Administrative Editing of the Forum

Community News & Help
#1

I am concerned about a recent threadthat has had it’s title edited, but more concerned about the editing tag for this post.

When I logged on this morning, I noticed the new thread title immediately. More so, I know Techne’s voice and knew that it was not her intended or original title. Thank you for posting within the thread that you changed the title, though in my opinion, she named her thread with her intention and hope for the discussion she was inviting, and now that is lost in the change to your title. And more so, for me what was lost was the juxtaposition of her intention and how the thread moved away from her intention–the same/similar point you were offering by your title change and the announcement of that.

Any chance you would [I]add[/I] her original title to your notification post, so that her intention and her voice is at least preserved in this way? I would appreciate that; knowing where it started seems important to me in understanding where it is now.

Under your ownership, when I was the administrator here, you and I had the discussion around the editing tags. (For those who are reading and wondering what those are, you can see an example of an editing tag at the bottom of this post. It is an automatic notation of an edit, and whether you add a reason or not, it still shows that the post was edited, as well as the time, date and person who edited it. This no-time-limit editing tool is only available to moderators and admins, and as regular members you will see that you can currently only edit for a set number of minutes after posting before you no longer have the opportunity.)

David, in that same discussion, I told you in that I felt that all mods/admins/owners should have their editing notation documented, so that[B] all[/B] the members could see who and why and when any of their posts or their neighbor’s posts were edited. Obviously, this puts each of us on a level field of memory, context and knowledge of editing. I felt then, as I do now, that this is vital to the integrity of this forum. [I]As long as I have been a member here, all previous admins and moderators have chosen to have their edits noted and available to all members.
[/I]
At that time, late 2009 ?, you told me that you agreed and then you reactivated your automatic editing tags to match the rest of the moderation team, but then today I see this post that has been edited by you, but has only a voluntary edit offered. There was another thread I was rereading last week, that I thought didn’t read as it first did, but I assumed then that it was just my memory, as it still may very well be :slight_smile:

My question regarding the edited post: Does this mean that you have reverted to your previous editing preference, so that notation of your edits is entirely voluntary? If you would, please let us all know the current status of that. [B]If [/B]admin edits are being cloaked again, would please let us know why you are choosing to revert to that option after having it changed it once before?

I was of two minds in posting these concerns, especially in light of some of the recent discussions, and what you expressed here in this post. It is no stretch to the imagination that you consider me one of the “people who are continually harping about the state of this forum” or that you see as “ranting.” These sentiments of yours, while shared in your frustrations and discouragement, have left me with an unwelcome feeling to speak to my concerns here, much less speak freely here as a member. …But I need to know about the editing tags, and your status of that, if I can even consider adding my voice here again in any way. Reading would be one thing, but to have the potential that my words, or those of my neighbor’s, may be edited without notice or documentation is not something that I want to be part of, and I would absolutely discontinue my posting here immediately. :slight_smile: I hope this will not be an added incentive on your end.

But, seriously, editing transparency is that important to me.

If you would, please let us know about the current editing status as soon as you can.

#2

  1. I’ve edited it back as I planned to. It was just a short term joke.

  2. I’ve reverted to not having the auto, “Thread edited by…” because I prefer to make bolded, linkable edits as seen here and thus the “edited by…” becomes needless redundancy in my opinion.

#3

Hi David,

[QUOTE=David;35944]2. I’ve reverted to not having the auto, “Thread edited by…” because I prefer to make bolded, linkable edits as seen here and thus the “edited by…” becomes needless redundancy in my opinion.[/QUOTE]though I have faith in you not to edit stuff without pointing it out, I agree with Nichole on this and you could still add your links and whatever in addition to an automated note.

Not that I care anyhow much, I was just there. :smiley:

#4

Yes, I could, I just prefer not to as I dislike redundancy. Thanks for your faith, I’ll try my best not to let you, or myself, down.

If I’m trusted to place edit notes when I edit a post, then I don’t see an issue. If I’m not trusted to, then, well, that’s your issue (not speaking to you here Q, just generally).

I’m not interested in debating this so I’m going to close the thread.

edit Changed my mind. If you guys want to discuss this, you can. Thread open :slight_smile:

#5

Hi David,
Thanks for keeping the thread open. I do agree with Nicole on all but one point - the warning issued to SD on personal attacks. Afterall, what’s good for one is good for others :slight_smile:

#6

Again:

  1. If I am trusted to provide my own edit stamp which is simply my personal preference due to the way I like to edit posts, there should be no issue, please let me handle such things how I desire. Is it possible I’ll forget once in a great while? Yes. But I try real hard to be as honest and upfront and fair to people here as I can.

