Stop apologizing for one-link posts

April 14, 2005 10:01 PM

Stop apologizing for one-link posts. Doing a half-assed Google search to make your post look more meaty will make it worse and waste our time.
posted by Space Coyote to Etiquette/Policy at 10:01 PM (22 comments total)

...Because it was a good link, and that's what I'm here for. I know how to use Wikipedia if I'm curious about background info.
posted by Space Coyote at 10:02 PM on April 14, 2005

usually, those who make one-link posts don't apologize because they see nothing wrong with it. Capn only apologized because he thinks one-link posts are viewed as bad on metafiler. I can hardly say it's the norm, and we probably won't see very much of it. And I can promise I won't apologize for posting anything, much less a one-link fpp. bastards.
posted by puke & cry at 10:18 PM on April 14, 2005

You know, this just seems completely unimportant after reading the previous Metatalk post.
posted by Galvatron at 10:39 PM on April 14, 2005

true that, galvatron. true that.
posted by puke & cry at 11:13 PM on April 14, 2005

I typically search Google with my full ass.
posted by thanotopsis at 11:25 PM on April 14, 2005

There is nothing wrong with one-link posts. As with all things, moderation and variety is the key. It was a good link. I laughed. It's all good.

True, Galvatron, but that won't stop us picking at it until it becomes something important, now, will it?
posted by dg at 5:33 AM on April 15, 2005

One vote in favor of one-link posts. Link padding is bad.

And one vote against one-link, one-word posts.
posted by stupidsexyFlanders at 5:53 AM on April 15, 2005

I've gotten bitched at for one-link posts, too. One vote up in favor of one-link posts.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 5:57 AM on April 15, 2005

And one vote against one-link, one-word posts.
And one vote for them. When appropriate, of course.
posted by dg at 5:58 AM on April 15, 2005

One more vote for quality one-link posts as opposed to link-padded posts.
On vote against bad one-link posts.
One vote for good multi-link posts.
One vote against bad multi-link posts.
One vote for good things.
One vote against bad things.
One vote to rule them all, and in the darkness bind them.
posted by Bugbread at 6:07 AM on April 15, 2005

It seems right to encourage people not to pad their posts out with unneccessary linkage. I have nothing against multi-link posts - it's just most of them are full of garbage and you have to try and work out the original intention of the poster.

A good link is a good link - don't gild the lily.
posted by dodgygeezer at 6:28 AM on April 15, 2005

I would prefer a good one link post to one where the real meaty link is hidden amongst a bunch of crap pulled together from a Google search. If you do flesh out a one link post at least do not obscure the main link. I frequently avoid the supporting links anyway unless they seem particularly interesting on their own.
posted by caddis at 6:39 AM on April 15, 2005

There's is nothing wrong with multi-link posts either, intrinsically. Some people are really good at finding multiple best-of-the-web sites about a single topic, and I certainly hope they're not dissuaded from doing so. But if you've got a single good link, and that's it, then post it as a single good link; don't try to put in average or poor links just to make it a multilink post.

And kudos to pretty much all MeFi users for linking the right damn words, unlike other sites (/.) which seem to randomly select sections of sentences for the links.
posted by Bugbread at 6:44 AM on April 15, 2005

I think the drumming cat post could have been padded out with some links to research papers on feline percussion tendencies, Buddy Rich's shapeshifting capabilities or perhaps a link to some mp3s of famous drumming cats. Instead all I get is a cat drumming on a kids head. Context people!

Crunch, that post made my day. Sad, huh?
posted by KevinSkomsvold at 6:55 AM on April 15, 2005

I apologize for apologizing.

I am not against one-link posts, but it seems lame and down right unMetaFiltermanly to post and FPP like "OMFG, teh funnay!!!"

But it was hella teh funnay (!!!!) and I wanted to share.
posted by Capn at 7:53 AM on April 15, 2005

By the way, go back to that thread and read Embryo's long comment.
posted by Capn at 8:32 AM on April 15, 2005

Apologizing for links is a real good way of making people completely ignore you. What's also awfully irritating is the oh it's my first post go easy! crap.

People, just post. Or don't.
posted by xmutex at 9:20 AM on April 15, 2005

Well... That was a good link, and I would have totally missed it if it weren't for this post.

It's a problem. I'm too jaded, or too quick to mentally sort the possibilities of posts into increasingly small piles. I'm pretty much completely bored with satire sites (unless they are really spectacular... and offhand I can't remember the last one that was), and upon skimming this on the front page without clicking through, I just kind of went, "rrrr, 'Unitarian Jihad'. 'K - satire site. meh, passsss."

Bu this wasn't a satire site, it was a great piece in the SF Chronicle that I nearly missed. There was nothing wrong with how Capn presented the post, but to me it looked like a quote from part of an intro for a parody kind of thing: My bias as a result of seeing too many "eh"-level such-like sites here. I know I've missed many, many other good things, just because I read the teaser, and mentally file under: "News-of-the-Weird-candidate", "Boobs", "Shoot-'em blast-'em Flash game", "Newsfilter", etc.

I don't think that this personal observation has anything at all to do with the subject of this thread, unless there are some people who try to add more info to their posts in order to keep them from being summarily (and erroneously) sorted into the wrong pile, so it's probably not helpful... but thinking about it makes me realize that I would really love to see a series of conversations here addressing how we react to posts and posting. It would be great to have regular discussions about what makes us click through (or at least to click to the comments), what makes us stop and look, or pass right over, and so on, as well as expressing the doubts and goals we have when making our own posts.

This is probably a hopeless idea because people would get too nasty, but it would be a cool thing if it could be done.
posted by taz at 10:09 AM on April 15, 2005

I'm sick of the multi-link posts. Back to simplicity please.
posted by xammerboy at 11:18 AM on April 15, 2005

these days, i find the poster counts for a lot. there are a bunch of people whose links i don't bother with. also, i don't mind if it's one or many links, but if it's many built around one, i'd prefer the main link first; life is too short to click through someone else's google results. but mainly, for good links, i just go to boingboing, because so much here is just people doing their "educating the masses" thing.
posted by andrew cooke at 11:34 AM on April 15, 2005

Aye - Space Coyote - one good link is all it takes. More than that is good, too, but this rumor about a "no-single-link-posts" rule is bogus.
posted by scarabic at 12:26 PM on April 15, 2005

Yeah, link padding is annoying. There is a FPP post right now where "UN" is linked to the United Nations webpage, in case we didn't don't what it is. And a few weeks back someone linked "marijuana" to the Wikipedia entry. What is the point?

On the other hand, putting up a link to a great site, followed by a few links to some resources from that site or to similar sites, can be great. See for example Mcsweeties' exemplary Strange Reaction post.
posted by LarryC at 1:41 PM on April 15, 2005