Is it too much to ask that FPP's be reasonably coherent?

January 28, 2005 8:55 AM

Is it too much to ask that FPP's be reasonably coherent?
posted by chundo to Etiquette/Policy at 8:55 AM (80 comments total)

Does stream-of-consciousness-style posting of 5 or 6 often completely unrelated links really constitute an good FPP?
posted by chundo at 8:55 AM on January 28, 2005

I wouldn't think so. What bothers me most about it, I think, is the results when tagging. Tagging to represent multiple links that are completely unrelated is going to create a link between tags that otherwise wouldn't be. So if, in the future, more emphasis is placed on tag relationships . . .
posted by ThePrawn at 9:03 AM on January 28, 2005

I don't have a problem with the tags. Each tag corresponds to a linked story. The problem is that the post lacks a unified theme, and therefore, there's not much to discuss.
posted by grateful at 9:10 AM on January 28, 2005

At least it's not about politics. And it doesn't take up much room on the front page.
posted by Mark Doner at 9:11 AM on January 28, 2005

I don't really see what the problem is. I've been enjoying these posts.

And what Mark Doner said.
posted by greasy_skillet at 9:16 AM on January 28, 2005

It's a time-honored tradition around here, of which mcgraw is just the most recent practitioner.

Perhaps you're just missing the connections?
posted by me3dia at 9:17 AM on January 28, 2005

It took me awhile to warm up to mcgraw, but now I really like him. He's always good at combining a handful of interesting links into a new, amorphous germ of a thought. He's one of the few originals here and it he does it so minimally. Leave him alone.
posted by turaho at 9:20 AM on January 28, 2005

At least they aren't just more old reposts from Boing-boing.
posted by milovoo at 9:26 AM on January 28, 2005

No, it's not. mcgraw thinks he's some kind of clever postmodern dada digeratus, but there's a difference between things that are clever and things that are good. His posts are definitely not the latter, and arguably not even clever. They're just excuses for people to pile random crap into threads.

As painful as some of the political posts are, at least they're DISCUSSION, which is what the focus of this site is. mcgraw's posts are (a) newsy and (b) undiscussable.

mcgraw, if you're reading this: You're not clever. You're not funny. You're just annoying. And if you're going to be annoying around here, have the balls to do it like quonsar.

You get an F.
posted by mkultra at 9:27 AM on January 28, 2005

I'm still waiting for dfowler to come in with guns blazing.
posted by brownpau at 9:30 AM on January 28, 2005

mcgraw, if you're reading this: You're not clever. You're not funny. You're just annoying. And if you're going to be annoying around here, have the balls to do it like quonsar.

Wow. That was really annoying.
posted by mudpuppie at 9:35 AM on January 28, 2005

A Metatalk callout composed of six of your front-page posts? What a dubious distinction.

On the other hand, the composition of chundo's complaint is pretty meta. I like that.
posted by driveler at 9:35 AM on January 28, 2005

Perhaps you're just missing the connections?

Perhaps. What's the connection between dark matter, protein tests on saliva, and Pluto's moon?
posted by chundo at 9:36 AM on January 28, 2005

i think the problem with these posts is that a collection of random links provides very little depth for their subjects. and their juxtaposition is often a stretch, at best. it would be like collecting a series of links on the space station, mating habits of monkeys, urban exploration, gastrointestinal diseases, and ancient middle eastern history. i think the post would look something like this:

space monkeys infiltrate the bowels of canaan.

maybe i'm just missing a deeper connection.
posted by Igor XA at 9:39 AM on January 28, 2005

Some of those posts were OK, some of them were really bad. Like you, I tend to appreciate stuff that doesn't read like gibberish, and I don't think I even clicked any of mcgraw's links when they came up on the front page the first time, since they didn't make any sense to me, let alone pique my interest.

