Newsfilter: Zero Tolerance November 8, 2006 11:12 AM Subscribe
Newsfilter: Zero Tolerance. [mi]
Vote yes on Prop. 13053!
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:23 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by monju_bosatsu at 11:23 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
I disagree with you Eideteker. It's a related post, even closely related, but it's well-written and well-researched, while the original is just a short breaking news thing. I believe the Gates post will get much better discussion than the other. It set a more intelligent tone than "omg, rumsfeld quit! woo hoo!" that the other one is running with.
It's pretty major news and I don't think two posts about a major shift is a big deal. In comparison, there are what, 5 or 6 posts related to the election that could have all fit in one ginormous thread?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:24 AM on November 8, 2006
It's pretty major news and I don't think two posts about a major shift is a big deal. In comparison, there are what, 5 or 6 posts related to the election that could have all fit in one ginormous thread?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 11:24 AM on November 8, 2006
A one-month newsfilter ban would be an interesting experiment.
posted by sciurus at 11:30 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by sciurus at 11:30 AM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
Oh, and btw, in case anyone wants to paint me as a straight-up politics hater (for some reason, partisans seem to see everything as black & white), I actually really enjoyed following the election thread. I don't know why it couldn't have stayed in the original "Should we have an election thread (aside from this one)?" post here on the Grey, but so be it. However, my opinion doesn't matter; Matt's said it's not about the discussion. But then he hasn't deleted anything I've linked to (what irked me most is the comment linked to with "mostly"; can nothing be free from your personal politics, even for a short while?), so what's the deal? Matt seems to have a "don't rock the boat" stance on moderation. I just want to see that he's the one determining the course of the site; not letting a few bullies (intentional, or unintentionally due to jubiliance) push him around. Though I'm sure Matt can look out for himself; the part I can't stomach is the "say one thing do another." I won't call it hypocrisy, because hey, it's a big site to moderate, and there's a lot of grey area. But right now MeFi looks like a bunch of five-year olds just let loose in an arcade, and I think that when the kids act up is when the most stringent discipline need be applied. Show some authorahtay.
posted by Eideteker at 11:35 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 11:35 AM on November 8, 2006
If the Britney Spears/K-Fed post didn't get deleted then I don't understand why this one should either. And yes, I did flag that one as noise.
posted by fenriq at 11:38 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by fenriq at 11:38 AM on November 8, 2006
Ok, Matt, I can appreciate that. And while I wish one of the two threads would be deleted, I know deleting the RUMMY QUIT thread will just shunt the mob into the well-researched thread about Gates. What about this and this?
posted by Eideteker at 11:39 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 11:39 AM on November 8, 2006
But we're Matt's kiddies, and not yours. *pfbbbbttttt*
posted by konolia at 11:39 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by konolia at 11:39 AM on November 8, 2006
But the silent majority must speak up
Arise chicken! Arise! Chicken arise!
posted by prostyle at 11:40 AM on November 8, 2006 [2 favorites]
Arise chicken! Arise! Chicken arise!
posted by prostyle at 11:40 AM on November 8, 2006 [2 favorites]
I didn't see that post, fenriq, or I would have flagged it, to. What I like is that on the US news page for CNN, you get BS-news (second headline, after the election results) but nothing about Rummy (or did, at the time of the FPP). "BREAKING NEWS!" indeed.
posted by Eideteker at 11:42 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by Eideteker at 11:42 AM on November 8, 2006
sciurus: "A one-month newsfilter ban would be an interesting experiment."
No. Not interesting. Awesome. I bet it would cut noise on this site by 98%.
posted by koeselitz at 11:55 AM on November 8, 2006
No. Not interesting. Awesome. I bet it would cut noise on this site by 98%.
posted by koeselitz at 11:55 AM on November 8, 2006
prostyle: billywitchdoctor.com returns a 404. =(
"But we're Matt's kiddies, and not yours. *pfbbbbttttt*"
Thank you for raising the level of discourse in this thread to acceptible MeTa levels. Your statement would have been fine without the "nyah nyah" at the end. I never said I wanted to determine the moderation on the site. I just want to make sure Matt is steering it and that it's not devolving into a free-for-all.
This thread is not about taking sides. The problem I'm seeing is with people who take sides. Because they see everyone else as taking sides; they see everything as taking sides. Your comment just seems to support that, and while I know it was frivolous, I feel it's really the heart of what makes MeFi (and politics) not fun for me.
posted by Eideteker at 11:55 AM on November 8, 2006
"But we're Matt's kiddies, and not yours. *pfbbbbttttt*"
Thank you for raising the level of discourse in this thread to acceptible MeTa levels. Your statement would have been fine without the "nyah nyah" at the end. I never said I wanted to determine the moderation on the site. I just want to make sure Matt is steering it and that it's not devolving into a free-for-all.
This thread is not about taking sides. The problem I'm seeing is with people who take sides. Because they see everyone else as taking sides; they see everything as taking sides. Your comment just seems to support that, and while I know it was frivolous, I feel it's really the heart of what makes MeFi (and politics) not fun for me.
posted by Eideteker at 11:55 AM on November 8, 2006
While we're at it, can we get a MetaMohel to trim this thing?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:58 AM on November 8, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:58 AM on November 8, 2006
It seems that most people recognize that newsfilter doesn't really belong on MeFi, but many people also kinda sorta like it.
Is it time to revisit news.metafilter.com or politics.metafilter.com? I am prepared for the resounding chorus of "no!" but I just thought I'd throw it out there (again).
posted by Urban Hermit at 12:05 PM on November 8, 2006
Is it time to revisit news.metafilter.com or politics.metafilter.com? I am prepared for the resounding chorus of "no!" but I just thought I'd throw it out there (again).
posted by Urban Hermit at 12:05 PM on November 8, 2006
People like news posts. Get over it. Stop being a whiner.
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:23 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 12:23 PM on November 8, 2006
People hate news posts. Get over it. Stop being a whiner.
posted by LarryC at 12:31 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by LarryC at 12:31 PM on November 8, 2006
If the Britney Spears/K-Fed post didn't get deleted then I don't understand why this one should either.
Word.
posted by y2karl at 12:40 PM on November 8, 2006
Word.
posted by y2karl at 12:40 PM on November 8, 2006
Until the server is performing a bit better, I think a few different poll-results threads will be necessary. For me, anyway, the first election thread was torturous when I came home at midnight PST. It took about a full minute to load and at least twenty to thirty seconds to fully load any time I refreshed it.
This thread is pointless. We all knew there would be a day or two of this kind of activity around the election. Big deal.
posted by The God Complex at 1:01 PM on November 8, 2006
This thread is pointless. We all knew there would be a day or two of this kind of activity around the election. Big deal.
posted by The God Complex at 1:01 PM on November 8, 2006
News posts are like gay marriage or abortion. If you don't like it, don't do it.
posted by thirteenkiller at 1:02 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 1:02 PM on November 8, 2006
I completely agree with Eideteker and would love a trial 30 day no tolerance policy on newsfilter.
posted by dobbs at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by dobbs at 1:10 PM on November 8, 2006
The day after big news [like US elections] are always swampy here in MetaFilter. I'd love to try out a more strict newsfilter policy as a trial run. However, when it's between having, say, a new post for concession speeches and making people dig through a 900 comment thread to find a link like that, I don't have a huge problem with it.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:19 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 1:19 PM on November 8, 2006
People hate MeTa posts about NewsFilter. Get with it.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:23 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:23 PM on November 8, 2006
But the silent majority must speak up. Matt, you've got to decide if you want MeFi to become a news portal or not. If you remain uncommitted on the issue, the users will decide for you. You may offend some users by imposing a newsfilter ban, but they will either adapt or leave. It will not kill the site. Try a one-month, zero-tolerance ban, and see what happens.
