Has there ever been any thought of limiting the number of posts to the blue in a 24 hour period? May 20, 2011 9:39 PM Subscribe
Has there ever been any thought of limiting the number of posts to the blue in a 24 hour period?
This is a bit of a devil's advocate, seeing what people think post, in which I float an idea I am not sure of and am pretty sure the mods will shoot down instantly... but would be curious to hear people's thoughts on anyway.
As someone who has read the site every day for over a decade, I've been thinking about changes to the MeFi culture over the years. One difference that I doubt is just true for me is that while lurking in 2001 I knew every name, by joining in 2004 that was down to about half of the people, and nowadays I'm very lucky if I recognize more than a handful of the names in any one thread.
I don't know if this is objectively bad, but I miss that time where you knew your neighbors on the blue and ran into the same people more often. You could get to know everyone in a way you just can't now. I think the key difference though isn't the larger number of raw people, but the much faster stream of posts for people to spread out between. The userbase on the blue alone is probably active in 40-60 at any one time, so there are fewer solid discussions and more quick drive-bys as people drop a comment and move to the next shiny topic never to look back and continue a discussion
We're a shallow lake rather than a narrow trench, if that makes any sense.
But what would happen if we limited the number of threads on the blue in a 24 hour period? For the sake of argument, let's say 20 in a rolling 24 hour period, or maybe letting in two per hour block. The details aren't important. What is important is that less threads would mean more focus in each one and more interaction betwen any two people, which leads to more familiarity, more civility, and a small return to that old-school small town feeling I think we've lost somewhat.
Hell, it might even reduce the number of marginal posts, as people will retry posting a well thought out post if the site is 'full', while people might not bother to retry half-ass whim posts. Or perhaps my theories are just wrong, and all we would do is sacrifice diversity of topic with no corresponding gain in depth in conversation. As I said, this is more of a stupidly longwinded RFD than anything else.
Thoughts?
This is a bit of a devil's advocate, seeing what people think post, in which I float an idea I am not sure of and am pretty sure the mods will shoot down instantly... but would be curious to hear people's thoughts on anyway.
As someone who has read the site every day for over a decade, I've been thinking about changes to the MeFi culture over the years. One difference that I doubt is just true for me is that while lurking in 2001 I knew every name, by joining in 2004 that was down to about half of the people, and nowadays I'm very lucky if I recognize more than a handful of the names in any one thread.
I don't know if this is objectively bad, but I miss that time where you knew your neighbors on the blue and ran into the same people more often. You could get to know everyone in a way you just can't now. I think the key difference though isn't the larger number of raw people, but the much faster stream of posts for people to spread out between. The userbase on the blue alone is probably active in 40-60 at any one time, so there are fewer solid discussions and more quick drive-bys as people drop a comment and move to the next shiny topic never to look back and continue a discussion
We're a shallow lake rather than a narrow trench, if that makes any sense.
But what would happen if we limited the number of threads on the blue in a 24 hour period? For the sake of argument, let's say 20 in a rolling 24 hour period, or maybe letting in two per hour block. The details aren't important. What is important is that less threads would mean more focus in each one and more interaction betwen any two people, which leads to more familiarity, more civility, and a small return to that old-school small town feeling I think we've lost somewhat.
Hell, it might even reduce the number of marginal posts, as people will retry posting a well thought out post if the site is 'full', while people might not bother to retry half-ass whim posts. Or perhaps my theories are just wrong, and all we would do is sacrifice diversity of topic with no corresponding gain in depth in conversation. As I said, this is more of a stupidly longwinded RFD than anything else.
Thoughts?
stupidly longwinded
Agreed.
Everything else - disagreed.
posted by crossoverman at 9:51 PM on May 20, 2011
Agreed.
Everything else - disagreed.
posted by crossoverman at 9:51 PM on May 20, 2011
John Kenneth Fisher: "The userbase on the blue alone is probably active in 40-60 at any one time, so there are fewer solid discussions and more quick drive-bys as people drop a comment and move to the next shiny topic never to look back and continue a discussion"
This is what Recent Activity, live updates, and the occasional vanity search are for. Preventing people from posting when they'd like would alienate more than it would bring people together, I think.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:56 PM on May 20, 2011
This is what Recent Activity, live updates, and the occasional vanity search are for. Preventing people from posting when they'd like would alienate more than it would bring people together, I think.
posted by Rhaomi at 9:56 PM on May 20, 2011
I'd actually be in favor of tighter moderation of the front page; as it is, a post can scroll off the front pretty quickly- certainly it's possible for the non-addicted Mefite to miss dozens of posts in a month simply due to lapses in visiting, and if we make it a chore to catch up due to sheer volume, many people will forgo that option, which might have a negative effect on the community.
So, who decides what's good and what isn't? In Mod we trust, but an unusual feature here is that everyone is (or can be) watching the watchers.
The best of the Internet? Sad to say, a lot of posts don't aspire to that any more. Some don't even swing at it, preferring to stand there lamely as the comments swoosh by. I'd have to do a Mea Culpa to that on occasion myself, but I'm the only one whose posting behavior I can influence. Poster, edit thyself.
DO we need more rules? I don't think so. We might just need to self police a little better, and not give the mods so much shit when they delete something for being weak sauce. We have a pretty good thing here, let's not screw it up.
posted by pjern at 10:02 PM on May 20, 2011
So, who decides what's good and what isn't? In Mod we trust, but an unusual feature here is that everyone is (or can be) watching the watchers.
