Fair and Balanced. January 2, 2009 7:22 AM Subscribe
Yesterday I made this post which was deleted. Apparently it was flagged numerous times as 'offensive'. After a few MeFi mails with Matt, he altered the reason, but didn't change the part I dispute.
I pointed out that the flame graphic existed on the site prior to the fire and there was NO joke intended. Deleting the post because the post sucked is one thing, but accusing me of making light of a serious tragedy (one which a good friend of mine was a part of) and reaffirming others' views when they are 100% false, is another. Just clearing the air.
I pointed out that the flame graphic existed on the site prior to the fire and there was NO joke intended. Deleting the post because the post sucked is one thing, but accusing me of making light of a serious tragedy (one which a good friend of mine was a part of) and reaffirming others' views when they are 100% false, is another. Just clearing the air.
Let the pile-on begin. I will never understand why people think they need to whine about deletion in public. Do you really think the majority is going to say "Aw, poor thing, you're right, those mean mods tweated you so unfair!" Not gonna happen. A bunch of people flagged it in the first place and the mods agreed. Please take a walk and move on with your life. Redo the post without that part if you feel so strongly about it.
posted by CwgrlUp at 7:35 AM on January 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by CwgrlUp at 7:35 AM on January 2, 2009 [7 favorites]
The flame graphic is obviously for a Halloween event, so even bother pointing it out?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:38 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:38 AM on January 2, 2009
My buddy who was at the club emphasized it to me in an email. There was nothing humorous meant by it and after explaining this to Matt ad nauseum, I found it odd that he took the time to alter the reason for deletion, but not the part I objected to - which reaffirmed those who thought I was poking fun at a very serious situtation.
posted by gman at 7:39 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by gman at 7:39 AM on January 2, 2009
*why
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:39 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:39 AM on January 2, 2009
The flame graphic is obviously for a Halloween event, so even bother pointing it out?
This was a NYE event.
posted by gman at 7:40 AM on January 2, 2009
This was a NYE event.
posted by gman at 7:40 AM on January 2, 2009
I will never understand why people think they need to whine about deletion in public. Do you really think the majority is going to say "Aw, poor thing, you're right, those mean mods tweated you so unfair!" Not gonna happen. A bunch of people flagged it in the first place and the mods agreed.
I don't. I'm saying that his choice of words for the reason were totally inappropriate considering I explained all this to him.
posted by gman at 7:41 AM on January 2, 2009
I don't. I'm saying that his choice of words for the reason were totally inappropriate considering I explained all this to him.
posted by gman at 7:41 AM on January 2, 2009
I didn't think it was offensive. I thought it was pointless. It would have been a good post for your own blog, but it wasn't a good post for Metafilter.
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:43 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Chocolate Pickle at 7:43 AM on January 2, 2009
How much of your mefi content has been deleted by now, gman? Sometimes it seems everything you have left is just you complaining about previous deletions. It's really boring. Can you get a new schtick, or accept you aren't getting something fundamental about this place and just quit posting?
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by CunningLinguist at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Lighten up, CwgrlUp. I don't think he's whining about the deletion, but rather trying to clarify to the community he's not a evil-hearted individual -something implied in the deletion reason. We all make post/comments that can be misinterpreted and feel regret we weren't more clear.
posted by yeti at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by yeti at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009
This was a NYE event.
Are we looking at the same page? When I check the club's News & Event sidebar, the only image of a flame I see is for the Halloween event. The NYE event is this picture.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009
Are we looking at the same page? When I check the club's News & Event sidebar, the only image of a flame I see is for the Halloween event. The NYE event is this picture.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:45 AM on January 2, 2009
Alvy Ampersand - Looks like they've now realized and removed it.
posted by gman at 7:47 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by gman at 7:47 AM on January 2, 2009
Your follow-up tampon joke in-thread makes me think this wasn't as disingenuous as you claim.
posted by Abiezer at 7:48 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
posted by Abiezer at 7:48 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
gman: This was a NYE event.
The hell you say? I don't get it. I don't see any flames, really, in the graphic next to the "GOODBYE SANTIKA With BadBoy Party - Dec 31" listing, but I sure as hell see flames next to the Oct 31 event listing. Am I just not seeing it? I guess there's orange in there. Maybe I'm just getting old, and my eyesight is going first.
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out what Spanish work "Santika" is supposed to come from.
I'm just overall confused by that post. But what's the request here - change the deletion reason as a matter of honor, so that gman can avoid the impropriety of being said to have made light of a tragedy his friend was involved in? Eh, seems like a small request. It's not like he's asking for an un-delete, and "This post doesn't really work" is as nice and neutral a deletion reason as any.
posted by koeselitz at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2009
The hell you say? I don't get it. I don't see any flames, really, in the graphic next to the "GOODBYE SANTIKA With BadBoy Party - Dec 31" listing, but I sure as hell see flames next to the Oct 31 event listing. Am I just not seeing it? I guess there's orange in there. Maybe I'm just getting old, and my eyesight is going first.
Heck, I'm still trying to figure out what Spanish work "Santika" is supposed to come from.
I'm just overall confused by that post. But what's the request here - change the deletion reason as a matter of honor, so that gman can avoid the impropriety of being said to have made light of a tragedy his friend was involved in? Eh, seems like a small request. It's not like he's asking for an un-delete, and "This post doesn't really work" is as nice and neutral a deletion reason as any.
posted by koeselitz at 7:52 AM on January 2, 2009
Yes, CwgrlUp, right at the end of the post he says 'Just clearing the air.' so the tough 'suck it up' tone is completely unnecessary.
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:53 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Solon and Thanks at 7:53 AM on January 2, 2009
Ahh, thanks for clearing that up, gman. Not to pick at you, but your second comment probably didn't help with people misconstruing the tone of your post.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:54 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 7:54 AM on January 2, 2009
Ahh, I see - they removed it. Thanks for the mefimail, gman.
posted by koeselitz at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by koeselitz at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2009
Well, if Great White had been playing there, the death count been a tad bit higher, and it had been in the US maybe it would have survived, and not been a "kinda minor story." Ok, a bit unfair, but I don't think it was a minor story at all if you what to maintain that metafilter lacks a US bias.
I would like to point out this story made every news source that I follow yesterday, and most of them mentioned the flame graphic. I already knew about the little inline gif before I hit the site or red it on meta.
This all said, I think the post could have been a bit meatier, and some of the verbiage was a bit odd, but I've had these survive (and seen worse).
posted by cjorgensen at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2009
I would like to point out this story made every news source that I follow yesterday, and most of them mentioned the flame graphic. I already knew about the little inline gif before I hit the site or red it on meta.
This all said, I think the post could have been a bit meatier, and some of the verbiage was a bit odd, but I've had these survive (and seen worse).
posted by cjorgensen at 7:57 AM on January 2, 2009
cjorgensen: I would like to point out this story made every news source that I follow yesterday, and most of them mentioned the flame graphic.
Did any of them make a joke about tampons, too?
There's a reason that "this isn't a significant news story" isn't part of the deletion reason, I think.
posted by koeselitz at 8:00 AM on January 2, 2009
Did any of them make a joke about tampons, too?
There's a reason that "this isn't a significant news story" isn't part of the deletion reason, I think.
posted by koeselitz at 8:00 AM on January 2, 2009
Did any of them make a joke about tampons, too?
I knew the thread was done at that point and I made a tasteless response to BP's comment.
There's a reason that "this isn't a significant news story" isn't part of the deletion reason, I think.
This post was deleted for the following reason: kinda minor story...
posted by gman at 8:03 AM on January 2, 2009
I knew the thread was done at that point and I made a tasteless response to BP's comment.
There's a reason that "this isn't a significant news story" isn't part of the deletion reason, I think.