This is pretty absurd, on second review. First of all, you're assuming the silent majority dislikes news posts as much as the vocal minority does. And, most importantly, you're suggesting there's been a marked shift lately, as if there's an imminent point we're about to reach. There hasn't been, and there isn't one. It's the same as it's always been, right up to and including the pedantic hand-wringing about the end of Metafilter as we know it.
posted by The God Complex at 1:23 PM on November 8, 2006
This is pretty absurd, on second review. First of all, you're assuming the silent majority dislikes news posts as much as the vocal minority does. And, most importantly, you're suggesting there's been a marked shift lately, as if there's an imminent point we're about to reach. There hasn't been, and there isn't one. It's the same as it's always been, right up to and including the pedantic hand-wringing about the end of Metafilter as we know it.
posted by The God Complex at 1:23 PM on November 8, 2006
Isn't "zero tolerance" a weak-ass attempt at polishing the intolerance turd?
I'd also like to add my voice to the growing chorus of those who'd rather not see Metafilter stained with any more stories about Britney Spears and her once/future Cletuses.
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on November 8, 2006
I'd also like to add my voice to the growing chorus of those who'd rather not see Metafilter stained with any more stories about Britney Spears and her once/future Cletuses.
posted by clevershark at 1:26 PM on November 8, 2006
To do this would be a mistake, wrapped in a fiasco, inside a blunder.
And I really don't understand the extremely urgent, almost panicky tone of this demand, Eideteker-- is some shadowy political organiztion threatening to hurt your dog unless you can succeed in ridding MetaFilter of the kind of posts they don't like, or something?
posted by jamjam at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
And I really don't understand the extremely urgent, almost panicky tone of this demand, Eideteker-- is some shadowy political organiztion threatening to hurt your dog unless you can succeed in ridding MetaFilter of the kind of posts they don't like, or something?
posted by jamjam at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
Try a one-month, zero-click-on-the-newsfilter-posts program, and see what happens.
posted by pyramid termite at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by pyramid termite at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
As someone who is relatively "silent", I would just like to say Eideteker does not speak for me.
posted by evilcolonel at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by evilcolonel at 1:32 PM on November 8, 2006
I don't think the Britney post was best-of-the-anything, but it does give us something harmless to flex our mighty nerd-snark at.
posted by ninjew at 1:35 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by ninjew at 1:35 PM on November 8, 2006
"However, when it's between having, say, a new post for concession speeches and making people dig through a 900 comment thread to find a link like that, I don't have a huge problem with it."
It's still newsfilter, but ok. Like I said, I'm more concerned that there be a clear stance than no stance at all (or a weak stance not backed up by NUCLEAR WEAPONS).
"First of all, you're assuming the silent majority dislikes news posts as much as the vocal minority does."
Well, I've been picking up on a vibe. The point of this post was to see if those likeminded would speak up. Read it as: "The silent majority, if it exists (meaning you, reading this thread, yes you, no, don't close the tab on meeeee ohnoooooooo----), must speak up."
Sorry if I seemed apocalyptic; I tried to make it clear (in part by being levitous) I wasn't. However, the best time for change is always now. That's all I meant.
"Isn't 'zero tolerance' a weak-ass attempt at polishing the intolerance turd?"
Huh? I know not of what turd you speak. I must've missed that thread.
posted by Eideteker at 1:35 PM on November 8, 2006
It's still newsfilter, but ok. Like I said, I'm more concerned that there be a clear stance than no stance at all (or a weak stance not backed up by NUCLEAR WEAPONS).
"First of all, you're assuming the silent majority dislikes news posts as much as the vocal minority does."
Well, I've been picking up on a vibe. The point of this post was to see if those likeminded would speak up. Read it as: "The silent majority, if it exists (meaning you, reading this thread, yes you, no, don't close the tab on meeeee ohnoooooooo----), must speak up."
Sorry if I seemed apocalyptic; I tried to make it clear (in part by being levitous) I wasn't. However, the best time for change is always now. That's all I meant.
"Isn't 'zero tolerance' a weak-ass attempt at polishing the intolerance turd?"
Huh? I know not of what turd you speak. I must've missed that thread.
posted by Eideteker at 1:35 PM on November 8, 2006
I actually think the Gates post should be a model for how newsfilter should be done. The type of newsfilter that bothers me is the simple link or links to news with no context or depth. One can get that anywhere, and it is clearly a blatant excuse for jump starting a discussion on the topic.
But, when there is important news and someone takes the time to flesh out the story with links to related controversies, history, context, analogues, possible effects, etc., then that post provides something that one can't get at Google News or wherever.
Despite the "it's all about the links" crowd, there is obviously value in a community discussing current events. The question for me is whether that discussion will be prompted by a post that brings the complexity of a situation to the fore or a post that serves mainly and merely to relate the existence of a bit of news.
posted by Falconetti at 1:39 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
But, when there is important news and someone takes the time to flesh out the story with links to related controversies, history, context, analogues, possible effects, etc., then that post provides something that one can't get at Google News or wherever.
Despite the "it's all about the links" crowd, there is obviously value in a community discussing current events. The question for me is whether that discussion will be prompted by a post that brings the complexity of a situation to the fore or a post that serves mainly and merely to relate the existence of a bit of news.
posted by Falconetti at 1:39 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
Eideteker writes "Huh? I know not of what turd you speak. I must've missed that thread."
I meant that intolerance as a concept is pretty much a universal bad, like a turd in the middle of a freshly-cleaned light-colored carpet.
posted by clevershark at 2:04 PM on November 8, 2006
I meant that intolerance as a concept is pretty much a universal bad, like a turd in the middle of a freshly-cleaned light-colored carpet.
posted by clevershark at 2:04 PM on November 8, 2006
This thread is not about taking sides. The problem I'm seeing is with people who take sides.
So you're taking sides against people who take sides? That's really putting the meta in MeTa. Er something like that...
posted by slogger at 2:11 PM on November 8, 2006
So you're taking sides against people who take sides? That's really putting the meta in MeTa. Er something like that...
posted by slogger at 2:11 PM on November 8, 2006
As someone who is NOT relatively "silent", I would just like to say Eideteker does not speak for me, either.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:16 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 2:16 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
To do this would be a mistake, wrapped in a fiasco, inside a blunder served on a slice of toast and smothered with jam.
posted by Floydd at 2:20 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Floydd at 2:20 PM on November 8, 2006
As someone who, as a rule, doesn't click on any post that looks like news, or any post with more than a couple dozen comments, I would just like to say Eideteker is brilliant.
