Deleting posts

[xrunner]

I think we get it.
What you have to understand is that not everyone has the same opinion you do, and they are just as right as you are. Some people think it's their right to delete their own information, esp on a "community" forum, as opposed to a site that "owns" the information they have entered.

I disagree Dave. I'm sorry, but if you keep telling me it's just my opinion that a forum is a record of the interactions of members for posterity that should not be tampered with, except in the case of rule violations, I'm going to keep telling you you are just plain wrong. You really do not want a forum at all if you think people should be able to delete and edit posts for as long as they want to. But I love ya man anyway, and I do appreciate your work. 

Anyway, I do think we both have an abundant supply of testosterone. 

[xrunner]

It's not a matter of what I like, it's entirely up to the forum owner.
What's important is a discussion of the pros and cons so Dave can make an informed decision.

And that's just what I've been doing isn't it? 

[EEVblog]

It appears that even moderators can make mistakes 
A bit more research reveals that you CAN in fact set a limit to the time frame in which you can edit a post. (Who'd have thought to read the manual?)

Yes, I should have checked instead of relying on memory, the option is there.
There does not however seem to be an option to enabled editing, but limit deleting to a set time.

[Monkeh]

It appears that even moderators can make mistakes 
A bit more research reveals that you CAN in fact set a limit to the time frame in which you can edit a post. (Who'd have thought to read the manual?)

Yes, I should have checked instead of relying on memory, the option is there.
There does not however seem to be an option to enabled editing, but limit deleting to a set time.

Setting that to a few minutes would be a much nicer solution than disabling deletion.

[Fsck]

all of the arguments for "no" all seem to be predicated on long discussion over time.

[mrflibble]

A bit more research reveals that you CAN in fact set a limit to the time frame in which you can edit a post. (Who'd have thought to read the manual?)
The time can be specified in minutes.

Please discuss amongst yourselves.

Nice.

How about 7 minutes? That's long enough that the reasonable part of your brain has had adequate time to think "mmmh, maybe this was not such a good idea *delete*" and short enough that there statistically speaking are not loads and loads of replies to it. And no loads and loads of replies means that in the event of deletion there are not loads and loads of replies that suddenly are out of context.

For the other scenario of "but it's my post and I want to be able to remove the content a week after I posted it" I really suggest people can just use the edit button. That way the user's mission of "must delete content" is still completed, AND for the rest of the thread participants there is still enough coherence left because they can see the edited post. Seems a reasonably balanced solution to me, but that's just my opinion. 

[Fsck]

A bit more research reveals that you CAN in fact set a limit to the time frame in which you can edit a post. (Who'd have thought to read the manual?)
The time can be specified in minutes.

Please discuss amongst yourselves.

Nice.

How about 7 minutes? That's long enough that the reasonable part of your brain has had adequate time to think "mmmh, maybe this was not such a good idea *delete*" and short enough that there statistically speaking are not loads and loads of replies to it. And no loads and loads of replies means that in the event of deletion there are not loads and loads of replies that suddenly are out of context.

For the other scenario of "but it's my post and I want to be able to remove the content a week after I posted it" I really suggest people can just use the edit button. That the users mission of "must delete content" is done, AND for the rest of the posters there is still some thread coherence left because they can see the edited post. Seems a reasonably balanced solution to me, but that's just my opinion. 

I'd put my vote in for 10 minutes, a nice even number.

[EEVblog]

I disagree Dave. I'm sorry, but if you keep telling me it's just my opinion that a forum is a record of the interactions of members for posterity that should not be tampered with, except in the case of rule violations, I'm going to keep telling you you are just plain wrong.

Fine, you've had your say.

You really do not want a forum at all if you think people should be able to delete and edit posts for as long as they want to.

Don't tell me what I do and do not want, I'll make up my own mind, thanks.

Anyway, I do think we both have an abundant supply of testosterone. 

Nope, you have a fixed opinion that simply will not change. But worse, you think your opinion is actually the be-all end-all right answer. Like there is only one obvious right answer to a question that is clearly (IMO) quite subjective.
That kinds of thinking works on an the atheist forum you run, when things are either true or they are not true, but it doesn't cut the mustard in this instance I'm afraid.

[xrunner]

Nope, you have a fixed opinion that simply will not change.

And you don't?

Give me fucking break! 

[EEVblog]

How about 7 minutes? That's long enough that the reasonable part of your brain has had adequate time to think "mmmh, maybe this was not such a good idea *delete*" and short enough that there statistically speaking are not loads and loads of replies to it. And no loads and loads of replies means that in the event of deletion there are not loads and loads of replies that suddenly are out of context.

I think it needs to be 12-24 hours. So if you post something dumb before you head to sleep, you can remove it when you wake up.

For the other scenario of "but it's my post and I want to be able to remove the content a week after I posted it" I really suggest people can just use the edit button. That way the user's mission of "must delete content" is still completed, AND for the rest of the thread participants there is still enough coherence left because they can see the edited post. Seems a reasonably balanced solution to me, but that's just my opinion. 

What if a user requests to close there account and have all their posts removed?
This has happened before, and I think it's their right to ask for that, so I always comply. Unlike some forums, I do have a clause that says the information you enter belongs me *insert evil laugh*
In which case, does it make sense not to allow post deletion at any time?

[GeoffS]

I'd put my vote in for 10 minutes, a nice even number.

I think you'd want it longer than that to allow users to (for example) add attachments or provide additional information.
Several hours at least.
One woodworking forum I'm on allows a couple of days for editing.