This post was deleted for the following reason: kinda minor story...
posted by gman at 8:03 AM on January 2, 2009
And if the tampon joke was the offensive part, that comment could have been deleted. He waited an hour before making that comment. The post never gained any traction. It wasn't destined for greatness no matter what, but I think the events are just as significant as a single link post to a NYT article about guide chickens.
posted by cjorgensen at 8:14 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 8:14 AM on January 2, 2009
[This deletion reason was amended for the following reason: poster's request]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:14 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:14 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Nah, I meant it as I framed it about the tampon joke - seemed like you'd done fire-flame linkage and then BP brings up blood in a common phrase about media values and you do a similar blood-tampon link. I'm not pretending to be a mind-reader here, just saying that's the impression it gave.
posted by Abiezer at 8:19 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Abiezer at 8:19 AM on January 2, 2009
Did anyone make a post about the Shenzen nightclub fire/stampede in September?
posted by smackfu at 8:20 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by smackfu at 8:20 AM on January 2, 2009
I wont comment on the validity of this as a meta filter post but it makes me sad to see the deaths of 59 people described as "kinda minor story".
posted by missmagenta at 8:27 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by missmagenta at 8:27 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
gman, I'm going to agree with cortex here and ask you why half your post is about the flame graphic if you weren't trying to make an ironic joke out of a bunch of people dying? I kept the deletion reason as it was because that's how it reads to other people.
Sorry if you think that's "false" but you were the person that brought it up in the post (and the tasteless tampon joke sealed the deal for me).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:31 AM on January 2, 2009
Sorry if you think that's "false" but you were the person that brought it up in the post (and the tasteless tampon joke sealed the deal for me).
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:31 AM on January 2, 2009
but it makes me sad to see the deaths of 59 people described as "kinda minor story".
gman demanded a new deletion reason and I had to come up with something seemingly neutral about it, and my only thought was one small dance club in NYC having a fire doesn't seem huge in worldwide terms.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:33 AM on January 2, 2009
gman demanded a new deletion reason and I had to come up with something seemingly neutral about it, and my only thought was one small dance club in NYC having a fire doesn't seem huge in worldwide terms.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 8:33 AM on January 2, 2009
Yeah, I could have sworn the fire was in Thailand. Just how closely did you look at the post?
posted by theroadahead at 8:41 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by theroadahead at 8:41 AM on January 2, 2009
gman, I'm going to agree with cortex here and ask you why half your post is about the flame graphic if you weren't trying to make an ironic joke out of a bunch of people dying?
Of course you are. 8 links total, 1 about the graphic. Comment was easily deletable if objectionable.
gman demanded a new deletion reason and I had to come up with something seemingly neutral about it, and my only thought was one small dance club in NYC having a fire doesn't seem huge in worldwide terms.
And I also explained which part of your deletion reason I objected to and that was not it. You actually made it worse by minimizing the tragedy, which was in Bangkok, not NYC, by the way.
Did anyone make a post about the Shenzen nightclub fire/stampede in September?
2nd link in the 'Previous' section.
posted by gman at 8:43 AM on January 2, 2009
Of course you are. 8 links total, 1 about the graphic. Comment was easily deletable if objectionable.
gman demanded a new deletion reason and I had to come up with something seemingly neutral about it, and my only thought was one small dance club in NYC having a fire doesn't seem huge in worldwide terms.
And I also explained which part of your deletion reason I objected to and that was not it. You actually made it worse by minimizing the tragedy, which was in Bangkok, not NYC, by the way.
Did anyone make a post about the Shenzen nightclub fire/stampede in September?
2nd link in the 'Previous' section.
posted by gman at 8:43 AM on January 2, 2009
...one small dance club in NYC having a fire doesn't seem huge in worldwide terms.
Point taken, but it was in Bangkok, right? That has way bigger impact in worldwide terms than if it happened in NYC!
Change the deletion reason to: "my site, my rules." Or "gyob," or even "self linking," since gman's admitted a "good friend of mine was a part of" this event. I kid on the last, but if it's true might actually go a long ways towards explaining the tone of the original post and the follow up comments.
What I am failing to get here, and maybe I just haven't been doing enough metatalk to get the point yet, is what the point of the post if gman was already in email contact with mods?
posted by cjorgensen at 8:45 AM on January 2, 2009
Point taken, but it was in Bangkok, right? That has way bigger impact in worldwide terms than if it happened in NYC!
Change the deletion reason to: "my site, my rules." Or "gyob," or even "self linking," since gman's admitted a "good friend of mine was a part of" this event. I kid on the last, but if it's true might actually go a long ways towards explaining the tone of the original post and the follow up comments.
What I am failing to get here, and maybe I just haven't been doing enough metatalk to get the point yet, is what the point of the post if gman was already in email contact with mods?
posted by cjorgensen at 8:45 AM on January 2, 2009
The fire was actually at a club in Bangkok, yeah, not NYC. When I first saw the post I parsed it as being about the "Bangkok Nightclub in NYC"—I chalk it up to the power of NY* as initialism shorthand for New York combined with the strong association between NYC and New Years parties. Checking out the video cleared it up for me.
Matt thinking it was about a New York nightclub kind of guts the "oh it's because mefi is US centric so stuff that happens elsewhere doesn't matter, BIAS BIAS BIAS" argument.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:46 AM on January 2, 2009
Matt thinking it was about a New York nightclub kind of guts the "oh it's because mefi is US centric so stuff that happens elsewhere doesn't matter, BIAS BIAS BIAS" argument.
posted by cortex (staff) at 8:46 AM on January 2, 2009
2nd link in the 'Previous' section.
I meant a Metafilter post. Like why should this have a post about it, but that other nightclub fire didn't deserve one?
Personally, I think both count as newsfilter, which means there will only be interesting comments if people have personal involvement.
posted by smackfu at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2009
I meant a Metafilter post. Like why should this have a post about it, but that other nightclub fire didn't deserve one?
Personally, I think both count as newsfilter, which means there will only be interesting comments if people have personal involvement.
posted by smackfu at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2009
Yeah, but it opens the question of just how closely things are read, and if opinions are formed and acted on a little too quickly.
posted by theroadahead at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by theroadahead at 8:49 AM on January 2, 2009
Yeah, but it opens the question of just how closely things are read, and if opinions are formed and acted on a little too quickly.
My first reaction to this is to say, 'Yeah!', cuz I've been in this spot too with mathowie. Then I think of the volume of shit he has to deal with (filter?) on a daily basis and I wanna lay off the poor guy. It's just a website, from my end.
posted by carsonb at 8:55 AM on January 2, 2009
My first reaction to this is to say, 'Yeah!', cuz I've been in this spot too with mathowie. Then I think of the volume of shit he has to deal with (filter?) on a daily basis and I wanna lay off the poor guy. It's just a website, from my end.
posted by carsonb at 8:55 AM on January 2, 2009
Matt thinking it was about a New York nightclub kind of guts the "oh it's because mefi is US centric so stuff that happens elsewhere doesn't matter, BIAS BIAS BIAS" argument.
No it doesn't. I see what you mean, but "of course your application wasn't denied because you have a funny-looking signature, I mean we didn't even really look at the form!" is an argument that just sets you up for further criticism.
(He did capitalise "nightclub", though.)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:56 AM on January 2, 2009
No it doesn't. I see what you mean, but "of course your application wasn't denied because you have a funny-looking signature, I mean we didn't even really look at the form!" is an argument that just sets you up for further criticism.
(He did capitalise "nightclub", though.)
posted by goodnewsfortheinsane at 8:56 AM on January 2, 2009
Wouldn't 59 people dying in a fire in NYC be more than a "minor story" in the US, even in, say, Oregon?
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 8:57 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 8:57 AM on January 2, 2009
after explaining this to Matt ad nauseum
I suspect that herein lies 95% of all problems gman seems to experience here.
posted by mrmojoflying at 8:58 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I suspect that herein lies 95% of all problems gman seems to experience here.
posted by mrmojoflying at 8:58 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
What I am failing to get here, and maybe I just haven't been doing enough metatalk to get the point yet, is what the point of the post if gman was already in email contact with mods?
