Is "lame" really an adequate justification for deleting a post?

February 20, 2005 8:13 AM

Is "lame" really an adequate justification for deleting a post? [mi]
posted by Faint of Butt to Etiquette/Policy at 8:13 AM (16 comments total)

Now, I'll agree that there are plenty of legitimate reasons to delete an FPP: doubleposts, self-links, egregious NewsFilter, PepsiBlue, people trying too hard to be clever on the front page, and so forth. But deletion just because some quality of a post is deemed to be "lame," with no further explanation? What was lame? The content of the link? The structure of the post itself? The poster's grammar? To say nothing more substantial than "lame" strikes me as no better than commenting, "What a crappy post," only with the added power of moderation behind it. If the rules around here really have changed, then perhaps it's time to update the posting guidelines to better reflect reality. Otherwise, being subject to a moderator's whim (and no offense intended to Matt or jessamyn; you're both fine people who usually do a great job of keeping things running smoothly), with nary a word of constructive criticism to help improve matters, just strikes me as... well... lame.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:13 AM on February 20, 2005

Lame isn't very instructive or descriptive, I agree. Many members will have different definitions and perceptions of what lame is.

Do you have a particular example that inspired this post, or is it a general complaint about all the deleted posts that were so labelled?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:19 AM on February 20, 2005

I think the problem was that your direct link to the video didn't work; it goes to the front page of danerd.com which, at a glance, would look capital Lame.

(The particular video you intended wouldn't rate a capital L.)
posted by Wolfdog at 8:22 AM on February 20, 2005

The one and only interesting thing we can expect to get from this thread is a report from Matt on how many people labelled this post "lame".
Seriously. That's it.
posted by thatwhichfalls at 8:23 AM on February 20, 2005

The reason reads totally lame, like super duper lame

This is obviously most appropriate for front page posts (FPP), and it covers such things as posting a link to a not particularly interesting news article or blog or other website.

Why don't you wait and see how things work out, rather than anticipating that Matt is -- all of a sudden -- going to become whimsical in deleting because (say) a few (out of 20,000) members complain about a posting?
posted by WestCoaster at 8:25 AM on February 20, 2005

Do you have a particular example that inspired this post, or is it a general complaint about all the deleted posts that were so labelled?

I do have a particular inspiration, since a post I made last night was deleted as "lame." I won't link to it, since it was NSFW and, in all honesty, pretty lame to begin with, but I thought it was at least marginally interesting and worth sharing. I made sure it wasn't a doublepost. Heck, I even went through the trouble of hunting down the direct URL of the movie file, to save interested MeFites from the horrors of embedded video. (And Wolfdog, I tested the link myself by right-clicking and downloading. It worked fine for me.) But although I was moved by personal experience, I didn't come here just to defend one post of mine. Since it wasn't the first post deleted just because it was deemed "lame," I thought it was symptomatic of a larger issue.

And thatwhichfalls, even if that's all we can get, maybe it will be useful information. You never know.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:27 AM on February 20, 2005

This meta thread is Lame.

*hobbles away*
posted by exlotuseater at 8:31 AM on February 20, 2005

FoB, your direct link works (1) if you have it cached or (2) if you type it directly into the url bar; they're looking at the referrer and not allowing us to click from metafilter directly to the video.

For media links, I think it's often appropriate to provide both a direct link and a "front door" link that allows people to go in the way the site's owners intend.
posted by Wolfdog at 8:32 AM on February 20, 2005

Is your problem with being deleted because your post was lame or with being told you were deleted because your post was lame?
posted by jacquilynne at 8:35 AM on February 20, 2005

Is "lame" really an adequate justification for deleting a post?

Yes.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:54 AM on February 20, 2005 [1 favorite]

Ah. Thanks, Wolfdog. I apologize for the technical error.

jacquilynne, my problem is with anyone's post being deleted with no official justification other than that Matt or Jess thinks it "lame." If I post a broken link, as I evidently did, sure, go ahead and delete it for that reason, and say so. If the reason had read "Direct link doesn't work," I never would have complained. But "lame"? I don't think that cuts it. I think it's too subjective and arbitrary, for my post or anyone else's.
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:55 AM on February 20, 2005

Is "lame" really an adequate justification for deleting a post? [mi]
posted by Faint of Butt to etiquette/policy at 8:13 AM PST [!]

I won't link to it, since it was NSFW and, in all honesty, pretty lame to begin with
posted by Faint of Butt at 8:27 AM PST on February 20 [!]


My flabber is gasted and my dumb is founded. I thought you were unclear about the meaning of lame (I am, as I see it as an American slang word, possibly discriminatory, and not in common usage in the UK. I guess it translates as unfit). But you aren't unclear: you agree with mathowie that it's pretty lame; you just want to know if lame is sufficient reason. Well, if 'lame' means 'unfit' - for a post to Mefi - yes, it's enough.

Next question?
posted by dash_slot- at 8:58 AM on February 20, 2005

Faint of Butt, I suppose you have a small point somewhere, but the fact is- the video of the naked women cramming themselves into the phone booth is not "best of the web". You can call it "lame", or you can call it something else, but Matt was right to delete it, so this whole crybaby Metatalk thread is a little much. (on preview, what dash_slot said)
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 8:59 AM on February 20, 2005 [1 favorite]

All right; fine. Pink, I think the "crybaby" comment was uncalled for, but I'm not here to defend myself. I can see when public opinion disagrees with me. An arbitrary notion of "lameness" is apparently enough to warrant deletion, and I shall keep this rule of thumb in mind the next time I see something on the front page that I personally dislike. Question withdrawn.
posted by Faint of Butt at 9:30 AM on February 20, 2005

FoB: welcome the lamer's club. The few, the proud, the lame. ;-P
posted by mischief at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2005

It sounds like you're conflating two things and reading too much into it.

I deleted the post because it was lame how it went to some porny stile project looking site and didn't even sound like good material in the first place. Look at the commenters on the thread saying how they hate it and it should be deleted. You just mentioned it as lame as well.

The second part is that in the new flag feature, one of the reasons was "totally lame" because it was 2am when I came up with reasons to flag a post. I removed it, because it's a dumb reason, and those reasons don't have any direct effect on the site. If someone tagged anything as lame, it didn't get deleted, just reviewed.

Sounds like you understand why folks didn't like it, I'll close this thread now.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:48 AM on February 20, 2005