But Chundo, if I may be frank, I noticed you haven't posted any links yet. One way to encourage good posts is to make some yourself.
posted by Hildago at 9:39 AM on January 28, 2005

mkultra: Did you not get enough sleep last night?
posted by xmutex at 9:40 AM on January 28, 2005

mcgraw's posts are like miniature versions of Finnegan's Wake: they require a little work to figure out, but when you do you get an illustration of how someone's mind works. Not that I think mcgraw's the second coming of Joyce, but there is a reward in puzzling out something every once in awhile. It would get tiresome if everyone here started crafting mcgraw-like posts, but a little creativity never hurt anyone.

And just because people are thrown off by inscrutability and end up posting crazy random chatter in the threads doesn't mean the post itself is flawed. Stop being so offended just because you don't get it.
posted by turaho at 9:41 AM on January 28, 2005

Out of curiosity, do you get it?

What is the connection between dark matter, protein tests on saliva, and Pluto's moon?

(That's not snark, I am genuinely curious. If, as you postulate, there is a coherent connection, I'd be interested to find out what it is?)
posted by Karmakaze at 9:49 AM on January 28, 2005

Yeah, I got plenty of sleep.

Look, the purpose of a post here is to generate discussion about a topic/site/essay/whatever. mcgraw's posts do none of that. They're just vanity "look at me" posts. It was clever and amusing ONCE, but the repeated jerking off on the FP is just crass.

It would get tiresome if everyone here started crafting mcgraw-like posts, but a little creativity never hurt anyone.

This is EXACTLY why it needs to stop. Lack of disapproval is tacit approval.

GYOBF.
posted by mkultra at 9:50 AM on January 28, 2005

At best, it's a harmless art form using the medium of the hyperlink.

At worse it's an intellectually redundant exercise, but still harmless.

It certainly doesn't break the posting guidelines.

So ... let's have a good old-fashioned lynching.
posted by walrus at 9:52 AM on January 28, 2005

brownpau,

Like in Unforgiven?

Anyone who gives someone a letter grade on MetaTalk is a dick.
posted by dfowler at 9:55 AM on January 28, 2005

What is the connection between dark matter, protein tests on saliva, and Pluto's moon?

Just like explaining a joke makes it a whole lot less funny, I'm hesitant to post my interpretation for fear of being met with an underwhelming yawn from the masses, but here goes:

The key is the idea of so many proteins being found in saliva. It's amazing how much we can learn a lot about a person just by examining something they expel. Now think of Pluto, "spitting" out a moon (see either the post title or the third link if the imagery isn't immediately obvious) as a result of some mysterious impact. Extrapolate the saliva idea out and you might say that distinct celestial bodies carry echoes of each other.

Now here comes some clouds of dark matter, which some consider expelled remnants of the big bang, that float the Earth all of the time. If you think of dark matter as the universe's saliva, think of how many echoes of the Big Bang we're swimming through everyday.

mcgraw's not going to win a nobel prize for the idea or nothing, but it's a novel enough way of looking at the world that it entertained me.
posted by turaho at 9:58 AM on January 28, 2005

And just to get it out of the way before someone else does it:

*underwhelming yawn*
posted by turaho at 9:59 AM on January 28, 2005

Why do we keep telling people whose posts we don't like to get their own blog? Mcgraw's not breaking any MetaFilter Laws of Posting, he's just doing something you don't like, but that others do. So my suggestion to you would be JFDWI, or Just Fucking Deal With It. Learn about your scroll bar. It's a wonderful thing.
posted by xmutex at 9:59 AM on January 28, 2005

that's a lot of effort to explain a post., turaho. i would vernture to guess the average mefite won't bother to even attempt that sort of extrapolation, which sort of makes the point, "if it's going to be lost on the general audience, should it be done?" admittedly, your explanation makes the post much cooler, but that's a big stretch to demand of mefi in general. shouldn't there be something a little more tangible about a post?
posted by Igor XA at 10:04 AM on January 28, 2005

Mcgraw's not breaking any MetaFilter Laws of Posting

People who proselytize on the subway aren't breaking the law, but my hunch is that most people would wish they weren't around.

