These aren't really good posts. February 5, 2005 7:11 PM   Subscribe

Natalie dee now has her very own dog. It's too bad she had to " stone-cold quit my job".

Does This combined with This really belong on the front page?

What _is_ the best way to address this stuff without seeming like a jerk?
posted by edgeways to MetaFilter-Related at 7:11 PM (35 comments total)

Step 1: Look at the post.
Step 2: Decide that it's really not your thing.
Step 3: Roll eyes.
Step 4: Move on to the next post.

Do not go to MetaTalk, do not shit on the thread, do not bother calling it out.

It's not offensive, it's not a self-link, it's not a single-link news post, it's not a political editorial... so you don't like it, big deal. Get over it.
posted by cheaily at 7:14 PM on February 5, 2005


Is it a self-link? Don't think so.
Is it a Pepsi Blue moment? No.
Is it a double-post? Again, don't think so.
Is it entertaining? Yep. Very much so. And besides, this is Saturday. I like to think of weekends as MeFi's Casual Days.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:15 PM on February 5, 2005


ok ok sorry

so dog pics and personal blog is ok on weekends ... check
posted by edgeways at 7:19 PM on February 5, 2005


Okay. So maybe the post was missing a link to Natalie Dee's webpage (est. 2002) full of drawings, paintings and other goodness as a qualifier, but still ... best of the web. No lie.
posted by grabbingsand at 7:23 PM on February 5, 2005


Okay, I know it's just a personal blog ... but it's good stuff ...

A little quirky tidbit doesn't hurt the front page once in a while.
posted by Shane at 7:24 PM on February 5, 2005


Dude, just because you don't like it, doesn't mean it's worthy of a call-out. Snob.

Her post about quitting work becaus she was being monitored was interesting enough for me. Sure, there could've been more info that the poster could have linked to (such as the fact that she's Drew from Toothpaste for Dinner, which could've built into a longer post about the 'hipster indie' part of the web. But, eh.

Like grabbingsand pointed out -- it doesn't contravene any of the 'rules', it's not something that's guaranteed to cause a snarkfest, and it's not "OMG boyzone" material.

So, really, what's wrong with it?
posted by cheaily at 7:25 PM on February 5, 2005


1. Personal blog? yes
2. Entertaining? no
3. Good design? no
4. Good writing? no
5. Interesting content? no
6. Educational content? no

Please post high quality links NOT LINKS THAT ARE FUNNY CUZ THEY WRITE FUNNY AND IN CAPS. Unless it is genre-defining funny.
posted by b1tr0t at 7:25 PM on February 5, 2005


er... that she's Drew's sister. Not Drew himself.

b1tr0t: please get over yourself.
posted by cheaily at 7:27 PM on February 5, 2005


I said I was sorry.

You've all seem to think it is ok and that I should shut up if a post doesn't directly contravene the guidelines, fine. So I shall, you've achieved your point. tres bien
posted by edgeways at 7:35 PM on February 5, 2005


"b1tr0t: please get over yourself."

Cheaily is a seventeen year old girl. Check.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:42 PM on February 5, 2005


so dog pics and personal blog is ok on weekends ... check

cheaily nailed it in one. There is such a thing as a "weak" post which is not necessarily against the rules. Just leave it be.

Or, as is commonly suggested, if you really want to do something about the quality of posts, then post quality. Nothing raises the bar like good posts. Not callouts. Nothing.
posted by scarabic at 7:51 PM on February 5, 2005


Ethereal Bligh is an enormous doodie-head with a penchant for assholery. Check.
posted by cheaily at 7:52 PM on February 5, 2005


cheaily is a master carpenter. he hits the nail right on the head.
posted by quonsar at 7:53 PM on February 5, 2005


Over-policing there. It was funny.
posted by raysmj at 8:58 PM on February 5, 2005