Because the reason was altered to an even less appropriate one. And after 3 back and forths, I was done emailing.
posted by gman at 9:01 AM on January 2, 2009
Because the reason was altered to an even less appropriate one. And after 3 back and forths, I was done emailing.
posted by gman at 9:01 AM on January 2, 2009
I withdraw my "US bias" argument, since I wasn't really serious in the first place, and because I couldn't find any previous links to the Great White fire (I didn't look too hard).
Personally, I think this could have been covered. A meaty history of nightclub fires culminating in a link to a current event would have made a great post around NYE. This wasn't it.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on January 2, 2009
Personally, I think this could have been covered. A meaty history of nightclub fires culminating in a link to a current event would have made a great post around NYE. This wasn't it.
posted by cjorgensen at 9:02 AM on January 2, 2009
Wouldn't 59 people dying in a fire in NYC be more than a "minor story" in the US, even in, say, Oregon?
Exactly, it would be posted a dozen times, with live twitters and personal accounts. But that's just reality. News that is more local is always more relevant to you, and MeFi has a lot of people from NYC and not many from Thailand.
posted by smackfu at 9:02 AM on January 2, 2009
Exactly, it would be posted a dozen times, with live twitters and personal accounts. But that's just reality. News that is more local is always more relevant to you, and MeFi has a lot of people from NYC and not many from Thailand.
posted by smackfu at 9:02 AM on January 2, 2009
Yeah, but it opens the question of just how closely things are read, and if opinions are formed and acted on a little too quickly.
If it's any comfort, redundancy works in everybody's favor. I didn't know that Matt thought it was NYC, but I looked at the post too and was considering deleting it myself (after having already appended a "[graphic]" warning on the video). If I thought Matt was off his rocker, I would have hashed it out with him over email and made an argument for why I thought it was worth keeping. That's not always a visible part of the process, but it happens in all three directions now and then.
I didn't. It was a pretty weird (however accidentally so) way to frame a post and people besides Matt and me were reacting badly to it. I think it going made sense.
Personally, I think this could have been covered. A meaty history of nightclub fires culminating in a link to a current event would have made a great post around NYE. This wasn't it.
Exactly. Well, not necessarily exactly on the "great post around NYE" thing, since I'm not sure the timing is helpful apart from the actual topicality of this incident, but, yeah: if someone wants to do a solid post on the history of nightclub party fires, I'm sure it could be some interesting and meaty stuff.
My point on the NYC thing is this: there's probably more people on the site who have connections to New York than to Bangkok, and so it'd be more likely on the whole to get posted, but that doesn't make it any better post and if this had been The Bangkok Nightclub, NYC I wouldn't have wanted to delete it any less. A degree of local influence is unavoidable in all things, but it's not site policy.
I always thought the most weird and notable thing about the Great White incident was that it was Great White, not where it happened, but that may just be me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:13 AM on January 2, 2009
If it's any comfort, redundancy works in everybody's favor. I didn't know that Matt thought it was NYC, but I looked at the post too and was considering deleting it myself (after having already appended a "[graphic]" warning on the video). If I thought Matt was off his rocker, I would have hashed it out with him over email and made an argument for why I thought it was worth keeping. That's not always a visible part of the process, but it happens in all three directions now and then.
I didn't. It was a pretty weird (however accidentally so) way to frame a post and people besides Matt and me were reacting badly to it. I think it going made sense.
Personally, I think this could have been covered. A meaty history of nightclub fires culminating in a link to a current event would have made a great post around NYE. This wasn't it.
Exactly. Well, not necessarily exactly on the "great post around NYE" thing, since I'm not sure the timing is helpful apart from the actual topicality of this incident, but, yeah: if someone wants to do a solid post on the history of nightclub party fires, I'm sure it could be some interesting and meaty stuff.
My point on the NYC thing is this: there's probably more people on the site who have connections to New York than to Bangkok, and so it'd be more likely on the whole to get posted, but that doesn't make it any better post and if this had been The Bangkok Nightclub, NYC I wouldn't have wanted to delete it any less. A degree of local influence is unavoidable in all things, but it's not site policy.
I always thought the most weird and notable thing about the Great White incident was that it was Great White, not where it happened, but that may just be me.
posted by cortex (staff) at 9:13 AM on January 2, 2009
The fire was actually at a club in Bangkok, yeah, not NYC
Sorry, I got it mixed up seeing "NY" and the nytimes as the source of the news and thought it was NYC. I was looking at the youtube video and nothing jumped out as not-NYC (I didn't scan the horizon for buildings but it looked urban enough to be any major street in an urban capital).
Of course you are. 8 links total, 1 about the graphic. Comment was easily deletable if objectionable.
gman, you ignored my question. Half of the text above the fold in your post is about the flame graphic. Yes, there were other links, but you spent quite a bit of space describing something that was interpreted by many people as making an ironic joke. Why even mention it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:23 AM on January 2, 2009
Sorry, I got it mixed up seeing "NY" and the nytimes as the source of the news and thought it was NYC. I was looking at the youtube video and nothing jumped out as not-NYC (I didn't scan the horizon for buildings but it looked urban enough to be any major street in an urban capital).
Of course you are. 8 links total, 1 about the graphic. Comment was easily deletable if objectionable.
gman, you ignored my question. Half of the text above the fold in your post is about the flame graphic. Yes, there were other links, but you spent quite a bit of space describing something that was interpreted by many people as making an ironic joke. Why even mention it?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:23 AM on January 2, 2009
Of course that was before somebody or other in some official thing or other) decided that the alien is a super-battery (hence the acid) and doesn't need food.
Yankzone.
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on January 2, 2009
Yankzone.
posted by Artw at 9:36 AM on January 2, 2009
That deletion reason is harsh and makes the OP look bad, especially since his post is not so great already.
The deletion reason actually does some editorializing, charging the ambiguous sentence "See little flame graphic under News & Event beside this particular party," with a (false) interpretation. People don't like their comments being characterized in the permanent record with negative connotations – especially since that was not what was intended. This Metatalk can serve to clear that up, but unless the deletion reason is changed, it will always appear that way in that post, with nobody aware of a related MeTa thread.
I personally feel that changing the deletion reason is the simplest, most obvious solution, saving the most time and headache for all involved. There's already problems with the deletion reason, aside from how it frames the post/er ("kinda minor story"), so why not make the change to something more neutral and less evaluative?
Also, this is a great case for Original Posts to have an icon/link at the TOP of the thread when MeTa's get opened that directly reference them. (In addition to the argument that its hard to find "Meta'd" in an especially long, contentious thread.)
posted by iamkimiam at 9:54 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
The deletion reason actually does some editorializing, charging the ambiguous sentence "See little flame graphic under News & Event beside this particular party," with a (false) interpretation. People don't like their comments being characterized in the permanent record with negative connotations – especially since that was not what was intended. This Metatalk can serve to clear that up, but unless the deletion reason is changed, it will always appear that way in that post, with nobody aware of a related MeTa thread.
I personally feel that changing the deletion reason is the simplest, most obvious solution, saving the most time and headache for all involved. There's already problems with the deletion reason, aside from how it frames the post/er ("kinda minor story"), so why not make the change to something more neutral and less evaluative?
Also, this is a great case for Original Posts to have an icon/link at the TOP of the thread when MeTa's get opened that directly reference them. (In addition to the argument that its hard to find "Meta'd" in an especially long, contentious thread.)
posted by iamkimiam at 9:54 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Minor story: no. Newsfilter: (as presented) yes.
But yeah, I winced at the whole flame graphic thing. WTF, gman? What was the point of that, exactly?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:59 AM on January 2, 2009
But yeah, I winced at the whole flame graphic thing. WTF, gman? What was the point of that, exactly?
