whatever: I do just want to persuade people to my point of view. I'm sorry I didn't water my opinion down with tedious maybes and imhos and i-wouldn't-mind-buts. If anyone is bothered by this I apologise.

Do you seriously feel you have the right to impose your preference upon other people who don't share it...

No, of course not, but I can hope that one or two people who have not previously considered the issue might be less inclined to use small tags after reading this, and making my time at MetaFilter a little easier.

...(by persuading mathowie to codify it, or by rousing a cadre to bully offenders)?

I don't want either of those things. I'm not proposing no one ever uses small talks ever no, really; I'm just stating my opinion that two common implementations of it are pointless (maybe, possibly, in my humble opinion). If I wanted to rouse a cadre I'd have linked to examples. I don't want to do that. I love everybody. A walking embodiment of the Christmas-fucking-spirtTM me.

Does anyone have any thoughts on why using small tags is a good thing, or shall we just moan that I'm using MetaTalk to talk about MetaFilter?
posted by nthdegx at 6:32 AM on December 22, 2004


Thanks, Kev!
posted by nthdegx at 6:33 AM on December 22, 2004


I think small type on the front page is, in fact, considerate:

Let's say you have a long quote that is central to, that expresses the core of, various other links in a serious and complex post; posting it gives a picture of the entire FPP and lets people decide if they want to delve into the other links. But posting it all in reg-size font would TAKE UP TOO MUCH SPACE ON THE FRONT PAGE!

Solution: small type.
posted by Shane at 6:34 AM on December 22, 2004


Actually, on a more serious note, I tend to agree with the criticism of small text under some circumstances. I think Shane's approach is precisely the wrong one. I use the small tag occasionally in a FPP, and use it typically to denote what I consider post meta data, like a via attribution, or a warning about file types. I never use it for a quote, especially a long one, because if I'm dropping a quote in I want people to actually read it. Don't put a long quote on the front page at all. Put it in the first comment and use the blockquote tag.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:38 AM on December 22, 2004


Personally, I like to use small font in comments, too, to indicate places where I've gone semi-off-topic in conversation with one or more other users; but that's just me. I know certain people are amused by it (espesh when I used to do this a lot) [iconomy used to have fun mocking me, seemingly in good spririt] and other people downright hate it [stavros jumped me for it once, but hey, stav jumps people alla time, so I didn't pay any attention ;-) ]

Anyway, that's just me. Often when I use small font in comments, it's also in an exchange that might only interest hardcore MeFites, so I like to think a MeFi reader who only checks out the links and skims the occasional comment can skim right past my little stuff, 'cuz, ya know, it's little stuff...
posted by Shane at 6:41 AM on December 22, 2004


I see your point and agree somewhat, monju_bosatsu; small font does sometimes have the effect of devaluing the info in the reader's eyes. But as far as quotes on the front page, I still believe that one good quote can often summarize the point of a FPP incredibly effectively, and in that case it is efficient and also good style.

Links surrounding (or within) the quote then become interesting for those who are stimulated by the gist of the post, and become optional for those who are not.

This really has been hashed out dozens of times, always without any consensus or resolve. But I guess we're discussing it sensibly here.
posted by Shane at 6:50 AM on December 22, 2004


But as far as quotes on the front page, I still believe that one good quote can often summarize the point of a FPP incredibly effectively, and in that case it is efficient and also good style.

If it's really that good say it loud, say it proud, and say it in ordinary sized text. Quotes bother me less than this (non-cardre-rousing example -- please do not bully). I want to read that stuff. I don't want eye strain. We have to measure "wasting space" with more criteria than simply the amount of space used.
posted by nthdegx at 6:58 AM on December 22, 2004


Here's another point about putting quotes in small text: When you decrease the font size, you not only make it harder to read, you increase the number of words per line. The ideal line length is probably about between 10 and 12 words per line, and reader comprehension decreases as the length of the line increases. When you shrink the text in a quote, thereby increasing the number of words in each line, you make it demonstrably harder to read regardless of the size of the text. This is particularly true when the reader's browser is maximized, because line length can be very long. For example, in my browser at regular text sizes, this comment has 23 words in the first line. When I use a smaller size, the number of words increases to 27, almost three times the ideal line length.

By keeping a quote in regular-sized text and using the blockquote tag, you reduce the number of words per line and make it more readable. The blockquote tag also clearly denotes the material as a quote, and gives it emphasis, rather than the deemphasizing effect of small text.

