Best of the Web March 17, 2007 11:01 PM Subscribe
What's the deal with this "best of the web"? [mi]
This "best of the web", it vibrates?
posted by blenderfish at 11:10 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by blenderfish at 11:10 PM on March 17, 2007
I think that sometimes the assumption is that if something has been around for a long time, even if it hasn't been linked here before, then it is unlikely to meet the first criterion of a good post. That isn't always a fair assumption.
posted by owhydididoit at 11:13 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by owhydididoit at 11:13 PM on March 17, 2007
So, did you have a particular case in mind, or...?
posted by blenderfish at 11:22 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by blenderfish at 11:22 PM on March 17, 2007
The phrase "best of the web" is a handy tool to grab to give praise or criticize something on spurious grounds. It's similar to the dot in that way. The phrase has been bandied around on MetaFilter for as long as I've been reading it (spring 2001) so it's probably never going to go away. It's a part of the DNA of the site. Learn to think of it as a faithful, loyal friend, who'll always turn up to help you move, even if he's a dark-tempered cynic.
posted by Kattullus at 11:31 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by Kattullus at 11:31 PM on March 17, 2007
iirc, "best of the web" was something that was someplace in some guildelines somewhere on the site and has since been replaced with the concise but slightly less cryptic guidelines you quoted above. People who do the dismissive "eh, not the best of the web" snarks are being unimaginative and intellectually lazy when English (and other languages) gives us so many more ways to dislike a post.
Basically it's something people used to say and don't say so much anymore but they trot it out when they can't think of anything better to say. Did you have a particular post in mind that you were thinking of when you made this post?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:44 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Basically it's something people used to say and don't say so much anymore but they trot it out when they can't think of anything better to say. Did you have a particular post in mind that you were thinking of when you made this post?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 11:44 PM on March 17, 2007 [1 favorite]
Well, I, for one, welcome our new Best of the Web overlords!
Todd Lokken
.
posted by fenriq at 11:45 PM on March 17, 2007 [3 favorites]
Todd Lokken
.
posted by fenriq at 11:45 PM on March 17, 2007 [3 favorites]
I always thought it meant that Metafilter itself is the "best of the web," and in that case, I heartily agree...
Even if that makes me sound like a kiss-ass.
posted by amyms at 11:45 PM on March 17, 2007
Even if that makes me sound like a kiss-ass.
posted by amyms at 11:45 PM on March 17, 2007
My totally serious advice: read the Metatalk archives, lurk more, and don't post any more Meta threads that start with 'what the deal with...'
But that's only because we've had both of these discussions hundreds of times in the past. Still, I suppose, there's no reason why we shouldn't do it all again. That's what Metatalk's for.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:47 PM on March 17, 2007
But that's only because we've had both of these discussions hundreds of times in the past. Still, I suppose, there's no reason why we shouldn't do it all again. That's what Metatalk's for.
posted by stavrosthewonderchicken at 11:47 PM on March 17, 2007
Is this the place where people are giving out marmalade sandwiches?
posted by edgeways at 11:59 PM on March 17, 2007
posted by edgeways at 11:59 PM on March 17, 2007
So this current comet has no mothership with it, correct?
posted by davy at 12:04 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by davy at 12:04 AM on March 18, 2007
Is this the place where people are giving out marmalade sandwiches?
Nah, this is the post where people are handing out medals.
posted by gummi at 12:06 AM on March 18, 2007
In the interests of fueling this discussion, I typed a "not best of the web" comment recently, so I'll walk down the dangerous road of calling myself out (in comment, at least), and let you all decide what to do with this pile of pitchforks, bag of feathers, pot of boiling tar, and coil of rope.
Confession: I am not a Jedi came in and totally rocked that thread with an awesome comment, so I would have taken it back if I could.
Warning: Don't click on the fpp's link and look at the story/pictures, really. Some things aren't worth the nightmares.
posted by onalark at 12:12 AM on March 18, 2007
Confession: I am not a Jedi came in and totally rocked that thread with an awesome comment, so I would have taken it back if I could.
Warning: Don't click on the fpp's link and look at the story/pictures, really. Some things aren't worth the nightmares.
posted by onalark at 12:12 AM on March 18, 2007
what's the deal with airline food?
posted by keswick at 12:16 AM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by keswick at 12:16 AM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
A post is best-of-the-web until the usual thread-shitter comes in and loudly proclaims otherwise.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:22 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 12:22 AM on March 18, 2007
A post can't very well be the best of the web if it is deleted, since in such case it's no longer even on the web. I'm sure this logic compels you.