The larger point is that mcgraw is breaking the spirit of MeFi. What's the discussion his posts are supposed to generate? Solving his riddle (turaho- quite nice)? The post is about HIM, not the content of the links. That's exactly what blogs are for.
posted by mkultra at 10:05 AM on January 28, 2005

"Dark Matter, Saliva, and Pluto"

*opens envelope*

"McGraw's post, McShake, and Mickey's Dog"
posted by Arch Stanton at 10:09 AM on January 28, 2005

How do the random pictures that mcgraw sticks in the comments fit in turaho? The comments in this thread and mcgraw's user page lead me to believe he is just screwing around.

Also, since apparently there are only a chosen few who can truly comprehend the connections between the links, perhaps they are not good posts. Communication is the foundation of posting, yes? Getting a chorus of "WTF?s" and inane babble should be a sign that something is wrong with the post.
posted by sciurus at 10:10 AM on January 28, 2005

i like his posts. i think mcgraw's a nonsequitorbot or something, tho.
posted by amberglow at 10:13 AM on January 28, 2005

Although I agree that turaho had to do it, it's unfortunate that we've been forced to make explicit the implicit for the sake of the slower-witted.
posted by gramschmidt at 10:14 AM on January 28, 2005

What's the discussion his posts are supposed to generate?

Don't be spouting off your knowledge of the "spirit" of MeFi and claim in the same sentence that posts are all about discussion. There has been a very long and endless debate about what's more important (the discussion or the links) and your conclusion is just one of many opinions. It might serve you well to remember that.
posted by BlueTrain at 10:14 AM on January 28, 2005

sciurus, i would venture to guess that his user page pictures are taken from google image search, with the query, "mcgraw." as it happens, i would be right (flip through the pages to find them all).
posted by Igor XA at 10:14 AM on January 28, 2005

If you try hard enough, you can find a connection between anything and anything else. Maybe this is just a way to get around posting limits.
posted by anapestic at 10:18 AM on January 28, 2005

intellectual snobbery, gramschmidt?

Metafilter: Not for the slower-witted
posted by Igor XA at 10:20 AM on January 28, 2005

I'm somewhere between turaho and mkultra. I found some of the links interesting, and would have liked to have a discussion about them, but the post format pretty much eliminates any chance of that (what grateful said).

Also, links consisting of only punctuation marks in an FPP is obnoxious.

On preview: gramschmidt, you're so smart.
posted by chundo at 10:21 AM on January 28, 2005

I don't think the point of making an FPP is to generate comments. Plep, for example, brings us wonderful cultural and artistic gems and will usually draw under 10 comments, most of them of the "this is good" variety. The FPP speaks for itself. Mcgraw's posts, while lacking an overt theme, point to very interesting topics. They aren't political noise, they aren't gadgety, and those quick to condemn should get a massage and take a nice walk outside. The community will not decay from within because of a little surrealism and unusual posting styles.
posted by moonbird at 10:21 AM on January 28, 2005

mcgraw's posts got weird fairly recently, and one of them was weird enough to not live long. His old ones were more standard. I'm sure there's ways to extrapolate meaning out of any three links, just because that's how human minds tend to work, but that doesn't mean the posts are really interesting to me. I may, of course, be slow-witted. Other people seem to like them, however, so they stay around. However, grateful is right, they're also not real discussion starters, so we're back to the question "Is MeFi about the links, or the discussion, or some amalgam of both?"
posted by jessamyn at 10:24 AM on January 28, 2005

I thought about the post a little more and came up with another possible interpretation: just like a dentist's needle brings up a well of saliva in a fear-stricken patient, maybe the Pluto spat out a moon when faced with a cloud of dark matter? I think an anthropomorphous universe is a neat concept to consider.