I agree with you about using small text in comments for extra detail or off-topic conversation, though; I think that fits in with my approach of using small text for post meta data.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:03 AM on December 22, 2004


Just do what I do: refuse, on principle to ever read long quotations on the front page. The instant I see one of those long paragraph blocks in small type, I move on to the next post.
posted by gd779 at 7:05 AM on December 22, 2004


I agree with you about using small text in comments for extra detail or off-topic conversation, though; I think that fits in with my approach of using small text for post meta data.

I agree with these uses of small tags, by the way.
posted by nthdegx at 7:07 AM on December 22, 2004


I still do have fun mocking you, Shane! Of course it's all in fun - I'm a nice personi
posted by iconomy at 7:08 AM on December 22, 2004


Of course, all this hand-wringing over the size of the text is a tad excessive, I think. A bit of judicious ctrl-scrolling will fix whatever font-size problems a post might have, if the quote is really worth reading. But still, don't put the quotes on the front page.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:09 AM on December 22, 2004


Quotes bother me less than this (non-cardre-rousing example -- please do not bully).

Oh, c'mon--we all know we're talking about y2karl here. We variously love him, hate him, and love/hate him, and I don't think he gives a fig ;-)

As much as I defend y2karl and info-loaded posts, I will definitely agree that brevity is everything. If you want to get your point across, you'd better post something short-n-sweet that grabs people's attention:

Just do what I do: refuse, on principle to ever read long quotations on the front page.

Most people do this, even me on a busy day. BREVITY, MAN! If the hook's too huge to fit in its mouth, there's no way the fish is gonna swallow it.

Apologies to my fellow vegetarians for the analogy ;-)
posted by Shane at 7:23 AM on December 22, 2004


"Does anyone have any thoughts on why using small tags is a good thing"

Yes. It provides a visual break between posts that might actually be interesting.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:23 AM on December 22, 2004


If differing font sizes is the thing you find most interesting on the MeFi front page, I respectfully suggest that perhaps you need another hobby.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:25 AM on December 22, 2004


And what happened to the rev?
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:26 AM on December 22, 2004


Hi, ico! I miss your small jokes! Happy Holidays!
posted by Shane at 7:33 AM on December 22, 2004


He means other posts that might be interesting, not the visual breaks: a sly way of saying that the posts in question tend to be boring. I think.
posted by nthdegx at 7:33 AM on December 22, 2004


"And what happened to the rev?"

He's logged into the other computer.

And nthdegx is right.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 7:36 AM on December 22, 2004


... a sly way of saying that the posts in question tend to be boring.

Ah, yes. I am apparently not so sly.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:38 AM on December 22, 2004


+
Presbyopia is a condition that occurs with growing age and results in the inability of the human eye to focus on objects up close. Presbyopia is most likely the result of a decrease in the flexibility of the lens of the eye, changes in its curvature from continual growth, and loss of power of the ciliary muscles (the muscles that bend and straighten the lens).

Presbyopia is not a disease as such, but a condition that affects everyone at a certain age. The first symptoms are usually noticed at the age of 40-50. It can start with difficulty reading fine print, particularly if the lighting is poor, or with eyestrain when reading for long periods. More advanced presbyopes may complain that their arms have become "too short" to hold reading material at a comfortable distance.
+
posted by matteo at 7:44 AM on December 22, 2004


MetaFilter: And nthdegx is right
posted by nthdegx at 7:44 AM on December 22, 2004


I'm one of those idiots that's indifferent to font size. It's the same number of words, no matter the font size used, and takes the same amount of time to read. People who can't handle different font sizes are just bein' pissy, imo.
posted by Doohickie at 7:49 AM on December 22, 2004


Here's the best solution for everyone concerned: first use of small tags is free. Thereafter, you'll have to give a buck to Matt.
posted by TimeFactor at 8:02 AM on December 22, 2004


TimeFactor, you do realize that Shane isn't independently wealthy, don't you?
posted by iconomy at 8:18 AM on December 22, 2004


So if we use big tags, does Matt pay us a buck?
posted by Doohickie at 8:21 AM on December 22, 2004


There we go, iconomy! That was quick! :-)
posted by Shane at 8:26 AM on December 22, 2004


I once considered a novel approach to fighting small text, but I figured it would eventually get me banned. I also considered pasting then entire chapter, but figured that would just get my post deleted.
posted by Mayor Curley at 8:33 AM on December 22, 2004


All points considered, we're still left with the fact that some of y2k's comments and posts, if NOT in small font, would take up as much space as the entire front page...

