...I don't want someone going by "anonymous" starting threads on Universal Hub. Anonymous comments don't bother me but the person starting a post should be man or woman enough to tell us who they are.
1. See a post by Adam stating polls go right to the main page
2. Troll a poll on Adams site because the users hurt you feeling this morning.
Sorry, but if this was my site, I'd restrict your "Free speech" and ban your ass for being a disrespectful twat.
Oh, and there's no such think as "Free Speech" on a privately owned site. You want free speech, create your own interesting blog that other will want to pick up and create a dialogue with.
Hijacking UH's audience for you own agenda isn't free speech.
You must be the fifth person who voted YES, 35 have voted no.
You think it's inappropriate to ask readers what they think? The question goes to the death penalty post, my posts on the Senate race and any other unpopular post.
We hear from the most reactionary few on every unpopular post. I wanted to hear from the rest of the readership.
No matter the results, Adam's policies will be what Adam decides. I have no illusion about that and furthermore, I respect Adam's decisions no matter what. That said, it doesn't mean I won't challenge him when I want him to consider alternatives. If I make an argument he agrees with then all the better. If I don't, I still respect his decision.
I have a better idea - why don't we just ban stupid polls?
There shouldn't be too much censoring, it's just the poorly worded aspect. You can put up a death-penalty poll, but you should make a valid argument and have good choices on the poll itself.
I bet I can predict what this poll might result in too:
Kill a puppy?
(A) Yes, puppies should die ugly horrible deaths.
(B) No, there's no reason to just randomly kill a puppy.
Too bad nobody suggested a puppy die in the first place.
You want a logical fallacy? Let's start with your strawman.
You spammed the front page here with Capuano lovefests for about 4 of 6 days this past week. People got sick of it and don't want to even SEE your crap like that on the front page any more. Oh, so start a poll about "unpopular" speech...as if we didn't like your posts because they weren't "popular". It wasn't about popularity and you damn well know that. It was about the bludgeoning of pro-Capuano, anti-Coakley missives that brought nothing of insight and basic propaganda for your favorite candidate that people objected to. You acted all butthurt about it as if we just wanted to silence your politics...and here we are at this juncture (yet again!). You've completely mischaracterized the opposition to your nonsense (that this is similar to the last time you got smacked down for doing it says it's not as naively this time) and acted like you've proven some point about how everyone really does love you and want to see you post more "I <3 Capuano" and "BOOO! Coakley!" crap on the front page some more.
We don't. We don't want your crap here and it's not because it's unpopular but because it's cloying and completely out of sync with how Adam operates this site with a VERY kind open-door policy on submissions. It takes advantage of his good nature and abuses it should anyone else want to make an interesting article. You are an example of how NOT to use UHub when you spam some overtly political message over and over and then add to it with these "polls" and false queries into the nature of your transgression when the community calls you on it. People are calling you on it in an attempt to keep you in line so that you don't ruin Adam's policies for the rest of us...or give any suggestion to others who might see your crap and think they should be as equally obnoxious on the front page too.
you should read up on Josh Marshall's point of view over at TMP.
He has some very thoughtful post on separating the content and editorial option of his site, from the revenue generating apparatus of random paid ads. And believes in the sort of separation that make both stronger parts of the whole.
IE they're separated, and adds are not concurrent to the sites opinions.
Do you have links? TPM does both news and opinion journalism. Keeping them separate is important to their news brand particularly becuase they also do opinion journalism.
Adam is an aggregator of news and opinion with commentary, plus some original journalism, plus some original commentary, plus he offers readers access to post articles and polls. I may be completely selling Adam short but clearly what Adam does and what TPM does is different.
That said, how TPM does what it does is of interest to me.
I suspect I could have sold ad space to at least some of the people running for office in Boston this year. I deliberately didn't try though, because right now there's no church/state wall here - on the back end, UH is just me and there'd certainly be an impression of favoritism in what I wrote or posted (look at what I was accused of during the campaign even without any ads).