I'm sorry, anything that is as funny as that . . . Cut the post a break. Every now and then it's okay to have something that's funny rather than make-your-brain-grow-three-sizes smart posted. JohnR totally made my night. And my friends' night, too, judging by the shrieking laughter.
posted by Medieval Maven at 10:18 PM on February 5, 2005


Don't be mean to edgeways. S/he is asking about it here, where it belongs, and did so in a nice way. Agree or disagree, but don't attack the poster for asking the question in the proper forum. (Medieval Maven and others — obviously I'm not talking about your responses.)
posted by taz at 12:36 AM on February 6, 2005


I love deadpan autobiographical cartoons. Looks like a great site worthy of posting (on a weekday, even), but it wasn't presented in the best way. At all.
posted by mediareport at 6:26 AM on February 6, 2005


I thought it was a terrible post and edgeways' callout was perfectly in order. Those of you saying "just scroll past" do not understand the concept of self-policing. Do you really want to see the MeFi front page fill with stupid blog posts about dogs and "wah, I lost my job"?

And the biggest complainer, cheaily, says on his/her user page:
I don't like MetaFilter anymore. And, as a web devloper, I don't respect the way Matt has built this site...

Yes, I could have emailed him and asked him about it. But the martyr-like attitude he took last time someone broke his (badly-built) toy makes me lose all desire to. It should have been right the first time. If you fuck up, you shouldn't complain. It's the internet, Don't trust anyone.

I also don't like his style of moderation. It borders on anal, and suggests to me that he can't accept the fact that his pet project has grown too big for his apron strings...

His horde of toadying little dimwits who think he can do no wrong can go to hell.

If I could change my username and password, I'd probably give this account to the general public, just to see what would happen...
Uh-huh. Well, that's certainly someone to listen to with deep respect!
posted by languagehat at 6:45 AM on February 6, 2005


Natalie Dee is a goddess. I do think using the description "the best of the web" to either choose or critique a post is tiresome.
posted by JohnR at 6:53 AM on February 6, 2005


Do you really want to see the MeFi front page fill with stupid blog posts about dogs and "wah, I lost my job"?

Hell yeah I do, any day. Corporate Web Still Sucks.
posted by RJ Reynolds at 7:24 AM on February 6, 2005


As I said in the thread, this was a fantastic post. Languagehat, I can't remember a time when I've disagreed with your opinion more. Nataliedee's writing, cartoons, advice column & pug photos were all nice additions to my websurfing day. Do we really need to call out EVERY SINGLE POST that any one of the hundreds (thousands) of active members doesn't feel is "best of the web"? What post wouldn't be worth a callout in that case?
posted by jonson at 8:47 AM on February 6, 2005


JohnR totally made my night.
(yes!)
posted by JohnR at 9:27 AM on February 6, 2005


Well, that's certainly someone to listen to with deep respect!

Yeesh, languagehat, talk about guilt by association...
posted by mediareport at 10:44 AM on February 6, 2005


I disagree with languagehat and agree with quonsar.

I hope this doesnt happen too often.
posted by vacapinta at 10:49 AM on February 6, 2005


I'm willing to accept, for the sake of argument, that the linked blogger is a "goddess" and that a better selection of links would have made it a worthwhile post. This was not that selection. This was a link to a dog and a link to an entry about being fired. On its own merits, it was not a good post (in my opinion). Do not expect me to go roaming through an entire site to see if it gets any better than it appeared from the post. (I suspect most of the fans of the post were already fans of Ms. Dee and were just happy to see her on the front page.)

Hell, we all know how MeFi could appear if you grabbed a couple of posts at random. "Uh, I know this is a post about vibrating brooms, but it's an intelligent, worthwhile site! Really! Click around!"

mediareport: I wasn't trying to establish "guilt by association," which I abhor, just pointing out that the main defender of the post, telling everyone "do not shit on the thread, do not bother calling it out," does not appear to be someone whose opinion should carry much weight on this matter. (And vacapinta, you agree that "cheaily... hits the nail right on the head" -- based on the user page q links to?)

