12/21/24
January 27, 2008
Missing Link?: Why am I not seeing this thread under January 25 anymore? It doesn't appear to be closed, but it also isn't showing up on the front page. I checked in a few browsers. Man, I hope it is just that I am tired and am missing something.
thanks, rcade. I swear I saw "this thread has been closed by the admins" in previously closed threads. oh well, at least we got a wiki article out of it ;)
posted by scully at 04:46 PM on January 27, 2008
And it actually spurred me to add something to the Wiki. I'm not a completely worthless member of this community afterall!
posted by apoch at 05:42 PM on January 27, 2008
What is the general rule on the age of an article? Obviously it is nice to have current sports news, but there do exist older articles that are of merit and foster good discussion. I have posted older articles in the past because while they weren't current, I felt they were still noteworthy and beneficial to the community.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:17 PM on January 27, 2008
If a link is gold and hasn't been posted before, that's great. Not speaking for rcade, but that was basically just a list (with links to reviews). It was borderline even if new. thanks, rcade. I swear I saw "this thread has been closed by the admins" in previously closed threads. They're actually two separate actions. We can close a thread and not delete it. And we can deleted a thread but not close it, as rcade did. I close most of the threads I delete because they've become train wrecks, but deleted a thread doesn't automatically close it. Confusing I know.
posted by justgary at 09:52 PM on January 27, 2008
Speaking of closing threads, can we do something about the NLL one? It's just a bunch of game result links.
posted by goddam at 11:33 PM on January 27, 2008
well, an argument for closing them (if that is the right term) is that sometimes people leave the thread open and return to it. I was refreshing the page surprised that no one was participating in the thread. I could see activity on the wiki occurring, but the thread wasn't changing. It wasn't until I checked in a different browser that I noticed it was MIA. What is the benefit of the other way around?
posted by scully at 09:35 AM on January 28, 2008
I'm going to ask the lacrosse fan to hit the high points of the sport rather than reporting all game results. He's new.
posted by rcade at 09:35 AM on January 28, 2008
Yeah, I don't want lacrosse to be excluded just because I don't follow it. I'm sure there's plenty of decent discussion material there. As a group, we have a relatively good knack for getting people to raise their discussional game.
posted by chicobangs at 10:19 AM on January 28, 2008
What would people like us to do when we yank a post off the front page -- close the discussion, leave it open, or remove the page entirely?
posted by rcade at 10:32 AM on January 28, 2008
Yank the FPP from the front page and close it entirely. Not delete unless it was an epic and horrible clusterfuck that no one should ever have to read again.
posted by jerseygirl at 10:39 AM on January 28, 2008
Not delete unless it was an epic and horrible clusterfuck that no one should ever have to read again. Keep around at least one HORRIFIC clusterf*ck thread, and use it as an to point out posts that are NOT acceptable. As well, if it's on a topic that always generates clusterf*ck threads (race, gender, team loyalties), then use it for that example as well. "See this thread? It's a bad thread. Don't do this. Ever."
posted by grum@work at 11:44 AM on January 28, 2008
What is the benefit of the other way around? I don't think we've ever thought it through, but I don't see a reason to keep a thread open that has gone to the dogs. I like what metafilter does. Closed with a reason. I'm guessing that their whole 'close down the thread/ leave a reason' is all done as part of the package, and the reason for deletion is posted at the top. That's better than our system. I think we once discussed having closed/deleted threads moved to another section as kind of a way to show what doesn't work, but we've never gone through with it.
posted by justgary at 01:40 PM on January 28, 2008
That smacks of extra work on your part, which, well, why would you? Closed with a reason is a good idea. It works well at Mefi, and I can't see it not working just as well here if you guys went to it.
posted by chicobangs at 01:43 PM on January 28, 2008
Closed with a reason works for SpoFi. A quick e-mail to the poster of the FPP may help if it's not too much trouble, just in case they don't see it and jump to the Locker Room to rant about censorship or some-such. Is it too soon to ask again how close we are to a flagging system? Not pressuring, just curious.
posted by Ufez Jones at 05:16 PM on January 28, 2008
I'm with Ufez. See if Metafilter is interested in trading the rights to use their flagging system for the rights to our ' few minutes to edit' code. also, why don't the buttons ever work for B I or link ?
posted by geekyguy at 05:59 PM on January 28, 2008
jerseygirl: Yank the FPP from the front page and close it entirely. Not delete unless it was an epic and horrible clusterfuck that no one should ever have to read again.Yeah, you should probably close it to prevent reindeer games. although in that example no one wanted to play
posted by geekyguy at 06:08 PM on January 28, 2008
I didn't see it when it was posted which is a shame since it is a sweet picture. I just spent around five minutes looking at it.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 06:37 PM on January 28, 2008
5 minutes? Yukon and I lost two days of work to that thing last year.
posted by yerfatma at 07:33 AM on January 29, 2008
I just posted the key in there, yerfatma.
posted by geekyguy at 02:24 PM on January 29, 2008
Oh how I've missed sportsfilter's always entertaining religious debates.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:25 PM on January 29, 2008
I was expecting that thread to get zapped within minutes of first seeing it.
posted by apoch at 09:48 PM on January 29, 2008
My son's been throwing up all day. Couldn't read much of the site until that trainwreck of a discussion had jumped the track, landed on another track, and kept going.
posted by rcade at 10:13 PM on January 29, 2008
Jeebus. That was like a car accident. I cringed when I saw it, but I couldn't stop looking at it.
posted by hawkguy at 09:12 AM on January 30, 2008
Funny how that thread can stay but the Tiger thread gets yanked.
posted by BoKnows at 01:06 PM on January 30, 2008
To be honest I enjoy the occasional SpoFi clusterfuck. There are often some very interesting opinions to be found in those threads.
posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 07:05 PM on January 30, 2008
Funny how that thread can stay but the Tiger thread gets yanked. I was traveling during that time, but wasn't there already a tiger thread a few days before the new one? If so, nothing funny is going on. That's pretty much par for the course. More times than not additional threads are closed when a similar one is already posted. This thread was mild when compared to some spofi threads. The only way to stop them completely is deleting any threads that might bring trouble, and I don't think that's the answer. They happen, we try to deal with them.
posted by justgary at 08:10 PM on January 30, 2008
Right on, justgary. My post did not type the same way I heard it in my head. (Lots of echoes up there.) Personally, I would've liked to see both threads yanked. I felt Tiger dealt with his problem very professionally and it surely didn't warrant a discussion about the racial divide. The roast thread was absurd. A roast is a roast. Nothing said during that roast was meant to be taken literaly or personal. Ms. Jacobsen was an easy target, maybe she was out of line, but she was drunk, and trying to be funny. (I know that doesn't work, I've tried it.) Open mouth, insert foot. (Or bottle.) Poor Gal. You guys do a good job, I did not mean to upset you, if thats what I did.
posted by BoKnows at 09:09 PM on January 30, 2008
You guys do a good job, I did not mean to upset you, if thats what I did. posted by BoKnows No, not at all. Differing opinions is good. Just throwing out a reason why one might have been deleted and the other not.
posted by justgary at 10:08 PM on January 30, 2008
Threads that are deleted from the front page aren't closed automatically. People who wander in from RSS readers and search engines could keep posting in them. That one was deleted because it links to a seven-year-old article.