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:43 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by Mr. President Dr. Steve Elvis America at 1:43 AM on March 18, 2007
"Best of the web" is deprecated, yes. Yet people still think it is something to strive for. You've made a post that is within the guidelines, but it still... meh.
Oughtn't we try to be the "best of the web", rather than simply "people haven't seen it"?
If it says more about the commenter than the OP, I think the statement is only 'I expect more than "this adheres to the guidelines"'. That's not so bad, is it? Certainly not offensive enough to warrant calling out the populace at large, rather than a particular offender.
posted by team lowkey at 2:23 AM on March 18, 2007
Oughtn't we try to be the "best of the web", rather than simply "people haven't seen it"?
If it says more about the commenter than the OP, I think the statement is only 'I expect more than "this adheres to the guidelines"'. That's not so bad, is it? Certainly not offensive enough to warrant calling out the populace at large, rather than a particular offender.
posted by team lowkey at 2:23 AM on March 18, 2007
FUCKING MOONJUICE
posted by loquacious at 3:11 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by loquacious at 3:11 AM on March 18, 2007
Hey, where's wendell, anyway?`
posted by loquacious at 3:12 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by loquacious at 3:12 AM on March 18, 2007
A post is best-of-the-web until the usual thread-shitter comes in and loudly proclaims otherwise.
Well, no. You've just totally failed to apply basic philosophy and elementary logic.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
Calling a pile of shit a pile of shit doesn't make it a pile of shit, the fact that it is a pile of shit makes it a pile of shit. A pile of shit is inherently by it's intrinsic nature a pile of shit, by virtue of being a pile of shit.
Conversely, by basic, complimentary logic, calling a pile of shit a "marmalade sandwich" doesn't magically turn a pile of shit into a marmalade sandwich, no matter how tasty and sandwichy and marmaladey you manage convince yourself that it is as you - metaphorically speaking - eat it - it's still just a pile of shit. Q. E. to the motherfucking D.
posted by loquacious at 3:21 AM on March 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
Well, no. You've just totally failed to apply basic philosophy and elementary logic.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
Calling a pile of shit a pile of shit doesn't make it a pile of shit, the fact that it is a pile of shit makes it a pile of shit. A pile of shit is inherently by it's intrinsic nature a pile of shit, by virtue of being a pile of shit.
Conversely, by basic, complimentary logic, calling a pile of shit a "marmalade sandwich" doesn't magically turn a pile of shit into a marmalade sandwich, no matter how tasty and sandwichy and marmaladey you manage convince yourself that it is as you - metaphorically speaking - eat it - it's still just a pile of shit. Q. E. to the motherfucking D.
posted by loquacious at 3:21 AM on March 18, 2007 [3 favorites]
This marmalade sandwich tastes like shit.
posted by carsonb at 3:31 AM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by carsonb at 3:31 AM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
"People who do the dismissive 'eh, not the best of the web' snarks are being unimaginative and intellectually lazy"
Hey, not every post is worth full-scale hellfire and brimstone condemnation. Most newsfilter deserves, at best, a quick flush. Anything more would be justifying the thread, because people would flock to those threads just to see the marvellous sarcasm and finest snidery.
posted by Eideteker at 4:30 AM on March 18, 2007
Hey, not every post is worth full-scale hellfire and brimstone condemnation. Most newsfilter deserves, at best, a quick flush. Anything more would be justifying the thread, because people would flock to those threads just to see the marvellous sarcasm and finest snidery.
posted by Eideteker at 4:30 AM on March 18, 2007
What's the deal with this "best of the web"?
navel-gazing puffery.
posted by quonsar at 6:04 AM on March 18, 2007
navel-gazing puffery.
posted by quonsar at 6:04 AM on March 18, 2007
I wish I had better control of this rich English language so I could criticize you all. All of you. Every one.
posted by OmieWise at 6:19 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by OmieWise at 6:19 AM on March 18, 2007
Here's a hint : anything that ends with "pdf" pretty much automatically fails the "best of the web" criterion, regardless of how old it is. And yes, that even includes a Cory Doctorow, creative commons, mega Whuffie magnum opus. Because, really, who wants to spend any time reading some book online when there are Youtubes to watch and flash games to play? All the responses you get will be by people who didn't bother reading it. So just keep that sort of stuff to yourself.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 6:23 AM on March 18, 2007
We're so wonderfully, wonderfully, wonderfully, wonderfully pretty!
posted by jack_mo at 6:24 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by jack_mo at 6:24 AM on March 18, 2007
People who do the dismissive "eh, not the best of the web" snarks are being unimaginative and intellectually lazy when English (and other languages) gives us so many more ways to dislike a post.
