11/21/24
April 11, 2006
FPPs that get pulled: Question: In an effort to improve my own posting, is there a way that admin can shoot off a quick email to the initiaters of FPPs that they pull down?
posted by elovrich to editorial policy at 05:46 PM - 23 comments
One thing I have noticed: If you go to the archives the link is still there. Normally the administrator that pulls it off the front page leaves a little comment as to why it was removed from the front page. For example, my last post.
posted by njsk8r20 at 05:56 PM on April 11, 2006
thanks sk8r; Had a chance to readh where the responses were going and rcades final comment. Have to say I agree with his assessment. Perhaps I was hoping for too much when I thought that anything like that could be discussed without it degenerating into a shoutfest about class and race. Yeah, I think I was (thinking how long and how deep into any B***y B***s post you have to go to get past the shouting and find intelligible discourse. Slaps my own wrist for posting anything that has any chance of being inflammatory and sends myself to the corner for a timeout.
posted by elovrich at 06:06 PM on April 11, 2006
I can't believe how ugly that one got so fast. We managed to keep an intelligent discussion going in the previous thread (for the most part, we did go on a little tangent). Don't be discouraged elovrich, it had a chance. Otherwise it wouldn't have lasted as long as it did.
posted by njsk8r20 at 06:18 PM on April 11, 2006
For what it's worth, elovrich, I think it is more honorable to go up in smoke by giving people (especially the SpoFi community) the benefit of the doubt than it is to err on the other side and miss out on a potentially great discussion. (This comes from someone who chickened out on posting the very same story that you had pulled).
posted by BullpenPro at 06:59 PM on April 11, 2006
I guess the thing is, until njsk8r told me that the post lives on in the archives, I was not aware of that. Perhaps if something were posted in the guidelines to that effect it would make things less confusing. Like I said, the only way that one's posts get better is if you know what the problem with it was to begin with. I understand that it may not have been the post itself, but the direction that the discussion went, which, as a poster, I have no control over. Thank you both for the support in this matter, and never fear, I will continue to post, and will probably step on my crank from time to time. Hopefully, this does not cause our wonderful admins to spaz, errr, strike that, freak out.
posted by elovrich at 07:46 PM on April 11, 2006
I have had four of my eleven posts pulled but (and I hope this is the case) it has not been for putting utter crap on the front page. It is more so just very bad luck. At least two times it has been where I happened to put up an FPP on something posted at almost the same time, meaning one had to be deleted. Another time I had an FPP deleted because the thread dissolved into racist chaos.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:54 PM on April 11, 2006
As for your thread elovrich (the one just pulled), if you didn't look at it, the last post was made by rcade saying This thread is going nowhere good. I didn't read the whole thing because I don't have the time at the moment but I am guessing based on the subject matter that the thread descended into chaos. Your link itself wasn't bad at all, it was just the posts afterward by other people that caused it to be removed off the front page.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:11 PM on April 11, 2006
Disclaimer: All my opinion You can also find deleted links by looking for missing post ids (like there's a 6585 and a 6583 on the front page, but no 6584). Honestly, my immediate reaction to your post was that was the exact same thing as posting www.sportsfilter.com as the link: it wasn't intended as a post, it was intended to start a discussion on something you wanted to talk about. Which isn't a good post. Or at least, isn't what I come here for. I realize this site is different in mission and approach from Metafilter, but I think the same concept applies: posts should be about something the world-at-large doesn't know yet, not something Steven A. Smith has been screaming about for weeks. ESPN has two seasons now, TO and Barry Bonds. I'd like this to be an oasis, not an echo chamber. On preview: Your link itself wasn't bad at all Guess you didn't look at it then, because it doesn't even exist anymore, less than 24 hours after it was posted. It was a link to an AP newswire that was effectively just a headline. Seriously. "No DNA match". That was all she wrote. The very definition of a bad post.
posted by yerfatma at 08:19 PM on April 11, 2006
Sorry if the link was pulled, it WAS a link to the news wire. The original post was made almost as the news was breaking. As I said in the first comment, there was (is) another link available, but it was from the defendants lawyers, and as such, was biased in their favor. I presumed that, since it was breaking news, that some here at SpoFi may not have been aware of it yet. It was not something that I just pulled out of the air. As far as what Stephen A. Smith is screaming about.....who? I avoid his show like the plague, same goes for Rome. But, just because those two idiots are making noises that are supposed to be opinion about a subject, it does not mean that it is not something that can be discussed rationally and clamly here in SpoFi. For an example, see HERE it was intended to start a discussion on something you wanted to talk about Yes, it was something that I wanted to discuss, someting that I thought would be of interest to the SpoFi community in general, and I am sorry if it was of no interest to you individually. I am trying to understand exactly what you are trying to say, but must admit I am having a bit of difficulty. You go on to say...isn't what I come here for. I thought one of the purposes of SpoFi was for the exchange of ideas on subjects that were sports related and held interest for a number of its members. I do not mean to be obtuse, or a pain in the ass, but just because it isn't a subject you find interesting doesn't make it a bad post. I grant that it may have been the "wrong" post, since it seems to have disappeared, but again, I had no control over that.
posted by elovrich at 08:57 PM on April 11, 2006
I thought the linked story was too brief, but that wasn't why I pulled the thread. The discussion had degenerated so badly I figured it was best to pull it. I would like a better way to notify members when threads are deleted, but that'll have to wait.
