Are users notified when admins edit their comments or posts? April 10, 2010 2:42 PM Subscribe
Are users notified when admins edit their comments or posts?
We pretty much never edit except for the short list of reasons on the FAQ page. There have been one or two occasions I've seen where I did an edit that I thought could save an AskMe question [someone put in an inadvertent slur or something similar] and wrote the OP and said "look, I did a quick fix to this, if you want me to revert it to how it was I can, but your question might get flagged out of existence"
Other than that, there are more jokes about comments being edited than actual edited comments. Did you have something specific in mind?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:51 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Other than that, there are more jokes about comments being edited than actual edited comments. Did you have something specific in mind?
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 2:51 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
No, I had nothing specific in mind. It's just been a latent nagging at the back of my mind whenever I'm on Metafilter. Most other sites either don't perform secret/silent edits of user content - or slap a flag on the screen when they do.
That moderation here is invisible (excluding the case of outright deletion) is... a little unsettling. A little.
Comments say "posted by person" at the bottom. Arguably, if an admin edit has taken place, that comment is no longer wholly by person.
Would it be so bad to include an "edited by admin" in that line? Possibly with a rollover (or similar) explaining why? Purely in the interests of openness and transparency.
posted by Mwongozi at 2:58 PM on April 10, 2010
That moderation here is invisible (excluding the case of outright deletion) is... a little unsettling. A little.
Comments say "posted by person" at the bottom. Arguably, if an admin edit has taken place, that comment is no longer wholly by person.
Would it be so bad to include an "edited by admin" in that line? Possibly with a rollover (or similar) explaining why? Purely in the interests of openness and transparency.
posted by Mwongozi at 2:58 PM on April 10, 2010
Now that this is settled, the straight dope:
They don't tell you, but the cabal knows everything.
posted by bru at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2010
They don't tell you, but the cabal knows everything.
posted by bru at 3:01 PM on April 10, 2010
Arguably, if an admin edit has taken place, that comment is no longer wholly by person.
Well, again, we agree with this which is why we don't make content-based edits to folks' posts and comments. If it's a big enough of a problem that it needs deleting, we delete it. If not, we don't.
The rare middle case is where we talk to the person involved directly, about what's up, and get their buy-in. And even at that it's generally (as much as something that has happened only a handful of times can be general, I guess) an issue of either (a) excising the name of a since-anonymized poster from a reply as in AskMe occasionally or (b) separating a really problematic calling-people-names type paragraph from an otherwise really substantial good-faith comment, again mostly an issue with AskMe and specifically with the original asker coming back with a half-useful, half-fight-starting followup comment.
We're not any more comfortable with the idea of silently changing the substance of someone else's content than you are. We don't do it, as a rule.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:04 PM on April 10, 2010
Well, again, we agree with this which is why we don't make content-based edits to folks' posts and comments. If it's a big enough of a problem that it needs deleting, we delete it. If not, we don't.
The rare middle case is where we talk to the person involved directly, about what's up, and get their buy-in. And even at that it's generally (as much as something that has happened only a handful of times can be general, I guess) an issue of either (a) excising the name of a since-anonymized poster from a reply as in AskMe occasionally or (b) separating a really problematic calling-people-names type paragraph from an otherwise really substantial good-faith comment, again mostly an issue with AskMe and specifically with the original asker coming back with a half-useful, half-fight-starting followup comment.
We're not any more comfortable with the idea of silently changing the substance of someone else's content than you are. We don't do it, as a rule.
posted by cortex (staff) at 3:04 PM on April 10, 2010
Most other sites either don't perform secret/silent edits of user content
I'm not sure if you're using editing in a broad way to also include deletion. We seriously do not edit for content for any reason except in the ways we've stated above. We don't do it. Even if we do edit for some reason that's included in the FAQ like removing a phone number, we'll almost always also put a note in the thread.