One of these days, I'm going to have to break down and hire or contract with an ad salesperson, if only because selling ads is how I'm going to pay the mortgage and buy food and, let's be charitable here: It's not something I'm very good at. Maybe then, I can "retire" comfortably into the role of gentleman publisher/editor and not have to worry so directly about church/state stuff (fine line, I know, but still).
Some advertisers actually pay premiums for such "roadblocking."
I'm not sure if that's what's happening here (the ads come through one of the ad networks I use; I don't see any major premiums on the ad units that would support roadblocking) or it's just pure chance. I will resist the temptation to suggest you reload the page to bring up a new set of ads :-).
There was plenty of opinion and advocacy posts during the Boston Mayor race. Do you propose to restrict posts of those people too... even if it includes Adam?
And let this be a point that even "Registered Users" can be trolling trouble makers. The only thing that should be focused on is banning IP's of habitual aggressors, anon or pseudo-anon
I voted no. Not because I agree that Anonymous should post Capuano love on the front page, but because I'm open to the idea that I can read things I disagree with.
That's not really what's at issue here. I'd hate to get into what UH is all about, but I look forward to random posts about Boston, as well as minor "Hey, here's a politician!" posts and MBTA alerts, not links to extensive pieces on candidates.
If you want to post your opinion to the internet, and I mean on a front page, not in the comments, then make your own blog.
Gives me a chance to expose his love child Caps for being the "damn the torpedoes, full spending ahead, tax the rich, pity the poor underdog multi-millionaires who have their money tied up in all kinds of tax shelters like myself" liberal that he is. Let him go ahead and post - it hurts his candidate. Pags is rich and claims to be liberal - but at least he makes some semblance of saying how he's going to pay for his giveaways (for me its between Pags, Khazei and ultimately Brown - how come there is no newspaper coverage of the Brown/Robinson undercard anyway? Anything with Jack E. Robinson in it is more interesting than this Democratic love fest). Any UHers have dirt to dish on the Republican side?
By the way - other than being against child molesting, anyone know how Martha really feels on any issues? How did somebody who basically has no opinions to shout from the mountaintop and has done nothing notable in her tenure as AG get to be the front runner? Or is that the real trick to being the front runner?
Ah, the wonders of the blogosphere, as it learns it has to reinvent all the things it thinks is bad about the MSM.
This sort of solipcistically whining fake poll is everything bad about blogs.
People read UHub because it is a useful news aggregator with a savvy editor with a good news eye.
Turn it into a forum filled with LiveJournal-reject poll garbage like this, posted by idiots screaming about some fake vision of intellectual equality, and it will commit suicide instantly.
Whatever pose UHub chooses to strike, it is Adam's site and should be. Eccentrics like you, me and everyone else can stay here on the comments where we belong.
I have complete faith in the UHub populace to bring out some kind of decent conversation even in the face of truly trolling behavior. The day you start banning "unpopular" opinions is the day you start an eternal semantics argument.
The anonymous troll can muster up enough righteous indignation on his/her own, so there's no need to do the work ourselves.
not answering your poll for the same reason i didn't answer the death penalty poll -- it's poorly worded and none of its options fit my belief system.
my personal belief? it's crappy polls like this that get people not wanting to read your posts, even though you sometimes have really good things to say. but this just comes across as petty.
my personal belief is that crappy polls just waste space, and lead to a general devolution of the overall content of a group blog. please note, i don't mean *all* polls. most polls here are, imho, irreverent and funny and bring us closer together as a community. polarizing polls that seem to mean to do nothing but incite bickering are a waste of space.
that stated, i don't believe in the popularity or unpopularity of posts. this isn't middle school. if you feel you are unpopular i suggest you either (a) decide you don't care and just keep on keeping on (b) decide that popularity is the most important thing to you, watch others who you feel are popular and emulate them in an attempt to be more popular or (c) leave and go someplace you think is better.
and see? i'm not making this a poll because it would be a crappy poll. you probably want some other choices.
I just got sick of pantywaists crying to Adam to remove posts they found objectionable. No matter what, Adam decides the policies. Now he can see that the censor advocates are in the minority and that the majority want less editorial intervention. He will choose as he sees fit.
