Shop OBEX P1 Docs P2 Docs Learn Events
I can't delete posts anymore, but I can (still) edit the (thread) title (for now) — Parallax Forums

I can't delete posts anymore, but I can (still) edit the (thread) title (for now)

W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
edited 2010-12-14 17:05 in General Discussion
The option to delete a post appears to be missing, or hidden.

Rich H

Comments

  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-03 01:08
    Post deletion has been disabled.
    The ability to edit a thread remains, but currently we have decided against complete deletion. This decision was made for archival reasons; we felt it was important to leave the history of a thread intact. Having said that, we also know that some members of this forum community enjoy the freedom to delete their posts as they've been resolved. As a compromise we'll be working on a method to declare a post resolved (on the thread view) so that all users can still view, research, and follow a thread's natural progression.

    Additionally, archived posts will help us (Parallax) better address common problems. If the posts are deleted completely then the history is erased and we can't use that information to better serve our customers in the future.

    Furthermore if a post was created erroneously, and it truly doesn't belong and the user wishes to see it removed, please flag it for moderation and we will be more than happy to review the post and take the necessary action.
  • Chris SavageChris Savage Parallax Engineering Posts: 14,406
    edited 2010-12-03 01:14
    For the same reason, the editing of a post is currently set to 5 minutes as I recall. Currently, until 5 minutes have elapsed after a post you can make changes to it (or, you shuld be able to). This is subject to change as we're evaluating the other option Bump mentioned. Some settings may have to be tweaked over the next day or so. Please bear with us while we make adjustments to keep everything running smoothly. :)
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-03 01:25
    I just tried and I can edit my above post even though it has been over 30 minutes. Do you mean that you have five minutes to edit your post before it tags on the "Last edited by W9GFO; Today at 02:15 AM." comment?

    I like being able to edit the post for a few minutes without it showing up as "edited", gives me a chance to catch spelling errors.

    Rich H
  • Chris SavageChris Savage Parallax Engineering Posts: 14,406
    edited 2010-12-03 01:37
    My guess is someone already change the editing time Rich.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-12-03 09:28
    It's extremely important to be able to edit one's posts without a time limit and also the title. One common usage is to make additions to a first post in a thread and to flag those additions in the title. Also, regarding deletions: I've seen very little evidence in the past that this privilege was ever abused. Moreover, it's extremely handy when you've replied to a post, then suddenly realize that you've missed the point entirely, which has happened to me more than once. Having to enlist the aid of a moderator in such circumstances is not only a nuisance, but the time delay could easily spawn superfluous "what the heck are you talking about" replies. I say trust the users on this one, and restore the delete privilege.

    -Phil
  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-03 12:53
    There has never been a time limit for users to edit their posts, if you wrote it then you can edit it.
    The time limit to edit the Thread Title has been increased from 5min to 1day.
    The time limit to add a poll has been increased from 5min to 1day.
    The message "Last Edited by..." will not appear upon posts edited by users until 15min have passed, up from 5min.
    Posts will remain un-deletable.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-12-03 13:13
    The time limit for changing a title should be increased to infinity for the main reason, cited above, that such a facility gets used. Also, consider this a formal protest of the no-delete rule. I think it's a mistake to assert absolute control over an otherwise handy privilege that has such a scant history of abuse.

    -Phil
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-03 13:18
    I'll join Phil in his protest of the no delete rule and I also agree, albeit less strongly, that we should be able to edit titles indefinitely.

    The other things are great as they are.

    Rich H
  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-03 13:32
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    The time limit for changing a title should be increased to infinity for the main reason, cited above, that such a facility gets used. Also, consider this a formal protest of the no-delete rule. I think it's a mistake to assert absolute control over an otherwise handy privilege that has such a scant history of abuse.

    -Phil

    Protest noted.
    The department in charge of the forums has decided that deletion of entire threads, even if not abused historically, is something we'd like to avoid.

    The main argument for having limitless time to edit Thread Titles seems to pertain to user's being allowed to then change their Thread Title to include -Resolved or -Fixed or -Newest Patch Available. We are working on a solution which will be set as an option for the OP to toggle such news broadcasts upon the Thread View.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-12-03 14:12
    How about a compromise, then: Permit a post to be deleted until one follows it, like the way DotNetBB operated. That takes care of the "Emily Litella" (never mind!) posts without having to bother the moderators.

    -Phil
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-03 14:13
    Bump wrote: »
    The department in charge of the forums has decided that deletion of entire threads, even if not abused historically, is something we'd like to avoid..

    Just to be clear, it is my own individual posts within a thread that I wish to have the ability to delete, or my first post in a new thread where there are not yet any replies. The deletion of an entire thread would only occur if every individual poster deleted each of their own replies. If all the people in a thread want to see it gone, why would you want to avoid that? I can only imagine that happening on threads that have gone negative.

    Rich H
  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-03 14:44
    Bump wrote: »
    The main argument for having limitless time to edit Thread Titles seems to pertain to user's being allowed to then change their Thread Title to include -Resolved or -Fixed or -Newest Patch Available. We are working on a solution which will be set as an option for the OP to toggle such news broadcasts upon the Thread View.

    We've decided to make Thread Title edits limitless until we've included the modifications we're working on for broadcasts upon the Thread View, when those are implemented this decision will be revisited. But for now:
    Enjoy limitless edits to the Thread Title
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    How about a compromise, then: Permit a post to be deleted until one follows it, like the way DotNetBB operated. That takes care of the "Emily Litella" (never mind!) posts without having to bother the moderators.

