Poor Deletion? December 11, 2005 9:04 PM Subscribe
This post shouldn't have been deleted; while the first blog link had been posted before, the other material hadn't. And it was entertaining.
New supporting link(s) make a double-post all new again?? That's just crazy talk.
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:48 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by Ethereal Bligh at 10:48 PM on December 11, 2005
Don't blame me, I was... uh.. posting for a friend.
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:23 PM on December 11, 2005
posted by thirteenkiller at 11:23 PM on December 11, 2005
And it was entertaining.
Anything you say, boss.
posted by Joeforking at 12:37 AM on December 12, 2005
Anything you say, boss.
posted by Joeforking at 12:37 AM on December 12, 2005
"New supporting link(s) make a double-post all new again??"
Perhaps not in this case, but if the new links are good and give new insight then, yeah, sure, why not?
posted by nthdegx at 1:43 AM on December 12, 2005
Perhaps not in this case, but if the new links are good and give new insight then, yeah, sure, why not?
posted by nthdegx at 1:43 AM on December 12, 2005
This post shouldn't have been deleted.
Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't read the thread so don't have an opinion on the actual post but I have one about the constant second-guessing and questioning of deletions (or un-deletions, for that matter).
As far as I know there are two people with the power to remove posts. At the top of the blue I'm told that there are more than 26,000 people with front page posting privileges. It seems to me that the frequent questioning about deletions places an undue burden on the admins. Yeah, deletions can be capricious and the guidelines could be clearer. Then again, if you have done your homework and lurked a bit this shouldn't come as a surprise. You pay your money and you take your chances.
Anyway, a reason is provided (Matt, maybe a little less wit and a little more exposition would head some of these off) at the top of the deleted threads.
posted by cedar at 5:55 AM on December 12, 2005
Maybe. Maybe not. I didn't read the thread so don't have an opinion on the actual post but I have one about the constant second-guessing and questioning of deletions (or un-deletions, for that matter).
As far as I know there are two people with the power to remove posts. At the top of the blue I'm told that there are more than 26,000 people with front page posting privileges. It seems to me that the frequent questioning about deletions places an undue burden on the admins. Yeah, deletions can be capricious and the guidelines could be clearer. Then again, if you have done your homework and lurked a bit this shouldn't come as a surprise. You pay your money and you take your chances.
Anyway, a reason is provided (Matt, maybe a little less wit and a little more exposition would head some of these off) at the top of the deleted threads.
posted by cedar at 5:55 AM on December 12, 2005
Ok cedar thanks for clearing that up
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:07 AM on December 12, 2005
posted by thirteenkiller at 7:07 AM on December 12, 2005
The old post is still open. Additional related links can be posted there.
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:15 AM on December 12, 2005
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 10:15 AM on December 12, 2005
Ok, this is what confuses me. Why is this a double and that not? Because it's a blog? I'm being serious, here! I know there are no "hard and fast" rules, but I'd like some guidance, otherwise I'm marking everything that points to the .com TLD as a double.
posted by Eideteker at 10:39 AM on December 12, 2005
posted by Eideteker at 10:39 AM on December 12, 2005
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Same subject and territory, which we did last week.
posted by mathowie (staff) at 9:30 PM on December 11, 2005