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 9:59 AM on January 2, 2009
also: that deletion reason (as it stands) is at least as offensive as gman's fpp. More, really, since there is no excuse for calling dozens of people dead a minor story, whereas we have yet to hear gman's legit reason for calling attention to the graphic.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:01 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:01 AM on January 2, 2009
The deletion reason actually does some editorializing, charging the ambiguous sentence "See little flame graphic under News & Event beside this particular party," with a (false) interpretation. People don't like their comments being characterized in the permanent record with negative connotations
I'll cop to that, but I still honestly am wondering why it was even mentioned if not for an ironic laugh? It got a ton of "offensive" flags as well, so it's not just me being drunk on power and making up an interpretation out of thin air.
I personally feel that changing the deletion reason is the simplest, most obvious solution, saving the most time and headache for all involved.
Fine, what would be an acceptable deletion reason?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:02 AM on January 2, 2009
I'll cop to that, but I still honestly am wondering why it was even mentioned if not for an ironic laugh? It got a ton of "offensive" flags as well, so it's not just me being drunk on power and making up an interpretation out of thin air.
I personally feel that changing the deletion reason is the simplest, most obvious solution, saving the most time and headache for all involved.
Fine, what would be an acceptable deletion reason?
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:02 AM on January 2, 2009
Also, this is a great case for Original Posts to have an icon/link at the TOP of the thread when MeTa's get opened that directly reference them. (In addition to the argument that its hard to find "Meta'd" in an especially long, contentious thread.)
Something I hadn't thought of until now, but it'd also provide a way to prolong a thread and essentially "re-open" it if we automatically did this for every metatalk'd thread. In other words, if you thought there were too many "why was my post deleted?" metatalk threads before, they would be multiplied several-fold if we made that change.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on January 2, 2009
Something I hadn't thought of until now, but it'd also provide a way to prolong a thread and essentially "re-open" it if we automatically did this for every metatalk'd thread. In other words, if you thought there were too many "why was my post deleted?" metatalk threads before, they would be multiplied several-fold if we made that change.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:04 AM on January 2, 2009
Fine, what would be an acceptable deletion reason?
"Objectively fascist under current material conditions"
posted by Abiezer at 10:05 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
"Objectively fascist under current material conditions"
posted by Abiezer at 10:05 AM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
The problem with the post is that its not crafted well and not entirely appropriate for Metafilter, right? I'd speak to that. Or you could just write "It's complicated." and link it to this thread.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:07 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by iamkimiam at 10:07 AM on January 2, 2009
Last year, I submitted an anonymous post to ask me that never made it through to the green. It's okay, though. I learned I'm just not that important.
posted by studentbaker at 10:14 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by studentbaker at 10:14 AM on January 2, 2009
I vote for Ezekiel 25:17 for all future deletion reasons.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:17 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 10:17 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
But isn't the point of a MetaTalk'd thread for everybody to see that its been MeTa'd? It makes sense to me that the posts go both ways. It's easy to find the post that a MeTa thread references...it's damn near impossible to go in the other direction. For example, I was trying to find the sexism MeTa that resulted from the pole-vaulting picture thread. It was pretty tedious and I had to do multiple searches. It would have been nice if the threads were cross-referenced.
I get what you're saying though. Closing/deleting a thread effectively silences the discussion, which is often necessary. People knowing that their MeTa's would get linked back to their deleted post might encourage more MeTa callouts, so that they can reopen the discussion. Maybe the solution is only cross-linking for MeTa's that are made in open threads/discussions, not closed/deleted ones.
So in this particular example here, the thread would NOT get cross-linked because the callout was made after the thread was closed. Besides, changing the deletion reason makes referencing the MeTa somewhat unnecessary, since the thread would be pretty self-contained (unproblematic) after that point.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:17 AM on January 2, 2009
I get what you're saying though. Closing/deleting a thread effectively silences the discussion, which is often necessary. People knowing that their MeTa's would get linked back to their deleted post might encourage more MeTa callouts, so that they can reopen the discussion. Maybe the solution is only cross-linking for MeTa's that are made in open threads/discussions, not closed/deleted ones.
So in this particular example here, the thread would NOT get cross-linked because the callout was made after the thread was closed. Besides, changing the deletion reason makes referencing the MeTa somewhat unnecessary, since the thread would be pretty self-contained (unproblematic) after that point.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:17 AM on January 2, 2009
It's okay to drop us a line and inquire if you aren't seeing your anony submission showing up, studentbaker. It might be that there was something weird or unclear about it, or we just plain missed it or misclicked (approval is a totally manual process).
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:18 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:18 AM on January 2, 2009
gman, you ignored my question. Half of the text above the fold in your post is about the flame graphic. Yes, there were other links, but you spent quite a bit of space describing something that was interpreted by many people as making an ironic joke. Why even mention it?
So it's crystal clear - I mentioned it because I thought it was fuckin' crazy and unfortunate that they put a flaming gif beside the listing of a night in which people were killed/injured by fire.
I used about 1/4 of the words and 1/8 the links in my post to describe where to find the gif.
posted by gman at 10:20 AM on January 2, 2009
So it's crystal clear - I mentioned it because I thought it was fuckin' crazy and unfortunate that they put a flaming gif beside the listing of a night in which people were killed/injured by fire.
I used about 1/4 of the words and 1/8 the links in my post to describe where to find the gif.
posted by gman at 10:20 AM on January 2, 2009
MeTa post: New Year's resolutions for MetaFilter
Less deletions than last year.
posted to MetaTalk by gman at 10:13 AM on December 31, 2008 [+]
Fantastic start.
posted by xorry at 10:28 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Less deletions than last year.
posted to MetaTalk by gman at 10:13 AM on December 31, 2008 [+]
Fantastic start.
posted by xorry at 10:28 AM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Another thing that's nice about having the MeTa link at the top is that it gives background information that is helpful to whoever reads the post. In the pole-vaulting thread I used as an example above, one might read it initially and think, "Geez, Mefites are a bunch of assholes! What's up with all the 'I'd hit that' crap?!" Most people wouldn't bother to continue down to comment #1,002 or whatever to find that it evolved into a really interesting discussion that raised the standard of the community, as mostly seen by clicking on the "MeTa'd" link buried at the bottom.
Having a link at the top of that pole-vaulting thread that says "This is discussed further in MetaTalk [link]" could bring people straight to the healthy discussion before they give up or slog through to comment 1002, getting enraged all along the way.
I would certainly be more proud of the site knowing that we are pointing people towards the solutions and resolutions to our follies, rather than just leaving them unexplicably splattered all over the green and blue.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:29 AM on January 2, 2009
Having a link at the top of that pole-vaulting thread that says "This is discussed further in MetaTalk [link]" could bring people straight to the healthy discussion before they give up or slog through to comment 1002, getting enraged all along the way.
I would certainly be more proud of the site knowing that we are pointing people towards the solutions and resolutions to our follies, rather than just leaving them unexplicably splattered all over the green and blue.
posted by iamkimiam at 10:29 AM on January 2, 2009
Metafilter: people besides Matt and me.
Metafilter: not crafted well and not entirely appropriate.
MetaTalk: unless the deletion reason is changed, it will always appear that way
blue_beetle: repeating nonfunny taglines ad naseum.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:30 AM on January 2, 2009
Metafilter: not crafted well and not entirely appropriate.
MetaTalk: unless the deletion reason is changed, it will always appear that way
blue_beetle: repeating nonfunny taglines ad naseum.
posted by blue_beetle at 10:30 AM on January 2, 2009
Fine, what would be an acceptable deletion reason?
posted by mathowie at 10:02 AM on January 2
"This post is butt. Seriously, this is a butt post."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
posted by mathowie at 10:02 AM on January 2
"This post is butt. Seriously, this is a butt post."