(Kid/'cuz love, etc.)
posted by Shane at 8:37 AM on December 22, 2004


You may protest that you are only kidding, Shane, but that criticism of y2karl is true. Of course, if he would actually select choice quotes and use the blockquote tag, his comments might be more palatable. Instead, he insists on cutting and pasting great gobs of text, when those who are really interested probably already followed the link to read the material in its original context. I like y2karl, and I really enjoy his non-political posts, but this habit drives me up the wall.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:42 AM on December 22, 2004


KUDOS: This is a good discussion, with people voicing specific reasons for likes/dislikes, not just "I hate that!" and "You just hate that 'cuz you've got something stuck up your ass!" It's always good to get a "poll" of how many like/dislike something, but it's so much better if reasons are also given and even solutions suggested.

Maybe we're all just drunk on spiked eggnog and holiday cheer, though. How embarrassingly Un-MeFi all this logic and civility will seem when we all sober up ;-)
posted by Shane at 8:51 AM on December 22, 2004


I personally like small, for the reason that it allows meta comments and asides, without automatically assigning them the same prominence as the meat of your post. Without them, any asides or jokes are automatically elevated to the same level as your primary comment contents.
posted by Bugbread at 9:07 AM on December 22, 2004


Maybe we're all just drunk on spiked eggnog and holiday cheer, though.

The bakiwop + office Christmas party = Monday night meltdown theory would tend to refute that.
posted by y2karl at 9:10 AM on December 22, 2004


Dude, let it go.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 9:21 AM on December 22, 2004


I missed the entire bakiwop affair except for the deleted post in LoFi after the fact. Was there an ugly-as-hell MeTa thread that got deleted too?

*sigh*
posted by Shane at 9:32 AM on December 22, 2004


Yes, Shane, there was. Unfortunately, we have no Lofi.MeTa to turn to. (Perhaps that pony could come soon?)

I like the small tag, it allows me to set asides apart from the true content. Like in this example.
posted by me3dia at 9:42 AM on December 22, 2004


Incidentally, you guys know you can specify the <small> font size in your preferences, right? If you don't like smaller text, just set it to be the same size as normal text.
posted by me3dia at 9:45 AM on December 22, 2004


I got onboard the y2karl's-FPPs-should-be-shorter train looooong before it left the station. And they have definitely improved, but yeah, putting a huge quote in small text doesn't hide the fact that it's a huge quote. y2karl simply seems to have a slighly different line at which he says "wow, that is more information than they need in the FPP." In comments, I couldn't care less what people do, because once I've entered a thread, it's more of a free-for-all than the front page should be.

Just three quick observations:

1) Small text is, if nothing else, absolutely appropriate and welcome in FPPs for "(via)" citations.
2) Taking MCD more at his word than he meant, the visual break afforded by slightly different formatting of different people's posts does help one navigate the front page when looking to find posts we remembered were fun and want to check back in on.
3) I for one would like to see more, not less, small-text mockery of Shane by iconomy.

Bonus, on preview: me3dia, did you read all of nthdegx's post at the top of this page?
posted by soyjoy at 9:47 AM on December 22, 2004


Changing the small font size in preferences only changes the size of the text in the "posted by" line for me; it does not change the size of small text in comments.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 9:52 AM on December 22, 2004


Does one have to be a html programmer to do teh small text?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 10:17 AM on December 22, 2004


it's more to make it part of the public record that I think you're a douchebag if you do that and I will not read your post.

In all seriousness, and without an ounce of snark, do you actually think anyone cares about what you think of them or whether you will read their post? 20,000 registered members, untold masses of lurkers and flyers-by...I don't think the handful of people who are so troubled by this are statistically significant, so I can't imagine most posters worrying about their loss too much.

Therefore, while expressing the opinion once may serve some value by putting the worst offenders on notice, repeatedly stressing it seems to me an abuse of the public record (not that it is by any means alone in this, but if we can establish the principle here, perhaps people will generalize it to other, more pervasive and pernicious cases).
posted by rushmc at 10:21 AM on December 22, 2004


Does one have to be a html programmer to do teh small text?

<small>no</small>

Just type exactly like the above to begin and end small text.
posted by Doohickie at 10:29 AM on December 22, 2004


AH, THE JOYS OF HIJACKING ATTENTION
posted by dong_resin at 10:40 AM on December 22, 2004


AH, THE JOYS OF HIJACKING ATTENTION

Leaving a marquee tag open is nice too. One of quonsar's finest MeTa moments, IMO.
posted by Shane at 10:52 AM on December 22, 2004


He thinks of everything.
posted by dong_resin at 11:00 AM on December 22, 2004


¡HATE!

And this concludes my 1000th marquee/big/blink post in the 1000th thread about font size in FPPs.

