I've never quite figured out the etiquette to follow-up posts...

July 26, 2004 1:10 PM

I've never quite figured out the etiquette to follow-up posts...
posted by togdon to Etiquette/Policy at 1:10 PM (19 comments total)

This post generated tons of comments a couple of weeks ago, but has since been debunked by both Salon and Snopes.

I find the story as debunked much more alarming than the original, and imagine
that it'd generate some good discussion. The problem, of course, is that the
follow-up is so soon after the initial post, and the event is newsfiltery...
posted by togdon at 1:11 PM on July 26, 2004

… and it would be a double post.
posted by timeistight at 1:19 PM on July 26, 2004

This isn't suppose to be a news site. It's suppose to be a filter for interesting links. Follow-up posts go against the spirit of the site.

But no one obides by that.

In other words - Some feel free to shit on the site with follow-up posts. But that doesn't make it right.
posted by y6y6y6 at 1:24 PM on July 26, 2004

If you'd like to follow up on an item that was posted earlier, you'll find that it comes with a handy text box at the bottom which will gladly receive your additional commentary on the subject.

Cramming more crappy news postings on the site isn't really a solution to any problem, and the source of a couple of them. But, hell, what do I know? I'm a coward. I don't post things to MetaFilter because there are assholes like me waiting in the wings to take potshots.
posted by majick at 1:34 PM on July 26, 2004

This isn't suppose to be a news site. It's suppose to be a filter for interesting links. Follow-up posts go against the spirit of the site.

Not if they're interesting.
posted by The God Complex at 2:02 PM on July 26, 2004

Well, we've had the story, the debunking and a follow-up debunking (have I missed any?) but, hey, it's interesting so bring it on.

What's the latest on that Olsen twin, by-the-way?
posted by timeistight at 2:22 PM on July 26, 2004

This is pretty off-topic, but am I the only one who thinks that new Snopes design (in togdon's link) is terrible?
posted by reklaw at 2:30 PM on July 26, 2004

Yes, it was interesting. I'd be happy if people found links to articles by so-called journalists who attempt to foster fear and xenophobia amongst their american compatriots, especially if the story is then picked up by the major media outlets in the U.S. (CNN, etc.) and then outs major figures in American industries as ignorant douchebags...

and then is promptly followed up by evidence that makes said idiot and everyone else that stepped out of the woodwork to vent their hateful viewpoint look like the imbeciles they are.

This is the sort of newsfiltering metafilter does extremely well: seizing upon small news items from fairly small news outlets (I'm sure there aren't that many people here that read Women's WallStreet that often)--items that are often underreported or woefully ignorant yet taken as gospel--and then exposing the fraud of big media or the ideological mess that spawned the article. The fact that there was so much drama after the first hate-filled, factually-baseless article was just icing on the theatre cake.

Why you find this in some way comparable to gossip about the Olsen twin(s) is beyond me. Maybe it's all that sun I hear you've been getting back in B.C.? ;)
posted by The God Complex at 2:38 PM on July 26, 2004

This isn't suppose to be a news site. It's suppose to be a filter for interesting links. Follow-up posts go against the spirit of the site.
Not if they're interesting.

I have seen many news posts this year that months later the outcome was - basically what we commented would be teh correct. A follow up post would pancake the first thread. Which may be a reason members dislike the news posts being posted- through time and truth: "Move a long, nothing to see here."
posted by thomcatspike at 2:51 PM on July 26, 2004

I see your point God; this media chatter is terribly, terribly important as well as being interesting whereas Whosis Olsen's drug problem/eating disorder is only interesting. I get it now.

I'm just wondering, though, how many times we need to direct people to the same Salon article before we've adequately aquited ourselves in the fight for truth?
posted by timeistight at 2:52 PM on July 26, 2004

never quite figured out the etiquette to follow-up posts

bitch early. bitch often.
posted by quonsar at 3:13 PM on July 26, 2004

at home and on the job.
posted by y2karl at 3:34 PM on July 26, 2004

MetaFilter: bitch early. bitch often.
posted by dg at 3:51 PM on July 26, 2004

All right timeistight, I was going to shut up since you so nicely pointed out it was a forbidden double post and all, but the "how many times we need to direct people to the same Salon article before we've adequately aquited ourselves in the fight for truth?" is a little much.

