where does breaking news update go?

May 8, 2006 4:28 PM

This morning two Australian miners were freed after being trapped underground for 15 days. And this morning on MeFi, we had not one but two threads devoted to it. The latter was deleted but the former still stands. Which raises the question of why, when there was already a thread devoted to the subject only a few days ago, wherein this news belongs.
posted by Effigy2000 to Etiquette/Policy at 4:28 PM (36 comments total)

I could understand if the original post on the mine collapse had been pushed off of the front page by now but its still there and still active. I just figure if you're going to delete one you should delete the other, is all.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:30 PM on May 8, 2006

What?? You expect the PTB to know every last post?
posted by mischief at 4:32 PM on May 8, 2006

Not neccessarily, though one would assume that if they recognised Post #2 as a double post, they would have seen the second comment in post #1 referring to the original post on the subject. That's not even counting my comment in post #2 referring to the original post.
posted by Effigy2000 at 4:37 PM on May 8, 2006

What does PTB mean?
posted by matthewr at 4:43 PM on May 8, 2006

I'm guessing "Powers That Be," but I could be wrong.
posted by dios at 4:44 PM on May 8, 2006

Ah. I was thinking perhaps it was a modification of 'PHB' (Pointy-Haired Boss) from Dilbert, but I couldn't think of anything of Matt's that was pointy and began with a T.
posted by matthewr at 4:46 PM on May 8, 2006

His tie?
posted by brundlefly at 4:52 PM on May 8, 2006

turducken.
posted by docgonzo at 4:56 PM on May 8, 2006

I agree with the policy to rigidly delete doubles, but the enforcement is lax. We need a few more trusy mods.
posted by bardic at 5:07 PM on May 8, 2006

*trusty* Urg.
posted by bardic at 5:08 PM on May 8, 2006

i didn't see the earlier post today ... and i thought the conclusion was worthy of its own post ... and technically, it was to a different video, that of the minors actually walking out of the elevator ... i thought it was worth a look

but i'm not going to argue about it ... so it goes
posted by pyramid termite at 5:13 PM on May 8, 2006

I thought it was kind of a gray area to delete this morning's post and push everything to the older one. The story kind of has a conclusion now.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 5:32 PM on May 8, 2006

Ok, this is wierd. Effigy2000, wasn't it you who, just 6 weeks ago, posted to MeTa bemoaning "the increasing number of stupid call outs on MetaTalk of late...and seemingly more and more attacks on #1 and #292 for their admin decisions"?

Wasn't that you?
posted by mediareport at 5:33 PM on May 8, 2006

It was. But to be clear, I'm not being antagonistic towards Matt and Jess... though in hindsight I can see how this thread might have come across as such. My aim was more to draw attention to the double (triple) post as I saw it. No attack on their decisions in this matter was ever intended.
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:36 PM on May 8, 2006

And Matt; I see your point. But as I said up-thread, the original post is only two days old and still on the front page. It can be easily found for anyone looking for news on this event. That's why I don't really think there is a grat area here. I would agree that there was one if the original post had been pushed off of the front page but it hasn't so technically it's still a double.
posted by Effigy2000 at 5:41 PM on May 8, 2006

I was under the impression that sort of vague guideline in these situations was 'no new posts on breaking news stories unless there's a significant development'. I'd say 'they were rescued' is a pretty significant development.
posted by jacquilynne at 5:44 PM on May 8, 2006

It is a by product of the race to post the latest news item to MetaFilter. On Friday we had three Porter Goss resignation posts within a few hours.
posted by LarryC at 5:52 PM on May 8, 2006

If Porter Goss was trapped in a mine, then you'd have something.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 6:14 PM on May 8, 2006

No attack on their decisions in this matter was ever intended.

Dude, it's exactly the kind of stupid callout you complained about 6 weeks ago. All you're doing is encouraging everyone else here to post to MeTa when a thread gets deleted. For fuck's sake, take your own damn advice and let something ride once in a while.
posted by mediareport at 6:33 PM on May 8, 2006

Given that I've only made six MeTa posts and that of all of them this was pretty much my first ever call out (not including my self call out a few weeks back), I'd say I let things ride one helluva lot.

But I digress. If it is to be decided that a still active thread on the front page relating to breaking news stories can be updated with a whole new thread (but only with major developments), then so be it. May I humbly suggest this be updated with a question in the FAQ?
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:53 PM on May 8, 2006

Maybe, specifically, with an update to this question in the FAQ?
posted by Effigy2000 at 6:54 PM on May 8, 2006

Probably by doing this to it; If there is a post on a similar topic still on the front page, please post your link into the open thread instead of starting a new post.

posted by Effigy2000 at 6:56 PM on May 8, 2006

If it's still on the front page, I don't see why a new development needs a new thread.
posted by monju_bosatsu at 6:57 PM on May 8, 2006

Effigy, you're completely missing the point. Yes, leaving the first double-posted thread up seems kind of off (hell, you can see I fully expected it to be deleted). But NO WAY did the inconsistency deserve a MeTa thread. It happens. Get over it. That is, STOP POSTING BULLSHIT CALLOUTS TO META.
posted by mediareport at 7:12 PM on May 8, 2006

I just want to go on record as being in favor of any and all metatalk threads, provided there is a flameout of somesort, or possibly extreme snarkiness, or even a thread full of wacky pictures.

