Posting articles from well-known sources

August 15, 2013 9:16 AM

I have seen a number of posts on articles from very well-known sources that everybody reads, like The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post. They're interesting articles, but I wonder if they belong on MeFi when they're already so widely available?

In the Wiki, it says "Many times, newcomers will be rebuked around for linking to websites that are assumed everybody reads."

I'm new here, so apologies if I'm getting this wrong.

posted by Vispa Teresa to Etiquette/Policy at 9:16 AM (80 comments total)

It's an interesting question and one the community is pretty divided on.

For my part, for example, I only go to those sources you list when I am directed there by someone posting here or a short list of other places. I know this is not true for other users. I sort of think of this as the Filter part of MetaFilter. We know the Guardian, for example, has a lot of good articles but we're not sure just which ones are the most interesting, or we want to talk about them with people here. There are certain sites that are less newsy (I'm thinking of xkcd or The Oatmeal) where it's sort of presumed that people who read those sites see all the new stuff and so a post that is just "Hey there's a new XKCD!" aren't that useful for people.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 9:19 AM on August 15, 2013 [13 favorites]

I don't read all of those things and I hope people keep pointing out interesting content from them occasionally.
posted by boo_radley at 9:20 AM on August 15, 2013 [36 favorites]

to build on what jessamyn said - even with sites like xkcd, sometimes there is an update exceptional enough to make a post out of.
posted by nadawi at 9:21 AM on August 15, 2013 [3 favorites]

I always appreciate when posts linking to big sources also contain supplementary links to less popular sources and different (supporting or opposing) perspectives. That gives the MeFi post something extra that I wouldn't discover myself in my RSS feeds to many of those sources.
posted by iamkimiam at 9:21 AM on August 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

Add another mark for "I don't visit those sites." I come across them when reading up on topics, but I don't browse the sites with any frequency.

And I'll also second what iamkimiam wrote: MetaFilter can round out topics with additional links, which news sites rarely do.
posted by filthy light thief at 9:22 AM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

I only go to those sources you list when I am directed there by someone posting here...

Exactly the same for me. MetaFilter is the website I visit so I don't have to bother with all the other ones.
posted by griphus at 9:29 AM on August 15, 2013 [25 favorites]

I always thought the guidelines around links were more related to the main site rather than content. Just to give two examples, the recent post about the sequestration's negative effect on scientific research in the US and the post about higher border security resulting in higher illegal immigration both come from big-name sources (HuffPo and WP, respectively). But that doesn't mean that they're going to get high traffic, especially in the case of the immigration piece, which is online-only and might not get traction elsewhere. Plus, there are many times the more widely available sources and articles can be among the best places to source a post. Ta-Nehisi Coates' articles almost all come from the Atlantic, but he has a really good perspective on things and an eloquence that many others just don't. And as others have said, just because you or the internet at large may be aware of something doesn't mean that everybody has.
posted by zombieflanders at 9:30 AM on August 15, 2013

Thirding (or fourthing) the sentiment "I don't visit those sites." I mean, I visit the Grauniad upon occasion, but HuffPo is never something I seek out.
posted by Kitteh at 9:30 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I am an old guy and don't always read the site's you meddling kids read like the ones mentioned. I appreciate links to things that may be widely available, but not necessarily widely read. Get off my lawn.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 9:31 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I would encourage you not to link to navel gazey articles from the NYT that bemoan the problems of the upper class. 'Cause really, you know?
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 9:39 AM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

Brandon Blatcher: "I would encourage you not to link to navel gazey articles from the NYT that bemoan the problems of the upper class. 'Cause really, you know?"