[mrflibble]

I'd put my vote in for 10 minutes, a nice even number.

But but but, 7 is a nice odd number. And prime to boot! Also, psychologically relevant and all that good shit!



My love for prime numbers aside, 10 minutes would do the trick as well.

[EEVblog]

And you don't?

No, I don't, and ironically this situation is clear evidence of that.
This forum has allowed post deletion from day dot, because it was my view that was the right thing to do.
A few things happened in the last few days and I changed that as trial to see what happens, and I asked for a poll of people views. And essentially have no problem with changing it.

If I thought my opinion was god, then I wouldn't be asking and having the discussion, nor would I have changed it.

[Fsck]

I'd put my vote in for 10 minutes, a nice even number.

I think you'd want it longer than that to allow users to (for example) add attachments or provide additional information.
Several hours at least.
One woodworking forum I'm on allows a couple of days for editing.

my bad, all this "should we be allowed to delete our posts" has me reading edit as delete.

for editing: ideally no ability to remove = only to strike out. sort of like your lab books. (one line through the text) and no limit to addition. the changes should also be dated (and timed for a forum)

not sure if that's even possible though on a forum.

[mrflibble]

I'd put my vote in for 10 minutes, a nice even number.

I think you'd want it longer than that to allow users to (for example) add attachments or provide additional information.
Several hours at least.
One woodworking forum I'm on allows a couple of days for editing.

Crap! I am blind!!!  I thought it was about delete time limit, not edit time limit. I would vote for a 7 (or 10 minute) limit on DELETE. Please no limit on edit...

[mikeselectricstuff]

A forum is not a Blog, Twitter, or Facebook. It's a record of the interactions between members in an online community <-- this is important. It is for that reason that you do not want to let people delete their posts, or edit beyond a small courtesy window. If you do that, it changes the record of the interaction of the members forever.

I would argue that being able to keep information up to date by editing to correct errors or summarise very long threads is much more useful to more people than any occasional inconvenience or confusion arising from editing.
Why does it matter if the "record of interaction" changes ?
 Surely useful, accessible, up-to-date information is more important on a forum like this, which is known as a source of information and expertise on a technical subject.
I also have no doubt that an inability to edit will discourage some people from making valuable contributions out of concerns of potential issues with current or potential future employers, customers or colleagues. 

[xrunner]

No, I don't, and ironically this situation is clear evidence of that.

I'm not feelin' it Dave.

If I thought my opinion was god, then I wouldn't be asking and having the discussion, nor would I have changed it.

Well stop belittling people like me who DO think they know a damn thing or two about forums. If I think I'm right then just accept it. You don't have to change your mind, but don't belittle others that are of a different mindset. Your just as goddamn hardheaded as I am, and don't try to say otherwise 'cause I've seen it in the past. 

[xrunner]

I would argue that being able to keep information up to date by editing to correct errors ...

But here's the problem: How are you going to make sure that that is in fact why they are editing a post?

[EEVblog]

I would vote for a 7 (or 10 minute) limit on DELETE. Please no limit on edit...

I'm pretty sure the forum does not allow that, unless there is a plugin for it.

[EEVblog]

I would argue that being able to keep information up to date by editing to correct errors or summarise very long threads is much more useful to more people than any occasional inconvenience or confusion arising from editing.
Why does it matter if the "record of interaction" changes ?
 Surely useful, accessible, up-to-date information is more important on a forum like this, which is known as a source of information and expertise on a technical subject.
I also have no doubt that an inability to edit will discourage some people from making valuable contributions out of concerns of potential issues with current or potential future employers, customers or colleagues.

I think I'm with Mike on this. These are some of the reasons why I've always allowed deleting and editing.

[Fsck]

I would argue that being able to keep information up to date by editing to correct errors or summarise very long threads is much more useful to more people than any occasional inconvenience or confusion arising from editing.
Why does it matter if the "record of interaction" changes ?
 Surely useful, accessible, up-to-date information is more important on a forum like this, which is known as a source of information and expertise on a technical subject.
I also have no doubt that an inability to edit will discourage some people from making valuable contributions out of concerns of potential issues with current or potential future employers, customers or colleagues.

I think I'm with Mike on this. These are some of the reasons why I've always allowed deleting and editing.

would make people who have constantly updated projects or guides a major pain.

[mikeselectricstuff]

I would argue that being able to keep information up to date by editing to correct errors ...

But here's the problem: How are you going to make sure that that is in fact why they are editing a post?

You aren't. So what? Why is it a probolem?
Disabling a facility that most of the time is useful just in case someone "abuses" it seems rather stupid.

[EEVblog]

But here's the problem: How are you going to make sure that that is in fact why they are editing a post?

You don't. And on top of that, as an admin you shouldn't really care.
If someone is playing funny business with their posts some how that affects people, then you rely the community to spot it and report it if it's a big deal.

[xrunner]

You aren't. So what? Why is it a probolem?

It's obvious even to the most casual user isn't it?

Disabling a facility that most of the time is useful just in case someone "abuses" it seems rather stupid.

No, it isn't "stupid Mike. People can post corrected info in any thread they want to without editing the past. I've already explained why it's a bad idea, there's no need to type the same thing over and over is there?

[mikeselectricstuff]

I disagree, there is a right answer - you do not allow deletion and editing of posts forever. That's the right answer. Any other option disrupts the historical nature of the forum. That simply cannot be argued, because it's true. 

Why are you so hung up on the idea of a forum being a historical record?
I suspect the vast majority of users regard it as an information resource.