Previously on MetaFilter June 18, 2024 8:43 AM Subscribe
Is it time to let go of "Previously?" Some topics have been explored, revisited, or detailed here many times, meaning that revisiting them in order to choose a "Previously" can be a time-consuming exercise. In 2024, MetaFilter tags, the search bar, and search engines provide many ways to access old site content.* Finding older relevant MetaFilter content is not the challenge that it was in 1999. On the other hand, MeFites do still comment favorably on things they have found in "Previously" links.
As a reader, I sometimes enjoy Previously. As a poster, I don't. Identifying just the right post to Previously is a chore. I would appreciate knowing whether the community cares about and regularly uses these in 2024, or whether it's only a subset of active users.
When I go Previously-hunting, many posts I find are from users who haven't been active in years, or who have closed their accounts. This makes me feel that there should be less obligation to post Previouslies--those who make the effort to post are gone. On the other hand, I have occasionally skipped adding a Previously from a still-present user who did a great job in past, and I have regretted not adding it. It's clear that some MeFites care about previously, to go by comments here--and even among the idolators and heretics in Avignon.
* Not all old site content can or should be accessed. Many old links are useless without Archive.org or similar tools. Also, more than once I've found innocuous-looking URLs in old posts that now host completely different websites from what the post text implies: scams, porn, viruses, malware, or worse.
As a reader, I sometimes enjoy Previously. As a poster, I don't. Identifying just the right post to Previously is a chore. I would appreciate knowing whether the community cares about and regularly uses these in 2024, or whether it's only a subset of active users.
When I go Previously-hunting, many posts I find are from users who haven't been active in years, or who have closed their accounts. This makes me feel that there should be less obligation to post Previouslies--those who make the effort to post are gone. On the other hand, I have occasionally skipped adding a Previously from a still-present user who did a great job in past, and I have regretted not adding it. It's clear that some MeFites care about previously, to go by comments here--and even among the idolators and heretics in Avignon.
* Not all old site content can or should be accessed. Many old links are useless without Archive.org or similar tools. Also, more than once I've found innocuous-looking URLs in old posts that now host completely different websites from what the post text implies: scams, porn, viruses, malware, or worse.
Where's the obligation to post previouslies coming from? I mean, I'm very much not an FPP-er, but I wouldn't be reading this much into something that I've never seen described as an "obligation". People are welcome to add links to their own posts; people are welcome to link to past discussions in comments.
This would make more sense if it were about the deletion of doubles, but that rule has already been significantly relaxed.
posted by sagc at 8:51 AM on June 18 [21 favorites]
This would make more sense if it were about the deletion of doubles, but that rule has already been significantly relaxed.
posted by sagc at 8:51 AM on June 18 [21 favorites]
I hereby give anyone and everyone permission to ignore any post I have made when making a new post on a similar topic. No need to give a "previously" link to old post of mine. (I would appreciate it if you could, make a small donation ($5?) to MetaFilter if you use the same link as the primary basis for your new post.
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:59 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
posted by JohnnyGunn at 8:59 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
There's zero obligation to add a previously link, and imo it should only be included if it adds interesting or vital context to your FPP. For example. It obviously would have been impossible to have a serious discussion about this FPP without the framework of the prior related post.
posted by phunniemee at 9:09 AM on June 18 [10 favorites]
posted by phunniemee at 9:09 AM on June 18 [10 favorites]
For those who came in late:
There used to be a hardline rule on the Blue that double posts were not permitted. If the link had appeared before, or substantively the same content, the post would be deleted. This was relaxed to a sort of
When doubles were strictly forbidden, it would be common for someone to post a link in the thread to the post that you had unknowingly duplicated, leading your post to be cast into oblivion. My sense is that previouslies arose in response to the doubles policy, acknowledging
In 2024, MetaFilter tags, the search bar, and search engines provide many ways to access old site content.
Tagging is largely user generated, and has the usual failings of folksonomies, so I'm always pleasantly shocked when Related Posts actually turns up something relevant. I am a great fan of previouslies, and am guilty of adding them in comments when one is lacking. At its best, some of the great things about the Blue is the conversation we have about links (or our opinions of what we think the link might be about), and the fact that we've been having those opinions for nearly a quarter century. It's often nice to revisit past links and see what folks had to say last time around, or, failing that, at least gawk at the trainwreck that Metafilter Classic™️ could be, and reflect on how we are, some of the time, less worse.
posted by zamboni at 9:43 AM on June 18 [18 favorites]
There used to be a hardline rule on the Blue that double posts were not permitted. If the link had appeared before, or substantively the same content, the post would be deleted. This was relaxed to a sort of
statute of limitationskind of deal.