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 10:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [5 favorites]
And after 3 back and forths, I was done emailing.
And so you wisely decided to... what, exactly? Force the moderator's hands by trying to incite a public uproar based on your perception of a deletion reason that isn't seen by 90%+ of the site's membership?
Were I mathowie I would have deployed the banhammer with extreme prejudice. He's told you three times already. He's the head honcho here. How many times are you going to ask him to change a silly deletion reason?
There are better ways to waste your time.
posted by splice at 10:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
And so you wisely decided to... what, exactly? Force the moderator's hands by trying to incite a public uproar based on your perception of a deletion reason that isn't seen by 90%+ of the site's membership?
Were I mathowie I would have deployed the banhammer with extreme prejudice. He's told you three times already. He's the head honcho here. How many times are you going to ask him to change a silly deletion reason?
There are better ways to waste your time.
posted by splice at 10:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I suppose it is asking for trouble, but how about a "Mefi Posts Deleted: ___" line in one's profile?
posted by R. Mutt at 11:12 AM on January 2, 2009
posted by R. Mutt at 11:12 AM on January 2, 2009
deletion reason: "gman is being a dick about this"
posted by Justinian at 11:13 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Justinian at 11:13 AM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I've gone ahead and amended the deletion reason, with Matt's blessing.
iamkimiam, I hear what you're saying and don't totally disagree with the sentiment—I think I made tentative arguments for the auto-linking idea a couple years back myself, when it came up—but I think by and large the system as it works right now is good enough and keeps things fairly simple. Folks dropping a "Metatalk..." link in active threads in the context of contentiousness works pretty well; linking on threads after they've been deleted is not so useful in general and folks concerned about the situation are likely to check Metatalk themselves anyway.
I hear you on the cross-referencing angle, and it may be we'll find some way to make it easier to find those cross-references, but that problem (near to my armchair-archivist heart as it is) is more of an edge case than a substantial UI/interaction problem.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:14 AM on January 2, 2009
iamkimiam, I hear what you're saying and don't totally disagree with the sentiment—I think I made tentative arguments for the auto-linking idea a couple years back myself, when it came up—but I think by and large the system as it works right now is good enough and keeps things fairly simple. Folks dropping a "Metatalk..." link in active threads in the context of contentiousness works pretty well; linking on threads after they've been deleted is not so useful in general and folks concerned about the situation are likely to check Metatalk themselves anyway.
I hear you on the cross-referencing angle, and it may be we'll find some way to make it easier to find those cross-references, but that problem (near to my armchair-archivist heart as it is) is more of an edge case than a substantial UI/interaction problem.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:14 AM on January 2, 2009
I suppose it is asking for trouble, but how about a "Mefi Posts Deleted: ___" line in one's profile?
That isn't asking for trouble, that's asking for no.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:15 AM on January 2, 2009
That isn't asking for trouble, that's asking for no.
posted by cortex (staff) at 11:15 AM on January 2, 2009
... and because I couldn't find any previous links to the Great White fire (I didn't look too hard).
There was one, but it's hard to find, as the FPP deals with the follow-on legal issues and not the tragedy of the fire at The Station (West Warwick, RI) directly.
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on January 2, 2009
There was one, but it's hard to find, as the FPP deals with the follow-on legal issues and not the tragedy of the fire at The Station (West Warwick, RI) directly.
posted by ericb at 11:28 AM on January 2, 2009
I always thought the most weird and notable thing about the Great White incident was that it was Great White, not where it happened, but that may just be me.
Here in New England the most notable thing about The Station nightclub fire was the lack of sprinklers, the highly flammable egg-crate foam material on the back wall of the stage and the resulting stampede and quick-spreading inferno that englufed the building in minutes, not to mention the lack of permits for indoor pyrotechnics that were set-off by the band's tour manager.
As a result of the tragedy, fire codes in RI, MA, etc. have been upgraded to some of the most stringent in the country with all bars/cubs required to have sprinkler systems, all materials must pass fire tests, etc.
posted by ericb at 11:36 AM on January 2, 2009
Here in New England the most notable thing about The Station nightclub fire was the lack of sprinklers, the highly flammable egg-crate foam material on the back wall of the stage and the resulting stampede and quick-spreading inferno that englufed the building in minutes, not to mention the lack of permits for indoor pyrotechnics that were set-off by the band's tour manager.
As a result of the tragedy, fire codes in RI, MA, etc. have been upgraded to some of the most stringent in the country with all bars/cubs required to have sprinkler systems, all materials must pass fire tests, etc.
posted by ericb at 11:36 AM on January 2, 2009
The senior citizens don't like the strut
that gman affects when he busts his nut
too many times his posts get cut
and gman in your face like whut whut whut
posted by stinkycheese at 11:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
that gman affects when he busts his nut
too many times his posts get cut
and gman in your face like whut whut whut
posted by stinkycheese at 11:53 AM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
Metafilter: I learned I'm just not that important.
posted by adamvasco at 12:15 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by adamvasco at 12:15 PM on January 2, 2009
gman, this is not clearing the air. Clearing the air is maybe talking to another one of us on the mod team and getting a read about what happened. We're all trying to have holidaytime the same as everyone else and if it looked like we did something hastily, then we can reexamine it. You're a heavy user of the site. You post a lot, you comment a lot and you're in MetaTalk an awful lot. That's fine, mostly. However, for someone who seems to enjoy the site and use it a lot, there's a pretty high mod-griefing ratio that I'm not sure how to unpack.
I missed this whole thing as it was unfolding, but this is just some post-game analysis from me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:19 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I missed this whole thing as it was unfolding, but this is just some post-game analysis from me.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 12:19 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
That deletion reason is harsh and makes the OP look bad, especially since his post is not so great already.
No, the terrible post makes the OP look bad.
And so you wisely decided to... what, exactly? Force the moderator's hands by trying to incite a public uproar based on your perception of a deletion reason that isn't seen by 90%+ of the site's membership?
The great thing about people crying about a deleted post is that it draws ones attention to how stupid they are.
posted by rodgerd at 12:52 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
No, the terrible post makes the OP look bad.
And so you wisely decided to... what, exactly? Force the moderator's hands by trying to incite a public uproar based on your perception of a deletion reason that isn't seen by 90%+ of the site's membership?
The great thing about people crying about a deleted post is that it draws ones attention to how stupid they are.
posted by rodgerd at 12:52 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Wait, so a club that had a fire also had a gif on its website of a burning flame? AND ON TOP OF THAT Gman's friend emailed him about it, mentioning the gif?
That shit needs sidebarred, stat. And should be on Drudge. Alert Twitter! Rouse the blogosphere. The word must get out.
posted by bonaldi at 1:40 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
That shit needs sidebarred, stat. And should be on Drudge. Alert Twitter! Rouse the blogosphere. The word must get out.
posted by bonaldi at 1:40 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
We didn't start the fire
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:05 PM on January 2, 2009
It was always burning
Since the world's been turning
We didn't start the fire
No we didn't light it
But we tried to fight it
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 2:05 PM on January 2, 2009
And so you wisely decided to... what, exactly? Force the moderator's hands by trying to incite a public uproar based on your perception of a deletion reason that isn't seen by 90%+ of the site's membership?
As stated above, I tried to get the deletion reason amended privately. When that didn't work, I did so publicly and it had the desired effect - I've gone ahead and amended the deletion reason, with Matt's blessing. -cortex
Were I mathowie I would have deployed the banhammer with extreme prejudice. He's told you three times already. He's the head honcho here. How many times are you going to ask him to change a silly deletion reason?
Well then thank fuck you're not, I guess. He's told me what three times already?
There are better ways to waste your time.