They're not just upper class problems. This shiraz shortage affects all of us, from West 59th all the way to West 110th.
posted by boo_radley at 9:46 AM on August 15, 2013 [26 favorites]

I read a lot of news, and I read a lot from those sources, but there is no way that I can read all of those sites every day, especially all of the opinion pieces. I think they're especially good paired with more niche sites or blogs that go in more depth or provide a different opinion, not just presented as a single link, but I wouldn't want a great article dismissed because it was an Atlantic post or a Guardian one.
posted by jetlagaddict at 9:47 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I already read the NYT, Atlantic and WaPo, but links from the others are cool.
posted by klangklangston at 9:49 AM on August 15, 2013

I get all my news from mefi, twitter, and my mom.
posted by desjardins at 9:51 AM on August 15, 2013 [17 favorites]

Yeah, I always took "websites that are assumed everybody reads" to mean low-turnover sort of sites like webcomics or maybe Cracked, where a casual reader can see everything they post in a day or a week. News sites, no matter how popular they are, are way too high-turnover to assume that people see them, especially for smaller stories like new species being discovered or a pro wrestler coming out of the closet.
posted by Etrigan at 10:01 AM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

Even if everyone here is already reading all the articles on all those sites, people still want the kind of moderated-by-decent-human-beings discussion space that mefi offers.
posted by elizardbits at 10:04 AM on August 15, 2013 [11 favorites]

I'm not sure when the wiki article was written, but there are many more online news portals currently than there were in e.g. 2003 and even with sites like the Huffpo there's no guarantee that everybody reads them, the way we did with the grauniad back then. So it does make sense that there's less concern about this, as long as not every link is to a big name site.

What MeFi also does well, when thrown the bones of a news article, like in my post on immigration yesterday, is flesh out the skeleton with discussion as well as additional links in the comments.
posted by MartinWisse at 10:08 AM on August 15, 2013

I read news websites when the links to them come across my path: MetaFilter, Twitter, random IMs from my friends....

Sometimes I get the same link from all three! Like yesterday, about the cat fur thing...
posted by RainyJay at 10:10 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

"Many times, newcomers will be rebuked around for linking to websites that are assumed everybody reads."

Holy passive voice Batman!

I'm genuinely confused, are the newcomers doing the assuming or are the people doing the assuming the same people that are doing the rebuking?
posted by RobotHero at 10:12 AM on August 15, 2013

I have seen a number of posts on articles from very well-known sources that everybody reads

When I was in high school I assumed everyone knew Led Zeppelin's entire catalog.

Please don't assume "everybody reads" something just because you do. Metafilter is my entry point into the web (Facebook to a lesser degree) so I only read articles at those places if someone links to them. I know plenty of folks who then only read those places if I pass on an article that was linked to from Metafilter.

I, for one, encourage people to link to interesting things on places that "everybody reads" because everyone doesn't read them.
posted by bondcliff at 10:20 AM on August 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

Etrigan: Yeah, I always took "websites that are assumed everybody reads" to mean low-turnover sort of sites like webcomics or maybe Cracked, where a casual reader can see everything they post in a day or a week.

But as MartinWisse pointed out, there is so much more online than in 2003, if this was indeed written then and never updated. It's not just news sites, but webcomics, forums for anything and everything, and even video sharing sites. Heck, 100 hours of video are uploaded to YouTube every minute, so even if a small fraction of that is interesting to folks at large, there is a TON of new content being generated all the time. Is there even a core of "everyone sees this" type sites?

I think this idea could be approached a different way now: don't post stories that are on every news outlet and current events blog unless you're expanding the story that is told from any one vantage point, as MoonOrb mentioned. It's interesting to see various websites pull bits and pieces of a story together, either because the reporters each focus on a slightly different aspect of the story, or because various editors pruned longer articles down and different removed elements.
posted by filthy light thief at 10:22 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I only read any of those sources off of links people send me.
posted by Drinky Die at 10:24 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

RobotHero: Holy passive voice Batman!

To quote from jessamyn's jingle: ♫ the wonderful thing about the wiki is that anyone can edit it. ♫
posted by filthy light thief at 10:24 AM on August 15, 2013 [3 favorites]

Also, yeah, "rebuked around?" What is that? "Rebuked around here?" "Rebuked around the ears?" "Rebuked around 4:30?"

"All prescriptive grammatical rules are socially and historically contingent expressions of solidarity and power."
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 10:25 AM on August 15, 2013

♫ the wonderful thing about the wiki is that anyone can edit it. ♫

Yes, but for me to make the meaning more clear I have to first figure out what that meaning is.
posted by RobotHero at 10:32 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

As my dear old ma used to say, "Rewrite it all, and let the mods sort 'em out!"