I don't expect the information to change his policy about my political advocacy posts, of which there were five in twelve days, but hopefully it will change his opinion about the cries for censoring other people's contributions.
11-18 Coakley wants it, doesn't want to earn it
11-17 Mike Capuano scrappy congressman relishes underdog status
11-13 Nancy Pelosi endorses Mike Capuano for US Senate (vote Dec 8)
11-12 Look! It's Martha Coakley and Gerry Leone
11-06 Capuano is taking questions Monday 6:30 Park Plaza Hotel, Boston
And I don't find them objectionable. Its just they are not in keeping with the style and approach that Adam brings to this site. They are overly slanted cheerleading stories. If we were all to just post up crap the way you do, this site would be ruined.
I have not looked at the poll numbers - I don't see the bar graph right in front of me, because I haven't voted. I don't think it's a particularly valid pair of questions (but that's just me), and in any case, not really representative of anything. UH has about 4,500 visitors on an average weekday - I suspect the number of people who did vote is a fraction of that. Correct?
UH is a weird thing. Not as open as, say, Metafilter (although even it has a staffer now who goes around deleting objectionable stuff), but more than simply my personal soapbox.
But here's the deal, if I may be honest: You've done this before, where you take a position on a particular issue and then kind of go nuts with it here. It happened with the presidential election and you were headed down that path again with Capuano/Coakley. The point at which you start posting basically the same thing over and over again (Capuano is a giant among men; Coakley should only be allowed out of solitary once a week) is the point at which other people start complaining, I start getting a headache and you should start considering setting up your own site to promote that point (it's easy; the Zak has set up zillions of them). It's the sheer repetition that grinds people down.
Am I perfect? No. Do I harp on some of the same things over and over again? Yep. But people call me on it (look at Rob Sama's reply to my post about that silly Times article on Boston Common or the comments on pretty much anything I post these days involving head punching in East Boston). And ultimately, if people get too tired/annoyed with me, they'll stop coming back here. And that's what I'm trying to avoid.
I know it is your prerogative to be imperfect on Uhub and not mine, and I completely understand your choice with regard to my articles. I also understand your choice to be responsive to complaints. I hope that you consider allowing other peoples imperfect articles to remain on the "front page" even if they garner complaints. Complaints, as you know, are part of the dialogue.
It has always been the case that you decide which articles I post make it to the front page and which ones don't. I just prefer it when you stand by your decision.
By Dan Kennedy (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 6:44 pm
What did I miss? I voted "yes" on principle — it's Adam's blog, and I come here for his sensibility. After all, it would take me three times as long to slog through the Globe if anyone with a WiFi connection could write crap and post it.
A self-serving, logically-impaired poll was posted this morning. Some urged Adam to remove it from the front page. The user known as "Anonymous" took offense that people would want to ban unpopular ideas, or something; you see, some had also complained that Anonymous' recent, numerous posts boosting candidate Mike Capuano were inappropriate material for UHub, or at least for front page placement.
Now here we have Anonymous again, with a front page poll (this one) drawing further attention to the matter of unpopular ideas being banned, or something. See above.
We also learned that user-created polls are immediately promoted to the front page without human (or Adam's) intervention. Hence Anonymous' nefarious use of said technique in, on and with this very thread.
Does that pretty much bring the newcomers up to speed? (Sorry to be a little snarky, but really... I must say I'm very impressed with adamg's patience for all this.)
YES, quite ably, and your snark is mild and entirely deserved but I hardly think the poll is in any way nefarious. Look over the thread. It's a pretty discussion of blog related issues.
When a reader posts an 'article' (blog entry) it does not go to the "front page" unless Adam pulls a lever. When readers complain about an article, it's an article that Adam has chosen to 'publish' to the "front page".
Also, polls default to the front page so Adam doesn't seem them and approve them as front page quality material.
This poll is disingenuous. The issue is not unpopular speech, but rather too many posts just hawking for a particular candidate. I don't want this site to just become competing posts between political opponents.