When doubles were strictly forbidden, it would be common for someone to post a link in the thread to the post that you had unknowingly duplicated, leading your post to be cast into oblivion. My sense is that previouslies arose in response to the doubles policy, acknowledging
prior work, and preempt any nitpickers that your post was not a double if you've already found the offending article, thank you very much.
In 2024, MetaFilter tags, the search bar, and search engines provide many ways to access old site content.
Tagging is largely user generated, and has the usual failings of folksonomies, so I'm always pleasantly shocked when Related Posts actually turns up something relevant. I am a great fan of previouslies, and am guilty of adding them in comments when one is lacking. At its best, some of the great things about the Blue is the conversation we have about links (or our opinions of what we think the link might be about), and the fact that we've been having those opinions for nearly a quarter century. It's often nice to revisit past links and see what folks had to say last time around, or, failing that, at least gawk at the trainwreck that Metafilter Classic™️ could be, and reflect on how we are, some of the time, less worse.
posted by zamboni at 9:43 AM on June 18 [18 favorites]
No strong feelings on previouslies, but it's worth mentioning that sometimes a search engine result on metafilter that seems to lead to the post you want to find was indexed from the "random" page with a long string of digits in the parameters, and following goes to a completely different random post.
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 9:51 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
posted by polytope subirb enby-of-piano-dice at 9:51 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]
The 2023 "MetaFilter is on life support" fundraising nudged me to think more seriously about how to be a better contributor to a site that's give me a lot over the years. That, in turn, meant I've been trying to pay closer to site norms and practices. Some of these seem pretty clear-cut to me, in terms of whether I should or shouldn't follow them, whether I do or don't agree with them. I'm asking about Previously because I have gotten the sense at times that it's something that some users care about, but I personally don't see the value of the practice as a standard feature of FPPs. phunniemee's view feels kind of like my ideal, but/and I think zamboni raises good points on the value of discussing links and posts new and old.
posted by cupcakeninja at 9:57 AM on June 18 [3 favorites]
posted by cupcakeninja at 9:57 AM on June 18 [3 favorites]
I'm actually surprised to see you describe previouslies as an obligation. I have never had the sense that they are, and as as a poster, I really only post them if I personally remember that there is a previous post on a particular topic that I think might interest people. I don't go out of my way to search out every possible previously on a subject. If there's something super relevant that I miss, one of the cabal will post it in the comments.
As a reader, I am sometimes interested in them, especially if something is slowly developing situation like a years long court battle or something where I want to go back and see how things were before. But my like for them as a reader is not, in any way, an obligation on posters to post them and I would hope that no one would feel that they are required and you can't make the post without them if they exist.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:34 AM on June 18 [6 favorites]
As a reader, I am sometimes interested in them, especially if something is slowly developing situation like a years long court battle or something where I want to go back and see how things were before. But my like for them as a reader is not, in any way, an obligation on posters to post them and I would hope that no one would feel that they are required and you can't make the post without them if they exist.
posted by jacquilynne at 10:34 AM on June 18 [6 favorites]
For me, this falls very squarely into "a solution looking for a problem" -
As a poster, I think the general consensus is that you can do previouslies if you want, but you're under no obligation to do so.
As a consumer of content, you're obviously under no obligation to explore the previouslies, if they are supplied.
I mean, can't we just keep on keeping on?
posted by kbanas at 10:47 AM on June 18 [9 favorites]
As a poster, I think the general consensus is that you can do previouslies if you want, but you're under no obligation to do so.
As a consumer of content, you're obviously under no obligation to explore the previouslies, if they are supplied.