The best of the Internet? Sad to say, a lot of posts don't aspire to that any more. Some don't even swing at it, preferring to stand there lamely as the comments swoosh by. I'd have to do a Mea Culpa to that on occasion myself, but I'm the only one whose posting behavior I can influence. Poster, edit thyself.
DO we need more rules? I don't think so. We might just need to self police a little better, and not give the mods so much shit when they delete something for being weak sauce. We have a pretty good thing here, let's not screw it up.
posted by pjern at 10:02 PM on May 20, 2011
as it is, a post can scroll off the front pretty quickly- certainly it's possible for the non-addicted Mefite to miss dozens of posts in a month simply due to lapses in visiting
RSS feeds are your friend if you have to catch everything that happens on any particular color of Metafilter. If your browser doesn't have the handy feed icon in the corner of the status bar, they're available in the menu at the bottom of each page.
Getting RSS feeds has changed how I use the site. I'm definitely more aware of posts I'm interested in. The downside is sometimes I forget not to read things that I should know will only raise my blood pressure. (I solve this problem with Ask by only getting the feed for My Ask, which is limited-topic.)
posted by immlass at 10:13 PM on May 20, 2011
RSS feeds are your friend if you have to catch everything that happens on any particular color of Metafilter. If your browser doesn't have the handy feed icon in the corner of the status bar, they're available in the menu at the bottom of each page.
Getting RSS feeds has changed how I use the site. I'm definitely more aware of posts I'm interested in. The downside is sometimes I forget not to read things that I should know will only raise my blood pressure. (I solve this problem with Ask by only getting the feed for My Ask, which is limited-topic.)
posted by immlass at 10:13 PM on May 20, 2011
I can empathize a bit here too. I've "only" been here three years (Jesus) and I hardly recognize anyone sometimes, it's a bit disconcerting. Most of the OGs I remember from my early days just sort of faded away (or flamed out spectacularly), departure is one aspect no online community handles well in my opinion.
Still, I don't think there needs to be a structural change, that's just the nature of the internet.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:21 PM on May 20, 2011
Still, I don't think there needs to be a structural change, that's just the nature of the internet.
posted by 2bucksplus at 10:21 PM on May 20, 2011
One difference that I doubt is just true for me is that while lurking in 2001 I knew every name, by joining in 2004 that was down to about half of the people, and nowadays I'm very lucky if I recognize more than a handful of the names in any one thread.
Ignoring, of course, the lurkers. You don't know them—you can't know them but they're here too, favoriting stuff, lurking, you know. This site isn't just about the people who are tip-tap-typing all day long on it.
The userbase on the blue alone is probably active in 40-60 at any one time, so there are fewer solid discussions and more quick drive-bys as people drop a comment and move to the next shiny topic never to look back and continue a discussion
Like Rhaomi suggests, the people who are reading and participating in lots of threads are likely handling it through Recent Activity. That tool allows one to follow many discussions as they happen, and it's super easy to hop back into a thread from there and continue to participate after drive-by comment #1.
But what would happen if we limited the number of threads on the blue in a 24 hour period?
The bit you write after this suggests you're only considering what would happen within threads, but think of the changes wrought on the posting dynamic. Who chooses the 20 posts? The mods? First-come, first-serve? Only those with a certain number of favorites? Or a certain ratio of previous contributions to favorites? There's no good way to determine who posts and who doesn't.
Hell, it might even reduce the number of marginal posts, as people will retry posting a well thought out post if the site is 'full', while people might not bother to retry half-ass whim posts.
That's just like your opinion, man. One MeFite's marginal, half-ass whim post is another's 'FAVORITE THIS SHIT TWICE!'
The real solution to the problem you're perceiving, John Kenneth Fisher, is you. The only way the quality of discussion goes up is if users make the decision to participate in good faith and with good heart. No technical solution will work as well as you deciding to post one great post a day/week/whatever; no mandated change in a given thread's dynamic will be as great as the one you bring yourself.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. This is a Bad Idea but you are not necessarily a bad person for having it. You asked.
posted by carsonb at 10:27 PM on May 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
Ignoring, of course, the lurkers. You don't know them—you can't know them but they're here too, favoriting stuff, lurking, you know. This site isn't just about the people who are tip-tap-typing all day long on it.
The userbase on the blue alone is probably active in 40-60 at any one time, so there are fewer solid discussions and more quick drive-bys as people drop a comment and move to the next shiny topic never to look back and continue a discussion
Like Rhaomi suggests, the people who are reading and participating in lots of threads are likely handling it through Recent Activity. That tool allows one to follow many discussions as they happen, and it's super easy to hop back into a thread from there and continue to participate after drive-by comment #1.
But what would happen if we limited the number of threads on the blue in a 24 hour period?
The bit you write after this suggests you're only considering what would happen within threads, but think of the changes wrought on the posting dynamic. Who chooses the 20 posts? The mods? First-come, first-serve? Only those with a certain number of favorites? Or a certain ratio of previous contributions to favorites? There's no good way to determine who posts and who doesn't.
Hell, it might even reduce the number of marginal posts, as people will retry posting a well thought out post if the site is 'full', while people might not bother to retry half-ass whim posts.
That's just like your opinion, man. One MeFite's marginal, half-ass whim post is another's 'FAVORITE THIS SHIT TWICE!'
The real solution to the problem you're perceiving, John Kenneth Fisher, is you. The only way the quality of discussion goes up is if users make the decision to participate in good faith and with good heart. No technical solution will work as well as you deciding to post one great post a day/week/whatever; no mandated change in a given thread's dynamic will be as great as the one you bring yourself.