Wading through all the back and forth about Anonymous's posting habits, I do think there's an issue here that can and should be addressed: who and what should be allowed on the front page without Adam having to approve the post.
First: Do polls really bypass the usual approval process? If so, Adam, is there a way to change that? It seems like a serious vulnerability.
Second: People allowed to post directly to the front page (including me) should consistently follow proper grammar, spelling, and word usage, and their posts should be clearly and coherently written. Before I post, I read, edit, and reread, aware that thousands of people will see what I write, and I don't want them to think I'm a doofus. The poll that started this thread has a spelling error, and is phrased to express Anonymous's opinion, rather than as a useful survey.
Third: As several others have already said, Adam gets to decide who follows the standards, and what to do about people who don't. His judgment gives UH its strength, and keeps me coming back.
Comments
I'm confused about what you mean by "unpopular"
By Michael - 11/19/09 - 3:35 pm
Don't you mean "repetitive, pedantic and irrelevant"?
Ideas
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 3:42 pm
you don't like for whatever reason.
OK, then I voted "yes"
By Michael - 11/19/09 - 3:47 pm
Because UH isn't supposed to be about everything.
Here's what I want to vote on...
By Greg Reibman - 11/19/09 - 4:07 pm
...I don't want someone going by "anonymous" starting threads on Universal Hub. Anonymous comments don't bother me but the person starting a post should be man or woman enough to tell us who they are.
psydononym
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 4:17 pm
My name is Neil. I post psydononymously as "anonymous", and I am the only one who uses that psydononym.
Psydononym?
By Allstonian - 11/19/09 - 4:20 pm
I know what a pseudonym is, but what on earth is a psydononym?
it's a typo
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 4:21 pm
thanks
Pachyderm?
By eeka - 11/19/09 - 11:25 pm
Stegosaurus output in plain ASCII format?
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
brontosaurus!
By bandit - 11/20/09 - 7:26 am
... oh wait. sorry. i thought we were back to playing "what's your favorite dinosaur".
Unpopular is fine.
By 02132 - 11/19/09 - 5:16 pm
Unpopular is fine. Poorly written and illogical posts, however, should not be on the front page.
Quality control, man. Not censoring, not restricting speech, but quality control.
good point!
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:18 pm
Westie
I agree
By bph - 11/19/09 - 6:42 pm
I like to read posts by people who have ideas that are different from mine. I don't like to read ranting poorly written ones.
Nice, 1. See a post by
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 3:46 pm
Nice,
1. See a post by Adam stating polls go right to the main page
2. Troll a poll on Adams site because the users hurt you feeling this morning.
Sorry, but if this was my site, I'd restrict your "Free speech" and ban your ass for being a disrespectful twat.
Oh, and there's no such think as "Free Speech" on a privately owned site. You want free speech, create your own interesting blog that other will want to pick up and create a dialogue with.
Hijacking UH's audience for you own agenda isn't free speech.
anon (not verified)
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 4:11 pm
You must be the fifth person who voted YES, 35 have voted no.
You think it's inappropriate to ask readers what they think? The question goes to the death penalty post, my posts on the Senate race and any other unpopular post.
We hear from the most reactionary few on every unpopular post. I wanted to hear from the rest of the readership.
No matter the results, Adam's policies will be what Adam decides. I have no illusion about that and furthermore, I respect Adam's decisions no matter what. That said, it doesn't mean I won't challenge him when I want him to consider alternatives. If I make an argument he agrees with then all the better. If I don't, I still respect his decision.
Polls?
By chrismatth - 11/19/09 - 3:47 pm
I have a better idea - why don't we just ban stupid polls?
There shouldn't be too much censoring, it's just the poorly worded aspect. You can put up a death-penalty poll, but you should make a valid argument and have good choices on the poll itself.
Get bent
By Kaz - 11/19/09 - 3:47 pm
I didn't see the option for "Yes, restrict Anonymous' front page posting ability already. It's clear he's just trolling now." so I didn't vote.
What? Is that an "unpopular" idea for you, Neil? You're welcome to ignore this comment.