I mean, can't we just keep on keeping on?
posted by kbanas at 10:47 AM on June 18 [9 favorites]
One middle ground pony might be making it so Related Posts could be edited by the poster, or at least previewable so you can pick tags that match prior posts.
posted by zamboni at 11:07 AM on June 18 [3 favorites]
posted by zamboni at 11:07 AM on June 18 [3 favorites]
There's precedent for mods allowing posts to stand when the "previously" has been a long time ago; I've seen it more than a few times in recent years. I think the rule against double posting has been more of a guideline for a while now, and posters should feel free to use their judgement when the posting page turns up "this site may have been posted before" or whatever the message is now, and to ignore it if they feel like it.
But they shouldn't feel bad if someone comments with a "previously" link; those can be good additions to a thread and aren't always intended in a "you shouldn't have posted this!" way.
posted by mediareport at 11:08 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
But they shouldn't feel bad if someone comments with a "previously" link; those can be good additions to a thread and aren't always intended in a "you shouldn't have posted this!" way.
posted by mediareport at 11:08 AM on June 18 [2 favorites]
I think the rule against double posting has been more of a guideline for a while now
The rule is a guideline.
What is double posting? Is there a statute of limitations on double posting?
The rule is a guideline.
What is double posting? Is there a statute of limitations on double posting?
A double post is when someone posts something to the front page of MetaFilter (or sometimes MetaTalk) that has been there before.posted by zamboni at 11:14 AM on June 18 [4 favorites]
There is no hard and fast rule on when a post is not a double anymore. For an identical URL and a site that hasn't changed in content "a few years" is a good guideline. For a site with the same URL and new content, indicating the previous post in your new post is a good idea. If there is a post on a similar topic still on the front page, please post your link into the open thread instead of starting a new post.
I think it would be fun if whenever you clicked on a 'Previously' link it played a little audio clip of a voice saying "Previously...on MetaFilter" in the style of the opening to an episode of Lost.
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:42 AM on June 18 [8 favorites]
posted by Atom Eyes at 11:42 AM on June 18 [8 favorites]
Yeah, "previously" has always struck me as a nice-to-have but not at all necessary thing; I'll try to include it if it seems useful but I've never felt obligated to. Sometimes the topic's broad and there are dozens to choose from so I'll just sample the top most relevant ones, nbd. Linkrot can definitely be a problem but the discussion is often at least as interesting as the post.
It's nice to have an older post nodded to like this but I wouldn't overthink it or try to come up with some rule.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:17 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
It's nice to have an older post nodded to like this but I wouldn't overthink it or try to come up with some rule.
posted by Rhaomi at 12:17 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
I add previouslies to my own posts and sometimes in comments on others' posts when I think they're cool links that add interesting context. A lot of times, when I'm doing it in a comment, it's because the new post reminded me of the cool previously post and I think others might be interested, just as I enjoy revisiting great old posts from time to time anyway. I do not feel obligated to link to all vaguely related previouslies, and I don't expect others to do it either. It's just kind of a fun thing to do.
I do think that previouslies can be helpful to newer site users so they can see context that others may be bringing to their comments.
(They're also helpful to newer users so they can see what a shit hole the comments often were in the early years and be thankful that some folks left and other folks grew up and our norms changed to make us all less assholes)
posted by hydropsyche at 12:57 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
I do think that previouslies can be helpful to newer site users so they can see context that others may be bringing to their comments.
(They're also helpful to newer users so they can see what a shit hole the comments often were in the early years and be thankful that some folks left and other folks grew up and our norms changed to make us all less assholes)
posted by hydropsyche at 12:57 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
nthing that - for whatever my perception may be worth - I always understood most Previously links to be optional, and that they were only semi-required if you were posting something that really did seem like a double, to kind of say "I know this has been posted before, but I've thought about it and I think my new post is a worthy addition as well."
I agree that previously links are often nice, but I doubt you would get any pushback from the mods or anyone else if you left them out of any posts you may wish to make.
My vote, for what it's worth: previously links are great but strictly "nice to have" and (almost?) never actually required.
... and thank you, cupcakeninja, for ALL your amazing posts this year! You've shared so much great stuff, and I really appreciate it.
posted by kristi at 1:07 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
I agree that previously links are often nice, but I doubt you would get any pushback from the mods or anyone else if you left them out of any posts you may wish to make.
My vote, for what it's worth: previously links are great but strictly "nice to have" and (almost?) never actually required.
