I believe OP is worried about future readability. When someone new comes to read a topic, they may read the first edited post, the unedited comment, and misunderstand the discussion that's...
I believe OP is worried about future readability. When someone new comes to read a topic, they may read the first edited post, the unedited comment, and misunderstand the discussion that's happening. For instance, users have sometimes patched holes in an argument they've expounded without indication, making responses to that argument, which point out those flaws seems baseless.
For discussion based topics, invisible edits increase individual comment quality, by presenting you in the best light, while decreasing the legibility of the broader discussion for users who weren't present. I dislike deletion personally, but it leaves an indication that there's a hole in the discussion, which is a major difference.
In your first example, you mention your edits in comments, which is arguably more difficult for readers to track. Until I saw them, many of the responses made no sense. To be clear, I think edits which don't change the flow of the discussion are fine invisible.
Editing etiquette should always be a free choice to opt-in. Some people like to do it, some don't. Personally I do it when it makes sense. I've only seen it enforced in elitist communities like...
Editing etiquette should always be a free choice to opt-in. Some people like to do it, some don't. Personally I do it when it makes sense.
I've only seen it enforced in elitist communities like some old forums.
Okay, I see this entire thread is clearly targeted at me, in everything but name, while you also failed to respond to me on-subject in another thread so this is passive-aggressive on your part....
Okay, I see this entire thread is clearly targeted at me, in everything but name, while you also failed to respond to me on-subject in another thread so this is passive-aggressive on your part.
And you're lying.
I was just getting annoyed at the fact I'd replied to a comment, when half of it was deleted - the half of it that I responded to.
It was ONE SENTENCE. Look at my comment. By what right do you claim that one sentence that I removed for being unfair is half of my comment?
I find it interesting how this is twice now that you've taken a fraction of a percent of a work and identified it as a major part of a work. Here you suggest one irrelevant sentence that I removed for being unfair was half my comment. In your comment to me in that thread, you also suggest that one early pithy sentence of the article that you falsely identify as sensationalist means the entire article is sensationalist.
I even replied to you explaining why that read of the article is totally off-base, but you never responded. Instead you made this thread and these comments where you then apply that same type mischaracterized reading to my own comment. I find this behaviour of yours highly uncouth.
Why are you repeatedly mischaracterizing other people's words and work like this?
Now, for everyone's edification, here's the sentence that you claim is half of my comment (or some approximation of what it was because I deleted it):
To me it seems like the only outrage happening here is from you and @thistle because you are both irate that people would choose to discuss something to the point that you're accusing the author of the opposite of his point, and accidentally agreeing with them as a result.
I think a cursory look at my comment there would show that there is no way this sentence was half my comment, or even relevant to any points I actually did make or comment on there.
I deleted that line from my comment yesterday because I thought that was an unfair thing to ascribe to you both. It did not relate to the rest of my comment (about how they had clearly not read the article) and it was something of a personal attack. You two seemingly identified outrage in an article where there wasn't any and perhaps I was wrong to say either of you were outraged, but I still find your comments both highly suspect for various reasons, which I went into detail about there and you have still failed to respond to, opting instead to do.... this.
I also removed that line within mere seconds to minutes of posting. It's not like I went back an hour later and removed it, or even after you had commented. I must have removed that while you must have been mid-typing up your reply.
I don't see why my removing that line is cause for you to go to such great lengths of... well, outrage. I even told you upfront I removed that line, so I was upfront with you the whole time as well, and yet here you are sneaking around as if some great insult has been thrown at you. This is totally unreasonable behaviour. I don't know why you feel so strongly that I keep a naked, unfounded accusation of you participating in outrage for the sake of it up.
It's wild to me that you're far more interested if I called you outraged or not (and then edited that out of my comment) than you are in actually fairly addressing or discussing an article someone took the time to submit. Are you here to fairly and sincerely read and comment on other people's submissions at all?
I would say it's good etiquette to remove such things from comments. The real bad etiquette that's happening here is:
Your passive-aggressive edit in that other comment
This passive-aggressive thread where you want to force your values on others
Your consistent mischaracterization of what others are saying or have said
Finally, I want to address this line in your passive-aggressive edit you made instead of actually responding to me properly, on-subject:
BTW @TheJorro, normally good etiquette on websites which don't store comment edit history is to strikethrough bits that you want to remove,
This website was built for users to have total control of their own content. I frequently edit my longer, my involved comments (such as this one) as my ideas change even after I post. I am upfront with people when they reply during that period if there has been a substantial change, as I was with you. I introduce disclaimers if a major part of my comment or argument has changed, which was not the case with that comment. Deal with it.