After a "zero-tolerance for newsfilter" day, we should have a "zero-tolerance for Youtube" day, and a "zero tolerance for links to Wikipedia day," then a "zero tolerance for links that have already been posted to digg, fark, or boingboing" day. We'll cap the week off with a "zero tolerance for web links day". We can sit in blissful blue silence.
posted by muddgirl at 2:26 PM on November 8, 2006
After a "zero-tolerance for newsfilter" day, we should have a "zero-tolerance for Youtube" day, and a "zero tolerance for links to Wikipedia day," then a "zero tolerance for links that have already been posted to digg, fark, or boingboing" day. We'll cap the week off with a "zero tolerance for web links day". We can sit in blissful blue silence.
posted by muddgirl at 2:26 PM on November 8, 2006
The political posts have gotten to be too much.
There, I said it.
But some of the non-politcal ones have been shite lately too. Those posters don't help the anti-poli/newsfilter jihad at all.
So let me bring some needed decorum to this debate:
SUCK IT REPUBLICANS!!! SUCK IT HARD!!! SUCK IT LIKE TED HAGGARD DOES!!! PWNSAUCE!!!
posted by bardic at 2:37 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
There, I said it.
But some of the non-politcal ones have been shite lately too. Those posters don't help the anti-poli/newsfilter jihad at all.
So let me bring some needed decorum to this debate:
SUCK IT REPUBLICANS!!! SUCK IT HARD!!! SUCK IT LIKE TED HAGGARD DOES!!! PWNSAUCE!!!
posted by bardic at 2:37 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
I'm actually pretty stunned at how little NewsFilter drivel there's been during this election - I was expecting twenty posts per day in the run up and a deluge of 'Woo-hoo! We won! Impeach Bush!' in the aftermath (there's still time, I suppose). So far, I've only had to ignore a handful of posts.
Still, a news-free month would be a good thing, if only because people would take the time to sneak past the ruling with decent posts like the 'Who is Robert M. Gates?' one instead of dumping a breaking news link or two (ie. I think a NewsFilter post can be good if the links are good - posts like this one or this one could be done without links at all, which pretty much proves they're not up to par).
posted by jack_mo at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
Still, a news-free month would be a good thing, if only because people would take the time to sneak past the ruling with decent posts like the 'Who is Robert M. Gates?' one instead of dumping a breaking news link or two (ie. I think a NewsFilter post can be good if the links are good - posts like this one or this one could be done without links at all, which pretty much proves they're not up to par).
posted by jack_mo at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
I believe the Gates post will get much better discussion than the other.
So is Mefi about the links or the discussion? It seems they are at least equally important. Bearing that in mind, newsfilter doesn't seem so inappropriate.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
So is Mefi about the links or the discussion? It seems they are at least equally important. Bearing that in mind, newsfilter doesn't seem so inappropriate.
posted by hoverboards don't work on water at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
(And the election is over now, so I'd just let nature take its course. But Matthowie usually does the opposite of what I suggest, so we'll see.)
posted by bardic at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by bardic at 2:38 PM on November 8, 2006
Still, a news-free month would be a good thing
The percentage of sucky FPP's would stay the same. The threads would just be shorter.
posted by bardic at 2:40 PM on November 8, 2006
The percentage of sucky FPP's would stay the same. The threads would just be shorter.
posted by bardic at 2:40 PM on November 8, 2006
The Newsfilter-free month idea sounds good to me.
posted by furiousthought at 2:41 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 2:41 PM on November 8, 2006
Until the server is performing a bit better, I think a few different poll-results threads will be necessary. For me, anyway, the first election thread was torturous when I came home at midnight PST. It took about a full minute to load and at least twenty to thirty seconds to fully load any time I refreshed it.
This thread is pointless. We all knew there would be a day or two of this kind of activity around the election. Big deal.
That's why I asked for the thread in the first place. On big issues like this, a gigantic catch-all thread helps reduce the number of posts on the front page and consolidate the conversation.
This is especially true on election threads since the sub-issues (VA race, e.g.) are important to other, overarching issues (Senate control) -- in this case two threads would make the comments incoherent. (Well, more incoherent.)
I agree with Eideteker that the "control of the senate" thread was unnecessary. That could have been absorbed into the Election thread, or the Election thread could have been sidebarred, or better yet, Matt could add something to the Election thread description as an update.
posted by spiderwire at 2:45 PM on November 8, 2006
This thread is pointless. We all knew there would be a day or two of this kind of activity around the election. Big deal.
That's why I asked for the thread in the first place. On big issues like this, a gigantic catch-all thread helps reduce the number of posts on the front page and consolidate the conversation.
This is especially true on election threads since the sub-issues (VA race, e.g.) are important to other, overarching issues (Senate control) -- in this case two threads would make the comments incoherent. (Well, more incoherent.)
I agree with Eideteker that the "control of the senate" thread was unnecessary. That could have been absorbed into the Election thread, or the Election thread could have been sidebarred, or better yet, Matt could add something to the Election thread description as an update.
posted by spiderwire at 2:45 PM on November 8, 2006
I think we should test the newsfilter-free month idea by trying a newsfilter-complaint-free month on metatalk first.
posted by Chuckles at 2:47 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Chuckles at 2:47 PM on November 8, 2006
Oh, and btw, in case anyone wants to paint me as a straight-up politics hater (for some reason, partisans seem to see everything as black & white), I actually really enjoyed following the election thread. I don't know why it couldn't have stayed in the original "Should we have an election thread (aside from this one)?" post here on the Grey, but so be it.
Oh irony of ironies. Eideteker, the entire reason I posted to the grey and not the blue in the first place was because you always yell at me for making NewsFilter posts and I get tired of being smacked down for it. No offense to XZQYZPHYR (hmmm... yeah that looks right), the post was excellent, but I follow politics closely enough that I could also have put together a decent FPP on the subject.
It's the 'zero-tolerance' policy that bifurcated the threads in the first place, and it seems indisputable now that the thread belonged on the blue. Its presence probably deterred many of the race-by-race threads and such that would have driven you nuts.
At the moment, I think the middle-of-the-road policy of "put it in an existing thread unless you can really make it a convincing FPP on its own" sits well with me. To me, Gates' murky past is a different issue from Rumsfeld getting the boot. You may disagree, but it's at least illustrative of the fact that a zero tolerace policy would be problematic. (i.e., Gates' past isn't "news" per se, but it's only made topically relevant by the Rumsfeld boot, and they're two different subjects.)
posted by spiderwire at 2:53 PM on November 8, 2006
Oh irony of ironies. Eideteker, the entire reason I posted to the grey and not the blue in the first place was because you always yell at me for making NewsFilter posts and I get tired of being smacked down for it. No offense to XZQYZPHYR (hmmm... yeah that looks right), the post was excellent, but I follow politics closely enough that I could also have put together a decent FPP on the subject.
It's the 'zero-tolerance' policy that bifurcated the threads in the first place, and it seems indisputable now that the thread belonged on the blue. Its presence probably deterred many of the race-by-race threads and such that would have driven you nuts.