  2. If I am not trusted to do so, that is your trust issue. And I don’t feel the need to accommodate everyone’s issues. But if you DON’T trust me and feel there’s good reason not to, then there are things you should know:

If I really wanted to screw with people here and edit their posts, an automated edit stamp isn’t going to stop me. I can do it direct to the database and nobody would be the wiser. I could also read and edit your PM’s. I could also send PM’s on your behalf. I even know how to spoof email addresses and IP’s and could engage in all kinds of mayhem from getting your ISP to shutoff your internet connection to committed libelous acts at your behest by stealing your identity. And how many of you use the same password for this site as you do all your others sites? How’s that online bank account and Paypal doing?

Anytime you choose to take part in a forum like this one, make sure you trust the owner and people with access to the backend. If you don’t, I’d personally recommend you stay far away because if they have even a little technical knowledge, they can cause all sorts of trouble for you. Of course, that’s true for everything including yoga studios. You’re putting a lot of trust in someone when you hand over that credit card and personal info. And that’s not even getting into the issue of information security.

#7

After pondering this a bit, I can see how my means of edit stamping is subpar since I do not place a time and date stamp on the edits. I will do that from now on.

#8

[quote=FlexPenguin;35972]Hi David,
Thanks for keeping the thread open. I do agree with Nicole on all but one point - the warning issued to SD on personal attacks. Afterall, what’s good for one is good for others :)[/quote]

To be clear, I am completely unrelated to SD’s warning. I did not request it or flag it myself. I linked to it solely to show that the post had been edited with only David’s bold, voluntary edit notation, and not the automated edit stamp that I thought was in place for each and every one of us. I was linking to it for as an example only, not because I agree or disagree with it being a personal attack against another here. I am sorry that this may have been unclear before and I hope I’ve cleared that up now.

#9

David, Thank you for keeping the discussion open for us. My intention in posting my concerns was not to be pugilistic, but to get the information I needed about the state of edits. As I mentioned, I thought twice about even bringing it up.

Thank you for responding with your preferences and your plans regarding how you will note your edits.

A third thank-you for letting all us know the real state and circumstance of being part of [I]any [/I]online community. It was a real eye opener for me, as I realize now that my understanding of the online world is beyond anemic.

I am giving it all some serious thought.

Cheers,
Nichole

#10

No probs. In hindsight, I could have communicated this change with the community.

Thank you for creating the space for me to ponder and improve upon my way of doing things.

I should note that it’s not just online communities, it’s all websites. Your personal information and habits are CONSTANTLY being tracked and data mined. Anytime you go to a reputable website, it’s likely that your IP is logged and cookies are placed on your computer (check how many cookies your browser is storing, it’ll astound you). Anytime you go to a less than reputable site, you’re probably going to get scanned for vulnerabilities, at best.

Anytime you input a username and password at a reputable site, you better hope that their information security is top notch. I guarantee you that every site out there is constantly being checked for ways to steal that information and anything else you input, especially credit card numbers, email addresses, and phone numbers. And if you go to a less than reputable site, well, at the very least, be sure to use a unique password and keep your hardware firmware and computer software up to date security wise.

I’m not saying this to scare anyone off the internet but to bring awareness. The internet can be a very dangerous place. Me potentially editing your posts after eating too much sugar should be quite low on your list of concerns, especially if I have access to your email, IP, and can install software to steal your password. I admit to getting frustrated that it was insinuated that I might do such a thing as my thought was, “Dude, do you know what I could do if I WAS unscrupulous?” Sorry for putting that energy out there.

#11

[QUOTE=Nichole;36027]To be clear, I am completely unrelated to SD’s warning. I did not request it or flag it myself. I linked to it solely to show that the post had been edited with only David’s bold, voluntary edit notation, and not the automated edit stamp that I thought was in place for each and every one of us. I was linking to it for as an example only, not because I agree or disagree with it being a personal attack against another here. I am sorry that this may have been unclear before and I hope I’ve cleared that up now.[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I get it.

#12

Hi David,

not that I came to actually care, however: Why again do you disable the automated note?

Edit: Oh, never mind, you don’t like “redundancy”. I tend to overread words I don’t know, had looked that up now. :lol:

#13

You care, otherwise you wouldn’t bother asking.