I don't know I necessarily agree with much of this. As weird as it sounds, text formatting is an incredibly personal thing, and to some extent represents someone's personality online. I don't know...
I don't know I necessarily agree with much of this. As weird as it sounds, text formatting is an incredibly personal thing, and to some extent represents someone's personality online. I don't know if it's a good idea to take that away so we can introduce standards that are likely solvable via other mechanisms. For example, I heavily use em-dashes as a form of pause and aside—and frankly striking text surrounded by em-dashes is æsthetically very displeasing to me—because of the way the tracking of the typeface in combination with the strikethrough interferes with the paragraph's readability.
I'm also not a big fan of the whole EDIT: paradigm in most cases. In fact I try very hard to not use it in all but exceptional cases, and usually reserve it for long-term followup (weeks+) if I've significantly changed my opinion or have an extreme urge to clarify something. My frustration with this style of writing is that it introduces fragmentation in the train of thought of what the author is trying to convey.
Most of the issues you raise can be addressed through the existing ruleset Tildes has. If someone is editing their comment to make replies appear as bad-faith responses, that in itself is a bad-faith action and I'd probably report that to Deimos. In general most of the "problems" forums and discussion platforms have shouldn't be a problem here because there's a strong intolerance for those who repeatedly rock the boat—that's not to say that Tildes is a safe space, but it's hard to be a dick for very long here.
My view: let people type how they'd like to type, and use the existing rules to address bad faith commentary with existing mechanisms :)
I’m very liberal with my edits if the comment haven’t received any vote or answer yet. Otherwise, I only make minor alterations that don’t alter the meaning. If I add something, I use “Edit:...
I’m very liberal with my edits if the comment haven’t received any vote or answer yet. Otherwise, I only make minor alterations that don’t alter the meaning. If I add something, I use “Edit: something”. That’s about it. But I don’t expect others to do the same.
If we can work out a way to respect privacy and data control while handling post history, I think this is something that could be handled at the system level. Maybe when editing posts, there's an...
If we can work out a way to respect privacy and data control while handling post history, I think this is something that could be handled at the system level.
Maybe when editing posts, there's an extra checkbox like "Preserve history". When unchecked, it would work as it does now, overwriting the old version. When checked, saving an edit will result in both the old version and the new version in the database. Some sort of UI could be added to see the history and diffs. There could also be a way to remove your own historical posts later too.
Alright, apparently this thread is closer to some kind of passive-aggressive drama than it is to a genuine suggestion, so even though there are some good comments in here, I'm going to shut it down.
Alright, apparently this thread is closer to some kind of passive-aggressive drama than it is to a genuine suggestion, so even though there are some good comments in here, I'm going to shut it down.
I believe OP is worried about future readability. When someone new comes to read a topic, they may read the first edited post, the unedited comment, and misunderstand the discussion that's happening. For instance, users have sometimes patched holes in an argument they've expounded without indication, making responses to that argument, which point out those flaws seems baseless.
For discussion based topics, invisible edits increase individual comment quality, by presenting you in the best light, while decreasing the legibility of the broader discussion for users who weren't present. I dislike deletion personally, but it leaves an indication that there's a hole in the discussion, which is a major difference.
In your first example, you mention your edits in comments, which is arguably more difficult for readers to track. Until I saw them, many of the responses made no sense. To be clear, I think edits which don't change the flow of the discussion are fine invisible.
Editing etiquette should always be a free choice to opt-in. Some people like to do it, some don't. Personally I do it when it makes sense.
I've only seen it enforced in elitist communities like some old forums.
Okay, I see this entire thread is clearly targeted at me, in everything but name, while you also failed to respond to me on-subject in another thread so this is passive-aggressive on your part.
And you're lying.
It was ONE SENTENCE. Look at my comment. By what right do you claim that one sentence that I removed for being unfair is half of my comment?
I find it interesting how this is twice now that you've taken a fraction of a percent of a work and identified it as a major part of a work. Here you suggest one irrelevant sentence that I removed for being unfair was half my comment. In your comment to me in that thread, you also suggest that one early pithy sentence of the article that you falsely identify as sensationalist means the entire article is sensationalist.
