Firstposting, or thread sniping, is the habit of posting short messages to obnoxiously point out that you have found and seen this content first. This practice was far more common in the years leading up to this comic, when high-traffic and poorly-moderated social media sites tended to display comments in increasing chronological order by default; as such, the oldest comments would be most prominently displayed at the top, while the newest comments would be buried at the bottom.
In the first two panels, Cueball stares at his screen, implying that a long time passes before he finally points this out. He has probably submitted a post and is awaiting for comments that are not coming. Cueball might actually have mixed feelings about the practice slowly dying out. However, someone offscreen is worried he will jinx it, encouraging more people to do so.
In reality, Cueball's observation has held true, due to changes in best practices for web design. Social media sites in particular often sort comments by user rating; as such, the most appreciated comments are given the most prominence, and trollish comments like the cliche "F1rst p0st!!" are buried. Meanwhile, low-traffic forums with smaller communities still display comments from oldest to newest; in these environments, firstposters are reported and dealt with by human moderators in a timely fashion. In short, the internet as a whole does not reward or reinforce firstposting the way it once did pre-2013.
See also 269: TCMP and 1019: First Post.
The title text sarcastically states that no new annoying internet behaviors have emerged since the "first post" trend began which would continue to annoy users: a fact which is clearly wrong to anyone who spends a length of time on the internet. See for instance 493: Actuarial.
- [Cueball sits at his desk, using a computer.]
- [Cueball is still sitting at the desk, but with hands off the keyboard in his lap.]
- [Cueball is in the same position as before, talking with off-panel.]
- Cueball: After a couple of unbearable decades, the "first post" thing seems to be dying a quiet death.
- Off-screen: Shh. You'll jinx it.
add a comment! ⋅ add a topic (use sparingly)! ⋅ refresh comments!
First! Edo (talk) 04:28, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- This is a wiki, not some xkcd reader's blog. GameZone (talk) 04:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- (it's called a joke) Edo (talk) 04:38, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I thought it was funny. 18.104.22.168 07:42, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I actually would have been slightly disappointed if someone hadn't made a "First!" comment for this particular comic. Only slightly, though, because that would mean I would've been able to do it. 22.214.171.124 18:30, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Personally, I considered putting "InB4 someone says 'First'!!!", and thus probably annoyed both the "First"-likers and the Meme-haters. However, I left it too long to work out if I ought to. ;) 126.96.36.199 23:07, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- Ha! I was going to do the same thing. --Druid816 (talk) 07:58, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
When I saw today's comic on XKCD.com, I came here just to check if someone made a "First!" comment in comic's discussion page. 188.8.131.52 08:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yep, I wanted to come here and post "first!" I thought that would be fun and original. Porkypine (talk) 14:50, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I also only came by to make sure the first thing in Discussion was "First," as is appropriate.
I agree it is likely Megan offscreen, but can we be sure? 184.108.40.206 09:57, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Is Megan the canonical name for the long-haired brunette? Interesting... 220.127.116.11 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Yes. See 159:_Boombox --Rael (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
I corrected the indents, dont be mad at me :) 18.104.22.168 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
Can someone explain what it means? I first guessed it was the proliferation on the "exactly zero" sentence, but it can also means "not comments at all". 22.214.171.124 12:10, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- He is being ironic because there have been so many annoying internet behaviours have come about. 126.96.36.199 13:09, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- Could also be self referencing, as massive use of irony can be considered an annoying internet behaviour. --188.8.131.52 13:13, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- If someone comes with a new annoying behavior, it will be the first! 184.108.40.206 14:20, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
- I get that there are annoying Internet behavior, and idiocy on the Web is pretty much unavoidable, but are there any new, specific behaviors that we can put in the explanation rather than just telling people how obvious it is? (I'm not just complaining, if it came across that way. I would offer examples if I could think of any.) 220.127.116.11 22:29, 30 August 2013 (UTC)DBrak
- I make $205,392 a day part time sitting at home on the computer. I didn't know it could be so easy! Check out my website to find out more! 18.104.22.168 16:27, 4 September 2013 (UTC)
- For starters, how bout those Youtube commenters? "Justin Bieber suxorz", "49 JB fans disliked this vid", "Metal = shit, rap = awesome", etc. Diszy (talk) 00:16, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
- Youtube memes could fill a thread alone. How about "thumbs up if still listening to this in 2013", or "57 people [number of negative votes] don't like good music". But I think more generic internet behavior was intended, like Rickrolling, ending dubiously spelled words with (sp?) rather than use a spell checker, any number of annoying and overused acronyms and letter/number substitutions, etc.
- "Exactly zero" is often used in dubious arguments. "The odds of that working are exactly zero." gijobarts (talk) 07:08, 2 September 2013 (UTC)
- That sounds like a dubious argument. It is more often used when the point someone has made is clearly, indisputably and entirely wrong. "The government is trying to kill us with chemtrails!". "No, it really isn't." Except you would say 'the chances of that being true are exactly zero' thing. 22.214.171.124 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
I really don't see a need for the 'List of annoying Internet habits developed after "First"' section. 126.96.36.199 07:44, 12 January 2014 (UTC)
- tl,dr. 188.8.131.52 20:25, 4 February 2014 (UTC)
- The need was to suppress a  tag. See . Xhfz (talk) 21:43, 4 February 2014 (UTC)