... and thank you, cupcakeninja, for ALL your amazing posts this year! You've shared so much great stuff, and I really appreciate it.
posted by kristi at 1:07 PM on June 18 [3 favorites]
There are already barriers to myself for posting (the whole posting page, in my case, it's not the simplest thing to add a post, which is why I loved the recent idea of others taking up posting in the #LinkMe thread), and I don't need to give myself another one. Not worried about Previouslies.
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:42 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
posted by tiny frying pan at 1:42 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
I say let the previouslies, which auto-correct insisted are previous lies, be filled in by those who remember them in the comments.
posted by warriorqueen at 2:43 PM on June 18 [4 favorites]
posted by warriorqueen at 2:43 PM on June 18 [4 favorites]
Didn't we already discuss this?
If only there were a word for that…
posted by signal at 3:33 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
If only there were a word for that…
posted by signal at 3:33 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
I add "previouslies" when I think a previous post adds to what I have created (see my recent post on the Indian Elections; I added 4 posts I thought fleshed out my FPP. They were not the only posts you can find by, say, searching "modi").
When I do a weird/horror round up, I include links to all the previous round ups, so people can find them. Most of those comments get a couple of favorites, so I assume someone found them useful.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:38 PM on June 18 [5 favorites]
When I do a weird/horror round up, I include links to all the previous round ups, so people can find them. Most of those comments get a couple of favorites, so I assume someone found them useful.
posted by GenjiandProust at 3:38 PM on June 18 [5 favorites]
Another person who always thought of previouslies as something some posters like to do, not any sort of obligation.
I mostly like them, sometimes they're useful, interesting, funny, or surprising. Occasionally it does feel like they're only being included for form's sake, which I don't see any reason for.
I think the best tradition to maintain is the tradition of having lots of different kinds of posts with lots of different styles, so fewer people wind up under the (mistaken, imo) impression that MF requires a 57-link post or a SLYT post or a previouslied post or a post with a pullquote or a clickbait title or what have you. You need a minimum of a link, you should ideally have some useful tags, anything else is up to your preferences. Right?
posted by trig at 3:54 PM on June 18 [12 favorites]
I mostly like them, sometimes they're useful, interesting, funny, or surprising. Occasionally it does feel like they're only being included for form's sake, which I don't see any reason for.
I think the best tradition to maintain is the tradition of having lots of different kinds of posts with lots of different styles, so fewer people wind up under the (mistaken, imo) impression that MF requires a 57-link post or a SLYT post or a previouslied post or a post with a pullquote or a clickbait title or what have you. You need a minimum of a link, you should ideally have some useful tags, anything else is up to your preferences. Right?
posted by trig at 3:54 PM on June 18 [12 favorites]
Where's the obligation to post previouslies coming from? ...
This would make more sense if it were about the deletion of doubles, but that rule has already been significantly relaxed.
I think this is exactly where the 'obligation' comes from (note - not actually an obligation). It started when people were posting something that looked like, but wasn't quite, a double-post. So they would preemptively post a defense against the ever-vigilant and ruthless double-post police by pointing out that they were aware of previous similar posts and this one isn't exactly the same, so there!
Tagging is largely user generated, and has the usual failings of folksonomies, so I'm always pleasantly shocked when Related Posts actually turns up something relevant. I
You have the back-tagging superstars to thank for that, perhaps accidentally assisted by the use of a smallish group of people so more consistent use of tags than would usually be the case.
posted by dg at 4:03 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
This would make more sense if it were about the deletion of doubles, but that rule has already been significantly relaxed.
I think this is exactly where the 'obligation' comes from (note - not actually an obligation). It started when people were posting something that looked like, but wasn't quite, a double-post. So they would preemptively post a defense against the ever-vigilant and ruthless double-post police by pointing out that they were aware of previous similar posts and this one isn't exactly the same, so there!
Tagging is largely user generated, and has the usual failings of folksonomies, so I'm always pleasantly shocked when Related Posts actually turns up something relevant. I
You have the back-tagging superstars to thank for that, perhaps accidentally assisted by the use of a smallish group of people so more consistent use of tags than would usually be the case.
posted by dg at 4:03 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
You have the back-tagging superstars to thank for that, perhaps accidentally assisted by the use of a smallish group of people so more consistent use of tags than would usually be the case.
