Why double posts are bad.

September 21, 2001 5:28 PM

Why double posts are bad. A tutorial for newbies. Click for more...
posted by Mo Nickels to Etiquette/Policy at 5:28 PM (20 comments total)

Why double posts are bad. A tutorial for newbies.

What's a double post?

A double post is a thread on the main page that covers the same ground as a previous, recent post. A double post need not include an exact identical link to be a double post. One example of a double post would be two posts that point to the same New York Times article about a human finger found in a can of Russian caviar. Another double post would be that same article from another web site that picked it up off the New York Times News Service wire. However, a third post that covers information related to the history of caviar, or types of caviar, or the state of the caviar industry would not be a double post. Similarly, an ongoing issue that results in tremendous news coverage following many avenues of opinion and investigation (such as the Lewinsky affair, the November 2000 presidential election or the September 11, 2001, terrorist bombings) would probably not be a double post, unless the two posts point to the exact same information (such as Noam Chomsky's thoughts on the terrorist bombings, even if found on different sites).

How recent is "recent"?

That's subjective, but for normal news, let's say six months, shall we? For wacky links, Shockwave animations, online games, Photoshopped goof-off images, rumors, urban legends, poetry, "evergreen" stories that are neither topical nor the result of current events, as well as for anything appearing on Ananova, Moreover's Offbeat feed, Fark or Chuck Shepard's News of the Weird (and anything like the fictional finger-in-the-caviar story above), let's say ten years, okay?

Why do we care about double posts?

They clutter up the main page. They waste valuable processor time. They waste valuable visitor time. They look bad. They make you look bad. They offer nothing new. They are a symptom of the decline of our society, and represent the tearing of the fabric of our shared humanity.

How do double posts happen?

Part of it comes from the Prometheus Syndrome, in which the poster feels like they have an inside connection to an unusual bit of the web that only they know and only they can share. Unfortunately for them, this is rarely true. The other part of it comes from First Post Syndrome. People like seeing their names on the front page. They like the idea that a conversation will flow from their thoughts. They feel like a bit of a leader. They feel like they're creating an identity. They feel "providential," that they are a source of information that others can depend on, that others will learn to trust, that people are secretly remembering them for the speed in which they post. Unfortunately, this is also not true. What people prize is quality, not speed or frequency.

How do I avoid double posts?

First, be a regular reader of Metafilter. That will keep you apprised of what's happening there and what's already been posted. Second, when you find something you'd like to post, read any other new entries on Metafilter before you add your post. People tend to travel in the same web circles, reading the same sites, and finding the same interesting material at the same time. Synchronicity is real. Third, use the Search button at the top of the page. Do several searches: for the URL, for a headline, for a keyword (be broad and use uncommon words such as "caviar" or proper nouns such as "Chomsky").

Why should I even bother? You're not the boss of me, you arrogant prick.

Here's a typical response from a newcomer who's unhappy that someone else's double post has been pointed out:

I find it a tad elitist that people are scolded for the odd redundant post. There isn't always the time to perform a thorough search before posting. Not to mention, the redundant-post-warning is no less a waste of bandwidth than the original post. No?

No. It's not just about bandwith. It's lazy not to search first. It looks bad. It shows you're careless. It's irritating. Nothing elitist about it. You're not oppressed by an arrogant majority. All that's being asked is that you A) read Metafilter to know what's new and what isn't and B) search for a previous, similar post. Be a good citizen. Metafilter is not a breaking news site: there's no reason to rush a post to get it on the wire. There's plenty of time. Nobody's saying to themselves, "Ooh! That Saturn5! Always scooping everyone else by mere seconds!"
posted by Mo Nickels at 5:47 PM on September 21, 2001

It's the people who don't read Metafilter daily and extensively- whether veterans or newbies - who screw everything up.
Double comments are also rife and a waste of time. When I dare to post - and I'm a real rookie - I take the time to search, not only via the obvious subject-matter but also in adjacent topics.
This is no chore, fellas: it's a pleasure to come up with threads you would otherwise have missed and the whole purpose of MeFi is exactly that. I mean confronting information, whether fact or opinion-based, which is unavailable, "in toto", anywhere else.
To Mo Nickel's excellent guidelines I would add the lesson of "Ecclesiastes", perhaps the wisest part of the Bible:
"There is nothing new under the sun".
Sure it's humiliating, but in a a good way.