Look, I'm not saying this is the worst post ever to hit MeFi, and I wouldn't have bothered calling it out myself. I just don't like seeing edgeways shat on for calling out a substandard post.
posted by languagehat at 11:23 AM on February 6, 2005


I just don't like seeing edgeways shat on for calling out a substandard post.

Fair enough. taz made that point nicely, too. The linked site (whose author I'd never heard of before) *and* edgeways' gentle questioning were both fine.
posted by mediareport at 11:34 AM on February 6, 2005


Clearly a post where the oblique drive-by style just wasn't the right way to frame it. Linking to a few more choice comments would have gotten people on board sooner (as it was, it took me two or three of the blog entries). But once there the content was definitely up to MeFi "standards" whatever they are. It's sharp, funny writing that's a cut above your average journal, even writing that manages to comment on that journaling style.

Despite MeFi's origins in blogging there are quite a few people here who think that blogging is now such a common activity it can't possibly ever qualify. I think that's a wrongheaded notion.

Sometimes the content sells itself. Other times, the post needs to be well-crafted to make sure people get the point or aren't turned off by first impressions.
posted by dhartung at 3:30 PM on February 6, 2005


Despite MeFi's origins in blogging there are quite a few people here who think that blogging is now such a common activity it can't possibly ever qualify. I think that's a wrongheaded notion.

Bam. I couldn't quite put my finger on what it was about this thread that was bothering me so much. Thanks, dhartung, for cutting to the heart of the matter.
posted by mediareport at 4:16 PM on February 6, 2005


The writeup for that FPP is absolute crap, but the links themselves are well within acceptable.
posted by mischief at 5:10 PM on February 6, 2005


hey, languagehat: blow me.

...does not appear to be someone whose opinion should carry much weight on this matter...

What sort of fucked-up insane baboon reasoning is that? What I think of MetaFilter as a hole (sic) has no bearing on this particular post. It was a lame call-out, and I stand by everything I said. sometimes someone needs to get angry on behalf of the "indie" web.

I hate MetaFilter's (lack of) semantic design, erratic moderation and moronic fuckwits who seem to do nothing but suck up to Matt. Why does that invalidate any opinion I have?

(BTW, I just love your selective editing of my userinfo.)

And, yes, I'm well aware of the concept of self-policing, currently engaging in it at the moment. it's a two-way street, bunky. But that doesnt' mean we need to turn this place into a police state.

There's shitloads of junk posted that I hate that doesn't contravene the "rules", but you don't see me jumping to call it out. Why? Because I CAN HIT "NEXT" AND GET OVER IT.

I did not 'shit on' sideways. I called him/her a snob, and told them to get over it.

If that offends your oh-so-delicate sensibilities, may I suggest locking yourself in a room, taking the pole outta your arse, sucking your thumb and crying to the moderators?
posted by cheaily at 6:02 PM on February 6, 2005


Holy fuck, cheaily's choadtastic rant on the userpage actually makes quonsar looks more nuts through association than q does solo, which is quite a task.

Having said that, I agree that this callout need not exist.
posted by cosmonik at 6:10 PM on February 6, 2005


cheaily, you are so much more clever than "blow me" and "pole outta your arse". Your first 4 posts were sublime - you ended it on a crass note. One man's opinion.
posted by mlis at 6:18 PM on February 6, 2005


I think I'm in love.
posted by mischief at 7:39 PM on February 6, 2005


cheaily: Your carefully reasoned response has convinced me of the error of my ways.
posted by languagehat at 7:05 AM on February 7, 2005


cheaily, it is edgeways, not sideways, unless that was humor.

And I suppose I can
CAN HIT "NEXT" AND GET OVER IT.

(incidently, for anyone else wishing to rant or whatnot edgeways is a (he), will save a few finger strokes)
posted by edgeways at 7:34 AM on February 7, 2005


« Older Redesign status update request   |   Redesign Contest Results Newer »

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