Anyway, those are my thoughts. This is a Bad Idea but you are not necessarily a bad person for having it. You asked.
posted by carsonb at 10:27 PM on May 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
Ten years active member, as of recently. (Holy shit.)
You know me. *snap*
I look good!
posted by carsonb at 10:29 PM on May 20, 2011
You know me. *snap*
I look good!
posted by carsonb at 10:29 PM on May 20, 2011
If you limit the number of posts, I bet the number of comments would go up. And would they be thoughtful comments, or "filling time til the next post appears" silly comments? Personally, I think the signal-to-noise ratio of posts here is excellent. Comments though, are much different.
posted by Joh at 10:36 PM on May 20, 2011
posted by Joh at 10:36 PM on May 20, 2011
I'm kind of a half-lurker...
I think the podcast does a great job of rounding up highlights. The things that I miss in the bustle often turn up there, especially if they concern minecraft.... I think a limit to posts per day would probably lead to people rushing to get things out early in the day, which wouldn't be terribly helpful to the feel of the site. I like the (kind of ridiculous in this day and age) knowledge that anyone can post anything (even though it may subsequently be deleted).
posted by kaibutsu at 10:38 PM on May 20, 2011
I think the podcast does a great job of rounding up highlights. The things that I miss in the bustle often turn up there, especially if they concern minecraft.... I think a limit to posts per day would probably lead to people rushing to get things out early in the day, which wouldn't be terribly helpful to the feel of the site. I like the (kind of ridiculous in this day and age) knowledge that anyone can post anything (even though it may subsequently be deleted).
posted by kaibutsu at 10:38 PM on May 20, 2011
Limiting the number of posts per unit time creates a new dynamic of competition for post slots. That doesn't reward good posts, it rewards attentive post-button-pressers; it enforces an artificial pacing to posts that ignores the natural heartbeat of the site; it creates an incentive to post weak stuff during lulls just because e.g. the 2:00 pm timeslot is still open and there's only ten minutes left before 3:00; and so on. It would create a raft of new headaches and community/moderation wrinkles. Unintended consequences galore.
As a thought experiment here it's fine, but at the risk of fulfilling your prophecy, it is indeed a non-starter as an actual pony request.
Generally speaking, I don't think we can get back to the small town of ten years ago without straight up evicting a whole lot of folks. There are a lot more people here than there were in 2001 then, though not necessarily many more people than there were five years ago, say. Re-opening signups for good in late 2004 was probably the turning point if there can be said to be one particular point.
The best advice I can give for finding some of that old engagement is to just engage. Familiar faces will wander off; unfamiliar faces will always be appearing on the scene. Make the new faces familiar, and don't let nostalgia keep you from treating the current folks like internet family if familial internetting is what you're hoping for. Reply to folks in thread when you're interested in what they have to say. Mefimail people you've got something to talk about with. Hit meetups, or better yet help organize them. Use on-site features (Recent Activity, My Ask, Contact Activity) and external tools (RSS) to attend to the bits of the site you're most interested in.
I think everybody has, or will end up having, people here they miss and high points in their memory of the site that they sort of yearn for. It's natural, it's the nature of time passing. There's no guarantee for any given person that mefi will always be the thing they want it to be, much as I wish it could be otherwise. But it's still mefi, and it's what you and I and he and she and everybody together makes it. There's no easy technical fix for wanting to catch a bit of what we best remember, but there's always the option to just roll up our sleeves and make what's here right now work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:55 PM on May 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
As a thought experiment here it's fine, but at the risk of fulfilling your prophecy, it is indeed a non-starter as an actual pony request.
Generally speaking, I don't think we can get back to the small town of ten years ago without straight up evicting a whole lot of folks. There are a lot more people here than there were in 2001 then, though not necessarily many more people than there were five years ago, say. Re-opening signups for good in late 2004 was probably the turning point if there can be said to be one particular point.
The best advice I can give for finding some of that old engagement is to just engage. Familiar faces will wander off; unfamiliar faces will always be appearing on the scene. Make the new faces familiar, and don't let nostalgia keep you from treating the current folks like internet family if familial internetting is what you're hoping for. Reply to folks in thread when you're interested in what they have to say. Mefimail people you've got something to talk about with. Hit meetups, or better yet help organize them. Use on-site features (Recent Activity, My Ask, Contact Activity) and external tools (RSS) to attend to the bits of the site you're most interested in.
I think everybody has, or will end up having, people here they miss and high points in their memory of the site that they sort of yearn for. It's natural, it's the nature of time passing. There's no guarantee for any given person that mefi will always be the thing they want it to be, much as I wish it could be otherwise. But it's still mefi, and it's what you and I and he and she and everybody together makes it. There's no easy technical fix for wanting to catch a bit of what we best remember, but there's always the option to just roll up our sleeves and make what's here right now work.
posted by cortex (staff) at 10:55 PM on May 20, 2011 [10 favorites]
The comments in threads by the known personalities can be tiresome sometimes. A feature of this site is that on any given subject a poster unknown to you can be the person with the unique perspective, the special knowledge, the great memory, the clever quip. What they write will make you stop and take notice, so that you look down at the unfamiliar username and think 'oh must be someone new'. Then you'll mouseover the name and you'll see that they've been here seven years. Or you'll click through to the profile and find that they've made 700 comments and have been favourited nearly a thousand times. And then maybe you'll notice their presence and contributions more in the coming months or they'll fade back into #006699 fog with 10,000 of the rest of us who have something to say every now and then. Like the absence of threading and signatures and avatars, the shallow lake is one of the qualities that make this place more readable than other forums.
posted by TimTypeZed at 11:02 PM on May 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
posted by TimTypeZed at 11:02 PM on May 20, 2011 [5 favorites]
All the reasons why this wouldn't work, as detailed above, explain why or be good for the site, but most of all,. I don't think it would solve the problem (a problem I'm not even sure I agree exists*)
But, again as a thought experiment, here's something I would guarantee would happen:
"What is the best day/hour/time to make sure your post is posted?"
be asked on MetaTalk again and again and again, replacing the similar AskMe question that returns so often.
