Posts "edited by a moderator"

[danb35]

I'm noticing recently a number of posts (including at least one of mine) that are subsequently marked "edited by a moderator." No reason is stated, just "Last edited by a moderator: (date/time)". When I raised the question, @wblock replied that

I edit posts to fix the capitalization of FreeNAS, spelling, usage of its/it's, (s) pluralization, and other things.

I can't agree with that, but not wanting to derail that thread, I figured I'd bring it up here, as this seems like the most relevant place.

I certainly understand editing posts in the case of TOS violations. If there's substance to the post that can be retained, and (for example) abusive language, or links to illegal material, be removed, it makes perfect sense to do so, rather than to delete the post en toto. But this smacks of having a copy editor, and is (IMO) entirely too paternalistic. This is a community forum, not your documentation. Certainly you should take the effort to ensure that your docs are free of spelling and grammatical errors, and that your trademarks are used properly. But this isn't your documentation, and nothing in the forum rules indicates that posts are subject to editing for grammar.

In short, I don't believe this is proper, and I don't think it's helpful either. Reserve editing for TOS violations, and even then use it sparingly. And if you're going to edit someone else's post, you should say why you did so.

 

[Jailer]

Or they could just disable the edit notification.

 

[wblock]

Another reason I edit posts is to add code, cmd, and file tags. When I do that, I send a PM to the poster with a quick summary and example usage of those tags. For spelling and other errors, I don't send a message, not wanting to embarrass people by pointing out their errors.

I'm pretty sure this is covered by the forum rules, but if not, it should be.

All of this cleans up the forums, making them more consistent and easier to read. I feel that is important and valuable, but would like to hear what others think.

 

[wblock]

Or they could just disable the edit notification.

That could make it appear like we were trying to hide such edits.

Xenforo used to have a diff feature, where the poster could see what had changed in the message. For reasons unclear, the Xenforo people then made that moderator-only and refused to make it available to regular posters.

 

[danb35]

I'm pretty sure this is covered by the forum rules, but if not, it should be.

I don't think it is, which is why I made that statement in my post. The closest I saw was:

Forum moderators will edit or remove inappropriate comments.

and

Moderators will remove inappropriate links.

 

[Jailer]

I'm pretty 'meh' about the whole thing. As long as user content that doesn't violate the TOS isn't getting censored then to me it's a non issue. If that sort of thing were going on it wouldn't take too long for the forum to self destruct.

 

[diedrichg]

*Grammar Police sirens!

Your ≠ you're
There ≠ their ≠ they're
It's ≠ its
Affect ≠ effect
To ≠ too
Peek ≠ peak ≠ pique
Cue ≠ queue
In to ≠ into
Lose ≠ loose
Than ≠ then
Assure ≠ insure

 

[Redcoat]

I'll vote for grammar edits as benign.

And add a couple to Squirrel's list:

Insure ≠ Ensure
Mute ≠ Moot

 

[Durkatlon]

What an absolute waste of time. People with imperfect command of the English language will be constantly reminded that what they posted was not good enough to be left alone by the forum mods.

Moderators tweaking everyone's grammar and spelling is not what FreeNAS needs right now.

 

[gpsguy]

IIRC, this is (or at least was) standard practice on the FreeBSD forums. I got the impression that some users were reluctant to post messages due to heavy moderation. I don't know if it's still the case - I only lurk there.

I hope that we don't alienate users, especially those for whom English is not their native language. Sure, we have some forums for many of them, but they don't see the same amount of traffic that the English forums have.

Even if the message is in "broken English" we can usually get the gist of it and post a reply.

Working on mobile devices also presents challenges. Damn spellcheck, changing my spelling from right to wrong can be annoying.

 

[danb35]

Moderators tweaking everyone's grammar and spelling is not what FreeNAS needs right now.