This is so true. People who say "not the best of the web" are so lame. They suck. And you know what else? They're not the best of the web.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:32 AM on March 18, 2007
This is so true. People who say "not the best of the web" are so lame. They suck. And you know what else? They're not the best of the web.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:32 AM on March 18, 2007
English (and other languages) gives us so many more ways to dislike a post.
Great point. Why should I simply dislike a post when I can lay my hairy nutsack in its eyesockets or, perhaps, compel it to sniff my asshole?
posted by The Straightener at 6:34 AM on March 18, 2007
Great point. Why should I simply dislike a post when I can lay my hairy nutsack in its eyesockets or, perhaps, compel it to sniff my asshole?
posted by The Straightener at 6:34 AM on March 18, 2007
She said "english," not fetish porn.
posted by Dave Faris at 6:41 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by Dave Faris at 6:41 AM on March 18, 2007
Metafilter: So many more ways to dislike a post.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:50 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:50 AM on March 18, 2007
I don't understand the conflation between "best of the web" and time of publication. These two things have nothing to do with each other. This post features writings over two centuries old. There have been very successful posts about medieval books. When people say something isn't "best of the web," they don't mean it's older than a day or two, they mean it's not very good. Glad I could clear that up for you.
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by languagehat at 6:55 AM on March 18, 2007
I must disagree with jessamyn. And, apparently, everyone else. Best of the web refers to the quality of the subject of the post and, as such, is a succinct expression of what qualifies as a good post. What qualifies for best of the web? That's more fully explained in the post guidelines.
It's not as if best of the web is some sort of esoteric phrase comprehensible only to the initiated. It's self-evident. Is it too high of a standard? Arguably. However, standards should be set too high rather than too low because they'll never be universally met.
As for the specific examples in this post, I don't see how either being a pdf or being dated 2004 necessarily means something cannot be best of the web. Of course it can. How likely that is, and how likely it's not been posted before, are other matters.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:59 AM on March 18, 2007
It's not as if best of the web is some sort of esoteric phrase comprehensible only to the initiated. It's self-evident. Is it too high of a standard? Arguably. However, standards should be set too high rather than too low because they'll never be universally met.
As for the specific examples in this post, I don't see how either being a pdf or being dated 2004 necessarily means something cannot be best of the web. Of course it can. How likely that is, and how likely it's not been posted before, are other matters.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 6:59 AM on March 18, 2007
To me, "the best of the web" tends to be things that could only be found on the web, or that would be very difficult to experience in another medium because of limitations to the interactivity.
Now, obviously I'm a biased towards this post, but I think my post linking to 900 pages of Columbine docs in a 32MB pdf was pretty good, and fit the criteria above. Short of having a giant MeFi meetup inside the Jefferson County evidence room, there's not really a good way to peruse such a collection of documents and discuss it easily.
To use myself as a further example, my post about the space shuttle taking off was not the best of the web. It was a reactionary post to all the discussion about the NK missile test that day. I was thinking, "Shit. We shot up a rocket today too, ya know?"
Nine times out of ten, when I'm thinking that a post isn't the best of the web, I'm looking at a fpps about some TV show. Joss Whedon, Futurama, Lost, 24, American Idle? GYOFTVB. Not the best of the web. Not now, not ever.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:30 AM on March 18, 2007
Now, obviously I'm a biased towards this post, but I think my post linking to 900 pages of Columbine docs in a 32MB pdf was pretty good, and fit the criteria above. Short of having a giant MeFi meetup inside the Jefferson County evidence room, there's not really a good way to peruse such a collection of documents and discuss it easily.
To use myself as a further example, my post about the space shuttle taking off was not the best of the web. It was a reactionary post to all the discussion about the NK missile test that day. I was thinking, "Shit. We shot up a rocket today too, ya know?"
Nine times out of ten, when I'm thinking that a post isn't the best of the web, I'm looking at a fpps about some TV show. Joss Whedon, Futurama, Lost, 24, American Idle? GYOFTVB. Not the best of the web. Not now, not ever.
posted by BeerFilter at 7:30 AM on March 18, 2007
I am sooooooo embarrassed. All this time I thought it was beast of the web. I apologize for my erratic posting style.
posted by srboisvert at 7:38 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by srboisvert at 7:38 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Why not "somewhat good of the web"?, because then people don't have to try to meet high standards. Or Cool Stuff Found on the Web? I dont know. Best sounds too much.
posted by wheelieman at 7:54 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by wheelieman at 7:54 AM on March 18, 2007
I must disagree with jessamyn. And, apparently, everyone else. Best of the web refers to the quality of the subject of the post and, as such, is a succinct expression of what qualifies as a good post. What qualifies for best of the web? That's more fully explained in the post guidelines.It must also, apparently, be something respecting general web-snobbery; an interesting story on an Amazon review page and a Wikipedia entry doesn’t count, which is a not amazingly surprising position.