* The reason I don't think the problem exists is because, though there are many vibrant personalities around here, I tend to connect to the discussion based on content of the post/comment at hand rather than the individual who posted it (with the exception of contacts I've met face-to-face); I feel like I'm a rare bird interacting with the site this way -- and either way, the OP may feel like this is a symptom of the issue. But it's actually my preference for numerous reasons, so for me, it's a Metafilter feature, not a bug.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:28 PM on May 20, 2011
But, again as a thought experiment, here's something I would guarantee would happen:
"What is the best day/hour/time to make sure your post is posted?"
be asked on MetaTalk again and again and again, replacing the similar AskMe question that returns so often.
* The reason I don't think the problem exists is because, though there are many vibrant personalities around here, I tend to connect to the discussion based on content of the post/comment at hand rather than the individual who posted it (with the exception of contacts I've met face-to-face); I feel like I'm a rare bird interacting with the site this way -- and either way, the OP may feel like this is a symptom of the issue. But it's actually my preference for numerous reasons, so for me, it's a Metafilter feature, not a bug.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 11:28 PM on May 20, 2011
Let's limit it to one post per user per day!
posted by mullacc at 11:38 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
posted by mullacc at 11:38 PM on May 20, 2011 [2 favorites]
I've been getting the opposite impression actually. I feel the site has been slowing down a bit lately, but I'm not sure if that's true or just my skewed perspective; maybe someone could mine stats from the infodump. The weekends seem dead lately, and the only posts that garner >50 comments are mostly filled with silliness rather than earnest contribution. No spectacular flameouts or drama have happened in my recent memory. When drama has flared up, it's mostly been of the tedious "I don't like this word" sort.
Though I'm not a huge contributor, I've been an obsessive reader since ~2001 and gleefully grabbed an account as soon as it was possible. Just today I went down the rabbit-hole of reading historical threads (prompted by the Kaycee roundup) about u.n. owens; reread the Hysterics thread (that prompted account closures of some people I still miss). Stuff seemed more.. vibrant? a few years ago than it does today. I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing, just an observation. I kinda feel like people don't care enough now for these things to blow up like they once did. Not to suggest big blowups are a good thing, but the lack of them makes me feel that maybe people are less invested here now.
Or maybe it's just a new crowd and I'm just stuck in the past. Probably that.
posted by cj_ at 11:51 PM on May 20, 2011
Though I'm not a huge contributor, I've been an obsessive reader since ~2001 and gleefully grabbed an account as soon as it was possible. Just today I went down the rabbit-hole of reading historical threads (prompted by the Kaycee roundup) about u.n. owens; reread the Hysterics thread (that prompted account closures of some people I still miss). Stuff seemed more.. vibrant? a few years ago than it does today. I'm not sure that's a good or bad thing, just an observation. I kinda feel like people don't care enough now for these things to blow up like they once did. Not to suggest big blowups are a good thing, but the lack of them makes me feel that maybe people are less invested here now.
Or maybe it's just a new crowd and I'm just stuck in the past. Probably that.
posted by cj_ at 11:51 PM on May 20, 2011
Just limit The Whelk to under 666 comments per day.
posted by a humble nudibranch at 12:28 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by a humble nudibranch at 12:28 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
I just ignore all the posts that don't pertain to my interests. Makes things easier.
I think the one post per day limit is strict enough.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 12:43 AM on May 21, 2011
I think the one post per day limit is strict enough.
posted by Lovecraft In Brooklyn at 12:43 AM on May 21, 2011
John Kenneth Fisher writes "(In fact if we go with the 'one per half hour' or the like, it might encourage a more world friendly pattern of posting outside of America-peak times as well)"
It would probably just encourage the creation of a grease monkey script that pounded the server until the post made it through.
However; and I know this is going to be wildly unpopular with some; I wouldn't mind seeing the posting interval increased. Lately the front page has seemed a bit like an out of control facebook wall where your uncle who doesn't really get technology keeps forwarding pictures of what catches his attention.
posted by Mitheral at 2:31 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
It would probably just encourage the creation of a grease monkey script that pounded the server until the post made it through.
However; and I know this is going to be wildly unpopular with some; I wouldn't mind seeing the posting interval increased. Lately the front page has seemed a bit like an out of control facebook wall where your uncle who doesn't really get technology keeps forwarding pictures of what catches his attention.
posted by Mitheral at 2:31 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
This is like when someone starts going on and on about the pressing need to reduce the world's population and everyone else is thinking 'ok, well then, you first.'
posted by joannemullen at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by joannemullen at 3:54 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
I think people aren't really reading the actual suggestion, as the desire to follow everything wasn't in any way part of my goal here. I have no problem with missing large chunks of discussion, and that wasn't at all the point. So unfortunately a number of the replies don't really reply to this suggestion at all, but oh well.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 5:01 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 5:01 AM on May 21, 2011
For those who did reply to my actual thought experiment, you're probably right in that this isn't the way to get the old-style camaraderie back, and there may not even be a way. And that's not necessarily a bad thing. I think cortex hit it best.
