What constitutes a double-post? February 17, 2005 9:03 PM Subscribe
Question: what constitutes a double-post? This is easy to answer for websites, but it seems to be harder for NewsFilter posts. One person recently argued that a second NewsFilter post on a previously discussed topic isn't a double if it offers a different perspective. However, I'm not sure that argument can be made for the topic of this post, which has already been discussed twice. So is every news article on a topic fair game for its own post? Early returns indicate that the discussion isn't going to be much different from the first two go-rounds, so what's the point? (yes, I know this is a double post).
I'm not calling out mai here, btw. This is a genuine question... I took care not to call the post a double in my previous comments, but I linked the previous posts anyway, because I don't see why everyone needs to cover the same ground again. There doesn't seem to be a clear policy on this, either, since sometimes the doubles are deleted (granted, that was a much more frivolous topic, and there was no time delay -- is there just a very short statute of limitations?).
posted by casu marzu at 9:08 PM on February 17, 2005
posted by casu marzu at 9:08 PM on February 17, 2005
For what it's worth, I thought mai's link was a worthwhile addition. Even if it's not about the discussion, her link delivers much more content than the news articles.
Yay for primary sources.
posted by knave at 9:43 PM on February 17, 2005
Yay for primary sources.
posted by knave at 9:43 PM on February 17, 2005
Mai's post seems more like a Followup which is the Double Post's cousin twice-removed, if I'm not mistaken.
This post, on the other hand, which came forty-eight hours after this post, is just a baffler. Both from NYT, both covering the same subject, both from postroad. And yet everyone forged ahead as if they hadn't hashed out the same points two days earlier. It wasn't a Double, but it wasn't a Followup either. I think someone needs to coin a new phrase.
posted by dhoyt at 10:01 PM on February 17, 2005
This post, on the other hand, which came forty-eight hours after this post, is just a baffler. Both from NYT, both covering the same subject, both from postroad. And yet everyone forged ahead as if they hadn't hashed out the same points two days earlier. It wasn't a Double, but it wasn't a Followup either. I think someone needs to coin a new phrase.
posted by dhoyt at 10:01 PM on February 17, 2005
Question: what constitutes a double-post? ... (yes, I know this is a double post).
My head just exploded.
I guess I don't have much of a problem with a double post update of an old topic, but triple or even quintuple bugs me. Even if it does offer a minute amount of new information. I'd hate to ask for a pony to fix this, but I think a sidebar link would be appropriate for something like the Gannon issue or something similar. Perhaps when Matt is full-time, he can link to things like this from the side as long as it isn't abused.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:05 PM on February 17, 2005
My head just exploded.
I guess I don't have much of a problem with a double post update of an old topic, but triple or even quintuple bugs me. Even if it does offer a minute amount of new information. I'd hate to ask for a pony to fix this, but I think a sidebar link would be appropriate for something like the Gannon issue or something similar. Perhaps when Matt is full-time, he can link to things like this from the side as long as it isn't abused.
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:05 PM on February 17, 2005
Double postroad, dhoyt?
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:13 PM on February 17, 2005
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:13 PM on February 17, 2005
dhoyt, the first post was about FAA warnings, and the second was about a memo that Rice shelved. I know that there is so much evidence of negligence that it's hard to keep each separate instance straight.
posted by euphorb at 10:48 PM on February 17, 2005
posted by euphorb at 10:48 PM on February 17, 2005
He he. I'm in metatalk. This delights me.
My reasoning was that this link got to the heart of the matter, whereas all the previous news articles had been quite speculative. I understand that we don't want to rehash the same discussion too much, but I thought there was some opportunity to have a more thoughtful discussion now that we know in detail what actually happened.
If others feel otherwise, I understand. It's a fine line.
posted by mai at 2:32 AM on February 18, 2005
My reasoning was that this link got to the heart of the matter, whereas all the previous news articles had been quite speculative. I understand that we don't want to rehash the same discussion too much, but I thought there was some opportunity to have a more thoughtful discussion now that we know in detail what actually happened.
If others feel otherwise, I understand. It's a fine line.
posted by mai at 2:32 AM on February 18, 2005
knave, dhoyt, and mai: those are all good points. But I think it might be helpful for the author of the post to go ahead and link to the previous discussions in the case of a followup -- exactly so that people don't "forge ahead as if they hadn't hashed out the same points two days earlier".
Maybe mai's post isn't quite a good example of this, but the single-link news articles on the same topic are.
posted by casu marzu at 8:38 AM on February 18, 2005
Maybe mai's post isn't quite a good example of this, but the single-link news articles on the same topic are.
posted by casu marzu at 8:38 AM on February 18, 2005
My reasoning was that this link got to the heart of the matter
Was there some reason you couldn't have added it to an earlier thread, seeing as how both are still open?
posted by languagehat at 11:31 AM on February 18, 2005
Was there some reason you couldn't have added it to an earlier thread, seeing as how both are still open?
posted by languagehat at 11:31 AM on February 18, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by Mean Mr. Bucket at 9:07 PM on February 17, 2005