The difference between sharing and shouting "look at me!"is paramount.

(Ideal soundtrack for those decrepit enough to care : The Byrds' "Turn,Turn,Turn")
posted by MiguelCardoso at 6:06 PM on September 21, 2001

Nice job, Mo. Proactive and constructive instead of just bitching about the problem but being too lazy to do anything about it (guilty). I hope this lives on as a standard MeFi document.

I would make one amendment, though:

However, a third post that covers information related to the history of caviar, or types of caviar, or the state of the caviar industry would not be a double post.

My add:

You should consider carefully, however, whether it needs a new thread or whether it would be better as a comment in the original thread. Fewer, richer threads are better than many related but "thin" threads. Readers are more likely to get the whole picture if they don't have to count on finding all the threads related to a topic, and readers who aren't interested in a topic will have to skip fewer threads.

posted by rodii at 6:53 PM on September 21, 2001

Right on Mo and right on rodii. That last point is crucial these days (Hello Bill Maher, anti-americanism, etc)...

They are a symptom of the decline of our society, and represent the tearing of the fabric of our shared humanity.

I would also add, "and is listed in the charter as the primary indication that you are a communist.". :-)
posted by fooljay at 8:26 PM on September 21, 2001

Nice job Mo, although could be a little more succinct. The lazy newbies aren't going to read six long paragraphs, are they? Personally I'd be really disappointed if any article already featured on Moreover, Fark etc etc is considered a double post. Do we all have to scour those other sites every day too, just to be sure we don't double post on MeFi? No thanks.

As I've mentioned before: in my optimisim and naivite, I believe the technological solution is always preferable. Thus I'm very much in favour of the URL checker which states that a URL has already been posted once. Perhaps the functionality of this could harden from "are you sure you want to post?" to "you can't post that URL again!"
posted by skylar at 2:11 AM on September 22, 2001

Personally I'd be really disappointed if any article already featured on Moreover, Fark etc etc is considered a double post. Do we all have to scour those other sites every day too, just to be sure we don't double post on MeFi? No thanks.

You misunderstand, probably willfully. The point is, if a search turns up a post from one of those sites already exists on Metafilter, then certainly do not bother reposting it at all, ever, even ten years later. Perhaps a general interest, facts-and-figures or hard news link could stand to be re-posted much sooner.

In my opinion, anyone who spends any time at all reading the Internet has already seen the types of crappy stories that appear on Ananova (and the like), without seeing each specific iteration of cheap irony, flimsy humor and pathetic comedy. We are no longer entertained by them. They travel like lightning around the Internet, hitting a thousand web sites, the news wires, email boxes. We see them everywhere. We are bored with them, though when we are not, we know where to go to find them. Who wants to read that kind of light, useless crap on Metafilter when it's available everywhere else and doesn't promote any discussion whatsoever? Except for, of course, discussion about what kind of paper-thin personality posts them in the first place.

An URL-checker already exists; each URL is checked when a post is previewed. It does not work well, because it cannot catch the same story from different sites or slight variations in URLs.

Your response to my post has all the characteristics of a bad citizen: too lazy to search for a previous post, too lazy to read six paragraphs, and too ignorant to understand what constitutes a plain old bad post.

posted by Mo Nickels at 8:04 AM on September 22, 2001

Mo, did you happen to ship a handbasket to an address in hell?
posted by fooljay at 8:20 AM on September 22, 2001

well, I guess I'm a newbie, but I did read all those paragraphs. My thought, however, was that I felt that way already (and was thinking what rodii said, especially given all those parallel threads on how evil the big bad U.S. is, and that all the original posters said no one had the courage to say...).

I think mathowie's posting guidelines serve their purpose pretty well. Some people will ignore them, either because they simply haven't read them or because they're just too tickled by some post they want to make, but a longer warning against double posting won't stop them. Other people will be more respectful, and for them the longer warning is unnecessary.