I think everybody has, or will end up having, people here they miss and high points in their memory of the site that they sort of yearn for. It's natural, it's the nature of time passing. There's no guarantee for any given person that mefi will always be the thing they want it to be, much as I wish it could be otherwise. But it's still mefi, and it's what you and I and he and she and everybody together makes it. There's no easy technical fix for wanting to catch a bit of what we best remember, but there's always the option to just roll up our sleeves and make what's here right now work.
(sigh) I think I just miss quonsar. ;-)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 5:20 AM on May 21, 2011
I think everybody has, or will end up having, people here they miss and high points in their memory of the site that they sort of yearn for. It's natural, it's the nature of time passing. There's no guarantee for any given person that mefi will always be the thing they want it to be, much as I wish it could be otherwise. But it's still mefi, and it's what you and I and he and she and everybody together makes it. There's no easy technical fix for wanting to catch a bit of what we best remember, but there's always the option to just roll up our sleeves and make what's here right now work.
(sigh) I think I just miss quonsar. ;-)
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 5:20 AM on May 21, 2011
PhoBWan never told you what happened to your father, did she gman?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:57 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:57 AM on May 21, 2011
I don't think we can get back to the small town of ten years ago without straight up evicting a whole lot of folks.
Which would be awful. But... can we evict Decani?
No?
OK, then, carry on.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:15 AM on May 21, 2011
Which would be awful. But... can we evict Decani?
No?
OK, then, carry on.
posted by flapjax at midnite at 6:15 AM on May 21, 2011
there's only 10 of us posting here under different names - if you limited how much we could post, we'd all have to go out and get real jobs and that would be awful
posted by pyramid termite at 6:18 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by pyramid termite at 6:18 AM on May 21, 2011
I can already hear the outcries here from the people who get the pop-up that says "I'm sorry, we've hit our post limit. Please try again tomorrow."
posted by crunchland at 6:38 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by crunchland at 6:38 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
One difference that I doubt is just true for me is that while lurking in 2001 I knew every name, by joining in 2004 that was down to about half of the people, and nowadays I'm very lucky if I recognize more than a handful of the names in any one thread.
One of MetaFilter's greatest strengths is that it has never calcified into an old guard circle jerk.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 7:05 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
One of MetaFilter's greatest strengths is that it has never calcified into an old guard circle jerk.
posted by Combustible Edison Lighthouse at 7:05 AM on May 21, 2011 [3 favorites]
Absolutely.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:29 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 7:29 AM on May 21, 2011
Heh, didn't it sort of start out that way though? And everything since is just a coral-like outgrowth?
posted by carsonb at 7:33 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by carsonb at 7:33 AM on May 21, 2011
Wow, I was totally thinking about this in my morning shower. I think I came to the conclusion that having an RSS feed that only shows posts with x (configurable?) number of comments and/or favorites and/or favorited comments might be nice.
posted by xorry at 7:41 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by xorry at 7:41 AM on May 21, 2011
I'm very much inclined to agree with pjern:
DO we need more rules? I don't think so. We might just need to self police a little better, and not give the mods so much shit when they delete something for being weak sauce. We have a pretty good thing here, let's not screw it up.
We already policies about weak posts and stupid lulzy comments. We don't really need new policies, we just need to use the noise flag more and help enforce existing policies. Any algorithm designed to just reduce the number of posts would be a blunt instrument; it takes people to police quality. (And that's us.)
Flagging and deleting noise of course just helps reduce clutter on the site. It doesn't do anything about the shear number of people commenting and posting here, or make it any easier to keep track of them. (I am, of course, one of those new people that nobody recognizes who occasionally pops up making a comment or posting something. I just hope they aren't usually stupid.)
posted by nangar at 7:48 AM on May 21, 2011
DO we need more rules? I don't think so. We might just need to self police a little better, and not give the mods so much shit when they delete something for being weak sauce. We have a pretty good thing here, let's not screw it up.
We already policies about weak posts and stupid lulzy comments. We don't really need new policies, we just need to use the noise flag more and help enforce existing policies. Any algorithm designed to just reduce the number of posts would be a blunt instrument; it takes people to police quality. (And that's us.)
Flagging and deleting noise of course just helps reduce clutter on the site. It doesn't do anything about the shear number of people commenting and posting here, or make it any easier to keep track of them. (I am, of course, one of those new people that nobody recognizes who occasionally pops up making a comment or posting something. I just hope they aren't usually stupid.)
posted by nangar at 7:48 AM on May 21, 2011
We already policies = We already have policies ...
(I didn't say I could type.)
posted by nangar at 7:50 AM on May 21, 2011
(I didn't say I could type.)
posted by nangar at 7:50 AM on May 21, 2011
I don't know if this is objectively bad, but I miss that time where you knew your neighbors on the blue and ran into the same people more often.
If more people sign up and show up less than once a month, it's good for the revenue stream. If everybody who bought a gym membership worked out regularly, the gym would go broke.
posted by y2karl at 8:00 AM on May 21, 2011
If more people sign up and show up less than once a month, it's good for the revenue stream. If everybody who bought a gym membership worked out regularly, the gym would go broke.
posted by y2karl at 8:00 AM on May 21, 2011
I feel the site has been slowing down a bit lately, but I'm not sure if that's true or just my skewed perspective; maybe someone could mine stats from the infodump.
The weekends seem dead lately, and the only posts that garner >50 comments are mostly filled with silliness rather than earnest contribution.