At the moment, I think the middle-of-the-road policy of "put it in an existing thread unless you can really make it a convincing FPP on its own" sits well with me. To me, Gates' murky past is a different issue from Rumsfeld getting the boot. You may disagree, but it's at least illustrative of the fact that a zero tolerace policy would be problematic. (i.e., Gates' past isn't "news" per se, but it's only made topically relevant by the Rumsfeld boot, and they're two different subjects.)
posted by spiderwire at 2:53 PM on November 8, 2006
On big issues like this, a gigantic catch-all thread helps reduce the number of posts on the front page and consolidate the conversation.
Exactly. Those of us who appreciate and participate in newsfilter posts are actually trying to make sure there aren't a hundred posts about each event. Maybe instead of calling for a ban you can join in supporting the catch-all thread idea.
Getting anything unoffensive banned entirely? not cool, and you're not King--we're trying to be considerate--how about you?
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on November 8, 2006
Exactly. Those of us who appreciate and participate in newsfilter posts are actually trying to make sure there aren't a hundred posts about each event. Maybe instead of calling for a ban you can join in supporting the catch-all thread idea.
Getting anything unoffensive banned entirely? not cool, and you're not King--we're trying to be considerate--how about you?
posted by amberglow at 2:58 PM on November 8, 2006
thirteenkiller: "News posts are like gay marriage or abortion. If you don't like it, don't do it."
No. There can be great web sites about gay marriage or abortion. I guess there could be a great web site about news, but I haven't seen it yet.
People like newsfilter posts because they prefer discussion, even when there's no great web finds as an occasion for it. That's fine. There are web sites for that. But this isn't one of them. (If you find a good one, maybe you should put it on the front page.)
So I guess you're right after all. News posts are like gay marriages or abortions; if you want to have one, Metafilter probably isn't a very good place to do it. And if you don't like that, well, you can just keep moving, eh?
jessamyn: "I'd love to try out a more strict newsfilter policy as a trial run."
If mathowie decides to do this, I think the best way would be to add a flag for "newsfilter." Less wading through flag complaints that way.
posted by koeselitz at 3:04 PM on November 8, 2006
No. There can be great web sites about gay marriage or abortion. I guess there could be a great web site about news, but I haven't seen it yet.
People like newsfilter posts because they prefer discussion, even when there's no great web finds as an occasion for it. That's fine. There are web sites for that. But this isn't one of them. (If you find a good one, maybe you should put it on the front page.)
So I guess you're right after all. News posts are like gay marriages or abortions; if you want to have one, Metafilter probably isn't a very good place to do it. And if you don't like that, well, you can just keep moving, eh?
jessamyn: "I'd love to try out a more strict newsfilter policy as a trial run."
If mathowie decides to do this, I think the best way would be to add a flag for "newsfilter." Less wading through flag complaints that way.
posted by koeselitz at 3:04 PM on November 8, 2006
The percentage of sucky FPP's would stay the same. The threads would just be shorter.
I've never been very good at maths, but since almost all NewsFilter posts are by definition sucky (going by the 'What makes a good post to MetaFilter?' criteria) I'd've thought removing them would decrease the percentage of sucky posts.
posted by jack_mo at 3:06 PM on November 8, 2006
I've never been very good at maths, but since almost all NewsFilter posts are by definition sucky (going by the 'What makes a good post to MetaFilter?' criteria) I'd've thought removing them would decrease the percentage of sucky posts.
posted by jack_mo at 3:06 PM on November 8, 2006
When we say "NO newsfilter," I assume that if some guy in like New Hampshire accidentally gets his nuts caught in a pickle slicer & it makes the local wacky news that THAT example is still perfectly okay, right? We just mean no OBVIOUS, front page (mostly political) news, right? I mean, if some famous theoretician that I've never heard of dies, we can still have an obit page for that dude, right? Even though that's news and all?
posted by jonson at 3:07 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by jonson at 3:07 PM on November 8, 2006
amberglow: "Getting anything unoffensive banned entirely? not cool, and you're not King--we're trying to be considerate--how about you?"
It's easy when you've defined this down as "unoffensive." It might well be offensive. It degrades the level of discussion at MeFi. News posts are only tolerated because they're so popular, not because they actually add anything to the front page; and in almost every other area, the insubstantial stuff that starts the insubstantial conversations that go under the heading of "newsfilter" aren't very good. In fact, that stuff usually bleeds over, screwing up the other threads on the front page. It's just a monstrous amount of noise that we could all do without.
posted by koeselitz at 3:09 PM on November 8, 2006
It's easy when you've defined this down as "unoffensive." It might well be offensive. It degrades the level of discussion at MeFi. News posts are only tolerated because they're so popular, not because they actually add anything to the front page; and in almost every other area, the insubstantial stuff that starts the insubstantial conversations that go under the heading of "newsfilter" aren't very good. In fact, that stuff usually bleeds over, screwing up the other threads on the front page. It's just a monstrous amount of noise that we could all do without.
posted by koeselitz at 3:09 PM on November 8, 2006
Me too. But not on Metafilter.
I usually go to Fark for that.
posted by koeselitz at 3:15 PM on November 8, 2006
I usually go to Fark for that.
posted by koeselitz at 3:15 PM on November 8, 2006
News posts are only tolerated because they're so popular, not because they actually add anything to the front page; and in almost every other area, the insubstantial stuff that starts the insubstantial conversations that go under the heading of "newsfilter" aren't very good.
There are worthy (but incorrect) arguments against newsfilter. This is not one of them, for the 911th time.
posted by bardic at 3:20 PM on November 8, 2006
There are worthy (but incorrect) arguments against newsfilter. This is not one of them, for the 911th time.
posted by bardic at 3:20 PM on November 8, 2006
[img ="abortions_tickle.jpg"]
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:24 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 3:24 PM on November 8, 2006
almost all NewsFilter posts are by definition sucky (going by the 'What makes a good post to MetaFilter?' criteria)
Did you read the criteria?
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
I fail to see why a post on the elections doesn't fulfill that criteria. I found things on the post and in the thread I hadn't seen, and the other two criteria are fulfilled by definition.
Additionally, this is not an argument against NewsFilter in general -- just because the relevance is transitory doesn't mean it's nonexistent. The appropriate time for determining FPP quality is when it's posted, because after that time it's de facto not-FPP-quality no matter how good a post it is, simply by virtue of the double post rule.
posted by spiderwire at 3:30 PM on November 8, 2006
Did you read the criteria?
A good post to MetaFilter is something that meets the following criteria: most people haven't seen it before, there is something interesting about the content on the page, and it might warrant discussion from others.
I fail to see why a post on the elections doesn't fulfill that criteria. I found things on the post and in the thread I hadn't seen, and the other two criteria are fulfilled by definition.
Additionally, this is not an argument against NewsFilter in general -- just because the relevance is transitory doesn't mean it's nonexistent. The appropriate time for determining FPP quality is when it's posted, because after that time it's de facto not-FPP-quality no matter how good a post it is, simply by virtue of the double post rule.
posted by spiderwire at 3:30 PM on November 8, 2006
It might well be offensive. It degrades the level of discussion at MeFi.
That equivalence is utter nonsense.