I like Usenet too much to think web-snobbery anything but pointless and tedious, so I’m not interested anymore in whether something I find interesting might fit the Metafilter front page since posting that. That’s my issue, though, not anyone else’s.
posted by Aidan Kehoe at 7:54 AM on March 18, 2007
As others have indicated, "best of the web" is deprecated. As I mentioned when we discussed this a year ago:
Originally, the post page stated: "Just to be clear: the point of metafilter is to find the best and most interesting of the web to share with others, not things described here." Now it just says: "Found something cool on the web and want to share it with everyone else? Great!" The phrase "best of the web" is not found on either the about page or in the guidelines.posted by monju_bosatsu at 8:02 AM on March 18, 2007
Wow, this shit really does taste like marmalade. Try some.
posted by Elmore at 8:26 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by Elmore at 8:26 AM on March 18, 2007
There is no best of the web; there is no Metafilter. There is only IBM, and ITT, and AT&T, and DuPont, Dow, Union Carbide, and Exxon.
posted by Falconetti at 8:37 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by Falconetti at 8:37 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
I always thought that the Platonic ideal of MetaFilter was to find something cool that could only be done through the web, but I realize that this formalism is not necessarily supported by the rest of the user base.
posted by klangklangston at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 8:38 AM on March 18, 2007
Someone mentioned Wikipedia, that middling authority amongst all others....so I took it upon myself to check, and it says this:
MetaFilter's name derives from the idea that weblogs "filter" the "best of the web", and MetaFilter posts would be the best of the best. Posters are presumed responsible for selecting only the most interesting or novel websites to link, and users' reputations are largely determined by overall posting quality. Half-baked posts, self-promotion, open-ended questions, and other fare common on other community sites and internet forums are strongly discouraged at MetaFilter, though such things do sometimes make it through. The post must contain a link, and the site linked must be of high quality.
Anyone wanta go change that?
posted by nevercalm at 8:59 AM on March 18, 2007
MetaFilter's name derives from the idea that weblogs "filter" the "best of the web", and MetaFilter posts would be the best of the best. Posters are presumed responsible for selecting only the most interesting or novel websites to link, and users' reputations are largely determined by overall posting quality. Half-baked posts, self-promotion, open-ended questions, and other fare common on other community sites and internet forums are strongly discouraged at MetaFilter, though such things do sometimes make it through. The post must contain a link, and the site linked must be of high quality.
Anyone wanta go change that?
posted by nevercalm at 8:59 AM on March 18, 2007
Okay, so it's been a while. And I'm at work on a Sunday doing a whole bunch of stuff, so I think I'm in the right mindset for a flameout. Who wants to get me started?
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:13 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:13 AM on March 18, 2007
Does anyone know what the contrapositive is?
If BEST OF WEB
then GOOD FOR MEFI
which also means
If NOT GOOD FOR MEFI
then NOT BEST OF WEB
This does not mean any of the other handwaving "Oh so it's for NOT the best of the web then?" conclusions. In short: it was something that was originally on the post page, it's still a good thing to aim for, it's not a good thing to use in your callouts of posts you don't like.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:14 AM on March 18, 2007
If BEST OF WEB
then GOOD FOR MEFI
which also means
If NOT GOOD FOR MEFI
then NOT BEST OF WEB
This does not mean any of the other handwaving "Oh so it's for NOT the best of the web then?" conclusions. In short: it was something that was originally on the post page, it's still a good thing to aim for, it's not a good thing to use in your callouts of posts you don't like.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:14 AM on March 18, 2007
Working on Sundays is so gay. :P
posted by owhydididoit at 9:24 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by owhydididoit at 9:24 AM on March 18, 2007
Oh God, where do I even begin with that one..
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:28 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by dirtynumbangelboy at 9:28 AM on March 18, 2007
"Best of the web" is just one way of expressing the idea. It's a good virtue, a bad snark, and probably a better unofficial motto than "please do not go posting tired-ass shitstains all up and down the blue, tia" for a variety of reasons.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:41 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:41 AM on March 18, 2007
See, as Metafilter is held in high esteem by a sizable part of the blog-reading crowd, content that appears here gets a certain magical bluish sheen by mere association.
So, what we'll do, yeah, we're all going to start posting absolute worthless crap to the front page from now on, and keep completely mum about it, and then we'll change the definition of Best of the Web from the inside out and the ground up.
