12/26/24
January 29, 2004
Can anyone explain to me why it seems like here and on Metafilter people feel the need to always point out when there's a repost, even from as far back as 4 months ago, as if it's in some way an insult that someone might not have seen it the first time? I'm just curious, but whenever I see it pointed out it just strikes me as really obnoxious. We're a fun bunch here, and unless it was obvious, like a day or two old, I'm not sure we need to go pointing these things out, like two people did on the japanese porn thread. Am I just being oversensitive?
posted by Bernreuther to navel gazing at 08:40 AM - 23 comments
i recalled that it had been done before but I thought it was back on the front page in a new posting because of a new development (ie a story dated a couple of days ago wherein the pitcher made a comment). in my mind it wasn't a repost though maybe the way the post was written set it up to cover the same territory? you say two people pointed it out though? i only see one in the first four comments. plus, no problem pointing to the earlier discussion, in my mind. people new to that news item may be interested in the older thread and this lockerroom topic could have been avoided if the mention of the earlier thread framed it as background info or a "following up on this..." type of link. or something like that.
posted by gspm at 09:07 AM on January 29, 2004
yeah... i saw that. i am usually pretty good about familiarizing myself with recent spofi content, so i knew no one posted it. plus, it was an espn front page story, so who would have thought it was 4+ months old... Good lord, I just stuck up for a Red Sox fan. in the spirit of obnoxiousness... you may hate my team, but you can't deny your undying passion for me.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:23 AM on January 29, 2004
Mea culpa, I've done this before, mostly in irritation at seeing a treat. I should cut people more slack.
posted by worldcup2002 at 10:33 AM on January 29, 2004
a treat a repeat, repeat
posted by worldcup2002 at 10:34 AM on January 29, 2004
GPSM, true, though a four month old post isn't always remembered. I sure didn't remember it, and I've been here for years. (oh, and someone else pointed it out and I replied with similar comments there, but they were deleted, then WC linked it again) OK JG, I'll admit it, you've got me smitten.
posted by Bernreuther at 10:38 AM on January 29, 2004
I think the philosophy of self-policing on these sites is taken pretty seriously, maybe with good cause. If everybody posted their favorite Kobe trial link, we'd be inundated. That said, I do pretty much agree with you, though... especially over at Meta, where the "double post" is so difficult to avoid given the sheer numbers that they crunch. I don't think anyone means it as an insult, more just as a polite reminder. /stay on target... stay on target...
posted by forksclovetofu at 11:19 AM on January 29, 2004
"Aaaaayyyyhhhhhhhhh" @ 6:16 (Note: Red Leader as he is flying into the surface of the Death Star)
posted by garfield at 11:40 AM on January 29, 2004
We don't need much self-policing here. There are seven founding members who can take care of double posts, self-links, and offensive conduct without requiring a system in which members publicly snipe at each other. In this case, the original post was four months old and didn't include a new bit of information -- the pitcher going on the record with his heterosexuality. If someone wanted to note the original post in the course of making a new comment, fine, but posting just to say "we've done this before" seemed a bit unnecessary.
posted by rcade at 11:48 AM on January 29, 2004
So we discuss etiquette here now? }:) Yeah, I'll hold my hands up. I pointed out it was a double too. I wouldn't have done so if jg hadn't taken part in the original discussion. The original link to the story was gone and I wanted to know what was new that I was missing. I didn't mean it as any kind of insult to jg, it was just genuine curiosity.
posted by squealy at 12:00 PM on January 29, 2004
The flip side of this is that during the ARod-Boston saga, there was a new post on that nearly every day and I don't remember reading a single complaint. That was a case where it would have been nice to be on a vB system or something, to just keep the same one near the top instead of starting new ones or scrolling down...
posted by Bernreuther at 12:08 PM on January 29, 2004
I don't know what you guys are talking about. I was just owning up to the fact that I've done the "it's been posted before!" thing. I haven't done it since I came out of rehab, but then again, everything is a lot fuzzier since the treatment. (I'm just kidding.)
posted by worldcup2002 at 12:11 PM on January 29, 2004
I'm with Bernreuther. On the one hand I suppose it is easy enough to do a search, on the other hand, so what. It seems such a wanky, bed wetterish thing to point out a simple error, my respect for the retentive diminishes a notch.
posted by Fat Buddha at 12:17 PM on January 29, 2004
Yeah, I'll hold my hands up. I wet the bed.
posted by squealy at 12:53 PM on January 29, 2004
Spofi is at war with Oceania and always will be at war with Oceania. (I see the thread has been bumped back to the three comments that had nothing to do with the reason this lockerroom thread exists) I distinctly remember there being 4 comments and Bernreuther reports of two other comments being removed. Something is eating the comments!
posted by gspm at 01:15 PM on January 29, 2004
SpoFi: We eat comments!
posted by worldcup2002 at 02:05 PM on January 29, 2004
SpoFi: Such a wanky, bed wetterish thing.
posted by grum@work at 02:30 PM on January 29, 2004
Look, can we all just agree that I'm an asshole?
posted by forksclovetofu at 06:32 PM on January 29, 2004
No
posted by dng at 06:33 PM on January 29, 2004
So what if you can search for an old post and it has been posted before. As I noted here if it isn't on the front page it is dead. If the system allowed a top level view of new comments, or made a list of active posts not on the front page in a "These topics have new comments" type menu, double posting would be an issue. As we cannot, I say if it isn't on the front page post away (unless your fp count is set to like three or something).
posted by pivo at 07:40 PM on January 29, 2004
Look, can we all just agree that I'm an asshole? I didn't know that was up for debate...I assumed that was a given...of course you're an asshole.
posted by garfield at 09:05 AM on January 30, 2004
(just playin, of course. and wanted to make sure I didn't kill the fun)
posted by garfield at 12:16 PM on January 30, 2004
Sorry, been out of town. What was new about the recent japanese porn post? That's why I questioned it.
posted by wfrazerjr at 05:41 PM on February 02, 2004
I mean, I'm as obnoxious as they come... really, I am. But still not obnoxious enough to go searching for things and creating links just to show someone up :) Good lord, I just stuck up for a Red Sox fan.