News posts are only tolerated because they're so popular, not because they actually add anything to the front page;
That argument is circular. Popularity means that the post holds relevance for the majority of the site's users. Your opinion of whether it "adds anything" is not important, and not unique to NewsFilter posts at any rate.
and in almost every other area, the insubstantial stuff that starts the insubstantial conversations that go under the heading of "newsfilter" aren't very good. In fact, that stuff usually bleeds over, screwing up the other threads on the front page. It's just a monstrous amount of noise that we could all do without.
This is an argument for catchall threads, not an argument against so-called NewsFilter posts.
I still fail to why a post that's relevant and topical is somehow "inappropriate" because it might not be as important in a few days. Again, that rationale applies to every single blue post by virtue of the double-post rule.
posted by spiderwire at 3:35 PM on November 8, 2006
That equivalence is utter nonsense.
News posts are only tolerated because they're so popular, not because they actually add anything to the front page;
That argument is circular. Popularity means that the post holds relevance for the majority of the site's users. Your opinion of whether it "adds anything" is not important, and not unique to NewsFilter posts at any rate.
and in almost every other area, the insubstantial stuff that starts the insubstantial conversations that go under the heading of "newsfilter" aren't very good. In fact, that stuff usually bleeds over, screwing up the other threads on the front page. It's just a monstrous amount of noise that we could all do without.
This is an argument for catchall threads, not an argument against so-called NewsFilter posts.
I still fail to why a post that's relevant and topical is somehow "inappropriate" because it might not be as important in a few days. Again, that rationale applies to every single blue post by virtue of the double-post rule.
posted by spiderwire at 3:35 PM on November 8, 2006
Ech, I'm trying too damned hard. I don't really care that much.
posted by koeselitz at 3:49 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by koeselitz at 3:49 PM on November 8, 2006
Yeah, zero tolerance sounds great. Until one day a 1Ker accidentally leaves a newsfilter post in the back of their car and gets the banhammer.
posted by Cyrano at 3:50 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Cyrano at 3:50 PM on November 8, 2006
Ah fuck, delmoi posts his 10,000th comment, and I wasted my one MeTa post for the day on this mistake, wrapped in a fiasco, inside a blunder, what with the strawberry jam and all.
Honestly, I know it's not popular (especially with Matt), but I'm with Urban Hermit on the news.mefi idea.
posted by Eideteker at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2006
Honestly, I know it's not popular (especially with Matt), but I'm with Urban Hermit on the news.mefi idea.
posted by Eideteker at 3:57 PM on November 8, 2006
I need to find something newsfiltery to post now, just to irritate eide. Hmmmmmm.
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by weretable and the undead chairs at 3:59 PM on November 8, 2006
Maybe you should post BREAKING: EIDETEKER ENRAGED BY THIS POST.
posted by spiderwire at 4:10 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by spiderwire at 4:10 PM on November 8, 2006
Did you read the criteria?
Yeah, it was mainly the 'seen before' bit I meant. I mean, I'm in the UK and everything in the newsy posts, discussion included, is being rammed down my throat from all media sources, God knows what it must be like in the US.
and the other two criteria are fulfilled by definition.
The second one, possibly, the last one less so - election results and resignation posts were made not because they might prompt discussion, but solely to prompt discussion/general hooting (in both cases those threads would have gone the same way without links). That's why I reckon the Gates one was more fun, so to speak - it was actually a post, not just a linkified 'A thing is happening. Discuss'.
Hey ho, it's not like there's any hard and fast rules, and I'm sure I've made a couple of newsy posts myself ;-)
posted by jack_mo at 4:19 PM on November 8, 2006
Yeah, it was mainly the 'seen before' bit I meant. I mean, I'm in the UK and everything in the newsy posts, discussion included, is being rammed down my throat from all media sources, God knows what it must be like in the US.
and the other two criteria are fulfilled by definition.
The second one, possibly, the last one less so - election results and resignation posts were made not because they might prompt discussion, but solely to prompt discussion/general hooting (in both cases those threads would have gone the same way without links). That's why I reckon the Gates one was more fun, so to speak - it was actually a post, not just a linkified 'A thing is happening. Discuss'.
Hey ho, it's not like there's any hard and fast rules, and I'm sure I've made a couple of newsy posts myself ;-)
posted by jack_mo at 4:19 PM on November 8, 2006
I love metafilter. Maybe even a little too much.
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:27 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Divine_Wino at 4:27 PM on November 8, 2006
You know, being quite far from the rest of the MeFites (even my profile says "there are no other MetaFilter members nearby, sorry") I sometimes find out about interesting stuff on what are regular newsfilter posts for those of you who are in the U.S. or the U.K. Things that don't get covered by media here.
I would figure there are others in the same situation, so I'd think that makes them worth it, and I'd vote to allow them. (Not that "voting" for it helps).
Now, that Britney divorce thing does seem a bit much. That is not even newsfilter, IMHO.
posted by micayetoca at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2006
I would figure there are others in the same situation, so I'd think that makes them worth it, and I'd vote to allow them. (Not that "voting" for it helps).
Now, that Britney divorce thing does seem a bit much. That is not even newsfilter, IMHO.
posted by micayetoca at 4:30 PM on November 8, 2006
jack_mo, your joviality is totally harshing my righteous indignation.
posted by spiderwire at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by spiderwire at 4:31 PM on November 8, 2006
Ah fuck, delmoi posts his 10,000th comment, and I wasted my one MeTa post for the day on this mistake, wrapped in a fiasco, inside a blunder, what with the strawberry jam and all.
Well, I hoped you learned an important lesson about whining about newsfilter.
posted by delmoi at 4:46 PM on November 8, 2006
Well, I hoped you learned an important lesson about whining about newsfilter.
posted by delmoi at 4:46 PM on November 8, 2006
I just voted that "Zero Tolerance for NewsFilter" is a dumbass idea.
Please accept the fact that MetaFilter is a "living" website and that it grows and changes over time (as long as mathowie allows it), and it may not be or become what any one of us wants it to be.
posted by jaronson at 4:55 PM on November 8, 2006
Please accept the fact that MetaFilter is a "living" website and that it grows and changes over time (as long as mathowie allows it), and it may not be or become what any one of us wants it to be.
posted by jaronson at 4:55 PM on November 8, 2006
I vote that Newsfiltery posts (if any) be held to a higher standard than the regular posts.
posted by dhruva at 5:08 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by dhruva at 5:08 PM on November 8, 2006
That was a great post Eideteker (well, except that it should have gone into the existing thread). If you don't like newsfilter go somewhere else. This site has always been about one third newsfilter, and by the way, it does it better than any other site on the internet, any. A lot of newsfilter bores me to tears, but same with a lot of the lame posts. I am glad Matt is contemplating a new contest, as the last few weeks have been lame. The whole link blogosphere has been a bit lame, to be sure, and that affects MeFi as it is one of the places near the top to which the good links float up to. Nevertheless, part of what makes this place work is the diversity of off-beat and news/pol posts. Go digg if you are not satisfied.
posted by caddis at 5:54 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by caddis at 5:54 PM on November 8, 2006
Could we have a "zero tolerance" policy for "zero tolerance" policies?
posted by clevershark at 5:56 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by clevershark at 5:56 PM on November 8, 2006
No. There can be great web sites about gay marriage or abortion. I guess there could be a great web site about news, but I haven't seen it yet.
koeselitz, I think you misunderstood me. News posts are like gay marriages and abortions in that if you don't like them you shouldn't participate in them. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't participate in one. If you don't like newsfilter, don't post news and don't read news threads. There's no reason to ruin it for everyone else.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:59 PM on November 8, 2006
koeselitz, I think you misunderstood me. News posts are like gay marriages and abortions in that if you don't like them you shouldn't participate in them. If you don't like abortions, don't have one. If you don't like gay marriage, don't participate in one. If you don't like newsfilter, don't post news and don't read news threads. There's no reason to ruin it for everyone else.
posted by thirteenkiller at 5:59 PM on November 8, 2006
thirteenkiller writes News posts are like gay marriages and abortions in that if you don't like them you shouldn't participate in them.