(Imagine the above being uttered by Michael Caine)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:18 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
So, what we'll do, yeah, we're all going to start posting absolute worthless crap to the front page from now on, and keep completely mum about it, and then we'll change the definition of Best of the Web from the inside out and the ground up.
(Imagine the above being uttered by Michael Caine)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 10:18 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Metafilter is held in high esteem by a sizable part of the blog-reading crowd
No need for insults.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2007
No need for insults.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 10:23 AM on March 18, 2007
dirtynumbangelboy, you are beyond any doubt the most egregious excuse for a MeFite I've seen in the 23 years I've spent here. You smell, you can't play volleyball, and your philtrum has a very strange kink in it. Plus your username confuses many people. Will that do? Here, here's a chainsaw. Shall I round up the usual crowd of spectators and some torches and popcorn?
posted by languagehat at 10:44 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by languagehat at 10:44 AM on March 18, 2007
Clearly, I am an amateur. Except I don't really love it.
posted by owhydididoit at 10:51 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by owhydididoit at 10:51 AM on March 18, 2007
This thread was the best Marmalade-flavoured shit-sandwich I ever ate on the web!
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:55 AM on March 18, 2007
posted by PeterMcDermott at 10:55 AM on March 18, 2007
Well, this thread pretty much confirms that there is considerable confusion/disagreement about what the phrase means and its application. Man, some of you can be pretty nasty! And stupid. My post above, I think is pretty clear, yet a few of you don't seem to understand it. Perhaps you do not speak English as a first language? Then you're excused.
MetaFilter's name derives from the idea that weblogs "filter" the "best of the web", and MetaFilter posts would be the best of the best. Posters are presumed responsible for selecting only the most interesting or novel websites to link, and users' reputations are largely determined by overall posting quality. Half-baked posts, self-promotion, open-ended questions, and other fare common on other community sites and internet forums are strongly discouraged at MetaFilter, though such things do sometimes make it through. The post must contain a link, and the site linked must be of high quality.
posted by nevercalm
This explanation is imo, the best and is my pov.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
posted by loquacious
No it doesn't.
posted by sluglicker at 11:32 AM on March 18, 2007
MetaFilter's name derives from the idea that weblogs "filter" the "best of the web", and MetaFilter posts would be the best of the best. Posters are presumed responsible for selecting only the most interesting or novel websites to link, and users' reputations are largely determined by overall posting quality. Half-baked posts, self-promotion, open-ended questions, and other fare common on other community sites and internet forums are strongly discouraged at MetaFilter, though such things do sometimes make it through. The post must contain a link, and the site linked must be of high quality.
posted by nevercalm
This explanation is imo, the best and is my pov.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
posted by loquacious
No it doesn't.
posted by sluglicker at 11:32 AM on March 18, 2007
Man, some of you can be pretty nasty! And stupid. My post above, I think is pretty clear, yet a few of you don't seem to understand it. Perhaps you do not speak English as a first language? Then you're excused.
What's that burning smell?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:36 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
What's that burning smell?
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 11:36 AM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Man, some of you can be pretty nasty! And stupid. My post above, I think is pretty clear, yet a few of you don't seem to understand it. Perhaps you do not speak English as a first language? Then you're excused.
Well, you know what, I totally agree... you're the only smart person here and everyone else should just stay out of the thread.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
posted by loquacious
No it doesn't.
Are... are you serious?
And is this personal, sluglicker?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2007
Well, you know what, I totally agree... you're the only smart person here and everyone else should just stay out of the thread.
If a tree falls in a forest and nobody is there to hear it, it makes a sound.
posted by loquacious
No it doesn't.
Are... are you serious?
And is this personal, sluglicker?
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 12:03 PM on March 18, 2007
"No it doesn't.
Are... are you serious?"
Well, there's "sound" as a perception and "sound" as a material wave. But since not all material waves are sounds, then the former definition is arguably better. And in that case, the answer is "no it doesn't". On the other hand, common usage for "sound" is probably closer to "a material wave in a medium and which can be perceived as audible by the average person" and, in that case, the answer is "yes it does, unless for some reason it falls very, very slowly and/or it's a tree in a forest ON THE MOON".
Anyone else need any supposedly unanswerable "philosophical" questions answered? No charge. Gratis.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Are... are you serious?"
Well, there's "sound" as a perception and "sound" as a material wave. But since not all material waves are sounds, then the former definition is arguably better. And in that case, the answer is "no it doesn't". On the other hand, common usage for "sound" is probably closer to "a material wave in a medium and which can be perceived as audible by the average person" and, in that case, the answer is "yes it does, unless for some reason it falls very, very slowly and/or it's a tree in a forest ON THE MOON".