...or at all, IMO. I'm not even entirely comfortable with editing in the case of TOS violations; I'd prefer the post be deleted in that case rather than edited, but if a clear edit is made, and a clear note made (e.g., "Personal attack deleted - Moderator"), I don't have much trouble with that. But beyond that, where's the line? And to what extent does my name end up on something I just didn't write?

Sure, it'd be nice if users consistently used code tags (cmd and file not so much--nothing against them, but they're nowhere near the value-add that code is). It'd be nice if they consistently posted in standard English (or other language as appropriate in the foreign-language forums). And I'm sure the iX people think it would be nice if everyone used their trademarks properly (though I doubt anybody else cares in the least). But to the extent there's a problem, let it police itself.

 

[wblock]

What an absolute waste of time. People with imperfect command of the English language will be constantly reminded that what they posted was not good enough to be left alone by the forum mods.

There have never been any complaints about that. In fact, I often receive thanks for fixing posts.

Moderators tweaking everyone's grammar and spelling is not what FreeNAS needs right now.

We feel the forums are a valuable resource. Keeping them as readable as possible increases the value to users.

IIRC, this is (or at least was) standard practice on the FreeBSD forums. I got the impression that some users were reluctant to post messages due to heavy moderation. I don't know if it's still the case - I only lurk there.

What was done there used to be very heavy-handed, including banning users for not using proper markup, and publicly noting what was changed. This would have been about eight years back or so. It took years to change that atmosphere to the current one, which is much more welcoming. Likewise, these forums have had a poor reputation until recently.

I'm not even entirely comfortable with editing in the case of TOS violations; I'd prefer the post be deleted in that case rather than edited, but if a clear edit is made, and a clear note made (e.g., "Personal attack deleted - Moderator"), I don't have much trouble with that. But beyond that, where's the line? And to what extent does my name end up on something I just didn't write?

Serious problems are usually not handled with an edit, anyway.

It is impractical to list the edits to each post. Describing small fixes takes longer than the fixes themselves (changed "freeness", "freeNAS", "FreeNas", and "freenas" to "FreeNAS", added code tags to long listing and fixed all the blank lines that were inserted)

I would be happy for incoming posts to be more consistent and better spelled. That is usually out of my hands, although it is notable that new posters tend to copy what they see in terms of the care put into posts.

I think the original change responsible for this thread was where I changed a (s) pluralization, which has a specific meaning on tax form(s) and other legal documents, to a simple "s". I have spent much more time explaining this than I've spent on such edits in the hope that it would clear up concerns.

 

[cobrakiller58]

I'm pretty 'meh' about the whole thing. As long as user content that doesn't violate the TOS isn't getting censored then to me it's a non issue. If that sort of thing were going on it wouldn't take too long for the forum to self destruct.

+1
I don't feel it is harmful in anyway if someone is willing to correct grammatical errors they've noticed and could definitely be considered helpful to future users. The correction of FreeNAS certainly makes sense as search engines will miss it in the event it was misspelled and mobile devices tend to autocorrect it unless added to your dictionary.

 

[danb35]

I think the original change responsible for this thread was where I changed a (s) pluralization, which has a specific meaning on tax form(s) and other legal documents, to a simple "s".

No, the (s) pluralization has a specific meaning in written English, and that specific meaning was exactly what I intended. I intended to write disk(s), indicating that the user might have one or more disks, and I didn't know at the time (as he hadn't said). This usage might be more common in legal documents than in other writing, but it's by no means unique to them, nor is its meaning. I wrote exactly what I intended to write, and your edit is not what I intended to write.