Worst. Analogy. Evar. On so many levels.
Funny though.
posted by bardic at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2006
Worst. Analogy. Evar. On so many levels.
Funny though.
posted by bardic at 6:00 PM on November 8, 2006
A one-month newsfilter ban would be an interesting experiment.
A one-month ban on callouts by users who could just choose not to read threads they aren't interested in would be an interesting experiment.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
A one-month ban on callouts by users who could just choose not to read threads they aren't interested in would be an interesting experiment.
posted by eustacescrubb at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
Please accept the fact that MetaFilter is a "living" website
Metafilter: IT'S ALIVE.
run, oh god run away
posted by spiderwire at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2006
Metafilter: IT'S ALIVE.
run, oh god run away
posted by spiderwire at 6:03 PM on November 8, 2006
thirteenkiller: something just strikes me odd about the notion that newsfilter posts are a right that everyone has, and that we should be tolerant of them. It also seems to me that the "if you don't like it, move on" thing has been done to death; matt routinely removes things that he could've just left up on the principle that "you can just move on if you don't like it." People are arguing that newsfilter is against the guidelines; nobody's under the impression that postworthy stuff shouldn't be left up, even if we don't care about it or don't like it.
But, again, I can go back to ignoring all the crap on the front page. Matt doesn't have to-- it's his web site-- but I do, and I will. I don't mind it so much.
posted by koeselitz at 6:23 PM on November 8, 2006
But, again, I can go back to ignoring all the crap on the front page. Matt doesn't have to-- it's his web site-- but I do, and I will. I don't mind it so much.
posted by koeselitz at 6:23 PM on November 8, 2006
"That was a great post Eideteker"
Thanks!
"Go digg if you are not satisfied."
Uh, no. Where I'm from, you don't just leave when things get rough. You stay and you work on it until it's fixed as best it can be, even if only temporarily. Please don't demonize me; I just wanted to get a ruling on this, and I've said as much over and over. You can hate all you want, but keep it off my wave.
Yeah, the "zero tolerance" thing was a bad idea. I wrote it before the [mi] and should've gone back to change it. What I really want is for the only newsfilter posts to be well researched, and unmotivated by someone's personal agenda (I get enough personal agenda in the media, thenkyewveddymuch). The Gates FPP was good (well-researched), and I apologize (what? but that never happens on MetaFilter!) for jumping on it as a case of bad NewsFilter (but it was right. after. another post on the Sec. of Defense position). But I'm sorry, in a thread about psychosensory phenomena, there does not need to be a comment about senate vote tallies.
I've actually been really supportive of newsfilter throughout this thread, esp. with most people playing nice wrt to the election thread. So your comment makes me wonder if we're reading the same thread or not. I understand that I have a fairly alarmist writing style; it's a fault of mine. I have problems writing moderately; I like to rant, it's fun for me. Blame decades of outrage comedians. But I can only type with the letters given to me, and absent the use of italics, I can't do much to control how shrill you make something sound in your own head. If you can't afford me the benefit of the doubt and discuss the subject like a civilized person (what? but that never happens on MetaFilter!), then we've got nothing to say to each other. Which makes me sad, because I like intelligent debate and informed discussion (which, as I said, doesn't make me good at it, but I try. Please try as well, we're all passengers on the same boat).
Me: This moderation seems inconsistent. Why?
Matt: Well, here's my opinion on the matter.
Me: Ok, thanks. How about this?
You: Go someplace else!
You can do better than that. You don't have to, but it'd be nice if you'd meet me halfway.
posted by Eideteker at 6:25 PM on November 8, 2006
Thanks!
"Go digg if you are not satisfied."
Uh, no. Where I'm from, you don't just leave when things get rough. You stay and you work on it until it's fixed as best it can be, even if only temporarily. Please don't demonize me; I just wanted to get a ruling on this, and I've said as much over and over. You can hate all you want, but keep it off my wave.
Yeah, the "zero tolerance" thing was a bad idea. I wrote it before the [mi] and should've gone back to change it. What I really want is for the only newsfilter posts to be well researched, and unmotivated by someone's personal agenda (I get enough personal agenda in the media, thenkyewveddymuch). The Gates FPP was good (well-researched), and I apologize (what? but that never happens on MetaFilter!) for jumping on it as a case of bad NewsFilter (but it was right. after. another post on the Sec. of Defense position). But I'm sorry, in a thread about psychosensory phenomena, there does not need to be a comment about senate vote tallies.
I've actually been really supportive of newsfilter throughout this thread, esp. with most people playing nice wrt to the election thread. So your comment makes me wonder if we're reading the same thread or not. I understand that I have a fairly alarmist writing style; it's a fault of mine. I have problems writing moderately; I like to rant, it's fun for me. Blame decades of outrage comedians. But I can only type with the letters given to me, and absent the use of italics, I can't do much to control how shrill you make something sound in your own head. If you can't afford me the benefit of the doubt and discuss the subject like a civilized person (what? but that never happens on MetaFilter!), then we've got nothing to say to each other. Which makes me sad, because I like intelligent debate and informed discussion (which, as I said, doesn't make me good at it, but I try. Please try as well, we're all passengers on the same boat).
Me: This moderation seems inconsistent. Why?
Matt: Well, here's my opinion on the matter.
Me: Ok, thanks. How about this?
You: Go someplace else!
You can do better than that. You don't have to, but it'd be nice if you'd meet me halfway.
posted by Eideteker at 6:25 PM on November 8, 2006
Some (many, actually) are already meeting you halfway with the catchall proposal, and also our own conscious decisions and actions in adding to existing threads instead of starting new ones in the blue for news things, things you've not recognized at all. Meeting halfway requires 2 parties, as a rule.
posted by amberglow at 6:31 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by amberglow at 6:31 PM on November 8, 2006
"People are arguing that newsfilter is against the guidelines"
That's pretty much the heart of the issue. Is it against the guidelines, or isn't it? I was just asking for a little clarity on the matter. I know it's not always black and white, but it seemed like we were going through a phase of "eh, post whatever the fuck you feel like, we won't delete it." When is it ok, when is it not ok? One thing I would like to see, for certain though, is for politics to be confined to politics threads (which is why I'd love a news.mefi). It's precisely because I can't escape it that it rankles me so.
posted by Eideteker at 6:31 PM on November 8, 2006
That's pretty much the heart of the issue. Is it against the guidelines, or isn't it? I was just asking for a little clarity on the matter. I know it's not always black and white, but it seemed like we were going through a phase of "eh, post whatever the fuck you feel like, we won't delete it." When is it ok, when is it not ok? One thing I would like to see, for certain though, is for politics to be confined to politics threads (which is why I'd love a news.mefi). It's precisely because I can't escape it that it rankles me so.
posted by Eideteker at 6:31 PM on November 8, 2006
fair enough, I was responding to the post itself, not having time to read the 70 some comments
posted by caddis at 6:33 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by caddis at 6:33 PM on November 8, 2006
"Some (many, actually) are already meeting you halfway with the catchall proposal, and also our own conscious decisions and actions in adding to existing threads instead of starting new ones in the blue for news things, things you've not recognized at all. Meeting halfway requires 2 parties, as a rule."