If we make an edit at the request of the person who made the comment [i.e. "hey can you take the name of my workplace out of the comment I made?"] and it's a live discussion ro someone has noted it, we'll also leave a note.
I know this sounds like we're saying "oh hey we don't edit, except when we DO edit..." but even the rare cases where we've made an edit, it's consistently not content-based.
So, I think we agree. Fixing a typo or an HTML bug doesnt fall into an area where we think there needs to be a notification. Anything else, we don't do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:23 PM on April 10, 2010
I'm not sure if you're using editing in a broad way to also include deletion. We seriously do not edit for content for any reason except in the ways we've stated above. We don't do it. Even if we do edit for some reason that's included in the FAQ like removing a phone number, we'll almost always also put a note in the thread.
If we make an edit at the request of the person who made the comment [i.e. "hey can you take the name of my workplace out of the comment I made?"] and it's a live discussion ro someone has noted it, we'll also leave a note.
I know this sounds like we're saying "oh hey we don't edit, except when we DO edit..." but even the rare cases where we've made an edit, it's consistently not content-based.
So, I think we agree. Fixing a typo or an HTML bug doesnt fall into an area where we think there needs to be a notification. Anything else, we don't do.
posted by jessamyn (staff) at 3:23 PM on April 10, 2010
We even know the exact time, place & manner of death awaiting bru.
Not only that, We are also in possession of the world's greatest ever cupcake recipe.
posted by the Cabal at 3:23 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
Not only that, We are also in possession of the world's greatest ever cupcake recipe.
posted by the Cabal at 3:23 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
Cupcake recipe?! Information wants to be free.
posted by shakespeherian at 4:14 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
posted by shakespeherian at 4:14 PM on April 10, 2010 [2 favorites]
Mwongozi: “That moderation here is invisible (excluding the case of outright deletion) is... a little unsettling. A little.”
I sincerely can't think of a single case where this was true. Editing of comments here is never invisible. The mods very much dislike editing of comments, and when they do, they always say so. I know there might be edge cases, but I really can't think of one. Maybe you've got one in mind; I don't know. But in almost every case they flatly will not edit comments. I'm guessing the number of times they've done so on this site since it's inception is in the low dozens, seriously.
“Would it be so bad to include an "edited by admin" in that line? Possibly with a rollover (or similar) explaining why? Purely in the interests of openness and transparency.”
I actually prefer it the way it is now - with the mods actively commenting in the thread and saying that they've edited a comment. Isn't that more open and honest than the subtle way you're proposing?
posted by koeselitz at 4:54 PM on April 10, 2010
I sincerely can't think of a single case where this was true. Editing of comments here is never invisible. The mods very much dislike editing of comments, and when they do, they always say so. I know there might be edge cases, but I really can't think of one. Maybe you've got one in mind; I don't know. But in almost every case they flatly will not edit comments. I'm guessing the number of times they've done so on this site since it's inception is in the low dozens, seriously.
“Would it be so bad to include an "edited by admin" in that line? Possibly with a rollover (or similar) explaining why? Purely in the interests of openness and transparency.”
I actually prefer it the way it is now - with the mods actively commenting in the thread and saying that they've edited a comment. Isn't that more open and honest than the subtle way you're proposing?
posted by koeselitz at 4:54 PM on April 10, 2010
Do I care if admins edit their comments or posts?
posted by found missing at 5:07 PM on April 10, 2010
posted by found missing at 5:07 PM on April 10, 2010
* Four large eggs.