This change is not a correction. It is, at best, an edit for style. And even if corrections were appropriate (which I don't believe they are, with the possible exception of egregious errors), stylistic edits are entirely inappropriate. In fact, it's a perfect illustration of my point from my last post: where's the line? You thought my post should say something (slightly*) different from what I meant it to say, so you just changed it. So to what extent do you believe it's appropriate to edit others' posts for content and style? This slope can become very slippery very quickly, and if there's any indication that any kind of contrary opinion is being stifled (and some of the moderating decisions made in the thread about pulling the FN10 release, IMO, got awfully close to that line), these forums will lose credibility so fast it will make your head spin.

changed "freeness", "freeNAS", "FreeNas", and "freenas" to "FreeNAS"

Do you really think that any of those is beneficial? Adds anything to clarity? Makes the forum any more readable? Don't you think it's perfectly obvious that they're all referring to the same thing?

We feel the forums are a valuable resource.

I obviously agree, otherwise I wouldn't be as active here as I've been. I disagree that any of the examples you've mentioned adds anything significant to readability.

If you want a group-edited resource, that's what a wiki is for. If you want a centrally-edited resource, you already have that in the manual. If you want an active community forum, people are going to write differently than you would. The bottom line here is, IMO, that you're behaving like an editor rather than a moderator, and an editor isn't what a moderator should be. The role of a moderator, though vital, is limited.

* Mountain out of a molehill? Perhaps. It was a minor edit, and a minor change in meaning. I could easily fix my post to return it to what I meant. But that does nothing to address the propriety of these kinds of edits in the first place.

 

[danb35]

The correction of FreeNAS certainly makes sense as search engines will miss it in the event it was misspelled

I'd expect that a post being on the FreeNAS forums, where that word is otherwise all over the place, would cover for the odd case where a poster misspells it. And capitalization isn't a factor for any search engine I've seen.

 

[wblock]

I don't think there is anything I can say that will satisfy you on this, but will say that if anyone ever feels I or another moderator has distorted their post by editing, they can contact me by PM or report that post for handling by other moderators.

 

[cobrakiller58]

@danb35 I agree with you on the disk(s) usage should have been left alone and is an appropriate usage and that this thread is a small mountain out of a mole hole. I disagree with the idea of leaving it to chance that a searching engine will connect a user who is unfamiliar with this forum to the correct thread to resolve their problem. I believe the more efficiently we can get someone to the solution the happier everyone will be.

 

[anodos]

*Grammar Police sirens!

Your ≠ you're
There ≠ their ≠ they're
It's ≠ its
Affect ≠ effect
To ≠ too
Peek ≠ peak ≠ pique
Cue ≠ queue
In to ≠ into
Lose ≠ loose
Than ≠ then
Assure ≠ insure

This does beg the question of what sort of problems warrant a change. There are a myriad of ways that people can use words wrong. Invariably people make works comprised of many mistakes. I'm okay with moderators having free reign regarding small edits as long as they are discrete about it. Those who get too upset are getting their just desserts. Though I imagine it could become tortuous for the moderators. As for me, for all intensive purposes I don't care because I don't make mistakes and therefore my posts will be un-effected.

:D If you're eyes are bleeding now, you deserve it.

 

[cobrakiller58]

I would feel badly if moderators were ever forced to correct all the little mistakes, I make my fair share even when i proofread my posts.....

 

[danb35]

I don't think there is anything I can say that will satisfy you on this

Perhaps not, but it would probably help if you'd address the question I've raised twice already: where is the line? That isn't a rhetorical question--I'm asking, for you (and for the moderating crew in general, if there is a uniform policy), where is the line? You've said you feel it appropriate (and, indeed, beneficial) to correct spelling, capitalization, and other grammatical errors. You apparently believe that it's both appropriate and helpful to edit for style and content, since you've done that and are defending it. So at what point do a moderator's edits become inappropriate? Or is there any such point? And is this something about which there's a somewhat-formal policy, or is it purely at the discretion of each individual mod?

And, though I appreciate your explanation of your position (as much as I disagree with it), I was hoping for input from other mods as well. @Ericloewe, @dlavigne, @JoshDW19?

Again, this isn't particularly about my post--it was a small change, and I could fix it with much less effort than starting (and continuing) this thread. The question is about policy, and what I'm hearing thus far isn't reassuring.