Good point. I thought I'd expressed my appreciation of that, though:
"Big props on people for (mostly) keeping the election stuff in the election thread."
"And while I wish one of the two threads would be deleted, I know deleting the RUMMY QUIT thread will just shunt the mob into the well-researched thread about Gates."
"I've actually been really supportive of newsfilter throughout this thread, esp. with most people playing nice wrt to the election thread."
I don't mind repeating myself, though, because I really do appreciate that. Thank you!
posted by Eideteker at 6:38 PM on November 8, 2006
Good point. I thought I'd expressed my appreciation of that, though:
"Big props on people for (mostly) keeping the election stuff in the election thread."
"And while I wish one of the two threads would be deleted, I know deleting the RUMMY QUIT thread will just shunt the mob into the well-researched thread about Gates."
"I've actually been really supportive of newsfilter throughout this thread, esp. with most people playing nice wrt to the election thread."
I don't mind repeating myself, though, because I really do appreciate that. Thank you!
posted by Eideteker at 6:38 PM on November 8, 2006
I posted the RUMMY QUIT link, and I do feel bad, and even sorta apologized but it felt like a special occasion. Won't make things better, but it felt like a pressure release and nearly 200 people agree. I tagged it "Newsfilter" and figured the gods would delete it if it was wrong.
The one line didn't take up much room either, so plenty of room for YouTube and K-Fed posts to flow around it for the Newsflter haters.
come to think of it I don't feel bad about it at all!
omg, rumsfeld quit! woo hoo! suck it haters
(but I won't do it again)
posted by ernie at 6:53 PM on November 8, 2006
The one line didn't take up much room either, so plenty of room for YouTube and K-Fed posts to flow around it for the Newsflter haters.
come to think of it I don't feel bad about it at all!
omg, rumsfeld quit! woo hoo! suck it haters
(but I won't do it again)
posted by ernie at 6:53 PM on November 8, 2006
If you don't like newsfilter, don't post news and don't read news threads. There's no reason to ruin it for everyone else.
Good point, thirteenkiller.
Oh, wait.
NewsFilter does have a place on MeFi but the "ruin it for everyone else" argument is exactly the same as speaking up for the "silent majority".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:14 PM on November 8, 2006
Good point, thirteenkiller.
Oh, wait.
NewsFilter does have a place on MeFi but the "ruin it for everyone else" argument is exactly the same as speaking up for the "silent majority".
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:14 PM on November 8, 2006
Generally speaking, if a breaking story isn't linked on the Internet yet, it won't make a very good post.
Well, no kidding!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:24 PM on November 8, 2006
Well, no kidding!
posted by thirteenkiller at 8:24 PM on November 8, 2006
I always assumed that meant if a story doesn't have any secondary sources and consists of just a headline and "More details to come..." it should probably be skipped.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:34 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 8:34 PM on November 8, 2006
Okay, how about a week? Just a week.
posted by furiousthought at 8:54 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by furiousthought at 8:54 PM on November 8, 2006
At least you didn't call it a "moratorium".
posted by The God Complex at 9:17 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by The God Complex at 9:17 PM on November 8, 2006
The solution is mandatory tagging and tag-sorting preferences. You could set your preferences so that no posts with X would display--no politics for example, or no history posts, or no K-Fed, or whatever. Everybody is happy.
posted by LarryC at 9:31 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by LarryC at 9:31 PM on November 8, 2006
for the people who dislike newsfilter, a suggestion:
stop reading the site. i did. it felt good. now, i come back every once in a while, read this or that non news thing that might be interesting, and that's it. i like not caring about metafilter anymore. here's what it's like. when you know someone with a serious drinking problem, and the intervention goes something like this:
you: joe, you're so much better than this! you should have more respect for yourself than that!
joe: well, i don't, and i honestly don't give a fuck what you think about anything.
see, metafilter is like joe. metafilter likes it's crappy news posts, and doesn't give a fuck what you think. how many times are you gonna get all tearful or angry and try to snap metafilter out of it before you realize that there's nothing for it but to stop caring about metafilter?
cynical, i suppose, but at least now nobody has to listen to me whine about newsfilter anymore, and i don't have to read the newsfilter either. sort of a win win, i guess.
posted by shmegegge at 9:56 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
stop reading the site. i did. it felt good. now, i come back every once in a while, read this or that non news thing that might be interesting, and that's it. i like not caring about metafilter anymore. here's what it's like. when you know someone with a serious drinking problem, and the intervention goes something like this:
you: joe, you're so much better than this! you should have more respect for yourself than that!
joe: well, i don't, and i honestly don't give a fuck what you think about anything.
see, metafilter is like joe. metafilter likes it's crappy news posts, and doesn't give a fuck what you think. how many times are you gonna get all tearful or angry and try to snap metafilter out of it before you realize that there's nothing for it but to stop caring about metafilter?
cynical, i suppose, but at least now nobody has to listen to me whine about newsfilter anymore, and i don't have to read the newsfilter either. sort of a win win, i guess.
posted by shmegegge at 9:56 PM on November 8, 2006 [1 favorite]
at least now nobody has to listen to me whine newsfilter
BZZZT! WRONG!
There's the door, Quitter McQuitterson III.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 PM on November 8, 2006
BZZZT! WRONG!
There's the door, Quitter McQuitterson III.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 PM on November 8, 2006
D'oh, took out the 'about' and left the 'newsfilter'.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 PM on November 8, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:00 PM on November 8, 2006
Here's your newsfilter-free metafilter.
"Today's Election Day in the United States."
Huh, so I guess not. You got my hopes up and everything! (Thanks for putting the kibosh on that Webb post (and the ensuing metatalk), though; really ace work).
posted by Eideteker at 10:42 PM on November 8, 2006
"Today's Election Day in the United States."
Huh, so I guess not. You got my hopes up and everything! (Thanks for putting the kibosh on that Webb post (and the ensuing metatalk), though; really ace work).
posted by Eideteker at 10:42 PM on November 8, 2006
I agree with prostyle that the chicken should arise! That thing has been in my head for days now, wherefore I know not.
posted by asok at 4:23 AM on November 9, 2006
posted by asok at 4:23 AM on November 9, 2006
BREAKING NEWS!!!!!
I have a fish. In quonsar's pants.
posted by loquacious at 5:18 AM on November 9, 2006
I have a fish. In quonsar's pants.
posted by loquacious at 5:18 AM on November 9, 2006
Eideteker writes "Ah fuck, delmoi posts his 10,000th comment, and I wasted my one MeTa post for the day on this mistake"
Alright.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:56 AM on November 9, 2006
Alright.