And also the long-suffering mods that I have not infrequently bugged via the contact form to add tags where the omission was particularly glaring. However, Related Posts are statically generated at time of posting, so you cannot backtag old posts into relevance.
posted by zamboni at 4:44 PM on June 18 [4 favorites]
And also the long-suffering mods that I have not infrequently bugged via the contact form to add tags where the omission was particularly glaring. However, Related Posts are statically generated at time of posting, so you cannot backtag old posts into relevance.
posted by zamboni at 4:44 PM on June 18 [4 favorites]
If you're doing your due diligence to ensure it's not a recent double, then you've already unearthed a previously if it exists.
IMO it's fine to include a link to the page for that tag or search results or whatever (instead of having to pick/curate, but even if that's your preference the most recent one should suffice) on the off chance that it could offer context that might be valuable to someone.
I don't think anybody is going to yell at you if you don't do it (unless it actually is a recent double), but it's also not really a pain to do (unless on a phone maybe, I wouldn't know as I don't do that).
posted by juv3nal at 8:48 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
IMO it's fine to include a link to the page for that tag or search results or whatever (instead of having to pick/curate, but even if that's your preference the most recent one should suffice) on the off chance that it could offer context that might be valuable to someone.
I don't think anybody is going to yell at you if you don't do it (unless it actually is a recent double), but it's also not really a pain to do (unless on a phone maybe, I wouldn't know as I don't do that).
posted by juv3nal at 8:48 PM on June 18 [1 favorite]
If we're voting, I'm not a fan of "previously" unless there was something substantially "more" and different from what's in the current post. And I don't feel the poster has an obligation to do it.
What I do think is a reasonable guideline is making a little effort to be sure the same thing wasn't just posted last week.
posted by ctmf at 10:09 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
What I do think is a reasonable guideline is making a little effort to be sure the same thing wasn't just posted last week.
posted by ctmf at 10:09 PM on June 18 [2 favorites]
If the new post is better or more complete than past posts in the topic, I think we should skip the previously links and just mark the post (Taylor’s Version).
posted by snofoam at 1:46 AM on June 19 [5 favorites]
posted by snofoam at 1:46 AM on June 19 [5 favorites]
I only think about “previously” if the old post is within recent memory or if it supplies important context to understanding the new post. Mostly the latter. If someone else posted a follow up to one of my posts I would be happy for the follow up, no visible credit needed.
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:29 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
posted by Tell Me No Lies at 7:29 AM on June 19 [1 favorite]
i used a "previously" in my last fpp because the previous post was a post that provided more backstory to what i was posting, and as a nod to an ongoing narrative that maybe some readers would appreciate. never felt obliged to do so and it doesn't bristle me when it isn't included somewhere else; just thought it would be helpful
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:34 AM on June 19 [3 favorites]
posted by Aya Hirano on the Astral Plane at 7:34 AM on June 19 [3 favorites]
It, I don't know, depends on taste? Sometimes I use it; for example, if it's a post about an annual event such as cheese rolling, or some kind of repeat event like a billionaire taking a wonky submarine to the Titanic. Sometimes - often - I don't if a brief search doesn't throw up a related post [1]. Sometimes it's a quietly gleeful way to mangle the english language.
Figuring that if there is a related post from the past, then someone will post it in the comments. Which is good [2] as it gives any readers of the thread some more optional links to explore.
But yeah, totally agreeing with what trig says above, which could be the answer to quite a few MetaTalk questions over the years:
I think the best tradition to maintain is the tradition of having lots of different kinds of posts with lots of different styles, so fewer people wind up under the (mistaken, imo) impression that MF requires a 57-link post or a SLYT post or a previouslied post or a post with a pullquote or a clickbait title or what have you. You need a minimum of a link, you should ideally have some useful tags, anything else is up to your preferences. Right?
[1] And it's always a brief search (the 'little effort' which ctmf mentions above), as forming a Front Page Post isn't, and shouldn't be, an arduous university research essay exercise.
[2] If the commenter does it in a positive way, and not a "Your post is shit as it is not acknowledging this historical post" wankeringly way, which has occasionally happened.
[3] Drink more water. It's hot.
posted by Wordshore at 9:14 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
Figuring that if there is a related post from the past, then someone will post it in the comments. Which is good [2] as it gives any readers of the thread some more optional links to explore.