I think there is an element of dada going on in mcgraw's posts and comments (and to tell you the truth, I first became aware of him because he was kind of a dick to me in a non-mcgraw thread), but in the end I think he's a character that introduces a little variety in Mefi. I don't know why everyone's so eager to shut him up. Even if the average person doesn't want to spend time puzzling through the gossamer-like connections of his links, at least the links themselves are interesting (not mind-blowing, but interesting) and when all else fails, they can skip to the next post.
posted by turaho at 10:25 AM on January 28, 2005

Mcgraw, if you're reading this: You're clever. You're funny. Thank you.
posted by LarryC at 10:30 AM on January 28, 2005

It's entertaining to watch people try to come up with a semi-coherent explanation of how the links are related, but it reminds me of two schools of thought about dreams. Some people are sure they have meaning; others think that they're just the brains way of trying to impose a narrative on a series of haphazard images. Maybe the responses to his posts are similar. I don't especially believe in the meaningfulness of dreams, so perhaps that's why I think that the posts linked in this threads are not really connected.
posted by anapestic at 10:31 AM on January 28, 2005

At least they aren't just more old reposts from Boing-boing.

These cryptic, pointless posts of mcgraws feel like those dumb "web zen" posts at boingboing, which I would argue is the weakest kind of post over there.

I don't get them, they don't make sense, and they seem like more noise than signal. I guess they're harmless and all, if mcgraw continues to be the only person doing it. Beyond that, it becomes a problem.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 10:32 AM on January 28, 2005

If he explained the connections, they would be better posts. Enigmatic doesn't mean good.
posted by smackfu at 10:33 AM on January 28, 2005

BT- fair enough, but mcgraw's posts aren't about either good links or discussing the links themselves. They're about recursively discussing themselves.
posted by mkultra at 10:35 AM on January 28, 2005

"Is it too much to ask that FPP's be reasonably coherent?"

Yes.

posted by mischief at 10:38 AM on January 28, 2005

Jeezus, mischief, I was hoping someone would say that.
posted by chicobangs at 10:44 AM on January 28, 2005

the chimp fpp was good
posted by matteo at 11:11 AM on January 28, 2005

Metafilter was a lot cooler back when Matt Haughey wasn't such a wet blanket.
posted by dfowler at 11:46 AM on January 28, 2005

I get sick of FPPs about top # list of whatever, soundtracks, end of year albums, etc etc. I am sick of posts about commercials, of post of one link reg req. newfilters etc.

But! if this is all about discussion...
What's the discussion his posts are supposed to generate?

these posts would seem to be the best FPPs out there, which I would bet very few would agree with.
Many of the best posts don't garner much discussion, so is it about discussion or about content?
posted by edgeways at 11:50 AM on January 28, 2005

As painful as some of the political posts are, at least they're DISCUSSION, which is what the focus of this site is.

Not rehash this whole argument, but NO, it's not. The discussion is merely the pan gravy on the plate of garlic mashed potatoes. METAFILTER IS NOTHING WITHOUT LINKS. BUT IT'S STILL SOMETHING WITHOUT COMMENTS. It's as simple as that.

But Chundo, if I may be frank, I noticed you haven't posted any links yet. One way to encourage good posts is to make some yourself.

Posting links to the front page is not required to be a contributing member, with opinions, thoughts, and ideas.

Look, the purpose of a post here is to generate discussion about a topic/site/essay/whatever.

{BUZZER} Oooh. Sawry, no.

What's the discussion his posts are supposed to generate?

This one perhaps?
posted by Witty at 11:50 AM on January 28, 2005

I agree completely with Witty. Why do you people feel the need to discuss everything? Maybe we need a week of quiet time to gather thoughts.
posted by Dr_Octavius at 12:11 PM on January 28, 2005

I don't get these one-user-callouts. The other day someone did the same thing to semmi.
Why not email him, and maybe Matt, and voice your opinion? Or do you crave the MeTa-back-pat to feel good?