Anyone else need any supposedly unanswerable "philosophical" questions answered? No charge. Gratis.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 12:16 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: a tree in a forest ON THE MOON
And your gay marmalade-eating aunt working on Sunday.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:29 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
And your gay marmalade-eating aunt working on Sunday.
posted by mr_crash_davis at 12:29 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
common usage for "sound" is probably closer to "a material wave in a medium and which can be perceived as audible by the average person"
Does it have to be both? The wave is produced whether it's heard or not. But then is it a sound, if it's not heard? Does a sound wave produce other effects beyond those of hearing?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:42 PM on March 18, 2007
Does it have to be both? The wave is produced whether it's heard or not. But then is it a sound, if it's not heard? Does a sound wave produce other effects beyond those of hearing?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 12:42 PM on March 18, 2007
Does a sound wave produce other effects beyond those of hearing?
Hearing is just one specialized reaction to the fundamental hearer-independent effect of so-called "sound" waves on the world. A sound wave, heard or unheard, can level a building or shatter a glass or disturb the calm surface of a lake.
Is it only a sound wave if it reaches an eardrum? A functioning eardrum? A functioning eardrum of a conscious listener? One who is attentive to the particular sound in question? If two people stand next to each other and disagree about whether or not there was just a sound, was there a sound?
If a tree does not fall in a forest, but there is somewhere there who thinks they heard it happen, does it make a sound?
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:54 PM on March 18, 2007
Hearing is just one specialized reaction to the fundamental hearer-independent effect of so-called "sound" waves on the world. A sound wave, heard or unheard, can level a building or shatter a glass or disturb the calm surface of a lake.
Is it only a sound wave if it reaches an eardrum? A functioning eardrum? A functioning eardrum of a conscious listener? One who is attentive to the particular sound in question? If two people stand next to each other and disagree about whether or not there was just a sound, was there a sound?
If a tree does not fall in a forest, but there is somewhere there who thinks they heard it happen, does it make a sound?
posted by cortex (staff) at 12:54 PM on March 18, 2007
Well, you know what, I totally agree... you're the only smart person here and everyone else should just stay out of the thread...And is this personal, sluglicker?
posted by CitrusFreak12
It wasn't, but it is now.
And sorry about the derail.
posted by sluglicker at 1:10 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by CitrusFreak12
It wasn't, but it is now.
And sorry about the derail.
posted by sluglicker at 1:10 PM on March 18, 2007
"Hearing is just one specialized reaction to the fundamental hearer-independent effect of so-called 'sound' waves on the world. A sound wave, heard or unheard, can level a building or shatter a glass or disturb the calm surface of a lake."
I disagree. Sound is hearer-independent, but it is essentially related to the perception of hearing. Specifically, I don't think that physicists refer to all material waves as a "sound" wave. And I don't think that it's what it means in common language, either.
It does occur to me that my definition needs to be somewhat expanded to include frequency ranges slightly above and below what a normal human hears. We call these "sounds" by analogy, really. But as you get farther and farther from the baseline of my original definition, both in terms of frequency and medium, then you move farther and farther away from the common language idea of "sound". For example, the primary waves of earthquakes aren't referred to as "sounds", although harmonics that are in the infrasound region are. That's a good example of the limits of the definition. And, again, there really isn't a technical definition of "sound" in physics or material sciences, the technical notion just thinks about material waves in general.
That's not to say that a technical treatment wouldn't use the common language "sound" to represent the subset of material waves that the common language word defines. This would especially be true in, say, a physics treatment of acoustics.
"EB: why do birds suddenly appear?"
Because you're here, of course.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:16 PM on March 18, 2007
I disagree. Sound is hearer-independent, but it is essentially related to the perception of hearing. Specifically, I don't think that physicists refer to all material waves as a "sound" wave. And I don't think that it's what it means in common language, either.
It does occur to me that my definition needs to be somewhat expanded to include frequency ranges slightly above and below what a normal human hears. We call these "sounds" by analogy, really. But as you get farther and farther from the baseline of my original definition, both in terms of frequency and medium, then you move farther and farther away from the common language idea of "sound". For example, the primary waves of earthquakes aren't referred to as "sounds", although harmonics that are in the infrasound region are. That's a good example of the limits of the definition. And, again, there really isn't a technical definition of "sound" in physics or material sciences, the technical notion just thinks about material waves in general.
That's not to say that a technical treatment wouldn't use the common language "sound" to represent the subset of material waves that the common language word defines. This would especially be true in, say, a physics treatment of acoustics.
"EB: why do birds suddenly appear?"
