Too Much MetAskMe January 20, 2005 8:16 PM   Subscribe

MetaTalk is a discussion area for topics specific to MetaFilter itself

However, it seems like half (or more) of the MetaTalk posts lately are actually specific to AskMetafilter. (more inside)
posted by yhbc to Etiquette/Policy at 8:16 PM (27 comments total)

I don't read AskMe regularly. I haven't since it started, although I understand the appeal and appreciate the concept. I just don't have the time to do it!

Similarly, I now don't have the time to read MetaFilter itself (or MetaTalk) on a regular basis, either. I can sometimes come by every other day, sometimes less frequently, to catch up. When I do, I often find that of the twelve-to-whatever posts then visible in MetaTalk, all are new but most are about AskMe issues, and I don't care to read about them all.

So, should I:

1) quit my job and spend more time on the internet;
2) increase the number of MetaTalk threads visible on the page and just deal with the stuff that I don't want to read; or
3) request a separate "MetAskMe" section for topics specific to Ask MetaFilter itself?
posted by yhbc at 8:17 PM on January 20, 2005


If you don't have the time to read MetaFilter or AskMe, do you really need to complain about maximizing your MeTa reading time? You're a peripheral. What are you doing scouring MeTa?

I agree with your observation that the bulk of the major issues recently have foused on AskMe, but that's because it's a vital service for many of us, and a source of fun and useful threads to many more. It's unique, special, and there's lots to say about it.

I really hate to be one of those bitching-about-the-bitching people, but I must say: this thread is not only lame, it's brazenly so.
posted by scarabic at 8:22 PM on January 20, 2005


Metafilter: You're a peripheral.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 8:30 PM on January 20, 2005


So, that would be one vote for "deal with it?"
posted by yhbc at 8:31 PM on January 20, 2005


yhbc, you should:

4) wait until ask metafilter is tagged, then peruse it at your own pace.
posted by interrobang at 8:56 PM on January 20, 2005


I vote #1
posted by Steve_at_Linnwood at 8:56 PM on January 20, 2005


So, that would be one vote for "deal with it?"

I don't think that was an option you presented. Well, you did, but with a code change. I doubt Matt is in any state of mind to increase the number of MeTa threads visible. Just a guess.

Nor was waiting for AskMe tagging an otpion on the list. Sounds like your beef is in the Grey, not the Green.

Sorry for the "peripheral" comment. I have no interest in perpetuating any kind of regular/occasional divide between the members. Regulars need to pare back. Occasional visitors should keep it as is or step up.

But I do think it's strange for the casual visitor to care so much aout MeTa.
posted by scarabic at 9:12 PM on January 20, 2005


Hi commish! I'd go for #1, if I were you.

Alternately, it'd be cool if Matt could let us set preferences for number of days displayed on the AskMe and MeTa indices as well as the blue.

But I do think it's strange for the casual visitor to care so much aout MeTa.

yhbc was very active for a while, a while back. But that musta been before your time, sonny! [/funnin']
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 9:21 PM on January 20, 2005


when I said "specific to MetaFilter itself" I mean specific to the MetaFilter universe vs everything else on the web, not MetaFilter vs. every other section of MetaFilter.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:55 PM on January 20, 2005


What about a tagging system for MetaTalk. yhbc, you can read the posts with PastelSuitedJackels, DramaQueenery, Flamebait, WTFM, Pony, tags and ignore the AskMe tagged posts. Oh wait a sec. Metatalk already has categories. Why not an Ask Metafilter category?
posted by euphorb at 9:56 PM on January 20, 2005


You're a peripheral.

Heya Commish! Man, good to see you here, you nutty peripheral. Now with football season winding down, I'm sure we'll see more of you here. *wink*

Re: AskMe in Meta. I think it was just bound to spill over what with all the new additions to the House of MetaFilter. I'd vote for #2.
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 11:27 PM on January 20, 2005


How about:

4) Set up an efficient feed reader like Bloglines, so you can easily skim Mefi and Askme with little time investment, and ignore Meta unless you're bored and can't sleep.
posted by frykitty at 1:22 AM on January 21, 2005


I love how you don't the time maybe help out some members of this community you belong to, but do have the to bitch here. sigh.
posted by LouReedsSon at 4:38 AM on January 21, 2005


interrobang:
And just to be clear, keywords are coming to Ask Mefi soon (I don't think Metatalk needs them), and I'm still working on making the all tags page more useful.
posted by mathowie at 4:16 PM PST on January 18
Although I disagree with #1, I think tags on MeTa would be handy, it's his call.
posted by Plutor at 5:17 AM on January 21, 2005


I love how you don't the time maybe help out some members of this community you belong to, but do have the to bitch here. sigh.

I love how you append sigh to your insightful comment, to express to us your disgust and despair. That's so rock and roll.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:36 AM on January 21, 2005


Mr Reed must be proud.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 5:38 AM on January 21, 2005


it seems like half (or more) of the MetaTalk posts lately

Well, considering that Ask Metafilter comprises about half of Metafilter these days, I'd suggest this isn't necessarily a bad thing.