Btw, chundo, have you let mcgraw know about this thread?
posted by mr.marx at 12:15 PM on January 28, 2005

METAFILTER IS NOTHING WITHOUT LINKS. BUT IT'S STILL SOMETHING WITHOUT COMMENTS.

Yeah, a weaker version of del.icio.us.

Why do you people feel the need to discuss everything?

Oh, I don't know, maybe it's the BIG COMMENT BOX at the bottom of every thread.

Do both of you filter out the "Community 'blog" graphic on every page?
posted by mkultra at 12:18 PM on January 28, 2005

Is it too much to ask that FPP's be reasonably coherent?

And comments (if not commenters), too, please!
posted by rushmc at 1:09 PM on January 28, 2005

Btw, chundo, have you let mcgraw know about this thread?

LOL. I'm pretty confident his good friend dfowler let him know about it!
posted by FeetOfClay at 1:13 PM on January 28, 2005

those zen posts are from a mailing list (if that's not obvious). comes out weekly, with a theme each time. bb reposts them sometimes with a piccie.
posted by andrew cooke at 1:31 PM on January 28, 2005

Metafilter was a lot cooler back when Matt Haughey wasn't such a wet blanket.

Parenthood will do that to ya (not to mention babysitting us for five-and-a-half years).

Do both of you filter out the "Community 'blog" graphic on every page?

The community posts the links. Discussion is optional.
posted by timeistight at 1:37 PM on January 28, 2005

those zen posts are from a mailing list (if that's not obvious).

You mean web zen? Yup, seen it. I'm a big fan of original content, not so much the repost.
posted by milovoo at 1:40 PM on January 28, 2005

mkultra said upthread: ... mcgraw's posts aren't about either good links or discussing the links themselves. They're about recursively discussing themselves.

Bingo.
posted by jefbla at 1:58 PM on January 28, 2005

If he explained the connections, they would be better posts. Enigmatic doesn't mean good.

oh man i agree with this.

mkultra said upthread: ... mcgraw's posts aren't about either good links or discussing the links themselves. They're about recursively discussing themselves.

Bingo.

uh...how so? i think they're incredibly random. perhaps i'm not trying hard enough. and if that's the case, they don't make good posts.
posted by taumeson at 2:23 PM on January 28, 2005

random is good--embrace the randomness.
posted by amberglow at 2:40 PM on January 28, 2005

I take mkultra's approach and just pass on by anything that doesn't at least hint at what the link is about. I spawned a meta post a while ago polling whether just links were bad and the response was pretty evenly split. My feeling is mcgraw's posts are just half a dozen of poor, context free posts lumped together and therefor aren't worth the click thru. And my feeling is that MF is about the discussion about the links. I can browse link farms anywhere but the discussion on places like fark leaves a lot to be desired.
posted by Mitheral at 2:55 PM on January 28, 2005

I dislike his posts, but I'm aware that others like them and they don't seem to me to be dragging MeFi down the path to ruin (though, as Matt says, if others start imitating them it could be a problem). We all have different appreciations of dada and chaos, I guess.
posted by languagehat at 3:38 PM on January 28, 2005

MF is about the discussion about the links.

Some of the best posts here are the ones that get just a few comments of "wow" and "this is good." And many, nay most, of the worst posts are newsfilter links posted merely for discussion with no thought at all to "best of the web."

Hey, now THERE'S a fresh subject. Let's delve!
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:40 PM on January 28, 2005

The fact that mcgraw's posts are one line and easily ignorable argues heavily for leaving him alone, say I.
posted by CunningLinguist at 3:41 PM on January 28, 2005

I don't get these one-user-callouts. The other day someone did the same thing to semmi. Why not email him, and maybe Matt, and voice your opinion?

Not really an option...

I think they're harmless fun. As long as mcgraw retains sole posting rights for his surrealist stew.
posted by rooftop secrets at 4:01 PM on January 28, 2005

The posts are pretty clever. Random, but there usually connections that can be inferred between the links that tie them together.