posted by rcade at 09:10 PM on April 11, 2006
Thanks rcade, was hoping that you would chime in on this. I did read your final post in the thread, and agree that it was headed nowhere good. As far as the length, yes, it was short, as yerfatma noted, it was just a wire notice about the fact that the DNA result had come in negative. What are your feelings about getting something timely that is breaking, or waiting for someting more in-depth?
posted by elovrich at 09:37 PM on April 11, 2006
Kinda funny how accusations are made, people go apeshit with comments regarding guilt and then when evidence, or lack thereof, appears, the thread gets pulled. Why? Because as soon as anyone tries to make valid points regarding a subject that are contrary to what some people want to believe, and race is involved, it turns to shit real fast. That is not my problem nor is it the subject matter's problem. There were valid points to be made on why this was not an open and shut case. Dozens of comments assuming guilt were allowed. I waited for further information and posted it accordingly. I did know that this was a time bomb thread, that is why I made my post then high tailed it outta there. Why? Because I knew that saying anything that defended the accused was going to lead to ridiculous racism comments. That doesn't change the fact that when evidence goes against what some people are hoping for, that the new evidence shouldn't be allowed to be discussed. I seriously doubt that anyone read the links I posted. I am rather convinced that I am considered a racist for merely suggesting that, perhaps the accused are innocent. I wasn't hoping either way. I did wait for almost a week to even comment on this topic, for more evidence. When it appeared and we tried to discuss...it merely disappeared. I do understand the decision to get rid of the thread, I just don't understand allowing the prior thread ,which was full of assumption, to continue for so long.
posted by tselson at 11:48 PM on April 11, 2006
The Duke lacrosse story has been a trainwreck from the start. I avoided posting a link for several days, because I figured that it was wrong to post a college lacrosse gang-rape allegation when I would never post a story about college lacrosse games. Once cable TV gave the story the Laci/Natalie treatment, it got even worse.
posted by rcade at 01:13 PM on April 12, 2006
I agree and understand. I should have avoided it in the first place. Thanks.
posted by tselson at 01:56 PM on April 12, 2006
I figured that it was wrong to post a college lacrosse gang-rape allegation when I would never post a story about college lacrosse games. Now I know how to get that ribbon gymnastics category I've been dreaming about. If only Richard Speck were still in my Rolodex.
posted by yerfatma at 01:58 PM on April 12, 2006
I figured that it was wrong to post a college lacrosse gang-rape allegation when I would never post a story about college lacrosse games. Well rcade there have been posts about dominos, which I would never in a million years support an arguement for it being a sport so what is wrong with college lacrosse?
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:43 PM on April 12, 2006
YYM, to be fair, that dominoes post (there was only one that I remember; were there more I missed?) was about ESPN deciding dominoes were a sport, which temporarily brings that news item within the rubric of Spofi. However, I would hardly expect a cascade of domino links to follow that one, one after the other, as if one sparked the next one in succession. Or anything like that.
posted by chicobangs at 01:38 AM on April 13, 2006
Next thing you know, those posts start acting like Southeast Asian countries in the 50s and 60s...
posted by owlhouse at 05:08 AM on April 13, 2006
I don't see how the Duke post got pulled though when I see stuff like the gatorade and Adam Morrison posts today. Don't get me wrong, I really enjoyed both of those posts and I don't want to see them pulled I just question why the Duke fpp was deleted. I realize there's potential for the discussion to get ugly but why not just delete comments instead of the whole post? It seems as news worthy as a lot of other stuff thats on the site, shouldn't we at least try to have a civil conversation about it. I'm kinda curious as to whats going on with this story and people's reaction to it, I haven't had a chance to see sportscenter recently so I haven't been saturated with the story.
posted by tron7 at 02:59 PM on April 13, 2006
tron, I think we'll have to see some real movement or new evidence before we can have a productive discussion about that issue. It will be brought up again, don't you worry about that.
posted by Samsonov14 at 06:11 PM on April 13, 2006
In an effort to improve my own posting, is there a way that admin can shoot off a quick email to the initiaters of FPPs that they pull down? Normally, when I pull a post I also put the reason. I have emailed the poster before, but many members don't have an email address listed. Actually, I don't see one on your profile. I've also had several members email me to discuss why their link was pulled, and that's fine also.
posted by justgary at 11:30 PM on April 13, 2006
Since you're coding up a new system, you could put in a line that says if the poster has an address on file, shoot an email notification off. So no extra Pantheon work, though no explicit explanation.
posted by billsaysthis at 04:05 PM on April 14, 2006
I have read the guidelines, and have not had many FPPs pulled. In fact I can think of only 2. The first was replaced by a different post on the same topic about a day later, so I do not know if it was a source issue, or if the admins decided that perhaps it was of sufficient interest after the second post. The other was within the last 24 hours. Granted the post itself was minimalist, and perhaps that was the problem, but as I said in the first comment, I didn't want to link to a source that was biased one way or the other, as the subject matter is liable to debated enough around here without slanting the link one way or the other. Or it may be that the subject is one that is still nacent and so quickly developing that admins want to hold off....I am not sure. This is not a complaint that FPPs are pulled, it is an attempt to make future FPPs better.