* One cup semi-sweet chocolate chips
* Nine large egg yolks
* One 18.25-ounce package chocolate cake mix
* One and two third (1 2/3) cups granulated sugar
* One can prepared coconut pecan frosting
* One cup granulated sugar
* One cup lemon juice
* One tablespoon all-purpose rhubarb
* One teaspoon grated orange rhubarb
* Pull and peel licorice
* Three slash four (3/4) cup vegetable oil
* Three slash four (3/4) cups butter or margarine
* Two cups all-purpose flour
* Two cups rhubarb, sliced
* Two slash three cups (2/3) granulated rhubarb
* Two tablespoons rhubarb juice
* Alpha resins (curic acid)
* An entry called 'how to kill someone with your bare hands'
* Proven preservatives
* Deep penetration agents
* Volatile malted milk impoundments
* One cross borehole electro-magnetic imaging rhubarb
* Twelve medium geosynthetic membranes
* Unsaturated polyester resin
* One large rhubarb
* Fiberglass surface resins
* Fish shaped candies
* Fish shaped crackers
* Fish shaped dirt
* Fish shaped ethyl benzene
* Fish shaped volatile organic compounds
* Sediment shaped sediment
* Fish shaped solid waste
* Candy coated peanut butter pieces - shaped like fish
* Adjustable aluminum head positioner
* Cordless electric needle injector
* Cranial caps
* Injector needle driver
* Injector needle gun
* Slaughter electric needle injector
* Gas and odor control chemicals that will deodorize and preserve putrid tissue
* Three tablespoons rhubarb, on fire
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:27 PM on April 10, 2010 [20 favorites]
* One cup semi-sweet chocolate chips
* Nine large egg yolks
* One 18.25-ounce package chocolate cake mix
* One and two third (1 2/3) cups granulated sugar
* One can prepared coconut pecan frosting
* One cup granulated sugar
* One cup lemon juice
* One tablespoon all-purpose rhubarb
* One teaspoon grated orange rhubarb
* Pull and peel licorice
* Three slash four (3/4) cup vegetable oil
* Three slash four (3/4) cups butter or margarine
* Two cups all-purpose flour
* Two cups rhubarb, sliced
* Two slash three cups (2/3) granulated rhubarb
* Two tablespoons rhubarb juice
* Alpha resins (curic acid)
* An entry called 'how to kill someone with your bare hands'
* Proven preservatives
* Deep penetration agents
* Volatile malted milk impoundments
* One cross borehole electro-magnetic imaging rhubarb
* Twelve medium geosynthetic membranes
* Unsaturated polyester resin
* One large rhubarb
* Fiberglass surface resins
* Fish shaped candies
* Fish shaped crackers
* Fish shaped dirt
* Fish shaped ethyl benzene
* Fish shaped volatile organic compounds
* Sediment shaped sediment
* Fish shaped solid waste
* Candy coated peanut butter pieces - shaped like fish
* Adjustable aluminum head positioner
* Cordless electric needle injector
* Cranial caps
* Injector needle driver
* Injector needle gun
* Slaughter electric needle injector
* Gas and odor control chemicals that will deodorize and preserve putrid tissue
* Three tablespoons rhubarb, on fire
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 5:27 PM on April 10, 2010 [20 favorites]
No no no.
1 - Cupcake
1 - Lump of Frosting
Spread Lump of Frosting on Cupcake.
Enjoy.
posted by Babblesort at 5:52 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
1 - Cupcake
1 - Lump of Frosting
Spread Lump of Frosting on Cupcake.
Enjoy.
posted by Babblesort at 5:52 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
Not only do the mods tend to leave a note when edits occur, sometimes they are quite funny about it.
posted by FishBike at 6:25 PM on April 10, 2010
posted by FishBike at 6:25 PM on April 10, 2010
Not only that, We are also...
...nothing.
There is no cabal.
posted by bru at 6:34 PM on April 10, 2010
...nothing.
There is no cabal.
posted by bru at 6:34 PM on April 10, 2010
I suspect that, despite what the mods are telling you, they actually ARE WONDERFUL PEOPLE WHO WOULD NEVER DECEIVE YOU and let me tell you, it certainly makes me HAPPY TO KNOW THEY WORK SO HARD ON THE SITE.