Is that an "unpopular" idea for you, Neil?
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 3:56 pm
No, it isn't. Even though its an ad hominem fallacy, it's yours and it should stand on it's merit.
That said your name-calling is boorish; "get bent", "Stuff it", "Don't be a wanker", "wanker".
As for your assertion that I'm trolling, look at the vote count.
whats the vote count
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 4:34 pm
whats the vote count supposed to prive wanker!!!
Congrats
By Kaz - 11/19/09 - 5:23 pm
I bet I can predict what this poll might result in too:
Kill a puppy?
(A) Yes, puppies should die ugly horrible deaths.
(B) No, there's no reason to just randomly kill a puppy.
Too bad nobody suggested a puppy die in the first place.
You want a logical fallacy? Let's start with your strawman.
You spammed the front page here with Capuano lovefests for about 4 of 6 days this past week. People got sick of it and don't want to even SEE your crap like that on the front page any more. Oh, so start a poll about "unpopular" speech...as if we didn't like your posts because they weren't "popular". It wasn't about popularity and you damn well know that. It was about the bludgeoning of pro-Capuano, anti-Coakley missives that brought nothing of insight and basic propaganda for your favorite candidate that people objected to. You acted all butthurt about it as if we just wanted to silence your politics...and here we are at this juncture (yet again!). You've completely mischaracterized the opposition to your nonsense (that this is similar to the last time you got smacked down for doing it says it's not as naively this time) and acted like you've proven some point about how everyone really does love you and want to see you post more "I <3 Capuano" and "BOOO! Coakley!" crap on the front page some more.
We don't. We don't want your crap here and it's not because it's unpopular but because it's cloying and completely out of sync with how Adam operates this site with a VERY kind open-door policy on submissions. It takes advantage of his good nature and abuses it should anyone else want to make an interesting article. You are an example of how NOT to use UHub when you spam some overtly political message over and over and then add to it with these "polls" and false queries into the nature of your transgression when the community calls you on it. People are calling you on it in an attempt to keep you in line so that you don't ruin Adam's policies for the rest of us...or give any suggestion to others who might see your crap and think they should be as equally obnoxious on the front page too.
Hi Kaz
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:47 pm
I vote NO puppy killing. You seem full of anger and maybe you should stay away from puppies if you're worried you can't control yourself.
Yes, please restrict user "Anonymous"
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 4:09 pm
This is my vote. Why is this "poll" on the front page?
ban unpopular ads?
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 3:49 pm
you should read up on Josh
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 4:35 pm
you should read up on Josh Marshall's point of view over at TMP.
He has some very thoughtful post on separating the content and editorial option of his site, from the revenue generating apparatus of random paid ads. And believes in the sort of separation that make both stronger parts of the whole.
IE they're separated, and adds are not concurrent to the sites opinions.
I have no doubt Adam feels the same.
i would like that
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:56 pm
Do you have links? TPM does both news and opinion journalism. Keeping them separate is important to their news brand particularly becuase they also do opinion journalism.
Adam is an aggregator of news and opinion with commentary, plus some original journalism, plus some original commentary, plus he offers readers access to post articles and polls. I may be completely selling Adam short but clearly what Adam does and what TPM does is different.
That said, how TPM does what it does is of interest to me.
Adam is an aggregator. You are ...
By Ron Newman - 11/19/09 - 6:38 pm
... a word that sounds almost the same, but not quite.
Ron wins the internet
By eeka - 11/19/09 - 11:27 pm
HEEEEEE
*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
http://1smootshort.blogspot.com
I probably lost out on some money recently
By adamg - 11/20/09 - 12:49 am
I suspect I could have sold ad space to at least some of the people running for office in Boston this year. I deliberately didn't try though, because right now there's no church/state wall here - on the back end, UH is just me and there'd certainly be an impression of favoritism in what I wrote or posted (look at what I was accused of during the campaign even without any ads).