I had a look, and it looks like the numbers don't really support this. I looked at posts/day, comments/day, comments/post, and 50+ comment posts/day. They're all higher this year so far than they've ever been, and 7 to 22% higher than they were last year.
Here are the numbers:
posted by FishBike at 8:10 AM on May 21, 2011 [5 favorites]
The weekends seem dead lately, and the only posts that garner >50 comments are mostly filled with silliness rather than earnest contribution.
I had a look, and it looks like the numbers don't really support this. I looked at posts/day, comments/day, comments/post, and 50+ comment posts/day. They're all higher this year so far than they've ever been, and 7 to 22% higher than they were last year.
Here are the numbers:
Year P/D C/D C/P 50+/D 2000 12.0 101 8.4 0.1 2001 21.7 429 19.8 1.4 2002 24.8 581 23.4 2.4 2003 21.6 536 24.8 2.5 2004 21.2 559 26.3 2.9 2005 26.5 946 35.7 5.6 2006 25.8 1,039 40.2 6.5 2007 28.6 1,152 40.3 7.4 2008 27.5 1,177 42.8 7.2 2009 27.6 1,338 48.4 8.9 2010 30.6 1,524 49.8 10.0 2011 32.8 1,873 57.0 11.1However, the numbers don't say anything about the nature of posts and comments. I've also been noticing more threads lately where most of the comments are from people being silly or funny rather than substantive, and that has been pretty disappointing. I have no idea if that's a real trend, though, or if it was always that way and I'm just finally catching on. I suspect the latter.
posted by FishBike at 8:10 AM on May 21, 2011 [5 favorites]
(that whole first paragraph is a quote from cj_, I messed up the italic tags)
posted by FishBike at 8:10 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by FishBike at 8:10 AM on May 21, 2011
Which would be awful. But... can we evict...
My feeling, based only on my experience, is that anyone who would want to vote someone else off the MefIsland probably has someone else who wants to vote them off. Myself included.
I don't think there's any useful way to make the front page better besides just making it better. In a site with power users and less-frequent users and lurkers, any limit we enforce is going to preference the power users and my gut feeling is that people who post frequently, like all the time, may not be the people we want filling up the 20-or-whatever daily slots. Nothing personal, just thinking over posts I've loved and who they tend to come from and posts I think are weak sauce and thinking the same.
cortex and I were talking a little bit about it and without using more editorial control [i.e. many more deletions], something we don't do too much on MeFi, it would be difficult to make the front page seem qualitatively different just through our efforts alone. Obviously people should flag things they don't like and come talk in MeTa about it, but I'm also sympathetic that sometimes coming to MeTa to talk about these things, especially lately, means someone's going to be a snarky asshole to you and that's not so great either.
So, it's a quandary, and one we think about not infrequently.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 8:16 AM on May 21, 2011 [2 favorites]
I can imagine a site where the Secret Council of Insiders decides there will be 15 posts a day, tops, and deletes (or closes) posts when something better comes along. "Sorry, obit post for John Larroquette, this Flash game about mumps is better than you!" That could be a pretty fun site though of course there would be endless drama.
posted by furiousthought at 8:27 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by furiousthought at 8:27 AM on May 21, 2011
Jessamyn, If you were evicted from Mefi, I'd let you sneak in after hours to use the pool.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:42 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:42 AM on May 21, 2011
Uh, never mind on that, Decani had an accident in the pool again.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:46 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:46 AM on May 21, 2011
Obviously people should flag things they don't like
Really, apart from making good posts in the first place, flagging is one of the best ways people could make the front page better, but it only works if people actually do it.
One of the things that continues to baffle me is why so many people think flagging is some sort of "censorship" mechanism, and they're reluctant to flag anything but the most egregiously offensive stuff as a result. If more straight-up weaksauce (and outragefilter, for that matter) posts got flagged early and often, they'd be more likely to get cleared up. Flagging is not some sort of downvote/autodelete/censorship thing, it's a non-gamable alert system that only the mods can see, and lets them know of problematic or potentially problematic or not-good-for-MeFi stuff.
posted by Gator at 9:12 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Really, apart from making good posts in the first place, flagging is one of the best ways people could make the front page better, but it only works if people actually do it.
One of the things that continues to baffle me is why so many people think flagging is some sort of "censorship" mechanism, and they're reluctant to flag anything but the most egregiously offensive stuff as a result. If more straight-up weaksauce (and outragefilter, for that matter) posts got flagged early and often, they'd be more likely to get cleared up. Flagging is not some sort of downvote/autodelete/censorship thing, it's a non-gamable alert system that only the mods can see, and lets them know of problematic or potentially problematic or not-good-for-MeFi stuff.
posted by Gator at 9:12 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
One of the things that continues to baffle me is why so many people think flagging is some sort of "censorship" mechanism, and they're reluctant to flag anything but the most egregiously offensive stuff as a result. If more straight-up weaksauce (and outragefilter, for that matter) posts got flagged early and often, they'd be more likely to get cleared up.