I can't prove any of this of course, but I've LIKED CORTEX'S HAIR for a while now.
posted by lore at 7:06 PM on April 10, 2010 [21 favorites]
I can't prove any of this of course, but I've LIKED CORTEX'S HAIR for a while now.
posted by lore at 7:06 PM on April 10, 2010 [21 favorites]
Brina's Square Cupcakes*:
1/3 cup cocoa powder
1/2 cup flower
1 cup sugar
1/2 cup butter (one stick)
1 extra large egg or one and a half regular eggs
A dash of salt
A bit of baking powder
Some vanilla extract
In a double boiler, melt the butter, mixing in sugar and cocoa powder until the ingredients form a goop.
Put the dry ingredients in a big old bowl. Beat the egg(s) and vanilla in a separate bowl. Put the goop from the double boiler into the bowl with the dry stuff. Mix that around some. Then put the liquids into the bowl with everything else, and mix it all up real good. You'll know when it's mixed right. If it's not a little like a batter, you need more egg.
Okay. Now take some more butter and just butter up the bottom of a big pyrex baking dish. I know these are not usually used for cupcakes, but trust me when I say they'll be better this way. While we're at it, turn your oven to 375. Okay, so pour all the batter into the pan and spread it evenly. Cook it for awhile.
When it's done baking, take the pan out and let the cupcakes cool. Now I know they might not look like cupcakes yet, but they will in a second. So you let your dish cool for forty-five minutes or so, and then you take out a knife and you cut everything into squares. Get out your pretty little paper wrappers now, ladies, because it's serving time: Put one square in each of your cupcake cups, set 'em all out on a platter, and your square cupcakes are ready to enjoy.
*A couple of people say my cupcakes resemble brownies, but brownies don't come in pretty pastel paper wrappers now, do they?
posted by brina at 8:05 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
1/3 cup cocoa powder
1/2 cup flower
1 cup sugar
1/2 cup butter (one stick)
1 extra large egg or one and a half regular eggs
A dash of salt
A bit of baking powder
Some vanilla extract
In a double boiler, melt the butter, mixing in sugar and cocoa powder until the ingredients form a goop.
Put the dry ingredients in a big old bowl. Beat the egg(s) and vanilla in a separate bowl. Put the goop from the double boiler into the bowl with the dry stuff. Mix that around some. Then put the liquids into the bowl with everything else, and mix it all up real good. You'll know when it's mixed right. If it's not a little like a batter, you need more egg.
Okay. Now take some more butter and just butter up the bottom of a big pyrex baking dish. I know these are not usually used for cupcakes, but trust me when I say they'll be better this way. While we're at it, turn your oven to 375. Okay, so pour all the batter into the pan and spread it evenly. Cook it for awhile.
When it's done baking, take the pan out and let the cupcakes cool. Now I know they might not look like cupcakes yet, but they will in a second. So you let your dish cool for forty-five minutes or so, and then you take out a knife and you cut everything into squares. Get out your pretty little paper wrappers now, ladies, because it's serving time: Put one square in each of your cupcake cups, set 'em all out on a platter, and your square cupcakes are ready to enjoy.
*A couple of people say my cupcakes resemble brownies, but brownies don't come in pretty pastel paper wrappers now, do they?
posted by brina at 8:05 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
1 - Cupcake
1 - Lump of Frosting
Spread Lump of Frosting on Cupcake.
Enjoy.
Or, for instant gratification: Skip the cupcake and eat the frosting by itself.
posted by amyms at 8:18 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
1 - Lump of Frosting
Spread Lump of Frosting on Cupcake.
Enjoy.
