Modify and/or Delete

[haha]

Why are you sometimes offered the opportunity to either delete or modify your post, but other times only modify?

More than once when my fingers have been faster than my brain I have wanted to remove a possibly injudicious post, only to find "Modify" the only option presented. So I modify it into what I hope will be inoffensive drivel.

Why isn't “delete” always present?

 

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

I think it has to do with how long ago you posted. There might be a grace period for deletion for a few minutes, after which it's there for posterity.

 

[Nords]

Why are you sometimes offered the opportunity to either delete or modify your post, but other times only modify?
More than once when my fingers have been faster than my brain I have wanted to remove a possibly injudicious post, only to find "Modify" the only option presented. So I modify it into what I hope will be inoffensive drivel.
Why isn't “delete” always present?

I think it has to do with how long ago you posted. There might be a grace period for deletion for a few minutes, after which it's there for posterity.

You can thank OAP, Howard/Max, and a couple other posters who would edit the record by deleting their posts (or even by deleting their entire accounts). Deleting makes it darn hard to figure out what was being said by whom (sometimes even hard to discern the subject) and difficult to find that post you were searching for by a keyword or by a particular poster's name. So the moderator decision was made to limit deletions to moderators & administrators.

I don't know how long it takes for a post to become part of the record, but it's measured in a few minutes. Maybe it's a function of how busy the server is. Many times I'll post, realize I need to change something, and be able to do so within the first minute-- and the final post won't show that it's been edited. Other times I've waited a minute or two, edited the post, and noticed that the software has logged my edit.

If you're being offered an option to delete something other than a PM, we may have to take a look at that!

 

[MJ]

I just accidentally posted a message to the wrong thread and caught the mistake w/i less than 2 minutes and couldn't delete it, so of course I just cleared the contents. I don't see how clearing the content is better than deleting the message.

 

[Nords]

I just accidentally posted a message to the wrong thread and caught the mistake w/i less than 2 minutes and couldn't delete it, so of course I just cleared the contents.

I deleted it for you.

I don't see how clearing the content is better than deleting the message.

Careful, that'll re-start the moderator debate on whether we should even be allowing posters to edit their posts, let alone delete them...

We're open to suggestions. I've deleted one or two of my old posts before changing my philosophy and deciding to let the rest stand. However I frequently fix my spelling, grammar, & format.

Some posters have abused their "deletion privileges" so now only moderators/admins can delete posts. The logic is that allowing posters to edit (but not delete) would complicate the process of altering the record and discourage them from manually removing posts. However posters can still go back and fix some things without having to wait for a moderator to stop by. As usual, the compromise is awkward and subject to unintended consequences.

 

[MJ]

I understand the rationale but unfortunately this simple forum has gotten more and more complicated.

 

[Sheryl]

For practical reasons, it sure is nice to be able to edit when you need to correct yourself - spelling, typos, updated info, etc. Esecially since some posters here can be brutal on the errors of anyone who dares to post after a few cocktails!

 

[Martha]

I can't imagine removing the edit functions.

If you want to delete, there is always the "nm" post.

It would be nice if had a grace period where we could delete with impunity.

 

[sgeeeee]

nm

 

[dory36]

The problem wasn't that an occasional message was being deleted. It was that every once in a while, a prolific poster would decide to make a fresh start, delete his account, and select the "delete all messages" option, and then re-sign-in with a different name.

This left dozens of threads in shambles, with every third or fourth post missing, and just the replies to those posts. Essentially, all of the threads in which that person had participated were left unintelligible to the rest of the forum members, unless each had quoted the previous message.

Destroying dozens of threads seemed unfair to everyone else. So the "delete posts" option was turned off.

As discussed above, that does not prevent anyone from removing the content on any or all of their messages, but it makes it necessary to visit each message, rather than a global delete.

 

[Nords]

I find that statement offensive.  How can someone abuse "deletion privileges" of their own words?  

I'm not offended by your expression of your right to free (yet moderated) speech. However I thought it was pretty offensive to watch posters, OAP & Howard/Max among them, destroy the entire context of a thread through their egregious edits & deletions by just a few mouse clicks. At least this way they have to work for it.