Like, say, entering a thread for the sole purpose of kissing a mod's ass?
posted by gman at 2:47 PM on January 2, 2009
As stated above, I tried to get the deletion reason amended privately. When that didn't work, I did so publicly and it had the desired effect - I've gone ahead and amended the deletion reason, with Matt's blessing. -cortex
Were I mathowie I would have deployed the banhammer with extreme prejudice. He's told you three times already. He's the head honcho here. How many times are you going to ask him to change a silly deletion reason?
Well then thank fuck you're not, I guess. He's told me what three times already?
There are better ways to waste your time.
Like, say, entering a thread for the sole purpose of kissing a mod's ass?
posted by gman at 2:47 PM on January 2, 2009
This is all because we still have that stupid "Everyone needs a hug" crap at the bottom of this page.
posted by Wolfdog at 2:49 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by Wolfdog at 2:49 PM on January 2, 2009
Like, say, entering a thread for the sole purpose of kissing a mod's ass?
Almost as enjoyable as poking fun at an idiot.
posted by rodgerd at 2:52 PM on January 2, 2009
Almost as enjoyable as poking fun at an idiot.
posted by rodgerd at 2:52 PM on January 2, 2009
Who cares what the deletion reason is? The only place you'll see it is in a past that WAS DELETED. Doesn't that mean the only people who should be seeing a reason at all are the original poster and anybody who wants to go rubbernecking for train wrecks?
If I was the mods, I wouldn't be changing a reason, and if I did change a reason, I'd just change it to "because I said so."
posted by willnot at 3:11 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
If I was the mods, I wouldn't be changing a reason, and if I did change a reason, I'd just change it to "because I said so."
posted by willnot at 3:11 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
A lesson from this debacle I can come up with is; Make sure your post is clear and concise. don't try to imply meaning.
Don't omit information if you think it is obvious; it might not be, and can be misunderstood.
posted by Catfry at 3:19 PM on January 2, 2009
Don't omit information if you think it is obvious; it might not be, and can be misunderstood.
posted by Catfry at 3:19 PM on January 2, 2009
As stated above, I tried to get the deletion reason amended privately. When that didn't work, I did so publicly
...skipping, for the record, a less nuclear option of just plain writing to me or jessamyn first to get a second opinion.
and it had the desired effect
And one I feel a bit weird about even enabling, in no small part because, seriously, six people were going to see that deletion reason before you made a public spectacle of it. I changed it because it seemed to be really eating you and Matt was willing to shrug it off if I changed it to something that seemed to address that, but please don't take this as a sign that this Metatalk thread is some shining beacon of goodness and light. It was a lot of fuss over a fairly crap post that had already been deleted, and there are other things we could have been doing with our day besides going back and forth with you on this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:23 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
...skipping, for the record, a less nuclear option of just plain writing to me or jessamyn first to get a second opinion.
and it had the desired effect
And one I feel a bit weird about even enabling, in no small part because, seriously, six people were going to see that deletion reason before you made a public spectacle of it. I changed it because it seemed to be really eating you and Matt was willing to shrug it off if I changed it to something that seemed to address that, but please don't take this as a sign that this Metatalk thread is some shining beacon of goodness and light. It was a lot of fuss over a fairly crap post that had already been deleted, and there are other things we could have been doing with our day besides going back and forth with you on this.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:23 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
there are other things we could have been doing with our day besides going back and forth with you on this.
This. We're thinking of ways to do more neat stuff with the Infodump and one of the stats I would personally like to see is "how much admin time does this user take up?" which would add up things like
- flags [on posts and comments]
- email/MeMail
- chats
- MeTa threads started
My guess is that there are 20-40 users who take up as much admin time as the next 900, and 34,060 or so that we almost never see or hear from. We exist to help people, keep the site running and generally be the human face of a site that largely runs itself. We're happy to answer questions and don't want people to shy away from asking us things or getting our read on things. Yet, I feel that the understanding that we have finite time and a huge collection of people to be answerable to, sometimes goes unnnoticed when something happens that is A Big Deal to a user or two and not that much of a thing to the rest of the site. This is one of those things.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:41 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
This. We're thinking of ways to do more neat stuff with the Infodump and one of the stats I would personally like to see is "how much admin time does this user take up?" which would add up things like
- flags [on posts and comments]
- email/MeMail
- chats
- MeTa threads started
My guess is that there are 20-40 users who take up as much admin time as the next 900, and 34,060 or so that we almost never see or hear from. We exist to help people, keep the site running and generally be the human face of a site that largely runs itself. We're happy to answer questions and don't want people to shy away from asking us things or getting our read on things. Yet, I feel that the understanding that we have finite time and a huge collection of people to be answerable to, sometimes goes unnnoticed when something happens that is A Big Deal to a user or two and not that much of a thing to the rest of the site. This is one of those things.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:41 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
ooo my head, that crack in the wall isn't getting any smaller.
posted by edgeways at 3:44 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by edgeways at 3:44 PM on January 2, 2009
I would personally like to see is "how much admin time does this user take up?"
Now that's cool. I would personally like to be able to look at user profiles, including my own, and say "This user takes up 3% of Jessamyn's time -- which is way too fucking much." Kinda reminds me of Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock actually -- Jackets? Is this what you're talking about now? Lemon, do you realize that your little show generates 3% of our revenue yet takes up 90% of my time??
I'm sure that wouldn't devolve into a contest. No way. Never happen.
**MODS! PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!!!**
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:47 PM on January 2, 2009
Now that's cool. I would personally like to be able to look at user profiles, including my own, and say "This user takes up 3% of Jessamyn's time -- which is way too fucking much." Kinda reminds me of Alec Baldwin in 30 Rock actually -- Jackets? Is this what you're talking about now? Lemon, do you realize that your little show generates 3% of our revenue yet takes up 90% of my time??
I'm sure that wouldn't devolve into a contest. No way. Never happen.
**MODS! PAY ATTENTION TO MEEEEE!!!**
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 3:47 PM on January 2, 2009
Like, say, entering a thread for the sole purpose of kissing a mod's ass?
Because that's the most obvious motive of someone who's critical of you in regards to this tempest in a teapot.
posted by CKmtl at 3:50 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Because that's the most obvious motive of someone who's critical of you in regards to this tempest in a teapot.
posted by CKmtl at 3:50 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
I'm sure that wouldn't devolve into a contest. No way. Never happen.
Assign each hour a price, like $10, and then when the price of their wasted time goes over $5, they are banned and have to pay again to get another $5 of admin time.
It could work! A free market approach to moderating forums.
posted by smackfu at 3:56 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Assign each hour a price, like $10, and then when the price of their wasted time goes over $5, they are banned and have to pay again to get another $5 of admin time.
It could work! A free market approach to moderating forums.
posted by smackfu at 3:56 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
It's all very simply solved:
Replacement deletion reason - Dude, this is you, okay?: [makes goofy face, sticks out tongue, waves arms around in the air] Neeeeuuuurrrrrr wakka-wakka-wakka phhhbt! phhhbt! huh-huh-huh! doiiiieeeeuuuurrrr DUUUUUUHHHHHHHH
Replacement callout opening: Oh my God, you guys, I just realized that I wrote in this deleted FPP could have been interpreted as me being a total douche who makes jokes about people dying IN A FIRE. I have no idea why I wasn't paying more attention to what I wrote, but I assure you that wasn't my intent at all. I completely apologize to anyone who was offended; I'm posting this so that you don't come away from the deleted post with the idea that I'm the kind of person who makes jokes about tragedies.
Yes, yes, everyone's very welcome.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:57 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Replacement deletion reason - Dude, this is you, okay?: [makes goofy face, sticks out tongue, waves arms around in the air] Neeeeuuuurrrrrr wakka-wakka-wakka phhhbt! phhhbt! huh-huh-huh! doiiiieeeeuuuurrrr DUUUUUUHHHHHHHH
Replacement callout opening: Oh my God, you guys, I just realized that I wrote in this deleted FPP could have been interpreted as me being a total douche who makes jokes about people dying IN A FIRE. I have no idea why I wasn't paying more attention to what I wrote, but I assure you that wasn't my intent at all. I completely apologize to anyone who was offended; I'm posting this so that you don't come away from the deleted post with the idea that I'm the kind of person who makes jokes about tragedies.