One of these days, I'm going to have to break down and hire or contract with an ad salesperson, if only because selling ads is how I'm going to pay the mortgage and buy food and, let's be charitable here: It's not something I'm very good at. Maybe then, I can "retire" comfortably into the role of gentleman publisher/editor and not have to worry so directly about church/state stuff (fine line, I know, but still).
Ads
By Eighthman - 11/19/09 - 11:23 pm
I don't know about unpopular ads, but I wish I didn't have to see three of the exact same ad on one page.
Not sure if that's luck of the draw or on purpose
By adamg - 11/20/09 - 12:51 am
Some advertisers actually pay premiums for such "roadblocking."
I'm not sure if that's what's happening here (the ads come through one of the ad networks I use; I don't see any major premiums on the ad units that would support roadblocking) or it's just pure chance. I will resist the temptation to suggest you reload the page to bring up a new set of ads :-).
Just restrict posts
By Matthew (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 3:55 pm
Just restrict posts that cheerlead for any one Senate candidate.
opinion and advocacy posts
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 4:05 pm
There was plenty of opinion and advocacy posts during the Boston Mayor race. Do you propose to restrict posts of those people too... even if it includes Adam?
I'm fairly certain nobody
By Foxed - 11/19/09 - 5:35 pm
I'm fairly certain nobody posted long articles praising either the Mayor or Floon, and condemning the other candidate.
Unless you're talking about Adam's coverage of the local election? I thought it was pretty unbiased, myself.
-Foxed
I'm thinking... ...ban
By jeveuxsavoir - 11/19/09 - 3:56 pm
I'm thinking...
...ban immature petty stuff like this post.
paging Adam, we have a
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 3:56 pm
paging Adam, we have a problem.
Broken Arrow. Broken Arrow.
And let this be a point that even "Registered Users" can be trolling trouble makers. The only thing that should be focused on is banning IP's of habitual aggressors, anon or pseudo-anon
re: IP Banning
By Andy (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 4:39 pm
Banning IP addresses doesn't do anything. Most internet uses acquire a new IP address every time they turn on their computer.
I voted no. Not because I
By Foxed - 11/19/09 - 4:39 pm
I voted no. Not because I agree that Anonymous should post Capuano love on the front page, but because I'm open to the idea that I can read things I disagree with.
That's not really what's at issue here. I'd hate to get into what UH is all about, but I look forward to random posts about Boston, as well as minor "Hey, here's a politician!" posts and MBTA alerts, not links to extensive pieces on candidates.
If you want to post your opinion to the internet, and I mean on a front page, not in the comments, then make your own blog.
-Foxed
I like anonymous' posts
By Stevil - 11/19/09 - 4:56 pm
Gives me a chance to expose his love child Caps for being the "damn the torpedoes, full spending ahead, tax the rich, pity the poor underdog multi-millionaires who have their money tied up in all kinds of tax shelters like myself" liberal that he is. Let him go ahead and post - it hurts his candidate. Pags is rich and claims to be liberal - but at least he makes some semblance of saying how he's going to pay for his giveaways (for me its between Pags, Khazei and ultimately Brown - how come there is no newspaper coverage of the Brown/Robinson undercard anyway? Anything with Jack E. Robinson in it is more interesting than this Democratic love fest). Any UHers have dirt to dish on the Republican side?
By the way - other than being against child molesting, anyone know how Martha really feels on any issues? How did somebody who basically has no opinions to shout from the mountaintop and has done nothing notable in her tenure as AG get to be the front runner? Or is that the real trick to being the front runner?
Yea Stevil
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:21 pm
more good opposing opinions.
Usually, I'd engage on the topic you raise but I'm restricting myself because of recent events.
Ah, the wonders of the
By anon (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 4:40 pm
Ah, the wonders of the blogosphere, as it learns it has to reinvent all the things it thinks is bad about the MSM.
This sort of solipcistically whining fake poll is everything bad about blogs.
People read UHub because it is a useful news aggregator with a savvy editor with a good news eye.
Turn it into a forum filled with LiveJournal-reject poll garbage like this, posted by idiots screaming about some fake vision of intellectual equality, and it will commit suicide instantly.