I think y'all are just jealous of the posters' ability to see and craft those connections, and are either lazy or incapable of seeing them. I'm partly joking, but really, it's just one members' style of posting, it's not as if there's a whole flock of posters imitating the schitzophrenic/magical-thinking-zen-dada-chaos-enigma posting style. The fpp's generally don't take up a lot of space, either, so it's not as if they are sucking up expensive blue real estate.
posted by exlotuseater at 5:26 PM on January 28, 2005

taumeson: uh...how so? i think they're incredibly random. perhaps i'm not trying hard enough. and if that's the case, they don't make good posts.

I think we agree. The posts are not about the content of the links but about the connection between the links. I think these are weak posts. They can be fun, but if others jump on this bandwagon, then lookout!
posted by jefbla at 5:31 PM on January 28, 2005

Wow, relax a bit, you whiny uptight bastards. You have to be the soulless robot child that failed finger-painting in Kindergarten to want to censure mcgraw.

A whole lot of you need to masturbate more. And into some tissue or a vagina, not Metatalk.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 6:42 PM on January 28, 2005

what he said.
posted by amberglow at 7:31 PM on January 28, 2005

hey I maturbate more than most people and
wait what thread was this
posted by mr.marx at 7:36 PM on January 28, 2005

When one masturbates into a vagina, does it not cease to be masturbation? In any case, perhaps your rhetoric is a bit over the top. You seem more upset about the post than anyone else is about the original issue.

Also, amberglow, the rest of the MeFi gays (myself included) would like to take you over to the corner and beat you mercilessly with a soft rubber sex toy for "what he said"ing a post promoting vaginas.
posted by anapestic at 4:12 AM on January 29, 2005

And speaking for the vaginas here, I must add that we will accept promotion only if it comes with a raise and a corner orifice office.
posted by taz at 4:28 AM on January 29, 2005

Metafilter is the only blog I read or post to.

#1 says my posts are "cryptic, pointless" and "seem like more noise than signal".

I'm glad to see that many here disagree with Matt on this.

The posts take up very little space on the front page and are comprised of (mostly) science articles which would otherwise probably not be posted to the blue. I even try to describe what the articles are about with fpp phrases like "Dark matter drifts through earth"-- a specific, clear and accurate description of the content.

Thanks to everyone for your input.
posted by mcgraw at 7:28 AM on January 29, 2005

"A whole lot of you need to masturbate more. And into some tissue or a vagina, not Metatalk."

Ye must 'ave missed all the cunts 'round 'ere, mate!
posted by mischief at 8:44 AM on January 29, 2005

keep it up--mcgraw--as one of the many scientific illiterates here, i appreciate hearing about that stuff, and i wouldn't see it otherwise.
posted by amberglow at 9:35 AM on January 29, 2005

I'm with amberglow.
posted by greasy_skillet at 11:09 AM on January 29, 2005

I'd like to apologize to anyone who thought I was implying that you could not masturbate into gender-inspecific mouths or bums. I am definitely not heterosexist, and am sorry if I can across that way. A group hug is now in order.

And I'm pretty sure that sex is a lot like masturbation for a lot of people: self-gratification.

mischief, I believe I owe you a "laugh out loud" acronym.
posted by Kleptophoria! at 11:45 AM on January 29, 2005

Oh they have a vagina... there's just sand in it.
posted by Dreamghost at 11:57 AM on January 29, 2005

I'd like to apologize to anyone who thought I was implying that you could not masturbate into gender-inspecific mouths or bums.

I just ducked in here and this was the first comment I read. Gave me a good laugh out of context like that.
posted by scarabic at 12:13 PM on January 29, 2005

A group hug is now in order.

I'm in, as long as we get some good masturbating going afterwards.
posted by billsaysthis at 4:54 PM on January 29, 2005