Deleting posts

[xrunner]

Everyone has a right to have and share their views, both right and wrong.

So how does giving a set time period for editing prevent all this fun we're having right now?

[EEVblog]

So how does giving a set time period for editing prevent all this fun we're having right now?

This has been explained. It allows you to go back and fix/add information later, because this forum (like it or not) is used an an information resource.

[Rufus]

I voted for not allowing deletion but I don't feel strongly about it.

I think time limited editing would be a bad idea.

If what you post relies on what someone else posted to make sense then quote it. Even if you are able to delete or edit your posts you will not be able to delete quotes and so need to be careful anyway.

[EEVblog]

Everyone has a right to have and share their views, both right and wrong.

As I've said, I think it's clear there is no right or wrong answer here, it is a very subjective on the way you view the forum and your own posts.
Anyone who thinks there is a single right answer here is clearly wrong 

[xrunner]

This has been explained. It allows you to go back and fix/add information later, because this forum (like it or not) is used an an information resource.

And I've explained that you've no guarantee that whatever edits are done are even correct, people searching for information will still find wrong information in quoted posts and probably in the thread by other people because correcting the first post (even if it's really correct) does not change anything in the thread as relates to what has already been hashed out. Might just as well post a correction in the thread, or in a new thread.

So now I've explained that again.

[EEVblog]

I voted for not allowing deletion but I don't feel strongly about it.
I think time limited editing would be a bad idea.

And that's the crux of it I think. What's the difference between the two?
Why ban deleting, but allow editing which can essentially give the same result as far as the information is concerned?

[EEVblog]

And I've explained that you've no guarantee that whatever edits are done are even correct, people searching for information will still find wrong information in quoted posts and probably in the thread by other people because correcting the first post (even if it's really correct) does not change anything in the thread as relates to what has already been hashed out. Might just as well post a correction in the thread, or in a new thread.

But once again, so what?
Isn't is better to be able to at least correct some information? And if no one has quoted the incorrect stuff, it all gets corrected.
If the forum IS used as an information resource (demonstrably true), then how can having some incorrect info in one place, and correct info in another (or multiple) places be better than having correct information in one place?

[sync]

And that's the crux of it I think. What's the difference between the two?
Why ban deleting, but allow editing which can essentially give the same result as far as the information is concerned?

Deleted posts vanish. That can be confusing. An edited post is still there. Maybe without content.
Is it possible that the forum software can inserted a message that there was a deleted post?

[tsmith35]

I think deleting of posts gets done because others that reply can (and often do) quote the original post. Since the OP can't remove the quoted content, they choose to delete the entire post/thread.

I think editing should be allowed forever, but give users the ability to delete posts within a finite period of time. Perhaps 24 or 48 hours, enough time for the OP to think things over. After the day or two has gone by, the OP has had a chance to deal with it and the thread is there for eternity.

Kudos to you for asking your users for input on this topic.

[mrflibble]

And that's the crux of it I think. What's the difference between the two?
Why ban deleting, but allow editing which can essentially give the same result as far as the information is concerned?

Editing => less confusion. Plus post numbers stay the same, so a google search will still find the correct posts after a user decides to scrub all his posts in a thread.

Take for example the Flir E4 thread. After Aurora deleted all his posts, when then searching for a certain topic through google you would consistently end up on the wrong page. It took a while before the google bot had crawled the thread again, after which search was back to usable again. Not the end of the world, but instead of deleting all posts, just editing those posts and leaving a simple "content deleted by user" would have been nicer IMO.

[xrunner]

If the forum IS used as an information resource (demonstrably true), then how can having some incorrect info in one place, and correct info in another (or multiple) places be better than having correct information in one place?

Because you don't really know what's correct or what isn't anyway. You are making a HUGE assumption - that people make valid corrections. How do you know that? It just isn't something you can even prove is true, so I do not understand why you keep clinging to that assumption.

Look, I gotta fix dinner soon, but here's the deal.

People using a forum should know, or should be told if they don't, that the discussion flows from the first post to the last, and that ideas are changed and new information is presented as it goes on. Things are corrected and mistakes are made, that's the ebb and flow of a forum Dave.

That's WHAT A FORUM DOES/IS.

It's a flow of discussion to follow and learn from, yes even the mistakes and how they are corrected by others. It's in the thread <--.

If you just want correct info up front just allow people their own Blogs with unlimited editing. I guess, hell I don't know, but that sounds like what you really want. It ain't a forum, but it would fullfill your desires.

[Fraser]

Isn't the ability to edit and update information at the heart of the very popular Wiki database. Yes it can be corrupted with incorrect information, but at least it may be corrected when the error is discovered.