Thank you.
posted by eyeballkid at 11:07 AM on December 22, 2004


The marquee tag is actually a good idea. Maybe y2karl can stick all of his quotes in small marquees, like this. Then, if you want to read it, it's already scrolling by, making it easy to follow along. If you don't want to read it, it only takes up one line. I mean, if he's really that concerned about taking up all that space...
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:09 AM on December 22, 2004


*phew* Wow. That's actually a brilliant idea, monju. Really: look at all that info in that little space, and it doesn't disappear like a mouse-over. But then others would abuse it, or complain about the special appearance it gives y2k's posts ... Um, you know ... "...can't have nice things..."
posted by Shane at 11:29 AM on December 22, 2004


I fail to understand the gravity of karl's crimes, but they must be very serious since he's taking an impressive amount of shit because of them. he gets more abuse from formatting-obsessed users for the small tag than from wingnuts for his Abu Ghraib posts
posted by matteo at 12:02 PM on December 22, 2004


Nobody's accusing y2karl of crimes. Well, I'm not, anyway. I just think his comments are hard to read, and often reproduce material that is easily link to.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 12:11 PM on December 22, 2004


I like y2k's posts, but they sure raise a lot of MeTa controversy. How many "small font = bad" MeTa posts have we had so far? It never gets old, I guess.
posted by Shane at 12:30 PM on December 22, 2004


But I would fall asleep at that scroll speed, monju_bosatsu.
posted by rushmc at 12:49 PM on December 22, 2004


I'm going to use small font now. Thanks for persuading me, guys. Good thread!
posted by The God Complex at 12:52 PM on December 22, 2004


when those who are really interested probably already followed the link to read the material in its original context. I like y2karl, and I really enjoy his non-political posts, but this habit drives me up the wall.

No offense, but did you drink some anti-freeze kool-aid? If there's one thing I've learned here, it's that people notoriously comment on comments, rather than follow the links before entering the discussion. I think what y2karl does is ensure that people will at least have some idea what his post is about--except for those with the lame arbitrary rules about what they do and don't read. Threads like these make me wonder how people here function in the real world. Do they make up other strange rules?

I don't stop at red lights that aren't LEDs. They're just... too dull looking.

I don't eat banana chocolate chip muffins unless I can have at least two.

Well, the last one is ok.

I once considered a novel approach to fighting small text, but I figured it would eventually get me banned. I also considered pasting then entire chapter, but figured that would just get my post deleted.

I'm going to go with rushmc here and wonder why you think anyone cares about your strangely vehement opinion on small text.
posted by The God Complex at 12:58 PM on December 22, 2004


monju_bosatsu has the right idea in his/her earlier comment. Lots of text in small doesn't bother me because it's small, but because it forces so many words onto the same line, and this, for me, is very painful reading... So, yeah - I tend to mostly skip lots of small text, unless I'm really motivated - in which case I increase the text size.
posted by taz at 1:04 PM on December 22, 2004


I think what y2karl does is ensure that people will at least have some idea what his post is about--except for those with the lame arbitrary rules about what they do and don't read.

I know why y2karl does it, and it's unfortunate that readers can't simply click through to read the relevant content before jumping in with whatever snark is at the tip of their tongue. My point is that y2karl's presentation of the quotes is self-defeating. First, he often quotes far too much of the material linked. Second, he makes it hard for many people to read. As a result, people snark without reading either the linked content or the quoted material.

I mean, if we take the space-saving argument proffered by y2karl in the past to it's logical extreme, why don't we just break the div, thereby putting even more words onto each line, and saving even more vertical space? We don't, because it's ugly and painful to read. The same is true of many of the long chunks of quotes y2karl inserts into his comments. I really don't care how many vertical inches of screen real estate the quotes take up; narrow the column and make the text more readable, and more people will actually read it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:19 PM on December 22, 2004


I think long quotes with smaller text are far more aesthetically pleasing than those with regular text. I would probably blockquote them, too, since I think it looks better. Still, I think the point is simply that some people care, some don't, and those of us that don't can't understand why it's such a big deal. My resolution is set at 1280 and I only use a 17" monitor--is your resolution so much higher that the small text is unreadable?
posted by The God Complex at 1:27 PM on December 22, 2004


Still, I think the point is simply that some people care, some don't, and those of us that don't can't understand why it's such a big deal.

I agree with that. Absolutely.

My resolution is set at 1280 and I only use a 17" monitor--is your resolution so much higher that the small text is unreadable?