But yeah, totally agreeing with what trig says above, which could be the answer to quite a few MetaTalk questions over the years:
I think the best tradition to maintain is the tradition of having lots of different kinds of posts with lots of different styles, so fewer people wind up under the (mistaken, imo) impression that MF requires a 57-link post or a SLYT post or a previouslied post or a post with a pullquote or a clickbait title or what have you. You need a minimum of a link, you should ideally have some useful tags, anything else is up to your preferences. Right?
[1] And it's always a brief search (the 'little effort' which ctmf mentions above), as forming a Front Page Post isn't, and shouldn't be, an arduous university research essay exercise.
[2] If the commenter does it in a positive way, and not a "Your post is shit as it is not acknowledging this historical post" wankeringly way, which has occasionally happened.
[3] Drink more water. It's hot.
posted by Wordshore at 9:14 AM on June 19 [4 favorites]
I tend to see it as a polite way to assuage the "wait, wasn't I just reading about this? Did I read about this here? Maybe I read about it a decade ago?" feeling I imagine most of us get here sometimes.
posted by lucidium at 5:52 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
posted by lucidium at 5:52 AM on June 20 [5 favorites]
When I'm reading, I like previouslies because I like the context it can add. Also, otherwise, I may think 'wait, did this get talked about here... I read something about it somewhere... but where?' and end up spending time digging around to see what I'm remembering.
posted by rmd1023 at 7:15 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
posted by rmd1023 at 7:15 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
This strikes me as yet another entry in the "why are we putting more speed bumps in the way of people posting more frequently?" catalog.
In this post, not only do we have a "should we keep doing or stop doing a thing" situational, but we also have a "is this a rule or a guideline" branch off that situational. Those are some deeeeeeeeeeep weeds! At what point does the simple idea of "I have a post I'd like to share with some internet friends" become so entangled in rules, both written and unwritten, both new and old, that people just stop wanting to put up new posts, for fear of stepping on one too many rakes?
posted by pdb at 7:53 AM on June 20 [4 favorites]
In this post, not only do we have a "should we keep doing or stop doing a thing" situational, but we also have a "is this a rule or a guideline" branch off that situational. Those are some deeeeeeeeeeep weeds! At what point does the simple idea of "I have a post I'd like to share with some internet friends" become so entangled in rules, both written and unwritten, both new and old, that people just stop wanting to put up new posts, for fear of stepping on one too many rakes?
posted by pdb at 7:53 AM on June 20 [4 favorites]
Team previouslies not required.
But I'll put them in for assorted reasons:
posted by Mitheral at 9:17 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
But I'll put them in for assorted reasons:
- The post is an intentional double where the older post often has comments that would still be a good comment but the user who made them isn't around
- The previous post tackled the subject from a different view point. It fleshes out my post with taking away from the stage I'm setting
- The post search feature brought them up and I figured "Why not".
posted by Mitheral at 9:17 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
I like previouslies for context or for round up posts on a theme (e.g. GenjiandProust's weird/horror round ups). I've never considered them an obligation and don't think anybody should feel any pressure to add them.
posted by joannemerriam at 10:09 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
posted by joannemerriam at 10:09 AM on June 20 [1 favorite]
yeah, I add them when they feel relevant. Which usually means that somebody did a lot of work on said subject here previously and, here's a quick link or two if you're interested in digging further. Or as is often the case with me, intrigued about how the discussion may have played out differently then ...
posted by philip-random at 1:43 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
posted by philip-random at 1:43 PM on June 20 [1 favorite]
As a poster, I use previouslies frequently, and for reasons I think largely stated:
-to recognize another poster's work
-to point to something I hope my post builds upon (for example, my space exploration round-ups try to link to recent news item posts)
-to remind commentators that we've been thinking about this stuff for a while
Sometimes I find enough prior work to jam a bunch of links into a single "previously."
posted by doctornemo at 12:01 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]
-to recognize another poster's work
-to point to something I hope my post builds upon (for example, my space exploration round-ups try to link to recent news item posts)
-to remind commentators that we've been thinking about this stuff for a while
Sometimes I find enough prior work to jam a bunch of links into a single "previously."
posted by doctornemo at 12:01 PM on June 22 [2 favorites]
« Older A Bit of My Landlord’s Ear at last | Hello from your friendly neighbourhood interim... Newer »
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by y2karl at 8:49 AM on June 18 [1 favorite]