Sometimes I feel like I need a flagging tutorial because even when I feel like something should be flagged (mostly because it's egregious), I'm not entirely sure which reason to pick other than a negative one. I know in theory it should be obvious but when I'm debating which one to pick, it never seems that way and I generally end up closing the flag dropdown and moving on without flagging.
posted by immlass at 9:24 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Sometimes I feel like I need a flagging tutorial because even when I feel like something should be flagged (mostly because it's egregious), I'm not entirely sure which reason to pick other than a negative one. I know in theory it should be obvious but when I'm debating which one to pick, it never seems that way and I generally end up closing the flag dropdown and moving on without flagging.
posted by immlass at 9:24 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
If we're doing this as a thought experiment, the way to limit posts is simply to put all the FPPs in a queue and only post them once per hour. Sure, you couldn't guarantee that your breaking news post would show up anytime soon, but that'd be a feature, not a bug.
posted by klangklangston at 10:31 AM on May 21, 2011
posted by klangklangston at 10:31 AM on May 21, 2011
From my perspective the problem is not that there are too many posts. The problem (in so far as there is problem at all) is finding the things that are of interest to me in amongst all the things that are not.
If anything, I would encourage *more* posts, combined with UI changes to make it easier to quickly scan and filter them.
Btw, I am a middling user, I don't always check in every day, though I check in quite often. And when I do check in, I don't by a long way look at every FPP or every question. If I "miss" something that would have been interesting... well that is hardly a great tragedy in the general scheme of things.
On the other hand, if I scan the FPPs for the day and none of them are esp interesting to me, and that happens for a few days running... I'm going to visit less and less often.
posted by philipy at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2011
If anything, I would encourage *more* posts, combined with UI changes to make it easier to quickly scan and filter them.
Btw, I am a middling user, I don't always check in every day, though I check in quite often. And when I do check in, I don't by a long way look at every FPP or every question. If I "miss" something that would have been interesting... well that is hardly a great tragedy in the general scheme of things.
On the other hand, if I scan the FPPs for the day and none of them are esp interesting to me, and that happens for a few days running... I'm going to visit less and less often.
posted by philipy at 10:54 AM on May 21, 2011
As someone who has read the site every day for over a decade, I've been thinking about changes to the MeFi culture over the years. One difference that I doubt is just true for me is that while lurking in 2001 I knew every name, by joining in 2004 that was down to about half of the people, and nowadays I'm very lucky if I recognize more than a handful of the names in any one thread.
Can any internet culture ever be comfortably static? We are really all imigrants here. This almost sounds like many old folks who move to Florida and want to close the gates behind them. After a few of their friends come down too, of course. We need more fresh meat for the grinder here, or the sausage will turn into balogne
posted by Redhush at 11:54 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Can any internet culture ever be comfortably static? We are really all imigrants here. This almost sounds like many old folks who move to Florida and want to close the gates behind them. After a few of their friends come down too, of course. We need more fresh meat for the grinder here, or the sausage will turn into balogne
posted by Redhush at 11:54 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
oh no, you misread that badly. I don't care who the names ARE. They can all be new. I care that the site is so broad that I don't get to know the new people the way we used to get to know everyone before. Perhaps, as cortex argues, there's no way around that other than shedding people, but it wasn't at all an old member v. new member in any way whatsoever.
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 11:56 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 11:56 AM on May 21, 2011 [1 favorite]
Well, I can only speak for me, but I don't bother flagging anything but the most egregiously offensive stuff because
1) if something doesn't work for me, I just move on; as an often-lurker, I'd rather spend my time interacting on the site by favoriting things I like than flagging things I don't like
2) stuff I might think is weak or thin is often stuff other people like just fine, and I know for sure vice versa - stuff I like, other people will think is no good; I don't like putting myself officially in what feels like a sort of grumpy arbiter of what-is-good-for-Mefi position by flagging stuff directly to the mods' attention, I figure plenty of other people are going to do that anyway (honestly often I feel like plenty of people here are way too quick to snark or put down stuff they don't like with this sweeping sort of judgment as it is)
3) regarding posts in particular, I truly feel that overall the mods are well on top of what-is-a-good-post-and-what-isn't, and if something is that egregious I will take the time to contact them and ask about it anyway, or go to MetaTalk where someone has probably already posted about it and add my voice
4) flagging doesn't provide any feedback at all when you do it, and that may be exactly why it works great for some people and why it doesn't whatsoever for others.
posted by flex at 12:29 PM on May 21, 2011
1) if something doesn't work for me, I just move on; as an often-lurker, I'd rather spend my time interacting on the site by favoriting things I like than flagging things I don't like
2) stuff I might think is weak or thin is often stuff other people like just fine, and I know for sure vice versa - stuff I like, other people will think is no good; I don't like putting myself officially in what feels like a sort of grumpy arbiter of what-is-good-for-Mefi position by flagging stuff directly to the mods' attention, I figure plenty of other people are going to do that anyway (honestly often I feel like plenty of people here are way too quick to snark or put down stuff they don't like with this sweeping sort of judgment as it is)
3) regarding posts in particular, I truly feel that overall the mods are well on top of what-is-a-good-post-and-what-isn't, and if something is that egregious I will take the time to contact them and ask about it anyway, or go to MetaTalk where someone has probably already posted about it and add my voice
4) flagging doesn't provide any feedback at all when you do it, and that may be exactly why it works great for some people and why it doesn't whatsoever for others.
posted by flex at 12:29 PM on May 21, 2011
My feeling, based only on my experience, is that anyone who would want to vote someone else off the MefIsland probably has someone else who wants to vote them off. Myself included.
This has been my experience.
But, better to have voted off rather than have been voted off.
This has been my experience, as well.
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on May 21, 2011
This has been my experience.
But, better to have voted off rather than have been voted off.
This has been my experience, as well.
posted by y2karl at 1:25 PM on May 21, 2011
We need more fresh meat for the grinder here, or the sausage will turn into balogne.