Because you're here, of course.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 1:16 PM on March 18, 2007
Ok, I just wanted to second klangklangston's perception of the platonic ideal of the perfect Metafilter post before, god fucking help us, we get into an extended conversation about falling trees and sounds. AAAUGH
posted by furiousthought at 1:21 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by furiousthought at 1:21 PM on March 18, 2007
What is the sound of one lip flapping?
posted by owhydididoit at 1:24 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
posted by owhydididoit at 1:24 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
MetaFilter: held in high esteem by a sizable part of the blog-reading crowd.
MetaFilter: a few of you don't seem to understand it.
MetaFilter: seems to be some confusion about this whole thing.
A tree... [snip]... gimme a fuckin' break.
posted by Duncan at 1:59 PM on March 18, 2007
MetaFilter: a few of you don't seem to understand it.
MetaFilter: seems to be some confusion about this whole thing.
A tree... [snip]... gimme a fuckin' break.
posted by Duncan at 1:59 PM on March 18, 2007
Look, bitches, I've been to the fucking moon and chopped down a tree and you haven't.
It makes a fucking sound, ok? Just believe me on this one. All of it. All of it that isn't frozen to absolute zero. It all makes a sound. All the fucking time.
This matter, it vibrates.
posted by loquacious at 2:18 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
It makes a fucking sound, ok? Just believe me on this one. All of it. All of it that isn't frozen to absolute zero. It all makes a sound. All the fucking time.
This matter, it vibrates.
posted by loquacious at 2:18 PM on March 18, 2007 [2 favorites]
@Duncan
You've been here for 6 years and have made zero posts and 37 comments. Shut the fuck up.
posted by sluglicker at 2:22 PM on March 18, 2007
You've been here for 6 years and have made zero posts and 37 comments. Shut the fuck up.
posted by sluglicker at 2:22 PM on March 18, 2007
sluglicker, chilling way out here would be a good idea.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:23 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:23 PM on March 18, 2007
Look, bitches, I've been to the fucking moon and chopped down a tree and you haven't.
This is a total lie, and I can prove it: The moon-tree footage was filmed in my backyard. To maintain secrecy we had to shoot everyone who didn't have an executive producer credit.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:54 PM on March 18, 2007
This is a total lie, and I can prove it: The moon-tree footage was filmed in my backyard. To maintain secrecy we had to shoot everyone who didn't have an executive producer credit.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:54 PM on March 18, 2007
IS IT CAN BE FLAMEOUT TIEM NOW PLEES
I can brings cheezburgers.
posted by amyms at 3:13 PM on March 18, 2007
I can brings cheezburgers.
posted by amyms at 3:13 PM on March 18, 2007
A watched thread never flames out.
Unless it's West of The BEB.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:17 PM on March 18, 2007
Unless it's West of The BEB.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 3:17 PM on March 18, 2007
I think 23skidoo is saying that sluglicker CAN'T HANDLE THE TRUTH!
posted by amyms at 3:20 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by amyms at 3:20 PM on March 18, 2007
Your link there rules, 23skidoo. If it were here at MetaFilter or MetaTalk, I would favorite the hell out of it. Instead, I'll favorite you for the pointer.
posted by cgc373 at 3:55 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by cgc373 at 3:55 PM on March 18, 2007
It's unwise and irresponsible to hold a flameout here in the forest with all these fallen trees nearby.
posted by breezeway at 5:44 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by breezeway at 5:44 PM on March 18, 2007
Forget it sluglicker, it's Metatalk.
posted by blenderfish at 6:33 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by blenderfish at 6:33 PM on March 18, 2007
What's the deal with Corn Nuts?
posted by brain_drain at 6:39 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by brain_drain at 6:39 PM on March 18, 2007
It's unwise and irresponsible to hold a flameout here in the forest with all these fallen trees nearby.
Huh? Some trees fell? S'funny, I didn't hear anything...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:07 PM on March 18, 2007
Huh? Some trees fell? S'funny, I didn't hear anything...
posted by flapjax at midnite at 7:07 PM on March 18, 2007
What's the deal with Seinfeld?
posted by klangklangston at 7:07 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by klangklangston at 7:07 PM on March 18, 2007
Followup question: how do you persuade the birds to leave?
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:11 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
sluglicker writes "@Duncan"
sluglicker we don't use the @USERNAME convention here, just the username is sufficient.
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 PM on March 18, 2007
sluglicker we don't use the @USERNAME convention here, just the username is sufficient.
posted by Mitheral at 7:17 PM on March 18, 2007
On that note, it's funny to see someone versed in the "@" convention who is apparently unaware that there's a handy acronym available for "shut the fuck up."
posted by breezeway at 7:37 PM on March 18, 2007
posted by breezeway at 7:37 PM on March 18, 2007
"Followup question: how do you persuade the birds to leave?"