(I'm really looking forward to the time that the internet is old enough that people will have quaint saying related to internet usage.)
posted by filthy light thief at 10:36 AM on August 15, 2013

Right, ICS, I even pre-called myself out on that, just in case you didn't notice.

As a matter off fact, I didn't notice, so intent was I on playing gotcha. Then once I did find the quote, my maniacal giggling precluded any further actual reading. Nice work on the preemptive self-callout, and thanks for taking my tomfoolery as such.
posted by Ice Cream Socialist at 10:42 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

Except for Bob. He's a Bobdolt.
posted by filthy light thief at 11:06 AM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I read a ton of news article that are linked on here and that I never see elsewhere - but I never visit news sites "just looking for news" because then I would never have time for anything else in my life.

And while there is some overlap between things posted here and reddit, facebook, etc, I still appreciate the commentary here which is almost always better than everywhere else I visit. And of course not everyone reads those other sites regularly or at all, so it's still new material for some people.
posted by randomnity at 11:09 AM on August 15, 2013

And Jack, who is a napes.
posted by bleep-blop at 11:21 AM on August 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

I never quite understand people's anxiety about what posts are or aren't "blue-worthy." I mean, sure, I could see a point where the site got so flooded with crap posts that you had to struggle to find the worthy ones among the dross, but as things are if a post doesn't strike you as interesting, why not just move on to the next one? Many of the best and richest discussions on this site have been built around links to NYT or Atlantic or Guardian articles or what have you. And if one person posts a link to something widely seen and easily findable it in no way precludes the next person from posting a link to something obscure and out of the way.
posted by yoink at 11:38 AM on August 15, 2013 [7 favorites]

I rely on MetaFilter to find interesting articles, especially in sources that I do not frequent. I thought that is what MeFi was for.
posted by Cranberry at 12:56 PM on August 15, 2013

well-known sources that everybody reads, like The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post

I question your premise.

I have not visited any of these sites without prompting -- usually from MeFi -- in years, and in some cases (Atlantic, Guardian, Huffington Post) ever.

I feel like I hold up my end on MetaFilter by spending my time browsing weird art sites, board game news, and odd cartoons, then occasionally posting something. In exchange, other MeFites monitor the Big Media sites and parse out the things that might be awesome for the community here.

I count on MetaFilter to keep an eye on many of these publications because that means I don't have to, and can indulge my weirdo browsing tendency and actually kind of feel like I am contributing to this community by doing so.
posted by Shepherd at 1:10 PM on August 15, 2013 [6 favorites]

The problem with The Atlantic, The New York Times, The Guardian, The Washington Post, and The Huffington Post and others is that homunculus doesn't magically appear in any of them to drop unbelievably great related links.
posted by double block and bleed at 1:10 PM on August 15, 2013 [9 favorites]

I get all the news I need from the weather report.
posted by foxhat10 at 1:12 PM on August 15, 2013 [4 favorites]

When really out of the way sites are linked, don't we often crash them?

As Metafilter grows, maybe the FPP linked sites have to as well.

(Though on preview, I suppose the obscure sites could still be linked in comments.)
posted by jamjam at 1:15 PM on August 15, 2013

I am not of the opinion that Metafilter needs more ways for people to get upset about people posting interesting links.
posted by Artw at 1:20 PM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

On the flip side, it does get a little tedious when a MeFi FPP links to whatever is the current fad video on "all the other sites," with the explanation that it's something cool that's "already on all the other sites." That's the exact sort of thing I actively avoid!
posted by Nomyte at 1:20 PM on August 15, 2013

Solution: scroll to next FPP.
posted by Artw at 1:25 PM on August 15, 2013 [5 favorites]

Alternate solution: don't read any other sites.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 1:29 PM on August 15, 2013 [4 favorites]

When was the last successful Onion or XKCD post?
posted by Artw at 1:35 PM on August 15, 2013

Artw - i posted a still active xkcd post up thread.
posted by nadawi at 1:43 PM on August 15, 2013

The Onion is paywalled for us in the UK now.