I wonder how your editor & publisher feel about your sentiments. But presumably they're paying you to relinquish control of your words while on this board you're doing it for free. Unless, of course, you're supporting Dory's server fund-- which would mean that you're paying him for the privilege of giving up some of your "rights".

Honestly, the modulators on this forum take themselves way to seriously. Let people post and edit. What special qualifications to the modulators have that makes them capable of knowing more than the rest of the adults on this forum about what should be posted and edited?

Well, somebody has to take us seriously-- it's certainly not you guys or our spouses!!

But let's sort out the vocabulary. We moderators aren't so much "modulators" as we are Zener diodes, although my electronics knowledge is probably getting pretty stale and I'm sure there's a better digital analogue (so to speak). And I'm not sure what qualifies forum posters as "adults", even the 14-year-old from Missoula. Finally, we already let people post & edit, although presumably this discussion is more about unmoderated posting & deletions.

The "special qualifications" held by moderators consist of (1) giving a damn, (2) having the time to do something about it, and (3) being able to receive user feedback in a private manner through PMs & reported threads.

We make the majority of our moderator decisions based on user feedback-- it doesn't take much cognitive effort when you get six PMs and several "report this thread" e-mails. Policies grow out of that feedback, although sometimes we go into a moderator huddle before carrying out ("executing"?) a decision. But the result is that the moderator decisions are largely made by the proxies of the people who post here. The difference is that we moderators get to use the weapons.

It's kinda the way you and other Americans donate your tax dollars to let me join the military for a career of breaking things and killing people. You let your elected officials designate someone to be responsible for the quality of my judgment & behavior. Now I'm an unpaid volunteer (or worse, since I also support Dory's server fund). You, as a poster, have given up control of your postings to the same extent that you gave up control of your tax dollars, and you're letting Dory decide whether I'm being responsible with our moderator powers.

Of course the difference on this forum is that you can always choose to stop contributing your tax dollars posts and go start your own country discussion board. You could even volunteer to be a moderator, because bitching about policies like this is how at least one of us joined the club.

But if you don't select one of the alternatives from the preceding paragraph then implied consent will be presumed. As Gene Hackman said in "Crimson Tide", "We're here to defend democracy, not to practice it!"

Joking aside, I see this board as much more than a place to share collegial times with like-minded posters. I've made a few real no-foolin' friends about whom I care quite a bit more than I expected to, the posters here have given me many stark no-holds-barred evaluations of my ideas & opinions, the relationships have taken me places I never expected to get to safely on my own, and the server is becoming a huge on-line repository of my memoirs. I'm not going to give the anarchic mob the "privilege" of trashing the environment that Dory and the moderators have worked so hard to build.

 

[haha]

Most of the stuff that got deleted was in crap threads- the threads that no one in his right mind would go back and re-read anyway, even if he did suffer through them the first time around.

Most of the information rich threads were polite and people didn't overstep what they felt comfortable with.

When I figured out that I would have to go through all my messages one by one to get rid of them, I became a lot more careful about how much local color that was going to come from me anyway.

Ha

 

[sgeeeee]

. . . I wonder how your editor & publisher feel about your sentiments.  But presumably they're paying you to relinquish control of your words while on this board you're doing it for free. 

Just to clarify how the publication process works . . . I have never had my words corrected, edited or modified without my approval. The edit and review process involves editors and reviewers reading, redlining, making comments and suggestions then returning that material to the author for consideration. The author can and often does refuse to modify the manuscript relative to some of the comments and suggestions. Some reviews and reviewers are very good and very thorough. An author who chooses to ignore their suggestions is probably being foolish. But sometimes reviewers miss the point and their suggestions only weaken the text.

As a magazine editor, I never edit a manuscript without sending it back to the author for approval. Even trivial gramatical and spelling corrections are sent back for author approval. None of my reviewers have the authority to do that either. Their comments and suggestions come through me and back to the author. If an author is unwilling to accept reviewer suggestions, I have to choose whether to run the article as presented by the author or to reject it. I do not have the option of running it in a form not approved by the author. Many published articles involve some comprimise between what reviewers want and what the author wants.