People gloss over the, “edited by…”. It is small and easily missed and not linkable. My bolding is not and I can create links. For me to have both is redundant and annoys me. It’s my preference to use a mop rather than a broom when cleaning the floors of my studio. And since those floors seem to have a LOT of crap and garbage on them these days, I want to make sure everyone sees just how well I clean them so they stop littering.

#14

Hi David,

[quote]Originally Posted by Quetzalcoatl View Post
not that I came to actually care, however: Why again do you disable the automated note?

You care, otherwise you wouldn’t bother asking.[/quote]are you calling me a liar? I don’t care if you stamp your edits.

[quote]2. I’ve reverted to not having the auto, “Thread edited by…” because I prefer to make bolded, linkable edits as seen here and thus the “edited by…” becomes needless redundancy in my opinion.

People gloss over the, “edited by…”. It is small and easily missed and not linkable. My bolding is not and I can create links. For me to have both is redundant and annoys me. [/quote]Oh I see. Yeah, some things are very annoying. :lol:

#15

If my opinion that your posting in here signifies that you care (contrary to your belief) and that means, by your definition, I’m calling you a liar, then yes, I am calling you a liar. My definition would be different as I don’t think you’re a liar, but take it as you will, I won’t try to change your mind.

We all get annoyed by different things, no biggie. The originator of this thread once was annoyed by the short time period (5 minutes) during which people could edit posts. Since it bothered her, I raised it to 30 minutes. You were annoyed by the 10,000 character limit on posts. Since it bothered you, I raised it to 100,000. I’m bothered by redundant editing messages, so I turned it off for myself.

#16

Hi D,

If my opinion that your posting in here signifies that you care (contrary to your belief) and that means, by your definition, I’m calling you a liar, then yes, I am calling you a liar. My definition would be different as I don’t think you’re a liar, but take it as you will, I won’t try to change your mind.
what would I be then? Unaware of why I comment on this? Would I be suppressing my actual interest in your editing-policy because I don’t want to confront myself with such an abyss? :lol:

Why I comment on this: It’s important to Nichole, and I welcomed the opportunity to support her point. Thought it’d be a nice gesture. Need I explain why I welcomed the opportunity for such gesture as well?

So when I say I don’t care, David, then I don’t care. If I would care, I would say: I care. Why wouldn’t I. But I don’t. Matter of fact.

We all get annoyed by different things, no biggie.
Bascially not.

The originator of this thread once was annoyed by the short time period (5 minutes) during which people could edit posts. Since it bothered her, I raised it to 30 minutes. You were annoyed by the 10,000 character limit on posts. Since it bothered you, I raised it to 100,000. I’m bothered by redundant editing messages, so I turned it off for myself.
But it’s obviously upsetting someone else considerably, so if you asked me, this line of “redundant” text should really annoy the hell out of you to put this above that.

However, I rest my case. Cuz me not carez.

#17

That’s what you care about then. I didn’t say you cared about the actual stamp. I just knew you cared about something, otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered to post. :wink:

That’s certainly an interesting perspective I’ll ponder, thank you.

Out of curiosity, when many people were being upset on this forum by your statements, were your points and the way you chose to word them more important than how they felt? As let me tell you, you were upsetting a lot of people a considerable amount.

#18

Hi D,

That’s what you care about then. I didn’t say you cared about the actual stamp. I just knew you cared about something, otherwise you wouldn’t have bothered to post. :wink:
nice argument. :lol:

Out of curiosity, when many people were being upset on this forum by your statements, were your points and the way you chose to word them more important than how they felt? As let me tell you, you were upsetting a lot of people a considerable amount.
Yes, they were. Besides that they were a biggie and indeed disturbed me considerably (which I hope some redundant line of automated text won’t do to you), my upsetness that led to my words was caused by these people.

#19

:slight_smile:

If someone can provide me a good reason NOT to use my means of editing (other than, “We don’t trust you to do so”) considering it is now on par or superior because:

  1. It is bolded and larger and thus easier to see which is very important.
  2. It is linkable
  3. It is also time stamped.

Then I’ll be happy to change back to the automated means. “Because it bothers Nichole” is not a good reason since we don’t know why it bothers Nichole other than it’s not what’s she’s used to. If it bothers her for a good reason I haven’t seen shared, then I’m happy to make it automated.

Sound fair? :slight_smile:

#20

If this is the wrong place to ask this, please just delete. David, would it be possible to lower the minimum character requirement to 3 from 5? That way either a “yes” or “no.” would be an acceptable answer.