I rarely read the US papers online (I used to read the NYT via an app on my phone that collated the articles like an RSS reader, but I think they paywalled the site in the US which put a stop to that) and I'd imagine the same goes for the Guardian or the New Statesman for US readers. I'd be even more happy to see non-US/UK publications - the sites that report foreign country stories in English like TheLocal.se, or Canadian sites as I don't know a huge amount of what day to day Canuck life is like. I don't have to click on the posts if I've already read them. There's plenty of other posts to read.

whenever I click on the HuffPo it waves popups in my face and is full of ads which seem to open new tabs in my browser if I so much as wave the mouse in their general direction, which pretty much rules it out for casual browsing for me.
posted by mippy at 1:43 PM on August 15, 2013

On the flip side, it does get a little tedious when a MeFi FPP links to whatever is the current fad video on "all the other sites," with the explanation that it's something cool that's "already on all the other sites." That's the exact sort of thing I actively avoid!

Oh man, there's a video that;s been going round that's made me laugh for days, but a) it already has 4m views, so I assume you've seen it b) it's kind of Marmitey in terms of it being funny. I remember someone posting Fenton!!! here, and half the comments being 'what...I don't get it.'

Sometimes I read the comments here at the expense of RTFA. Because I like you all.
posted by mippy at 1:46 PM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

i post a lot of slyt things and i try to stick to videos that haven't exploded in views yet. but, because of how youtube counts views, it's not a full proof system to keep from posting widely linked things.
posted by nadawi at 1:50 PM on August 15, 2013

I'll bet a lot of us have missed out on seeing some really fun things here on Metafilter because someone thought "oh, everyone's seen that and if I post it to the blue someone will snark at me." If you think it's cool and interesting and it hasn't already been posted, I don't think you should worry about whether it's been on "all the other sites."
posted by yoink at 2:23 PM on August 15, 2013 [4 favorites]

The reverse of the "too many views" thing goes as well. If you find a YouTube video that is great but has like six views, post it anyway. We want to see that pug climbing that ladder.
posted by griphus at 2:32 PM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

I would encourage you not to link to navel gazey articles from the NYT that bemoan the problems of the upper class. 'Cause really, you know?

They're not just upper class problems. This shiraz shortage affects all of us, from West 59th all the way to West 110th.

I check the urls of all links and find that 95% of all NYT links are not worth clicking through. Sturgeon's Law applies extremely well to web 'news sources': HuffPo, WSJ, Time, BuzzFeed... but NYT has fallen the farthest during the Internet Era (note I wrote 95%, not 90%). I blame Judith Miller for setting their current standard. I am also amazed that certain should-be-obviously-crap sources, like self-proclaimed 'Capitalist Tool' Forbes, and listicle addict Cracked, are now actually above average (only 88% crap).
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:34 PM on August 15, 2013

I don't know that the article has to be unknown or little known to make a good post; the resulting discussion in the comments could outweigh the fact that many people have already read an article.

Also, I've been getting worse about following the sources mentioned. I tend to go to places like longreads or longform to find long form journalism; there is a pretty good correlation between those sites and metafilter posts.
posted by sciencegeek at 2:44 PM on August 15, 2013

"well-known sources that everybody reads"

This isn't quite true. I actively try to avoid reading some of those sites, but I appreciate it when someone points out when they have something they found interesting there. It's a MetaFilter.
posted by Roger Dodger at 3:44 PM on August 15, 2013

We want to see that pug climbing that ladder.

Dude, you can't post about that without a link.
posted by Etrigan at 3:54 PM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

Dude, you can't post about that without a link.