Or, for instant gratification: Skip the cupcake and eat the frosting by itself.
posted by amyms at 8:18 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
One tablespoon all-purpose rhubarb
I am going to use this expression in as many contexts as possible from now on.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:52 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
I am going to use this expression in as many contexts as possible from now on.
posted by LobsterMitten at 8:52 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by ROU_Xenophobe
I just spend like ten minutes trying to read this aloud to my wife.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:09 PM on April 10, 2010
I just spend like ten minutes trying to read this aloud to my wife.
posted by shakespeherian at 10:09 PM on April 10, 2010
Have mods ever considered an automated email for people whose comments are deleted? Granted, it might risk stirring up arguments with presumably more-troublesome-than-average MeFites, but on the other hand there's a learning opportunity missed when someone's comment is deleted without them knowing.
I rarely go back and reread a thread, so I'd never know if my comments were deleted. (Now a post, if you don't notice THAT'S gone, you're just not paying enough attention.)
posted by msalt at 10:38 PM on April 10, 2010
I rarely go back and reread a thread, so I'd never know if my comments were deleted. (Now a post, if you don't notice THAT'S gone, you're just not paying enough attention.)
posted by msalt at 10:38 PM on April 10, 2010
msalt: “Have mods ever considered an automated email for people whose comments are deleted? Granted, it might risk stirring up arguments with presumably more-troublesome-than-average MeFites, but on the other hand there's a learning opportunity missed when someone's comment is deleted without them knowing.”
Yeah - I'm not going to go back and find it, but we've talked about that three or four times. And they've said that they don't want to do that because of precisely the reason you mention. There are already a ridiculously high number of MY GENIUS COMMENT WAS DELETED WHY O WHY??? threads on metatalk - no need to stir them up. My sense is that, when a "learning opportunity" is really needed (ie somebody's doing the same wrong thing over and over and apparently doesn't understand) the mods will send out an email themselves.
This is just my sense, though. YMMV.
posted by koeselitz at 11:25 PM on April 10, 2010
Yeah - I'm not going to go back and find it, but we've talked about that three or four times. And they've said that they don't want to do that because of precisely the reason you mention. There are already a ridiculously high number of MY GENIUS COMMENT WAS DELETED WHY O WHY??? threads on metatalk - no need to stir them up. My sense is that, when a "learning opportunity" is really needed (ie somebody's doing the same wrong thing over and over and apparently doesn't understand) the mods will send out an email themselves.
This is just my sense, though. YMMV.
posted by koeselitz at 11:25 PM on April 10, 2010
Theory: There is no thread so awesome that dropping a recipe for cupcakes (or Mac&Chee) into it won't make it awesomer.
posted by Jofus at 11:45 PM on April 10, 2010
posted by Jofus at 11:45 PM on April 10, 2010
Previous MeTa thread about editing, which probably ensures that the mods would rather be dragged through Slashdot wearing "Open Source Sucks!!" signs before editing comments.
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:18 AM on April 11, 2010
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 5:18 AM on April 11, 2010
One tablespoon all-purpose rhubarb
I am going to use this expression in as many contexts as possible...
It's a good description of pretty much every MetaTalk thread ever.
posted by rokusan at 5:23 AM on April 11, 2010
I am going to use this expression in as many contexts as possible...
It's a good description of pretty much every MetaTalk thread ever.
posted by rokusan at 5:23 AM on April 11, 2010
You need to go and download the Wasteland Wanderer mod for Fallout 3, OK? Go do that. Yes, you. If you do not have Fallout 3, go get that first.
posted by Meatbomb at 5:52 AM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
posted by Meatbomb at 5:52 AM on April 11, 2010 [1 favorite]
Have mods ever considered an automated email for people whose comments are deleted? Granted, it might risk stirring up arguments with presumably more-troublesome-than-average MeFites, but on the other hand there's a learning opportunity missed when someone's comment is deleted without them knowing.
We're really reticent about pushing out extra email/mefimail at people, is one thing. Another thing is, as you say, the risk of stirring up arguments that don't need to happen -- not just with like Particularly Argumentative folks but with baseline average temperament folks who might be inclined to argue/complain just as a response to us firing the first shot, as it were, by insisting that they consider the deletion.
Basically when we've thought about it it has seemed like a method for causing more people more annoyance and generating more unnecessary work for ourselves.