    -Phil

    That's a good compromise, for those moments when you've clicked -submit- only to realize seconds/minutes later that you had the solution all along. I'll see what's necessary to include that change.
    W9GFO wrote: »
    Just to be clear, it is my own individual posts within a thread that I wish to have the ability to delete, or my first post in a new thread where there are not yet any replies. The deletion of an entire thread would only occur if every individual poster deleted each of their own replies. If all the people in a thread want to see it gone, why would you want to avoid that? I can only imagine that happening on threads that have gone negative.

    Rich H

    Oh sorry, my mistake; I got caught up and used the word 'thread' instead of 'post'. I apologize.
    My brain interpreted your message correctly, my fingers then went and said something else.

    As far as the value of keeping thread/post history intact, even after those currently involved lose interest, is that it would then remove the benefit to others seeking the same end. If the posted replies are deleted then the logical flow can be interrupted. We want to keep it as intact as possible so that we can use it to better support newcomers, new engineers, beginners, and all else. Truly unimportant posts don't need to be deleted, if they don't get hits or if they don't receive replies they fall to the bottom of the pile.

    Things falling out of view naturally is very different than an actual deletion; we want it all to remain. I can see the next reply might then ask what we intend to do about the negative posts, that's why we have moderators. If a thread/post requires moderation for omission then we will deal with it accordingly.
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-12-03 16:48
    Bump,

    Thanks for your kind concession to the proposed compromise. That limited capability is all that I'm really after, for those moments (usually before my morning coffee) when I post a reply to someone's question, then realize I didn't read the question very well. BTW, I do agree with your general principle that history and logical flow are important and need to be preserved. It's just those "D'oh!" posts that pop into existence like dark matter that should be allowed to pop back out again before they can be held up to public ridicule. :)

    Oh, can we have our old emoticons back? That square yellow smiley face is awfully subtle. I didn't even know what it was when I first saw it.

    Thanks,
    -Phil
  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-03 17:30
    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    ....
    Oh, can we have our old emoticons back? That square yellow smiley face is awfully subtle. I didn't even know what it was when I first saw it.

    Thanks,
    -Phil

    I'll ask around; I'm sure we have them stored somewhere. I also believe there is a method for users to toggle their own preferred emoticons once we have more options, but first I'll need to locate those image files and have them sent to the server.

    I'll poke around, we'll find those orphaned images.
  • kuronekokuroneko Posts: 3,623
    edited 2010-12-12 01:02
    So what's the current state re: thread title editing (as visible in the forums)? Post #13 seems to imply it's possible but I can't seem to get it to work, it only ever affects the title of the first post.
  • ElectricAyeElectricAye Posts: 4,561
    edited 2010-12-12 08:07
    I've seen some rare moments when forum members have gotten into some bad arguments and got downright nasty with each other. Through PMs and such, those members have been convinced to clean up their comments to keep the forum civil and family friendly, all of which took place without waiting for moderators to get officially involved. Without the ability to edit comments, what might have been just a momentary outburst between a couple people then gets etched in stone, at least until moderators can be brought in, and if it takes moderators to clean up the situation, it's not the same as the members themselves taking back what they said and, in effect, apologizing to each other and shaking hands.



    Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) wrote: »
    .....

    Oh, can we have our old emoticons back? That square yellow smiley face is awfully subtle. I didn't even know what it was when I first saw it.

    Thanks,
    -Phil


    I know it might sound like a petty thing, but I, too, miss the old emoticons. These new ones look like pale renditions of LEGO minifigure heads. :)

    lego-art.jpg
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-12 11:31
    kuroneko wrote: »
    So what's the current state re: thread title editing (as visible in the forums)? Post #13 seems to imply it's possible but I can't seem to get it to work, it only ever affects the title of the first post.

    I just edited the title of both my original post and my last post in the forum which was made 9 days ago. Be sure to click on the "Go Advanced" button for the ability to edit titles.

    Rich H
  • kuronekokuroneko Posts: 3,623
    edited 2010-12-12 16:06
    @Rich: As I said, I can edit post titles all I want (in advanced mode). What I'm interested in is the thread title. Compare thread title and title of first post for [thread=127835]this thread[/thread] (less than 2 days old). Before the new look came along there was a brief period where it started working again.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-12 16:26
    I see. There must be a time limit to editing the thread titles. For this thread, my first edit to the first post title did alter the thread title. The most recent edit to the first post title did not affect the thread title.

    Rich H
  • BumpBump Posts: 592
    edited 2010-12-13 10:07
    W9GFO wrote: »
    I see. There must be a time limit to editing the thread titles. For this thread, my first edit to the first post title did alter the thread title. The most recent edit to the first post title did not affect the thread title.

    Rich H
    Odd, it wasn't editing properly. This should now be fixed and the Thread Title changes should save and display correctly.
  • kuronekokuroneko Posts: 3,623
    edited 2010-12-13 15:36
    Bump wrote: »
    Odd, it wasn't editing properly. This should now be fixed and the Thread Title changes should save and display correctly.

    Confirmed working. Thanks.
  • W9GFOW9GFO Posts: 4,010
    edited 2010-12-14 13:06
    See post number 10.

    http://forums.parallax.com/showthread.php?127888-Bs2-help-led-amp-servo!!&p=960995#post960995
    Okay this is a perfect example of where I wish I could delete a post. Instead, I have to edit it to remove everything.

    The reason? Well I posted a nice schematic of an idea to accomplish the goal of the initial poster then, upon reviewing it realized that there was a much simpler and better way to do it. I need some time to make the drawing and repost.

    For now, you get to read this. Enjoy.

    Rich H

    Rich H
  • Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi)Phil Pilgrim (PhiPi) Posts: 23,514
    edited 2010-12-14 17:05
    Pursuant to Rich's comment, please see the following for another example:

    Thanks,
    -Phil
Sign In or Register to comment.