Whatever pose UHub chooses to strike, it is Adam's site and should be. Eccentrics like you, me and everyone else can stay here on the comments where we belong.
I have complete faith in the
By Spatch - 11/19/09 - 4:48 pm
I have complete faith in the UHub populace to bring out some kind of decent conversation even in the face of truly trolling behavior. The day you start banning "unpopular" opinions is the day you start an eternal semantics argument.
The anonymous troll can muster up enough righteous indignation on his/her own, so there's no need to do the work ourselves.
Front Page? What Front Page?
By Laurence Glavin (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 5:21 pm
Aren't the first grouping of posrs the MOST RECENT ones entered? I don't see a "front page" when I log on to UH at all.
What you see at www.universalhub.com
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:59 pm
when the screen comes up IS the front page. Readers can post articles but they appear on the "front page" only if the pass (Adam's) muster.
All articles appear on tracker.
I agree Spatch
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 5:22 pm
wholeheartedly.
sorry anonymous...
By bandit - 11/19/09 - 5:55 pm
not answering your poll for the same reason i didn't answer the death penalty poll -- it's poorly worded and none of its options fit my belief system.
my personal belief? it's crappy polls like this that get people not wanting to read your posts, even though you sometimes have really good things to say. but this just comes across as petty.
my personal belief is that crappy polls just waste space, and lead to a general devolution of the overall content of a group blog. please note, i don't mean *all* polls. most polls here are, imho, irreverent and funny and bring us closer together as a community. polarizing polls that seem to mean to do nothing but incite bickering are a waste of space.
that stated, i don't believe in the popularity or unpopularity of posts. this isn't middle school. if you feel you are unpopular i suggest you either (a) decide you don't care and just keep on keeping on (b) decide that popularity is the most important thing to you, watch others who you feel are popular and emulate them in an attempt to be more popular or (c) leave and go someplace you think is better.
and see? i'm not making this a poll because it would be a crappy poll. you probably want some other choices.
as you wish
By Anonymous - 11/19/09 - 6:11 pm
I just got sick of pantywaists crying to Adam to remove posts they found objectionable. No matter what, Adam decides the policies. Now he can see that the censor advocates are in the minority and that the majority want less editorial intervention. He will choose as he sees fit.
I don't expect the information to change his policy about my political advocacy posts, of which there were five in twelve days, but hopefully it will change his opinion about the cries for censoring other people's contributions.
I didnt cry to Adam
By anon-a-mouse - 11/19/09 - 8:57 pm
And I don't find them objectionable. Its just they are not in keeping with the style and approach that Adam brings to this site. They are overly slanted cheerleading stories. If we were all to just post up crap the way you do, this site would be ruined.
Is this site big enough for two passive-aggressives?
By adamg - 11/20/09 - 12:41 am
I mean, I know I am sometimes, but, yikes.
I have not looked at the poll numbers - I don't see the bar graph right in front of me, because I haven't voted. I don't think it's a particularly valid pair of questions (but that's just me), and in any case, not really representative of anything. UH has about 4,500 visitors on an average weekday - I suspect the number of people who did vote is a fraction of that. Correct?
UH is a weird thing. Not as open as, say, Metafilter (although even it has a staffer now who goes around deleting objectionable stuff), but more than simply my personal soapbox.
But here's the deal, if I may be honest: You've done this before, where you take a position on a particular issue and then kind of go nuts with it here. It happened with the presidential election and you were headed down that path again with Capuano/Coakley. The point at which you start posting basically the same thing over and over again (Capuano is a giant among men; Coakley should only be allowed out of solitary once a week) is the point at which other people start complaining, I start getting a headache and you should start considering setting up your own site to promote that point (it's easy; the Zak has set up zillions of them). It's the sheer repetition that grinds people down.
Am I perfect? No. Do I harp on some of the same things over and over again? Yep. But people call me on it (look at Rob Sama's reply to my post about that silly Times article on Boston Common or the comments on pretty much anything I post these days involving head punching in East Boston). And ultimately, if people get too tired/annoyed with me, they'll stop coming back here. And that's what I'm trying to avoid.
am I one of the two?