Let's roll!
posted by blue_beetle at 7:24 PM on May 8, 2006

Ok, ok, sorry for screaming. But Effigy2000, please look again at what you did. There are all sorts of reasons why the two moderators might be temporarily inconsistent on something like this; the simplest answer is that they missed the fact that the first mining disaster thread was still on the front page. But here's the key: If everyone who noticed a minor inconsistency at the site posted to MeTa, this part of the site would become useless. That *you* of all people would choose this as an event important enough to mark with a MeTa post was striking, since you'd recently griped about just this sort of thing. And now, here you are petulantly saying, "Well, if you ain't gonna follow the rules, you should cross out the rules, nyah!" Puh-lease. It happens.

Also, it's worth noting that the first double-post was detailed and thoughtful and actually added information, while the second was a simplistic, ridiculously lame newsfilter post that added nothing beyond a headline. That's not a justification, but it does go a long way toward explaining what happened.

To anyone not looking for an excuse to gripe, that should have been enough.
posted by mediareport at 7:25 PM on May 8, 2006

Quick! To the Turducken of Truthiness!
posted by loquacious at 7:33 PM on May 8, 2006

holy fuck, mediareport. get over it. you've made your point. he got your point. he doesn't agree, and he really has no reason to. clearly he sees a difference this time, and the fact that you don't doesn't mean anything. he's not just bitching for the sake of it. he's already said his "so be it" for the thread. it's over. go home.
posted by shmegegge at 7:34 PM on May 8, 2006

Perhaps the miners will oblige us by going back down the mine for a bit so MetaFilter can get it right.
posted by peacay at 7:40 PM on May 8, 2006

shmegegge is correct; I do see a difference this time. Allow me to explain.

See, I'm not against call outs per se. I think call outs are important in a great many number of instances. But the thread mediareport links to, where I bemoaned "stupid callouts" was not a thread railing against call outs. Instead, it was a thread where I discussed an issue I had observed in MeTa over the weeks prior to that thread.

Namely, I had observed that the number of call outs had increased dramatically over the years and that a great many of them followed similar pattern. An older user would call out a new user for doing something against the guidelines, and then someone in the MeTa thread would call the callout "stupid". So I started a MeTa thread where I suggested that one way to stop all these so called "stupid call outs" was to temporarily stop paid user signups. For more information, see this comment I made in said thread.

In short; I'm not against call outs per se, and the thread you linked to, mediareport, was about how to curb a spate of angry MeTa threads that seemed to me to be highly prevalent at the time.
posted by Effigy2000 at 7:50 PM on May 8, 2006

Why wherein this news belongs, indeed. Verily.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 7:52 PM on May 8, 2006

This is a good example of a grey area in judgment where it would be so much better to have some kind of voting system where the majority could rule. Any one person's opinion is going to have a lot of counter-opinions, and Matt/Jessamyn are always under fire for presuming to know "what's right" in cases like these. I am not saying that a voting system is the right way to go for MeFi - that's a complicated question. Just that in cases like this where it comes down to individual judgment, you have to either trust the admin completely or you'll forever be sucking it up because you don't agree with him/her. Which is a drag for any community. I think it's easier to accept that more people think one way rather than another, than it is to swallow some of the "reasons" that admins come up with for doing this or that. They are in a position right now where they have to be "more right" than anyone, because they wield so much power. Sometimes, there's no one perfect answer and the mob should just gravitate where it will.
posted by scarabic at 8:26 PM on May 8, 2006

scarabic writes "Sometimes, there's no one perfect answer and the mob should just gravitate where it will."

Ochlocracyfilter.
posted by peacay at 8:40 PM on May 8, 2006

Which raises the question of why, when there was already a thread devoted to the subject only a few days ago, wherein this news belongs.

huh. Looks like blogging really is like traditional media.
posted by nml at 10:38 PM on May 8, 2006

Personally, I prefer trusy mods.
posted by slogger at 10:46 PM on May 8, 2006

It seems clear to me that, of all the possible scenarios one could come up with regarding whether or not a newsfilter update requires a new FPP, this one, the one we are discussing here, is a perfect example of "updates should go into the original thread... no new thread needed". The fact that the original thread is STILL on the front page is simply icing on the cake, making it a no-brainer in my opinion.

I completely agree with Effigy2000
posted by Witty at 5:44 AM on May 9, 2006