Wash your hair. There's moon dust in it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:19 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
Wash your hair. There's moon dust in it.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 8:19 PM on March 18, 2007 [1 favorite]
No they're not.
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:21 AM on March 19, 2007
posted by weapons-grade pandemonium at 10:21 AM on March 19, 2007
if ya got nothing good to post, don't post.
for I am a firm believer in this, this my screed.
(no screedo jokes)
posted by clavdivs at 11:37 AM on March 19, 2007
for I am a firm believer in this, this my screed.
(no screedo jokes)
posted by clavdivs at 11:37 AM on March 19, 2007
This is not my kind of flame-out, baby. I am going to go and invent a new kind of umbrella drink called the metaphor, so when someone asks, "Hey, hepcats, where is Mister_A at," you can explain that I'm cookin' in the kitchen, mixing up some metaphors. Call me when we got some heat in here.
posted by Mister_A at 11:57 AM on March 19, 2007
posted by Mister_A at 11:57 AM on March 19, 2007
In fact, birds don't suddenly appear. They may seem to, but that is because they are frequently in the sky where you, as a mammalian biped, tend not to look for threats. Thus your monkey brain notices them only as recent arrivals to your sphere of perception, despite that fact they have been flying around eyeing your hat as a target for a prolonged period of time.
Some might point out that flightless birds negate this explanation, but I say Fie! In any event, should you encounter someone whose presence brings about the appearance of penguins, contact the police immediately because that person is a supervillian.
posted by Sparx at 9:51 PM on March 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Some might point out that flightless birds negate this explanation, but I say Fie! In any event, should you encounter someone whose presence brings about the appearance of penguins, contact the police immediately because that person is a supervillian.
posted by Sparx at 9:51 PM on March 19, 2007 [1 favorite]
Sparx, I am now imagining your comment sung, and of course, that's to the tune of "Close To You". I can't imagine that the original songwriter didn't come up with this answer to the birds question, and write the song more along the lines that you've offered above. I think it would've made for a much better piece of songcraft than the version we've all had driven into our subconcious through years of unwilling radio wave exposure. Anyway, thanks for sharing!
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:07 PM on March 19, 2007
posted by flapjax at midnite at 10:07 PM on March 19, 2007
A la Bicycle Built for Two...
posted by owhydididoit at 10:40 AM on March 20, 2007
posted by owhydididoit at 10:40 AM on March 20, 2007
And is this personal, sluglicker?
posted by CitrusFreak12
It wasn't, but it is now.
posted by sluglicker
!!!
And can I just say that it is awesome to have an admin who joins in on the pointless discussion? Not to belittle the importance of tree-sound relations and bird problems, of course. What I'm trying to say is, I love you cortex.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:17 PM on March 20, 2007
posted by CitrusFreak12
It wasn't, but it is now.
posted by sluglicker
!!!
And can I just say that it is awesome to have an admin who joins in on the pointless discussion? Not to belittle the importance of tree-sound relations and bird problems, of course. What I'm trying to say is, I love you cortex.
posted by CitrusFreak12 at 4:17 PM on March 20, 2007
Quiet, you fool! This is the backlash, remember? You should phrase it as disbelief that they'd allow a pointless discusser to have admin rights.
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:38 PM on March 20, 2007
posted by cortex (staff) at 4:38 PM on March 20, 2007
I like your style, cortex. Allayouse, really, make me want to participate. Even when I embarrass myself occasionally by showing everyone what's in my douchebag. Three cheers for the admins: Hip, hip, hurray, &c.
posted by breezeway at 5:06 PM on March 20, 2007
posted by breezeway at 5:06 PM on March 20, 2007
http://metatalk.metafilter.com/13870/Best-of-the-Web
hehehe...no seriously; what's the deal?
posted by sluglicker at 4:54 AM on March 21, 2007
hehehe...no seriously; what's the deal?
posted by sluglicker at 4:54 AM on March 21, 2007
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Posting Guidelines
What makes a good thread post to MetaFilter? 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.
Those three qualifiers seem pretty good to me. And as for comments:
Please keep comments focused on the topic at hand. Comments about the quality of a post are better left for MetaTalk.
Again, sounds good, yet this policy is not adhered to nor are people called out for not doing so. There seems to be some confusion about this whole thing. A link to a page that was first published a few days ago does not of itself make for a good post, nor the fact that the page has been around for three or four years disqualifies it as such. "Best of the Web" seems to me to be an almost worthless comment; it says more about the person making the comment than the original poster.
posted by sluglicker at 11:02 PM on March 17, 2007