My resolution is not higher, but it may well be that the monitor-size/resolution combination plays a role. At home I have the same setup as you--1280 on a 17" screen. However, at work I'm at 1024 on a 15" screen (don't ask). The small text is, while not entirely unreadable, at least more difficult to read. Additionally, as I noted above, the number of words per line makes a difference, regardless of the size of the text.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 1:33 PM on December 22, 2004


Bonus, on preview: me3dia, did you read all of nthdegx's post at the top of this page?

Evidentally not. Nevermind.
posted by me3dia at 1:42 PM on December 22, 2004


I enjoy judicious use of the small tag in comments and posts. When used well, it does the work of a double-dash or parentheses, but has a visual quality that makes me hear it differently. Of course, some people abuse it; some people abuse the whole whole language. Calling for the ban of any particular writing mechanism on the grounds that it can be abused is ridiculous.
posted by squirrel at 7:46 PM on December 22, 2004


some people abuse the whole whole language.

*cough*
posted by soyjoy at 9:24 PM on December 22, 2004


Everybody should be able to post the way they want to. It's a form of self expression. Variety is good.
posted by semmi at 12:41 AM on December 23, 2004


Y2Karl isn't the only person on the web and blogosphere that quotes long blocks of text. I see people do it in blog comments all the time. It's common enough that I suspect that my negative reaction to it cannot possibly reflect most people's point of view. However, it is certainly true that I'm not the only person who reacts negatively to it.

I suppose that it annoys me because it's a particular combination of things that together are more annoying that they are added seperately. The first is that it's going against the whole web paradigm. The whole point of metalinks and such is that the thing that you're referring to is immediately and easily accessible. You don't need to quote; the primary source is a click away. With everyone using tabbed browsers these days, it's even more convenient. But ignoring this functionality of the web is obviously a deliberate act and thus, in context, it's agressive. It's saying, "I don't trust you to follow this interesting link I'm providing so I'm going to do my damnedest to force you to read the material". It's oddly self-important, part of the whole "on a soapbox" mentality that I don't like about some people's FPPs. And it's aggressive in a sly way, a passive-aggressive way that pushes my buttons. Finally, it seems to me to be needlessly unoriginal. If the quoted source is important, it should be taken for granted that it will be read and either it should stand on its own or one should provide one's own material/commentary. Just lots of quoting is...lazy. It's like someone padding their high school essays with lots of quotes.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:40 AM on December 23, 2004


Well, nthdegx, I'm not a big fan of FFPs that waste front page space with empty lines. So there.
posted by Doohickie at 8:54 AM on December 23, 2004


Yeah, exactly.

I don't want to add any more format-based comments to the blue thread, but now that Doohickie has pointed folks here, let me make it explicit that my quote in that comment, "If something is worth saying, it's worth saying properly," is from the top of this page.
posted by soyjoy at 9:02 AM on December 23, 2004


But ignoring this functionality of the web is obviously a deliberate act and thus, in context, it's agressive.

EB, I think maybe there are other reasons that people do this. I think most FPPers want us to click their links, but it comes down to how much "teaser" information is required to induce someone else to click the link. Some people get it just right; some don't put enough to generate interest and some put too much. And what is too much for you might be not enough for me.

All I'm saying is that it isn't always valid to assume an "aggressive" motive.
posted by Doohickie at 9:10 AM on December 23, 2004


When used well, it does the work of a double-dash or parentheses, but has a visual quality that makes me hear it differently.

THANK YOU. That idea is also something I was grasping at, but obviously didn't form the words to express.
posted by Shane at 10:16 AM on December 23, 2004


That idea is also something I was grasping at, but obviously didn't form the words to express.

You would've been able to express it if you'd only used the small tag, Shane!
posted by soyjoy at 11:20 AM on December 23, 2004


oddly self-important... passive-aggressive... needlessly unoriginal... CHOO CHOO !
posted by y2karl at 12:11 PM on December 23, 2004


I'm with Doohickie on the alleged "aggressive" use of block quotes. I enjoy the "teasers" that y2karl and others include with their links. I don't see this usaage as flauting the conventions of the web whatever those are.

You've never heard of the Whole Whole Language, soyjoy? So sheltered these young ones!
posted by squirrel at 6:16 PM on December 23, 2004


Whole Whole Language? Wazzat?
posted by Doohickie at 9:23 PM on December 24, 2004


*sigh.*
posted by squirrel at 7:25 AM on December 25, 2004


D'oh!
posted by Doohickie at 10:35 AM on December 25, 2004


Heh... I guess I got too caught up in EB's post following that exchange and didn't catch it the first time 'round.
posted by Doohickie at 10:37 AM on December 25, 2004


« Older Countdown to posting?   |   Can international users be added to the 'users... Newer »

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