It might be worth adding a search box on the Post a Link page, though, along with a LARGE HINT to use it.
posted by mattpfeff at 4:32 PM on September 22, 2001

On the subject of double posts, I was thinking about a post asking if we could afford a two front war. Now that we're fighting a war on terrorism, should we consider abondoning our 20 year war on drugs. This is a topic that has certainly been discussed here before as recently as less than 1 month ago. I decided we'd had enough posts without this one, so I held off, but would it have been considered a double post?


posted by willnot at 5:03 PM on September 22, 2001

Six months or TEN YEARS?

I, for one, think that even the wacky links, Shockwave animations, online games, Photoshopped goof-off images, rumors, urban legends, poetry, "evergreen" stories that are neither topical nor the result of current events, as well as for anything appearing on Ananova, Moreover's Offbeat feed, Fark or Chuck Shepard's News of the Weird don't need to be off limits that long.

I renew my call for a statute-of-limitations on double-posts; anything more than 18 months old could be noted as a double-post, but allowed to remain.

Otherwise, I think Mo has really outdone himself here. Rah, rah!
posted by briank at 6:15 PM on September 22, 2001

I renew my call for a statute-of-limitations on double-posts; anything more than 18 months old could be noted as a double-post, but allowed to remain.

I dunno. Besides the double post thing, it's also worth thinking about whether a link that old will really be interesting. By the way, today I (politely, I thought) pointed to a 15-month-old previous link--as opposed to saying "hey, asswipe, double post!!!"--and noted how I found it (a search), and got the usual vitriol flung at me. It just gets more and more disheartening to be here.
posted by rodii at 6:25 PM on September 22, 2001

It's a good piece. However, having written end-user documentation for twelve years, I can assure you that you will be able to count the number of people who will read all of it on one hand.
posted by kindall at 8:04 PM on September 22, 2001

Mo wrote: Your response to my post has all the characteristics of a bad citizen: too lazy to search for a previous post, too lazy to read six paragraphs, and too ignorant to understand what constitutes a plain old bad post.

And Mo, your response to my post has all the characteristics of what I'd define as a bad citizen: arrogant, superior, refusing to consider the other member's line of thought and refusing to consider that - just maybe - it might be your own use of language which created a lack of understanding. I don't even think you read even my two paragraphs right, which upsets me, and it upsets me that you decided to respond with insult rather than argument.

No, I didn't "wilfully" misunderstand. You wrote: "How recent is recent?...for anything appearing on Ananova, Moreover's Offbeat feed, Fark or Chuck Shepard's News of the Weird (and anything like the fictional finger-in-the-caviar story above), let's say ten years, okay?" Mo, your words seemed to be suggesting that any post which had already appeared on Ananova or Fark could not be posted on MetaFilter within ten years. That's not what you meant, fine, but no need to reply to me in such a conceited fashion.

Finally: I'm not too lazy to search for a previous post. Never have been. I'm not too lazy to read six paragraphs, but I was pointing out that, since you had already tagged newbies as lazy, you might have been well advised to state whatever you wanted them to read more succinctly.

posted by skylar at 2:21 AM on September 23, 2001

Agreed that Mo was a little harsh, but:

Mo, your words seemed to be suggesting that any post which had already appeared on Ananova or Fark could not be posted on MetaFilter within ten years.

Only if you've already forgotten that the topic was "how old does the previous link have to be before a new one is not a double post?"
posted by rodii at 9:01 AM on September 23, 2001

Whoops, I forgot to italicize Skylar's words (the second paragraph) there. Sorry.
posted by rodii at 9:02 AM on September 23, 2001

Has it ever happened to anyone else here that something tagged as a double post is something you hadn't seen, and were glad it got posted again? It's happened to me.

Personally, I don't have time to go to every other weblog/news site/random collection of interesting links to find something funny, or thought-provoking. I prefer to come here. Therefore, when something shows up here that's been at one of the other places mentioned, I'm glad, because it means I see it. I've followed links around to other collections that have ended up on my list of links, but I come to Metafilter most often. I'm also a (relatively) new member - March, 2001. So occasional double posts from several months or years back don't annoy me.

I understand that to excuse any is to open a whole Pandora's box of crappy first page double posts, and so I understand why some members get so upset. However, I think that the less-than-polite way some members have of pointing out a double post can make us look just as bad and be just as representative of "the decline of our society, and . . the tearing of the fabric of our shared humanity", to quote Mo.

posted by jennaratrix at 12:51 PM on September 23, 2001

Jannaratrix - Most of the times people seem to be pretty polite when they point out a double post. For instance cough or Also Discussed Here.