What we do is email people if there's an issue that goes beyond just the simple deletion: if we're deleting a lot of stuff from them, or if there was something really weird or problematic with the deleted comment, or if there's some extra context that makes the situation more confusing or complicated, or so on. That way we can not spend extra time on the really minor stuff and instead confine the amount of communication and education we do to situations where it feels like it actually needs that attention.
Previous MeTa thread about editing
Yeah, which is basically the canonical example of us breaking from our no-editing-for-content rule with good intentions (by snipping a jokey, answer-killing bit from an otherwise good-faith askme comment without first getting buy-in from the answerer), and the thread really cemented the value of that rule and sticking with it, intentions be damned.
I think it's a good rule for to us to have: it's firm, it's straightforward, and it simplifies significantly the ethics that would crawl into a practice of casual silent edits for content. There's a balancing act that comes with asking folks to trust us not to get up to shenanigans, but this rule is one of the ways we try to keep both feet squarely planted in service of that.
I'd much rather have moderation just work smoothly 99% of the time and have us talk transparently in Metatalk or over email or etc about the 1% that is eyecatching than to cruft up the site with milemarkers for all the incidental stuff to no purpose other than excessive but formally consistent moderation markup.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:57 AM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
We're really reticent about pushing out extra email/mefimail at people, is one thing. Another thing is, as you say, the risk of stirring up arguments that don't need to happen -- not just with like Particularly Argumentative folks but with baseline average temperament folks who might be inclined to argue/complain just as a response to us firing the first shot, as it were, by insisting that they consider the deletion.
Basically when we've thought about it it has seemed like a method for causing more people more annoyance and generating more unnecessary work for ourselves.
What we do is email people if there's an issue that goes beyond just the simple deletion: if we're deleting a lot of stuff from them, or if there was something really weird or problematic with the deleted comment, or if there's some extra context that makes the situation more confusing or complicated, or so on. That way we can not spend extra time on the really minor stuff and instead confine the amount of communication and education we do to situations where it feels like it actually needs that attention.
Previous MeTa thread about editing
Yeah, which is basically the canonical example of us breaking from our no-editing-for-content rule with good intentions (by snipping a jokey, answer-killing bit from an otherwise good-faith askme comment without first getting buy-in from the answerer), and the thread really cemented the value of that rule and sticking with it, intentions be damned.
I think it's a good rule for to us to have: it's firm, it's straightforward, and it simplifies significantly the ethics that would crawl into a practice of casual silent edits for content. There's a balancing act that comes with asking folks to trust us not to get up to shenanigans, but this rule is one of the ways we try to keep both feet squarely planted in service of that.
I'd much rather have moderation just work smoothly 99% of the time and have us talk transparently in Metatalk or over email or etc about the 1% that is eyecatching than to cruft up the site with milemarkers for all the incidental stuff to no purpose other than excessive but formally consistent moderation markup.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:57 AM on April 11, 2010 [4 favorites]
I just spend like ten minutes trying to read this aloud to my wife.
It's just the cake recipe from Portal, so you can hear it here.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:53 PM on April 11, 2010
It's just the cake recipe from Portal, so you can hear it here.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 1:53 PM on April 11, 2010
Most other sites either don't perform secret/silent edits of user content - or slap a flag on the screen when they do.
What makes you so sure?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:18 AM on April 12, 2010
What makes you so sure?
posted by DevilsAdvocate at 4:18 AM on April 12, 2010
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
Note that we rarely edit things, generally tending to delete, and what edits we do make are generally typographic in nature, e.g. to fix a botched link or close a runaway tag, or sometimes fix a glaring and distracting spelling error in a post, or on occasion throwing more of a post below the fold if it's too large on the front page.
Editing for content basically never happens except when specifically requested by the user.
posted by cortex (staff) at 2:46 PM on April 10, 2010 [1 favorite]