Yes I'm a fuck up and didn't read every thread since the last moment I was looking at the screen on Friday before leaving work... I'm Sorry. But neither the Salon link or the Snopes link show up in the text of the FPP follow-up.

I, for one, tend to believe things that I read on Snopes, ugly redesigns aside. The follow-up links to an AM talk radio site, not that they're not to be believed... but it seems as likely of as a good source of news as womenswallstreet.com.

Mary-Kate is out of treatment.

Here's a new toy to make up for my stupid follow-up question to a stupid newsfilter post. I'm sure it's a double post (at least tangentially through AudioScrobbler), and I'm sure you'll be the first to point it out. I only wish I could come with something cooler... Sorry for having wasted your time.
posted by togdon at 4:28 PM on July 26, 2004

I didn't mean to pick on you, togdon; I meant to pick on The God Complex. I try to only fight with fellow Canucks.

You didn't waste my time. I enjoyed the whole thing far more than is healthy.
posted by timeistight at 5:00 PM on July 26, 2004

Eh, I had a busy week, so I didn't notice any follow-up, and appreciate the links here. Thanks!
posted by DrJohnEvans at 5:32 PM on July 26, 2004

I see your point God; this media chatter is terribly, terribly important as well as being interesting whereas Whosis Olsen's drug problem/eating disorder is only interesting. I get it now.

Eatind disorders amongst hollywood elites and/or young girls in the west (whether rich and famous or not, although the riches and fame add another dimension to examine) is a fairly interesting topic, though not in the derogatory way you framed it, which is--I'm sure--how you meant it to be framed.

The rest, however, is very interesting, given the reasons I outlined. If you disagree I can handle that and could care less if you don't participate in the thread. There are a lot of stupid news posts; these, however, I found to be of relative interest. And I did not suggest it should be posted again, only that following something up is fine if it's interesting enough. Why we can't take these things on a case-by-case basis instead of looking for a rule (follow-ups violate the guidelines!!) is beyond me, so I won't speculate. Cheers!
posted by The God Complex at 8:38 PM on July 26, 2004

"Eating", I should say. Two letters away--for shame!
posted by The God Complex at 8:39 PM on July 26, 2004

I think Mr. Complex nailed it. I don't see the issue as whether the post is a follow-up or not, but whether it links to something of interest or not. My feeling is that, as much as I like to read Snopes from time time, links to the "usual places" - where people are likely to look if they smell something fishy - are perhaps better posted as a comment in the original thread.

However, if a good quality follow-up article is written by someone that provides a genuinely fresh perspective then perhaps it's worthy of a front page post. Any sort of interesting response might be worth a post, really.

I take a similar approach with my personal weblog. If there's a story in the news that interests me a great deal, but lots of people are shouting about it, I tend to hold fire for a couple of days and see what follows. Often that's the time that real insight can be gained, but of course by then everyone has moved on to the next thing.

In that respect I'd also agree with Mr. Complex when he says that metafilter is effective at newsfiltering smaller stories that others may miss but have a particular point of interest for the likes of us. I'd add that metafilter could potentially be very useful for holding back a day or two and getting to the bones of an issue not by linking to the first news story to hit the web, but by filtering the best op-eds, personal responses and artistic responses that have emerged.

I like follow-up posts, but I think if it's just a case of "well, actually" it's better off as a comment. If there's some real understanding to be gained I'd say a follow-up post a day or two later is great, but I would ask whether the initial post was necessary. Knee-jerk-must-post-this-contentious-story-first-filter is *not* something we do well.
posted by nthdegx at 6:38 AM on July 27, 2004