By Anonymous - 11/20/09 - 1:20 am
I know it is your prerogative to be imperfect on Uhub and not mine, and I completely understand your choice with regard to my articles. I also understand your choice to be responsive to complaints. I hope that you consider allowing other peoples imperfect articles to remain on the "front page" even if they garner complaints. Complaints, as you know, are part of the dialogue.
It has always been the case that you decide which articles I post make it to the front page and which ones don't. I just prefer it when you stand by your decision.
Uh, oh
By Dan Kennedy (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 6:44 pm
What did I miss? I voted "yes" on principle — it's Adam's blog, and I come here for his sensibility. After all, it would take me three times as long to slog through the Globe if anyone with a WiFi connection could write crap and post it.
So what happened?
Principles violated, or something
By fenwayguy - 11/20/09 - 12:23 am
A self-serving, logically-impaired poll was posted this morning. Some urged Adam to remove it from the front page. The user known as "Anonymous" took offense that people would want to ban unpopular ideas, or something; you see, some had also complained that Anonymous' recent, numerous posts boosting candidate Mike Capuano were inappropriate material for UHub, or at least for front page placement.
Now here we have Anonymous again, with a front page poll (this one) drawing further attention to the matter of unpopular ideas being banned, or something. See above.
We also learned that user-created polls are immediately promoted to the front page without human (or Adam's) intervention. Hence Anonymous' nefarious use of said technique in, on and with this very thread.
Does that pretty much bring the newcomers up to speed? (Sorry to be a little snarky, but really... I must say I'm very impressed with adamg's patience for all this.)
Does that pretty much bring the newcomers up to speed?
By Anonymous - 11/20/09 - 1:09 am
YES, quite ably, and your snark is mild and entirely deserved but I hardly think the poll is in any way nefarious. Look over the thread. It's a pretty discussion of blog related issues.
There's one more thing you need to know.
By Anonymous - 11/20/09 - 1:25 am
When a reader posts an 'article' (blog entry) it does not go to the "front page" unless Adam pulls a lever. When readers complain about an article, it's an article that Adam has chosen to 'publish' to the "front page".
Also, polls default to the front page so Adam doesn't seem them and approve them as front page quality material.
This poll is disingenuous.
By Rob (not verified) - 11/19/09 - 7:42 pm
This poll is disingenuous. The issue is not unpopular speech, but rather too many posts just hawking for a particular candidate. I don't want this site to just become competing posts between political opponents.
I want a MEEP option
By SwirlyGrrl - 11/19/09 - 9:41 pm
MEEP
Double Meep
By Stevil - 11/19/09 - 10:09 pm
Meep, Meep - hope the Danvers schools and police aren't reading this! If they are we are all meeped!
MEEP
By Anonymous - 11/20/09 - 1:10 am
MEEP MEEP
This will go down on your permanent record
By SwirlyGrrl - 11/20/09 - 12:07 pm
MEEP
The Front Page
By oddjob60 - 11/20/09 - 9:41 am
Wading through all the back and forth about Anonymous's posting habits, I do think there's an issue here that can and should be addressed: who and what should be allowed on the front page without Adam having to approve the post.
First: Do polls really bypass the usual approval process? If so, Adam, is there a way to change that? It seems like a serious vulnerability.
Second: People allowed to post directly to the front page (including me) should consistently follow proper grammar, spelling, and word usage, and their posts should be clearly and coherently written. Before I post, I read, edit, and reread, aware that thousands of people will see what I write, and I don't want them to think I'm a doofus. The poll that started this thread has a spelling error, and is phrased to express Anonymous's opinion, rather than as a useful survey.
Third: As several others have already said, Adam gets to decide who follows the standards, and what to do about people who don't. His judgment gives UH its strength, and keeps me coming back.
Polls suspect anyway
By another anon (not verified) - 11/20/09 - 11:58 am
There's no way to guarantee that all the "no" votes weren't one person voting 158 times. I've voted twice, both were counted.