Here you go. A Google search for "pug climbing a ladder" turns up a remarkable number of different videos. Do pugs have some particular attraction to ladders?
posted by yoink at 5:45 PM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

All you need is a Wikipedia link to "pug" and you're good to go.
posted by Artw at 6:13 PM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

What about a Wikipedia link to "ladder"? I wouldn't want it to be a "thin" post. Maybe I could find a blog post explaining what a "YouTube video" was too?
posted by yoink at 6:22 PM on August 15, 2013 [2 favorites]

What about a Wikipedia link to "ladder"

Google image search.
posted by Artw at 6:28 PM on August 15, 2013

(The YouTube link goes to the YouTube homepage.)
posted by Artw at 7:10 PM on August 15, 2013 [1 favorite]

You might read everything on all of those websites, but most people don't.
posted by John Cohen at 8:33 PM on August 15, 2013

I'm of the silly mindset that since I check the BBC regularly, then everyone else does too, right? So when I see a post here (and it's often) that links directly to the current "most viewed" story on the BBC, I get a little annoyed. It's only because I probably just read that story, and oh yay, it's here now too. Tumblr it is then.
posted by Brocktoon at 9:35 PM on August 15, 2013

Echoing other comments. I used to read a couple of those sites and a few other big ones fairly regularly. Now I just don't have time or the interest to go to them except maybe for the occasional quick skim.

Metafilter is now my one and only site that I go to every day. It filters the web for me and the breadth and caliber of discussion that happens is one of the best of the web as far as I'm concerned.

I know if there is something major and serious is going on it more then likely will make it as a post. I appreciate big posts where people have put a lot of time in crafting them with links. The rap one and the Egypt ones that are up currently are great examples of that. They give me the ability to go into depth about a topic if it interests me.

I'm also just as happy with one or two link posts about a topic I find interesting because of the discussion. Metafilter does serious stuff pretty well.

I also enjoy the more quirky posts about videos or memes that are making the rounds because they are fun and I'm just not as up on those things like I used to be. Laughing and silliness amid the more serious is good for the soul and my mental health.

Some days posts are less to my taste or interest or about topics I already know about and that's okay. Something I find cool will come along eventually. At least that's been the case so far.
posted by Jalliah at 1:46 AM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

What about youtube? I mean we all know it's there, right?
posted by empath at 3:49 AM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

I'm not sure why anyone would assume that I read all of those US newssites. I don't assume that most people around here read De Gelderlander, either.
posted by Too-Ticky at 5:11 AM on August 16, 2013 [4 favorites]

Saying that "everybody reads" those sites is just a reference to the fact that they have many millions of readers (and it was the language used in the Wiki so I borrowed it). Responding with: "Well, I don't read them," is not exactly to the point. I don't read them every day myself.

I would like a place on the web where I can find some solace from what is so insistently presented to me already, everywhere I look. But I defer to the opinion of the MeFi community. I guess MeFi is just not for me.
posted by Vispa Teresa at 10:25 AM on August 16, 2013

I guess MeFi is just not for me.

That seems an extreme conclusion. Why not just skip those threads? Although I have to say I'm a bit puzzled that your initial complaint was being presented with stuff that "everybody reads" when you, yourself, don't actually read it. Maybe you should give some of those threads a try. You might find that some really cool stuff gets published on these sites that you-don't-read-but-everybody-reads, and that Metafilter is a fairly good way of catching some of the best of it.
posted by yoink at 10:31 AM on August 16, 2013 [7 favorites]

I would like a place on the web where I can find some solace from what is so insistently presented to me already, everywhere I look. But I defer to the opinion of the MeFi community. I guess MeFi is just not for me.

Yeah I guess that isn't the way I see things and I share some of your views about the sameness of a lot of the sites that are linked in posts here. I tend to skip a lot of those posts if I'm not called in to moderate them. But the OTHER posts, those are the ones I really stay for, the explanation of what the heck was going on with Kendrick Lamar or the weird explanation of Horse Opera or just waiting with fellow nerds to see if the pitch drops, and when. So I think it's tough to have a place that's both non-stagnant (with new people coming and old people going and then coming back) and also full of interesting stuff. There are a ton of specialty boards where people really have seen all the current news/links about whatever the topic is (spelunking, the new Audi) and the threads are mostly just to talk about the things that everyone knows. So, obviously, you're free to stay or go if you think the place is/isn't your thing, but it may just be about adjusting your own filteron top of the MetaFilter.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 10:53 AM on August 16, 2013 [2 favorites]

I don't read all those other sites precisely because I read MetaFilter. I assume if they publish anything truly epic that I should definitely see, it'll show up here.