As Mike has stated, it can be great to go back and add useful additional information to a Post to help newbies who stumble upon it. I started the E4 Useful information thread and regularly update certain posts like the serial number VS firmware post. Not being able to do so would create a verbose thread. It is being kept nice and compact by my adding clearly stated Updates and even a regularly updated Index of important content in the first Post. It works well for me and I hope for other members.

https://www.eevblog.com/forum/reviews/flir-e4-the-useful-information-thread/

[AlfBaz]

Take for example the Flir E4 thread. After Aurora deleted all his posts, when then searching for a certain topic through google you would consistently end up on the wrong page. It took a while before the google bot had crawled the thread again, after which search was back to usable again. Not the end of the world, but instead of deleting all posts, just editing those posts and leaving a simpe "content deleted by user" would have been nicer IMO.

The way Aurora explained the situation what you suggest would not have satisfied his objective unless the user name had also be deleted or changed

[sync]

The way Aurora explained the situation what you suggest would not have satisfied his objective unless the user name had also be deleted or changed

In such a special case an admin could help and really delete the posts.

[Fraser]

mrflibble,

Comment noted and lesson learned 

I was NOT aware of the implications of my actions when I deleted the posts. As you say. Removing text would have been better. It was a bad evening for me when I did it so not enough brain cells active 

I hope I have partly made up for the error with my E4 Useful information thread that aims to take any non hack related E4 useful information and place it in a nice neat and compact thread that is easily searchable.

[xrunner]

And here's yet another issue. If you allow editing the first post in a thread forever, what happens when some members make corrections in the first post, and others just post corrections all along the thread (as it's normally done in a forum)?

Guess what you have? A confusing set of problems, because members have no idea which "first posts" are the corrected ones, and which first posts in other threads have incorrect information; the corrections being posted all along in the thread. You have confusion. I sure hope members are able to tell which are which, 'cause I sure wouldn't be able to. What if they assume all first posts are correct? Guess you better read the thread - and POW - that's back to what a forum is for.

[AlfBaz]

Is it feasible that contributors of information may be reluctant to post said info if they are unable to modify or retract that information?

It's better for it to be up and available for a short time than never at all

[GeoffS]

The way Aurora explained the situation what you suggest would not have satisfied his objective unless the user name had also be deleted or changed

In such a special case an admin could help and really delete the posts.

As long as the recycle option is enabled, posts are not really deleted, just moved,  and can be restored by an admin if necessary.

[mikeselectricstuff]

If the forum IS used as an information resource (demonstrably true), then how can having some incorrect info in one place, and correct info in another (or multiple) places be better than having correct information in one place?

Because you don't really know what's correct or what isn't anyway. You are making a HUGE assumption - that people make valid corrections.

Which in the vast majority of cases will be a valid assumption.

How do you know that? It just isn't something you can even prove is true, so I do not understand why you keep clinging to that assumption.

Because it is more reasonable to assume that an edit will be a correction than introducing an error.

People using a forum should know, or should be told if they don't, that the discussion flows from the first post to the last,

Many users won't care - they just want an answer.

[xrunner]

Is it feasible that contributors of information may be reluctant to post said info if they are unable to modify or retract that information?

Sure it is. And if that is the case, they need not enter the forum. I don't know if Dave has modded the TOS of this forum from the default SMF boilerplate, but I'm going to check it. Have you actually read it when you joined? You should go back and read what you actually agreed to when joining this forum AlfBaz.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Is it feasible that contributors of information may be reluctant to post said info if they are unable to modify or retract that information?

Sure it is. And if that is the case, they need not enter the forum.

In which case everyone loses. Users don't get  the benefit of that potential user's knowledge, Dave's advertising revenue goes down.
Risk of occasional confusion seems a small price to pay.
 

[Fraser]

I should state that I did write to the OP (Mike), Dave and other stakeholders in the E4 thread to explain my actions and request that the deleted posts remain deleted.

What was interesting to me was the level of raw hostility that was vented on me when I deleted my E4 posts. Not by the many but by the few. It was obviously a big deal for those persons. In that specific case I ignored the comments as the parties had an axe to grind with me personally. It did indicate that the community is self regulating and if you delete your posts as I did, expect a pretty unpleasant response from some quarters of the forum. I might add that I also received some messages from very understanding members, including DaveLJ, Mike and Mrflibble. 

[xrunner]

Because it is more reasonable to assume that an edit will be a correction than introducing an error.

And what about the whole thread, where people have been reading and discussing a wrong idea or "fact"? You are making a very big assumption busy people will know that the first post is now the right thing to read. Also, it doesn't account for the chaos of some members correcting first posts, and others correcting in the thread, as I just posted above.

[xrunner]

In which case everyone loses. Users don't get  the benefit of that potential user's knowledge, Dave's advertising revenue goes down.
Risk of occasional confusion seems a small price to pay.

You really need to read the TOS of SMF forums.

[mikeselectricstuff]

Because it is more reasonable to assume that an edit will be a correction than introducing an error.

And what about the whole thread, where people have been reading and discussing a wrong idea or "fact"? You are making a very big assumption busy people will know that the first post is now the right thing to read. Also, it doesn't account for the chaos of some members correcting first posts, and others correcting in the thread, as I just posted above.

Example  ?