Yes, yes, everyone's very welcome.
posted by kittens for breakfast at 3:57 PM on January 2, 2009 [4 favorites]
Assign each hour a price, like $10
Are you trying to suggest that the mod's time is only worth $10 an hour, smackfu? That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
If you really wanted a free market approach, the mods would be coining it. I'd suggest that a more reasonable charge scale email from the mods should cost you as much as a letter from your bank telling you that you've gone into the red without permission -- after all, it would take at least as much time and energy, and a fair bit more skill IMO.
So what do banks charge for that these days? About £30 or so?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:22 PM on January 2, 2009
Are you trying to suggest that the mod's time is only worth $10 an hour, smackfu? That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
If you really wanted a free market approach, the mods would be coining it. I'd suggest that a more reasonable charge scale email from the mods should cost you as much as a letter from your bank telling you that you've gone into the red without permission -- after all, it would take at least as much time and energy, and a fair bit more skill IMO.
So what do banks charge for that these days? About £30 or so?
posted by PeterMcDermott at 4:22 PM on January 2, 2009
as the next 900
As one of those who may be in the top 900 of mod time-wasters (I think I send you poor sods a message every other month or so) I resolve this year to strive to be part of the lower 34k.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:23 PM on January 2, 2009
As one of those who may be in the top 900 of mod time-wasters (I think I send you poor sods a message every other month or so) I resolve this year to strive to be part of the lower 34k.
posted by Deathalicious at 4:23 PM on January 2, 2009
"how much admin time does this user take up?"
There's contest for January?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:32 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
There's contest for January?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 4:32 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
I have a few thoughts about this idea. In the past year, I've used mod time to find spammers, post followups to an anon question and ask a few small etiquetty things. The mod time I have used has contributed to the site. In the year before that I got into a few public disagreements with mods and now have a big aversion to making a fuss, which I suppose is a good thing for the mods, but the way I have used their time could easily be put into the too-much category if one or two big things happen and I find myself having to take a lot of time sorting a problem out.
I suppose what I could do to moderate (heh heh) the amount of mod time I use is care less about MetaFilter, or care less about my agency as a member of the community, which would be a shame, because MetaFilter and the cultural and social stuff I have picked up here has been one of the major things that has helped me to improve my mental health, seriously, all those human relations questions and whatnot have taught me more than several bouts of expensive therapy. It's also been a place where I have gotten grounding about transitioning more into the 'mainstream' world, and been able to keep touch with my values when doing so. Finally it's helped me transition from one continent to another. It's a part of my culture, and once I realised this I began to consciously treat the site with a great deal of respect.
And I don't want to care less about MetaFilter. I hope this community is here twenty years from now and I hope it continues to grow and mature and enrich itself. And that may mean one day that I need to use a bunch of mod time. I hope I won't - heck, I am terrified of posting this comment because it may use up some mod goodwill towards me.
Maybe the solution is for me to contribute to the site in a way that justifies mod time I will use in the future, whether it's through good askme answers, through back tagging, or through contributing money when I get a chance. But at the same time I wonder what the economy and the shrinkin ad revenue and the increasing number of families MetaFilter supports will do to the relationship of moderator time to MetaFilter culture. I don't mean this as a challenge or a disagreement, just a thought, and the main change it will effect is mine - I will pay back what I use, in any way I can. Your time, mods, is valued and valuable.
I hope that as you make tools to measure user per mod minute taken that you also find ways to incorporate a way of measuring info about the positive contribution to the site that the user makes, particularly less easy to measure contributions that are not immediately apparent to a mod during a difficult situation. In a community of tens of thousands of users I can't imagine how difficult that must be, and I congratulate you for the work that you've done in supporting this community so far. What you are doing is singular. Thank you.
posted by By The Grace of God at 4:46 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
I suppose what I could do to moderate (heh heh) the amount of mod time I use is care less about MetaFilter, or care less about my agency as a member of the community, which would be a shame, because MetaFilter and the cultural and social stuff I have picked up here has been one of the major things that has helped me to improve my mental health, seriously, all those human relations questions and whatnot have taught me more than several bouts of expensive therapy. It's also been a place where I have gotten grounding about transitioning more into the 'mainstream' world, and been able to keep touch with my values when doing so. Finally it's helped me transition from one continent to another. It's a part of my culture, and once I realised this I began to consciously treat the site with a great deal of respect.
And I don't want to care less about MetaFilter. I hope this community is here twenty years from now and I hope it continues to grow and mature and enrich itself. And that may mean one day that I need to use a bunch of mod time. I hope I won't - heck, I am terrified of posting this comment because it may use up some mod goodwill towards me.
Maybe the solution is for me to contribute to the site in a way that justifies mod time I will use in the future, whether it's through good askme answers, through back tagging, or through contributing money when I get a chance. But at the same time I wonder what the economy and the shrinkin ad revenue and the increasing number of families MetaFilter supports will do to the relationship of moderator time to MetaFilter culture. I don't mean this as a challenge or a disagreement, just a thought, and the main change it will effect is mine - I will pay back what I use, in any way I can. Your time, mods, is valued and valuable.
I hope that as you make tools to measure user per mod minute taken that you also find ways to incorporate a way of measuring info about the positive contribution to the site that the user makes, particularly less easy to measure contributions that are not immediately apparent to a mod during a difficult situation. In a community of tens of thousands of users I can't imagine how difficult that must be, and I congratulate you for the work that you've done in supporting this community so far. What you are doing is singular. Thank you.
posted by By The Grace of God at 4:46 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
Are we talking about mod arithmetic?
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:53 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 4:53 PM on January 2, 2009 [2 favorites]
My hope for a pony in the new year:
A new auto-email that gets sent to mefites the moment they enter the top 20-40 time-wasting block that reads simply:
YOU'VE BEEN WASTING A LOT OF OUR TIME LATELY.
WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND WE HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
posted by koeselitz at 4:56 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
A new auto-email that gets sent to mefites the moment they enter the top 20-40 time-wasting block that reads simply:
YOU'VE BEEN WASTING A LOT OF OUR TIME LATELY.
WE KNOW WHERE YOU LIVE AND WE HAVE YOUR CREDIT CARD NUMBER.
YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED.
posted by koeselitz at 4:56 PM on January 2, 2009 [3 favorites]
Are you trying to suggest that the mod's time is only worth $10 an hour, smackfu? That sounds pretty unlikely to me.
Well you can't set the cost too high because then your $5 would be eaten up like that. So I figure it's subsidized by Google or something.
posted by smackfu at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
Well you can't set the cost too high because then your $5 would be eaten up like that. So I figure it's subsidized by Google or something.
posted by smackfu at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
I think more than 6 people tend to see the deleted threads.
I check back on my comments to see why they're not getting any favorites (in the rare event that I'm not garnering enough attention). 90% of the time these are in deleted threads.
And I have an addiction to the deletedthread blog. I was going to point to the SLYT cat video as being a more worthless than a club fire post, but couldn't find it. I mean, hey, if this one survived, there's no reason the fire post should have gone away, but then I saw it didn't survive.
And as an aside, this new reason for deleting gman's thread sucks, since it's a cortex reason and it's not funny! Seriously, the deletion reasons usually make me laugh, and is the primary reason for my deleted thread blog addiction.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
I check back on my comments to see why they're not getting any favorites (in the rare event that I'm not garnering enough attention). 90% of the time these are in deleted threads.
And I have an addiction to the deletedthread blog. I was going to point to the SLYT cat video as being a more worthless than a club fire post, but couldn't find it. I mean, hey, if this one survived, there's no reason the fire post should have gone away, but then I saw it didn't survive.