It's mildly annoying when nearly everything posted on another site gets posted here (see: Hyperbole and a Half, and I say that as someone who loves Hyperbole and a Half) but I have no issue with things sourced from popular sites, when they represent a tiny percentage of that site's overall output. Having other people sort the really great stuff from the merely average stuff and then present it to me is why I'm here.

Well, that, and to tell people to DTMFA.
posted by jacquilynne at 11:31 AM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

Basically everything jacquilynne just said goes for me, with the added extra layer that she links me to the MetaFilter posts.
posted by RainyJay at 11:36 AM on August 16, 2013

spitbull: Right now there is an awesome baby panda meets its mom video out there on every crappy aggregator site imaginable today, but last I checked it hadn't made Metafilter's front page.

Yet.

This one's for you, spitbull. (BTW, it's not my post.)
posted by filthy light thief at 1:52 PM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

Well, that, and to tell people to DTMFA.

Yes, we all need to Discuss the Multi-Faceted Articles.
posted by yoink at 2:21 PM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

Aw, Panda!

I guess MeFi is just not for me.

Bye, user as of a couple of weeks ago. Sorry the entire site couldn't change to meet your ridiculous needs.
posted by Artw at 2:46 PM on August 16, 2013

Bye, user as of a couple of weeks ago. Sorry the entire site couldn't change to meet your ridiculous needs.

Now now. There's nothing inherently ridiculous in the "needs" expressed and I think the important point is that Metafilter doesn't need to change in order for them to be met. All VT needs to do is just skip the links that don't appeal.
posted by yoink at 2:51 PM on August 16, 2013

Wow, fastest burn-out ever? I hope you find what you're looking for elsewhere, or come back and realize that MetaFilter won't always what you're looking for.
posted by filthy light thief at 3:01 PM on August 16, 2013 [1 favorite]

well, everybody reads the times
so hold on, hold on, hold on…
posted by klangklangston at 3:02 PM on August 16, 2013

Sorry the entire site couldn't change to meet your ridiculous needs.

Click this link whenever Artw is going all crankypants.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 6:12 PM on August 16, 2013 [7 favorites]

I don't know why anybody would care whether I leave or stay. It seems odd to me that anyone would take offense at that. What I actually said that is I respect the opinions expressed here, and that my view is in the minority, and I accept that.
posted by Vispa Teresa at 9:00 PM on August 16, 2013

i am the poster of the forbidden panda video

i bear the scarlet p

heap your scorn upon me
posted by medusa at 9:41 PM on August 16, 2013 [3 favorites]

I'll give you my Guardian links when you pry them from my cold, dead hands
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 3:28 AM on August 17, 2013

I don't know why anybody would care whether I leave or stay. It seems odd to me that anyone would take offense at that. What I actually said that is I respect the opinions expressed here, and that my view is in the minority, and I accept that.

You have to understand that the words you chose have a long and storied history around the web (and indeed, in real life) of being used as part of painfully obvious ploys to be begged to stay. If you, in all sincerity meant 'Huh, I guess this place is great, but not quite what I'm looking for, so I'm going to wander off now, and although I am stopping to tell you this, it's only by way of providing a brief wrap-up and a polite farewell' then people here have overreacted, but usually when posts like yours are made, they mean basically none of those things.
posted by jacquilynne at 9:07 AM on August 17, 2013 [3 favorites]

Click this link whenever Artw is going all crankypants.

Hmmm...
posted by Artw at 11:20 AM on August 17, 2013

I would like a place on the web where I can find some solace from what is so insistently presented to me already, everywhere I look.

I really question the premise of this. What's insistently presented to you, on the websites you read frequently, or on the links passed around on the social media websites you frequent, is probably entirely different from what is presented to me.
posted by inertia at 10:27 AM on August 19, 2013

Just one more data-diddle on what everybody reads - I actively avoid Huffington for a number of reasonss. One reason is that my friends often try to sell me on Huff "stories" that are at the one weird old tip level of reportage or aggressively wrong or terrifyingly anti-science.MeMetafilter is one guide to the worthwhile pieces in Huffington.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 5:24 AM on August 22, 2013