I even replied to you explaining why that read of the article is totally off-base, but you never responded. Instead you made this thread and these comments where you then apply that same type mischaracterized reading to my own comment. I find this behaviour of yours highly uncouth.
Why are you repeatedly mischaracterizing other people's words and work like this?
Now, for everyone's edification, here's the sentence that you claim is half of my comment (or some approximation of what it was because I deleted it):
I think a cursory look at my comment there would show that there is no way this sentence was half my comment, or even relevant to any points I actually did make or comment on there.
I deleted that line from my comment yesterday because I thought that was an unfair thing to ascribe to you both. It did not relate to the rest of my comment (about how they had clearly not read the article) and it was something of a personal attack. You two seemingly identified outrage in an article where there wasn't any and perhaps I was wrong to say either of you were outraged, but I still find your comments both highly suspect for various reasons, which I went into detail about there and you have still failed to respond to, opting instead to do.... this.
I also removed that line within mere seconds to minutes of posting. It's not like I went back an hour later and removed it, or even after you had commented. I must have removed that while you must have been mid-typing up your reply.
I don't see why my removing that line is cause for you to go to such great lengths of... well, outrage. I even told you upfront I removed that line, so I was upfront with you the whole time as well, and yet here you are sneaking around as if some great insult has been thrown at you. This is totally unreasonable behaviour. I don't know why you feel so strongly that I keep a naked, unfounded accusation of you participating in outrage for the sake of it up.
It's wild to me that you're far more interested if I called you outraged or not (and then edited that out of my comment) than you are in actually fairly addressing or discussing an article someone took the time to submit. Are you here to fairly and sincerely read and comment on other people's submissions at all?
I would say it's good etiquette to remove such things from comments. The real bad etiquette that's happening here is:
Finally, I want to address this line in your passive-aggressive edit you made instead of actually responding to me properly, on-subject:
This website was built for users to have total control of their own content. I frequently edit my longer, my involved comments (such as this one) as my ideas change even after I post. I am upfront with people when they reply during that period if there has been a substantial change, as I was with you. I introduce disclaimers if a major part of my comment or argument has changed, which was not the case with that comment. Deal with it.
I don't know I necessarily agree with much of this. As weird as it sounds, text formatting is an incredibly personal thing, and to some extent represents someone's personality online. I don't know if it's a good idea to take that away so we can introduce standards that are likely solvable via other mechanisms. For example, I heavily use em-dashes as a form of pause and aside—
and frankly striking text surrounded by em-dashes is æsthetically very displeasing to me—because of the way the tracking of the typeface in combination with the strikethrough interferes with the paragraph's readability.I'm also not a big fan of the whole
EDIT:paradigm in most cases. In fact I try very hard to not use it in all but exceptional cases, and usually reserve it for long-term followup (weeks+) if I've significantly changed my opinion or have an extreme urge to clarify something. My frustration with this style of writing is that it introduces fragmentation in the train of thought of what the author is trying to convey.Most of the issues you raise can be addressed through the existing ruleset Tildes has. If someone is editing their comment to make replies appear as bad-faith responses, that in itself is a bad-faith action and I'd probably report that to Deimos. In general most of the "problems" forums and discussion platforms have shouldn't be a problem here because there's a strong intolerance for those who repeatedly rock the boat—that's not to say that Tildes is a safe space, but it's hard to be a dick for very long here.
My view: let people type how they'd like to type, and use the existing rules to address bad faith commentary with existing mechanisms :)
I’m very liberal with my edits if the comment haven’t received any vote or answer yet. Otherwise, I only make minor alterations that don’t alter the meaning. If I add something, I use “Edit: something”. That’s about it. But I don’t expect others to do the same.
If we can work out a way to respect privacy and data control while handling post history, I think this is something that could be handled at the system level.
Maybe when editing posts, there's an extra checkbox like "Preserve history". When unchecked, it would work as it does now, overwriting the old version. When checked, saving an edit will result in both the old version and the new version in the database. Some sort of UI could be added to see the history and diffs. There could also be a way to remove your own historical posts later too.
Alright, apparently this thread is closer to some kind of passive-aggressive drama than it is to a genuine suggestion, so even though there are some good comments in here, I'm going to shut it down.