If those youngsters don't keep paying into the social credibility fund, how are we going to collect our benefits ?
posted by y2karl at 1:28 PM on May 21, 2011
If those youngsters don't keep paying into the social credibility fund, how are we going to collect our benefits ?
posted by y2karl at 1:28 PM on May 21, 2011
I don't care who the names ARE. They can all be new. I care that the site is so broad that I don't get to know the new people the way we used to get to know everyone before.
Suppose there's a coffeehouse that you like to hang out at where you've gotten to know the other regulars. Over time it gets more and more popular and other places open up in the same block: an art gallery, a bar, a theatre space, a pool hall, that kind of thing. Now even though the coffeehouse is thriving along with the other spaces, you find that you can't count on running into people you know with the same regularity, because they might be next door at the gallery or across the street having a beer instead.
You could start lobbying to shut down the gallery, and the bar, and the theatre space, and the pool hall, and everything else, so that people will be forced to go to the coffeehouse where you can count on seeing them. Or you could accept that things have changed and, instead of feeling upset that your friends aren't already there, strike up a conversation with the stranger next to you whom you don't already know.
posted by Lexica at 4:07 PM on May 21, 2011 [4 favorites]
Suppose there's a coffeehouse that you like to hang out at where you've gotten to know the other regulars. Over time it gets more and more popular and other places open up in the same block: an art gallery, a bar, a theatre space, a pool hall, that kind of thing. Now even though the coffeehouse is thriving along with the other spaces, you find that you can't count on running into people you know with the same regularity, because they might be next door at the gallery or across the street having a beer instead.
You could start lobbying to shut down the gallery, and the bar, and the theatre space, and the pool hall, and everything else, so that people will be forced to go to the coffeehouse where you can count on seeing them. Or you could accept that things have changed and, instead of feeling upset that your friends aren't already there, strike up a conversation with the stranger next to you whom you don't already know.
posted by Lexica at 4:07 PM on May 21, 2011 [4 favorites]
I sometimes send a memail to people who put an interesting comment up. Rarely responded to, but it's a good casual way to try to establish a little connection. You get as much community as you give...
posted by Redhush at 4:31 PM on May 21, 2011
posted by Redhush at 4:31 PM on May 21, 2011
Suppose there's a coffeehouse that you like to hang out at where you've gotten to know the other regulars. Over time it gets more and more popular and other places open up in the same block: an art gallery, a bar, a theatre space, a pool hall, that kind of thing.
I can remember when Starbucks was one store in the Pike Place Market that sold varietal coffees, ground or unground, in bags, and, better yet, fresh spices that were such a deal. Their curry powder blends were a delight. I seem to recall it as being more of a place to buy coffee and paraphenalia for brewing at home. The serving of coffee came later. Who knew then that was the high point ? Oh, those were the days.
But then again, wasn't the actual bar that the TV show Cheers used for a model, wasn't that bar bought and re-named Cheers at some point ? And didn't someone try to start of a chain of such later ? I seem to recall some such. Or perhaps it is all an urbane legend. I know not. But I have seen another local hipster haunt evolve into an international chain, however. The Red Robin. The place started out as practically a shack with a deck by the end of the University of bridge on the Capitol Hill side. a tiny dive bar for beatniks sitting where the one on Eastlakes now stands closed. It upscaled to a fern bar with burgers and became a local chain eventually bought out by foreign investors and expanded to bankruptic death. Or so that is how it seemed. I haven't seen one for a long time and they used to be all over.
posted by y2karl at 7:23 PM on May 21, 2011
I can remember when Starbucks was one store in the Pike Place Market that sold varietal coffees, ground or unground, in bags, and, better yet, fresh spices that were such a deal. Their curry powder blends were a delight. I seem to recall it as being more of a place to buy coffee and paraphenalia for brewing at home. The serving of coffee came later. Who knew then that was the high point ? Oh, those were the days.
But then again, wasn't the actual bar that the TV show Cheers used for a model, wasn't that bar bought and re-named Cheers at some point ? And didn't someone try to start of a chain of such later ? I seem to recall some such. Or perhaps it is all an urbane legend. I know not. But I have seen another local hipster haunt evolve into an international chain, however. The Red Robin. The place started out as practically a shack with a deck by the end of the University of bridge on the Capitol Hill side. a tiny dive bar for beatniks sitting where the one on Eastlakes now stands closed. It upscaled to a fern bar with burgers and became a local chain eventually bought out by foreign investors and expanded to bankruptic death. Or so that is how it seemed. I haven't seen one for a long time and they used to be all over.
posted by y2karl at 7:23 PM on May 21, 2011
I sometimes send a memail to people who put an interesting comment up. Rarely responded to...
Really? I've gotten responses from all the memails I've sent, though not always right away. Maybe I just got lucky and now I'm due for a bunch of ignores.
posted by Glinn at 9:57 PM on May 21, 2011
Really? I've gotten responses from all the memails I've sent, though not always right away. Maybe I just got lucky and now I'm due for a bunch of ignores.
posted by Glinn at 9:57 PM on May 21, 2011
It's often said in MeTa threads of this sort, but it's still true: the best way to get higher-quality posts is to post high-quality stuff yourself.
posted by Chrysostom at 8:12 AM on May 23, 2011
posted by Chrysostom at 8:12 AM on May 23, 2011
Course, nothing in this thread was ABOUT getting higher-quality posts, or even implying the posts on this site were anything but excellent, but.. thanks for the input?
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:35 PM on May 25, 2011
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 6:35 PM on May 25, 2011
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by John Kenneth Fisher at 9:47 PM on May 20, 2011