And as an aside, this new reason for deleting gman's thread sucks, since it's a cortex reason and it's not funny! Seriously, the deletion reasons usually make me laugh, and is the primary reason for my deleted thread blog addiction.
posted by cjorgensen at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
kittens for breakfast: Replacement deletion reason - Dude, this is you, okay?: [makes goofy face, sticks out tongue, waves arms around in the air] Neeeeuuuurrrrrr wakka-wakka-wakka phhhbt! phhhbt! huh-huh-huh! doiiiieeeeuuuurrrr DUUUUUUHHHHHHHH
Yes. But with gif.
posted by koeselitz at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
Yes. But with gif.
posted by koeselitz at 4:58 PM on January 2, 2009
My guess is that there are 20-40 users who take up as much admin time as the next 900, and 34,060 or so that we almost never see or hear from.
*Ponders whether to post joke about the Long Tail*
posted by lukemeister at 5:13 PM on January 2, 2009
*Ponders whether to post joke about the Long Tail*
posted by lukemeister at 5:13 PM on January 2, 2009
Metafilter: I check back on my comments to see why they're not getting any favorites (in the rare event that I'm not garnering enough attention).
posted by availablelight at 5:33 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by availablelight at 5:33 PM on January 2, 2009 [1 favorite]
This seems to be as good a place as any to mention that my wife asked me a question about something today as I was reading this thread. I said that I would look it up on the Internet. I looked, and looked some more, about 5 minutes worth of reading, when I saw something relevant in the Google annotation from Metafilter and thought, "I bet they know what's going on." I opened it up, only to find that it was my own comment from two years ago about the same damned thing that she was asking now. So, now not only am I wasting my own and Metafilter's time here telling this story and totally jacking gman's lame call-out, but I also seem to be on the way to wasting time by inadvertently consulting myself on Metafilter by finding own old clever admissions of ignorance (since what I had written in no way demonstrated that I knew the answer then either).
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:39 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:39 PM on January 2, 2009
mrmojoflying, check back in 2 years.
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by cjorgensen at 5:45 PM on January 2, 2009
those mean mods tweated you so unfair!
I just would like to say I hope the mods tweat me some time! (Sounds like fun!)
posted by P.o.B. at 6:25 PM on January 2, 2009
I just would like to say I hope the mods tweat me some time! (Sounds like fun!)
posted by P.o.B. at 6:25 PM on January 2, 2009
I hope that as you make tools to measure user per mod minute taken that you also find ways to incorporate a way of measuring info about the positive contribution to the site that the user makes, particularly less easy to measure contributions that are not immediately apparent to a mod during a difficult situation.
Woah there with that plate o' beans. It were a joek. Either way: mod time is mod time. And do-gooders hoover it up just as quick as everybody else.
posted by bonaldi at 8:00 PM on January 2, 2009
Woah there with that plate o' beans. It were a joek. Either way: mod time is mod time. And do-gooders hoover it up just as quick as everybody else.
posted by bonaldi at 8:00 PM on January 2, 2009
P.o.B.: "those mean mods tweated you so unfair!
I just would like to say I hope the mods tweat me some time! (Sounds like fun!)"
Little kid voice, silly. :)
posted by CwgrlUp at 9:06 PM on January 2, 2009
I just would like to say I hope the mods tweat me some time! (Sounds like fun!)"
Little kid voice, silly. :)
posted by CwgrlUp at 9:06 PM on January 2, 2009
I would have marked Jessamyn's suggestion as a favorite, but it goes against my policy of only adding snarky things to my faves, and/or things that I will directly benefit from.
Pony: Can we tag our favorites? Categorize them? You know, favorite dumb flameout post on MeTa, favorite sensible answers, favorite snark, favorite brilliant nonsensical comments, favorite things that are just plain cool, etc.?
That's the only pony I'll be asking for any time soon. Promise.
posted by brina at 9:23 PM on January 2, 2009
Pony: Can we tag our favorites? Categorize them? You know, favorite dumb flameout post on MeTa, favorite sensible answers, favorite snark, favorite brilliant nonsensical comments, favorite things that are just plain cool, etc.?
That's the only pony I'll be asking for any time soon. Promise.
posted by brina at 9:23 PM on January 2, 2009
hey, I think someone cried himself to sleep.
posted by longsleeves at 10:01 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by longsleeves at 10:01 PM on January 2, 2009
Even if you hadn't made a link to the little flamey gif - I would have flagged your post (if I'd even bothered to read it), because it's just sensationalist, ghoulish crap. If I want to see that type of story, I will watch CNN. Geez, maybe there should be an age requirement for Metafilter membership.
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:15 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by The Light Fantastic at 10:15 PM on January 2, 2009
Yeah, even without your silly gif its still newsfilter wanna-be shock TV shit. That aint the best of the web. Hell, thats not even the best of you tube!
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:22 PM on January 2, 2009
posted by damn dirty ape at 10:22 PM on January 2, 2009
I've also had issues finding the meta link in posts on the blue before. Maybe could the comment which provides the link be highlighted in some way, much like askme best answers or updates from the questioner are?
Then it's easier to find, but not at the top, and it won't show up in deleted posts.
posted by nat at 11:23 PM on January 2, 2009
Then it's easier to find, but not at the top, and it won't show up in deleted posts.
posted by nat at 11:23 PM on January 2, 2009
Man, so many words, when only two are needed:
Shit Post
posted by mattoxic at 11:44 PM on January 2, 2009
Shit Post
posted by mattoxic at 11:44 PM on January 2, 2009
It's funny you should mention that. While my dog, like any other, often stops to pee at the nearby signpost, the other day he actually sidled up to it and shat on it. It was a strange thing to see. Completely unexpected. Frankly, it seems like the kind of thing I would do if I were a dog, given how confused my actions can sometimes be first thing in the morning -- try to put the milk in the cupboard and the cereal in the fridge. That kind of thing. I'm a responsible owner and so pick up after him without fail, but given his uncanny aim, I'm afraid that I myself left a bit of a shit post.
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:00 AM on January 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by Durn Bronzefist at 12:00 AM on January 3, 2009 [3 favorites]
MetaFilter: your website doesn't have sprinklers on it.
posted by phaedon at 12:18 AM on January 3, 2009
posted by phaedon at 12:18 AM on January 3, 2009
making light of a serious tragedy? unbelievable. where's your humanity, mate?
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:12 AM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by UbuRoivas at 3:12 AM on January 3, 2009 [1 favorite]
hey, I think someone cried himself to sleep.
Doesn't this site have a minimum age requirement for sign up?
posted by gman at 4:50 AM on January 3, 2009
Doesn't this site have a minimum age requirement for sign up?
posted by gman at 4:50 AM on January 3, 2009
I hope that as you make tools to measure user per mod minute taken that you also find ways to incorporate a way of measuring info about the positive contribution to the site that the user makes, particularly less easy to measure contributions that are not immediately apparent to a mod during a difficult situation.
Jesus. The plate of beans you want is just outside that door marked EGRESS down the hall.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on January 3, 2009
Jesus. The plate of beans you want is just outside that door marked EGRESS down the hall.
posted by languagehat at 6:28 AM on January 3, 2009
Doesn't this site have a minimum age requirement for sign up?
posted by gman at 4:50 AM on January 3
...Oh, God, SO many jokes I could make, but all of them too mean...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:00 PM on January 4, 2009
posted by gman at 4:50 AM on January 3
...Oh, God, SO many jokes I could make, but all of them too mean...
posted by EmpressCallipygos at 7:00 PM on January 4, 2009
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
I'm glad you weren't trying to poke fun at it, but putting the spotlight on it right in the middle of the post is a pretty unfortunately jarring choice regardless of your intent (just ill-considered "huh" factor, I guess, in this case?) and it's not surprising that people thought you were taking the piss on a pretty charged subject.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:28 AM on January 2, 2009