Removing or modifying posts

[john beardsworth]

Would it be good to set the forum software to prevent the removal or editing of posts after others have responded? Or after a short interval?

Such controls are quite common in forum software, and they help avoid any desire to guard against retrospective changes to posts by including unnecessary quotes in one's responses (I bet I'm not the only one to do that). Second, see if you can make sense of this thread where one poster has removed his comments. It's obviously good to retain some ability to fine tune one's wording, grammar or spelling, but do we really need the opportunity to change the sense of a thread?

John

[Manoli]

The thread you reference , is an excellent example of why why one should be allowed to edit and delete posts. The poster in question, I can only guess, deleted his contribution because the tone soon took the form of the typical lula downward spiral - which he presumably didn't care to participate in or else simply decided to recant. Both of which, to my mind, are valid reasons.

At least the thread soon recovered with some cogent contributions, so rather than fuel the flames, perhaps it's a good way to encourage sane participation and avoid the recent, all too common, mod intervention and/or closing of threads.

M

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Would it be good to set the forum software to prevent the removal or editing of posts after others have responded? Or after a short interval?

No.

Such controls are quite common in forum software, and they help avoid any desire to guard against retrospective changes to posts by including unnecessary quotes in one's responses (I bet I'm not the only one to do that). Second, see if you can make sense of this thread where one poster has removed his comments. It's obviously good to retain some ability to fine tune one's wording, grammar or spelling, but do we really need the opportunity to change the sense of a thread?

I occasionally have to change the URLs of links or images that I reference in my posts, especially when the thread is read a lot, or linked to to avoid repetition in other threads. I find the ability to modify after the fact very valuable. If people completely change their posts so that the reaction do not make any sense anymore, then that can be prevented by quoting the part of the post that one is responding to (that text will not be changed).

For me, it's fine as it is, and it saves the moderators a lot of time not having to deal with modification requests or dead links.

Cheers,
Bart

[Manoli]

... and they help avoid any desire to guard against retrospective changes to posts by including unnecessary quotes in one's responses (I bet I'm not the only one to do that).

Selectively quoting previous posts helps readability - you, and others who will read the thread, don't really want to have to scroll back and forth to find out (or guess) which part you're referencing. What, IMO, could be discouraged is lazily requoting, in full, previous posts, including photos, which only makes the thread discontinuous.

[john beardsworth]

The thread you reference , is an excellent example of why why one should be allowed to edit and delete posts. The poster in question, I can only guess, deleted his contribution because the tone soon took the form of the typical lula downward spiral?

Did it? How do you know? Sure it wasn't for some other reason? But this isn't about whatever happened in that thread, other than it being a fine example of retrospective changes destroying the sense of the discussion.

Preventing retrospective changes works fine elsewhere. Doesn't allowing them just cause mistrust?

[john beardsworth]

Selectively quoting previous posts helps readability - you, and others who will read the thread, don't really want to have to scroll back and forth to find out (or guess) which part you're referencing. What, IMO, could be discouraged is lazily requoting, in full, previous posts, including photos, which only makes the thread discontinuous.

I agree about "selectively" quoting and about discouraging laziness, but that's not all that happens. Instead laziness plus safeguarding against retrospective changes means more quoting than necessary with its impact on readability.

[Manoli]

Did it? How do you know?

'Cos I watched it happen 'live and online'

Sure it wasn't for some other reason?

Nope, which is why I said ' I can only guess'.

-

No, I don't think deleting necessarily causes mistrust. There are times that, with the benefit of hindsight, and often due to the tone and nature of the subsequent posts, one thinks 'I don't want to be here'. It doesn't happen often but it does happen. I've done it. I can think of a few other (eminent) contributors who've also done it - they've said so and, more often than not, it's because they don't wish to be part of a conversation that all too often goes off-topic and with a less than collegial tone.

I put that last part as diplomatically as possible.

Forum 'etiquette' (haven't we found an alternative word for this piece of franco-anglais yet ?)  though would dictate that any modification other than a simple spelling correction is preceded by 'edit: .... ' and placed at the bottom, in continuation. of the original post.

[Otto Phocus]

What, IMO, could be discouraged is lazily requoting, in full, previous posts, including photos, which only makes the thread discontinuous.

I agree.  I don't know why people seem to be unable to edit their quoting.  It actually makes the post harder to  understand.  Combined with, as you wrote, bulk quoting conversations can make the later posts difficult to understand.

But then we can't teach people not to use "reply all" on E-mails, so being able to efficiently use the quote function may be too much to ask. 

[john beardsworth]

'Cos I watched it happen 'live and online'

Without focussing too much on that thread, I wasn't following it and the absence of posts means it doesn't make sense. For what little that is worth.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Selectively quoting previous posts helps readability - you, and others who will read the thread, don't really want to have to scroll back and forth to find out (or guess) which part you're referencing. What, IMO, could be discouraged is lazily requoting, in full, previous posts, including photos, which only makes the thread discontinuous.

Fully agree with that. It's basic/proper Netiquette to include relevant (parts of) quotes to which an answer is given. It also shown that proper attention (=respect) was given to the specific points that were made. Since some quotes cover many different lines of thought, it's then best to separate them in multiple paragraphs and respond to each individually, which helps to follow the line of reasoning of both parties involved. It only shows respect for the poster who is being answered, and improves readability.

Cheers,
Bart

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Would it be good to set the forum software to prevent the removal or editing of posts after others have responded?...

No.

...  desire to guard against retrospective changes to posts by including unnecessary quotes in one's responses (I bet I'm not the only one to do that)...

Creepy.

[john beardsworth]

No.
Creepy.

The thing that's creepy is changing a post's meaning after others have responded....

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

The thing that's creepy is changing a post's meaning after others have responded....

Which is useless if properly quoted in the reply.

Cheers,
Bart

[john beardsworth]

Which is useless if properly quoted in the reply.
Cheers,
Bart

And unfortunately I feel that's what many of us are having to do....