Things only get nasty when people respond to that with an attitude like "you're not the boss of me and I'll post whatever I like. Some people seemed to enjoy it, and if you don't like it just ignore the thread." People will get a little more annoyed if the double post happened within days - or is even on the front page still, because not noticing that is just rude and inconsiderate, but generally any injuries seem to be perceived more than genuine.

Recently Matt made the analogy of MetaFilter being like a party. I'd say that's right on target. Think of the posts as songs. Imagine if everybody was listening to a song, and people enjoyed it and danced to it, then 15 minutes later (and despite all the talk of internet time, 6, 8, 10 months feels like 15 minutes with a lot of these links) somebody rushes in to play the great new song they just heard on the top 40 radio station that everybody at the party already listens to anyway.

Now, some times you want to hear the same songs over and over again. I listen to top 40 from time to time, and when I do that I understand that I'm going to hear songs in heavy rotation. However, the point of the MeFi party is to discover new music that isn't being played on the radio. Even if that great new (old) song is new to some of the recent guests, that song has already been played, and it distracts from the new stuff the majority of the guests are here to hear.

posted by willnot at 4:34 PM on September 23, 2001

willnot - Thank you for the thoughtful and polite reply; it's getting a little rare around here, unfortunately enough.

I completely understand and I agree, but my point is just this - sometimes double posts ARE "new stuff" to me, and to other people, too. Granted, in my case, it's generally something that was posted for the first time before I got here; but given that it's been 6 months now, that means it's been at least 6 months since it was posted. Does that mean it's okay, or should be? I don't have the answer to that. In some ways, it is a question of perception.

I've been reading all the MetaTalk posts, so I saw the party analogy and nodded my head in agreement. I've seen posts that were new to me, but apparently not to other members of the community. And I've seen double posts within a day or two of each other and thought "sheesh, doofus, read the index." I guess I was pointing out that, as with everything else, the issue may be more complex, in some people's minds, than a simple "Never ever double post, period."

The fact is, there are a lot of different people popping in and out of here now, and a lot of different ideas about what we all want MetaFilter to be. I'm not going to try to argue which theories are right or wrong; I have a more laid-back approach than some, I guess. I've never pointed out a double post; if I don't like thread content, I don't read it; and if I see what appears to be a troll, I ignore him/her. Other members take a more active approach, and that's okay too.

The problem or benefit, depending on your viewpoint, is that we're never going to all agree, either on the guidelines, or the interpretation of the guidelines, or what interests us or what is controversial or offensive. That's what I like about MetaFilter. What I don't like is members who are rude, for any reason, whether they feel it is justified or not. I've done it, in response to a nasty remark, and felt badly enough about it to stay away for a few days and rethink how I react. Some others are getting annoyed to the point where they are rude about this kind of thing all the time. Unless we plan on closing membership, there are always going to be new people who don't know or follow the rules, who will need a gentle reminder. When the gentle reminder causes a bad reaction, how is being rude to the person in return any help at all? I've seen countless threads degenerate into juvenile pissing contests over this, which seems entirely unnecessary to me.

Well, this turned out to be long and pointless, since the thread is probably dead and no one is going to read it, but there they are, my thoughts on MetaFilter, double posts, newbies and rudeness. Enjoy.

posted by jennaratrix at 3:15 PM on September 24, 2001

WHY THIS IS CALVINISM!!!

(only kidding. damn good post.)
posted by jcterminal at 5:23 PM on September 25, 2001

the thread is probably dead and no one is going to read it, but there they are, my thoughts on MetaFilter, double posts, newbies and rudeness. Enjoy.

I did; we did. A particular form of rudeness, I think, is not thanking people for important or interesting contributions. I wished there was a form of reviving jennaratrix's comment so that others could read it. Then I realized a shiny little "new" would appear on this post and felt better.

Also, Mo Nickel's guidelines, as others have suggested, really deserve to be given a more permanent place.



posted by MiguelCardoso at 2:34 AM on October 1, 2001