The real problem isn't the percentages overall, it's the percentages of certain content. That is, I'd recon half the AskMe MeTa's are either:

1. "ChatFilter!"
2. "That's not helpful!"

Perhaps if the recommended guidelines were posted in 72 pt. WTF type, we might have less of this. Perhaps.
posted by Civil_Disobedient at 6:32 AM on January 21, 2005


I do think it would be helpful to have an AskMe category, but we certainly don't need a separate MeTaAskMe just for those questions. Other than that, deal with it.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 7:41 AM on January 21, 2005


It seems to me that anyone who uses his limited time to read MeTa instead of MeFi is...a bit odd. But to each his own!

Although I disagree with #1, I think tags on MeTa would be handy, it's his call.

I agree. I think they would help us avoid a lot of the many, many repeat issues that come up because someone never saw the first (ten) discussions.
posted by rushmc at 7:43 AM on January 21, 2005


It seems to me that anyone who uses his limited time to read MeTa instead of MeFi is...a bit odd.

Metafilter is clearly divided into 6 different personality types:

1. Those who read AskMe first or nothing but AskMe.
2. Those who read MeTalk first or nothing but MeTalk.
3. Those who read MeFilter first or nothing but MeFilter.
4. Those who read everything, obssessively.
5. Those who skim everything.
6. Some combination of the above.

I personally am a number 6 with an emphasis on skimming MeFilter, MeTalk, and about every three days or so AskMe.
posted by Secret Life of Gravy at 8:35 AM on January 21, 2005


Isn't that 30 personality types?
posted by scarabic at 9:31 AM on January 21, 2005


So, if MetaTalk is about Metafilter, and your complaint is about the usage of MetaTalk, then ... doesn't it not belong here?

/head asplode
posted by knave at 1:18 PM on January 21, 2005


specific to the MetaFilter universe vs everything else on the web

Okay, fair enough. Under that scheme, threads about topics specific to AskMe do belong here. And I also remember the discussion and subsequent decision to limit the number of MetaTalk threads visible on everyone's front page; I guess what I was really asking for was an expansion of that limit, to reflect the fact that most of the threads are now, in fact, about AskMe issues or topics. It's not a huge deal, however, and if no additional coding or changes are desired that's fine with me.

It seems to me that anyone who uses his limited time to read MeTa instead of MeFi is...a bit odd.

Ah, but I have always - even during my pre-membership, lurker days - fallen into Gravy's category No. 2 and read MetaTalk first. MetaTalk is where you can really get insights into the true personalities and character of the individual members.

Son.
posted by yhbc at 6:43 PM on January 21, 2005


Not suggesting it's wrong, just odd. I tend to assume that links > personalities, too much perhaps.
posted by rushmc at 8:32 PM on January 21, 2005


Ah, but I have always - even during my pre-membership, lurker days - fallen into Gravy's category No. 2 and read MetaTalk first. MetaTalk is where you can really get insights into the true personalities and character of the individual members.

I've been the same at times, but I recognize it's an unhealthy way to approach the community, it's not where the good stuff is, and the Grey is not an entity unto itself. It's an appendage. It's here to improve the Blue and Green. We're not here to sample one another's personalities, not as a primary pursuit anyway. That's for sites like Match.com and pure-discussion sites. Life in the Grey is not something to seek to tweak and enhance for its own sake. Matt's recent moves to start closing threads here reflects that it's a necessary evil, not a place to stretch out and enjoy. Your post indicates that you feel the Green is starting to impinge upon your good times in the Grey, and that's just bass-ackward.
posted by scarabic at 8:51 PM on January 21, 2005


Me and MetaTalk
We got a thing goin' on
We both know that it's wrong
But it's much too strong
To let it go now
posted by timeistight at 12:07 PM on January 22, 2005


I've been the same at times, but I recognize it's an unhealthy way to approach the community

Bollocks. I can get links to stuff anywhere. For the most part, I've never cared much about 'the best of the web' and 'links! links! links!' because it's a white lie we tell ourselves, anyway.

It's always been about the people here, for me, foremost. Which is why I hate to see people leave, or get driven away, for the most part, and welcome returns, like the unheralded one recently of pracowity, one of our smartest and most articulate semi-oldtimers.

There's occasionally something linked in the blue that's interesting, that I haven't seen elsewhere already, sure, but that's not my primary reason for coming. Never has been.

Like yhbc, I come to Metatalk first, always have, and there's nothing wrong with that in the least. I don't want anyone else to agree with me about their relative valuation of various aspects of the community (the existence of which some go so far as to deny entirely), that's just the way I feel about it.

Until the recent correction, as Metatalk was sliding deeper and deeper into IRC chatter and inanity, I was getting downright angry about it, and that's primarily because (and I once again find myself disagreeing strongly with scarabic's take on the place) I don't expect personalities to come across in antics and 'looka me! looka me' acting out and unfunny grandstanding, but in considered reactions to arguments and ideas, and only the very occasional fart joke.

There is a third way between self-indulgent chatter and buttoned-up Serious Discussion. Metatalk, when it's going well, walks that third path. Always has, as long as I can remember.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 6:26 PM on January 22, 2005


« Older Incorrect "new comments" count   |   Update guidelines page Newer »

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