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 5:56 AM on November 9, 2006
I think we shouldn't post to things that are already on the internet. I mean, duh, they're already on the internet.
This trend is destroying metafilter.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:55 AM on November 9, 2006
This trend is destroying metafilter.
posted by slimepuppy at 6:55 AM on November 9, 2006
The people who complain about newsfilter remind me of the ones who complain about porn.
The news-haters will whine and pule and spend hours jumping into threads just to make the point that the thread shouldn't even be there.
The porn-haters will rail against porn, yet read or watch it over and over again just so they can find something else to be outraged about.
Get rid of either one and the haters will just find something else to bitch about. Ban newsfilter if you want but the next thing you know, they'll be wanting to ban demon rum.
It will never end.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:01 AM on November 9, 2006
The news-haters will whine and pule and spend hours jumping into threads just to make the point that the thread shouldn't even be there.
The porn-haters will rail against porn, yet read or watch it over and over again just so they can find something else to be outraged about.
Get rid of either one and the haters will just find something else to bitch about. Ban newsfilter if you want but the next thing you know, they'll be wanting to ban demon rum.
It will never end.
posted by leftcoastbob at 7:01 AM on November 9, 2006
The people who complain about newsfilter, porn and websites with photos or text, remind me of those that complain about boring TV. They will watch hours and hours of TV just to find something boring to complain about.
posted by econous at 7:26 AM on November 9, 2006
posted by econous at 7:26 AM on November 9, 2006
leftcoastbob: "The people who complain about newsfilter remind me of the ones who complain about porn... Ban newsfilter if you want but the next thing you know, they'll be wanting to ban demon rum."
Or self-links. Will the intolerance never stop? If you don't like self-links, just don't read them.
posted by koeselitz at 7:30 AM on November 9, 2006
Or self-links. Will the intolerance never stop? If you don't like self-links, just don't read them.
posted by koeselitz at 7:30 AM on November 9, 2006
Is it against the guidelines, or isn't it?
No, it's not. News stories have been part of MeFi from the beginning. Some make good posts, others don't. Now can we talk about something more interesting?
posted by languagehat at 7:51 AM on November 9, 2006
No, it's not. News stories have been part of MeFi from the beginning. Some make good posts, others don't. Now can we talk about something more interesting?
posted by languagehat at 7:51 AM on November 9, 2006
No we may not. We are trapped in this debate forever. Newsfilter: Threat or menace? Discuss, discuss, discuss.
posted by LarryC at 8:14 AM on November 9, 2006
posted by LarryC at 8:14 AM on November 9, 2006
If we tolerate FPPs about current events, how can we morally oppose man-on-dog sex?
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:04 AM on November 9, 2006
posted by thirteenkiller at 9:04 AM on November 9, 2006
how can we morally oppose man-on-dog sex?
Why would we want to?
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:25 PM on November 9, 2006
Why would we want to?
posted by eustacescrubb at 2:25 PM on November 9, 2006
HEY DID YOU GUYS KNOW THAT THE DEMOCRATS WON TEH ELECTION
posted by spiderwire at 3:00 PM on November 9, 2006
posted by spiderwire at 3:00 PM on November 9, 2006
There was an election?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:05 PM on November 9, 2006
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 3:05 PM on November 9, 2006
WELCOME TO THE HOEUS OF REPRESENTATIVES ALVY
(D-MF)
ok, i'm done now.
posted by spiderwire at 3:19 PM on November 9, 2006
(D-MF)
ok, i'm done now.
posted by spiderwire at 3:19 PM on November 9, 2006
This is the House of Representatives?! No wonder all we do is argue and get nothing accomplished!
But... where are the hookers and blow?
posted by languagehat at 3:20 PM on November 9, 2006
But... where are the hookers and blow?
posted by languagehat at 3:20 PM on November 9, 2006
This is just a suggestion. Maybe the mods could make the newsfilter posts have a slightly different background color. That way, they're trivial to skip. Also, it gives a visual indication of the relative number of them, which provides feedback that might help keep them down to a dull roar.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 5:42 PM on November 9, 2006
posted by Crabby Appleton at 5:42 PM on November 9, 2006
Ok, I don't want to have an argument with the mods about this. However I think it's quite important.. whatever take my suggestion as you will. (Gosh I feel a bit embarrassed about this), here goes: Perhaps visitors/members of this site could look at the listing for each post and determine if they want to follow the link or not. That way, they're trivial to skip.
posted by econous at 6:31 PM on November 9, 2006
posted by econous at 6:31 PM on November 9, 2006
I knew I'd catch shit for that. But I'm quite sleep deprived and that clouds my judgement. Oh, I know none of you gives a shit about my mental state, but if that's the case then why did you read this? Oh, wait...
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the newsfilter posts. In fact, I like most of them. The people who hate them seem to really hate them. So marking them in some obvious way seems like a useful compromise. At least it would make reading the site quicker for those who want to skip such posts.
Making it easier to decide whether to read a post or to follow a link is a worthy goal, in my humble opinion. (It's just a suggestion, though...) I skip a lot of links because it's not clear to me from the post what the link target is about.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:07 PM on November 9, 2006
Anyway, I don't have a problem with the newsfilter posts. In fact, I like most of them. The people who hate them seem to really hate them. So marking them in some obvious way seems like a useful compromise. At least it would make reading the site quicker for those who want to skip such posts.
Making it easier to decide whether to read a post or to follow a link is a worthy goal, in my humble opinion. (It's just a suggestion, though...) I skip a lot of links because it's not clear to me from the post what the link target is about.
posted by Crabby Appleton at 8:07 PM on November 9, 2006
This is the House of Representatives?! No wonder all we do is argue and get nothing accomplished!
But... where are the hookers and blow?
On loan to Ted Haggard?
posted by spiderwire at 6:46 AM on November 10, 2006
But... where are the hookers and blow?
On loan to Ted Haggard?
posted by spiderwire at 6:46 AM on November 10, 2006
« Older And the winner of the 2006 Metafilter Election... | Metafilter Compilation Album is nigh! Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
This FPP was predicted in this comment; a comment which basically sums up the gist of why newsfilter is bad. Ego-motivated self-interest posting (self-gratification is different than sharing, motivationwise) that has nothing to do with the Internet? The only purpose for posting it is to let people talk about the issue. But I thought it was about the links, not the discussion?
Ok, we already have a Rumsfeld resigning thread. Is this really necessary?
Matt you have said time and time again that it's about the links, not the discussion. So, best of the web arguments aside, why do we have triple-digit comment threads (I won't say masturbatory, but sure I'm thinkin' it) about every piece of newsfilter; FPPs which serve no purpose but to let folks discuss (and I'm saying this as a user who first came to mefi as a news site)? Big props on people for (mostly) keeping the election stuff in the election thread. But the silent majority must speak up. Matt, you've got to decide if you want MeFi to become a news portal or not. If you remain uncommitted on the issue, the users will decide for you. You may offend some users by imposing a newsfilter ban, but they will either adapt or leave. It will not kill the site. Try a one-month, zero-tolerance ban, and see what happens.
posted by Eideteker at 11:13 AM on November 8, 2006