Posts "edited by a moderator"

[Ericloewe]

So, thoughts:

The constant stream of freeness and freenas and Freenas and whatever can get rather annoying. We tried an automated spelling enforcer for some basic stuff, like "FreeNAS". That incredibly limited automated fix was enough to cause significant confusion whenever FreeNAS was not supposed to be spelled properly, such as freenas-boot, which got rendered as FreeNAS-boot, with confused users trying to figure out what was going on.

I've corrected a lot of instances of "freeness" (Seriously, that's not even a real word, what kind of moron added it to a dictionary as anything other than a misconstruction of "freedom"? I just hate it with a passion.) and related misspellings, plus the occasional it's or its or whatever.

As for how appropriate this is...

*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

I can't see a reason to not correct these (though I wouldn't bother with all of them, personally, only some of them), beyond tingly sensations that it's a slippery slope. I draw the line beyond correcting isolated words or maybe short phrases. Though, in all honesty, it's a line drawn under the influence of laziness, I don't see myself editing major portions of a post - unless it's to moderate something in or out (insert announcements, remove dubious links and insults, etc.).

And is this something about which there's a somewhat-formal policy, or is it purely at the discretion of each individual mod?

I don't think I've seen anything to that effect, but I'm sure we could benefit from some clarity. I'll open a poll in this thread to gather some opinions that might help us tackle the issue.

FWIW, I'd be in favor of allowing for minor corrections, along the lines of the list posted by @diedrichg (without the actual list, we don't need that much bureaucracy, this isn't Wikipedia), with a snippet in the forum rules stating something like "To enhance readability, forum posts may be edited to correct common, minor mistakes, such as the spelling of FreeNAS. These posts will carry a note saying that they have been edited by a moderator. Larger edits, e.g. to remove inappropriate content, will be explicitly noted by the moderator who made the edit.".
That last part is something not written down, but that really should be followed - if something's going to be seriously edited, it needs a proper note, such as "Edited for personal attacks - Moderator Jim".

 

[BigDave]

i c comon mis-spelling along with myner gradmatical errorrs all-over this forom and rareley have a diffaculti readin' the context,
but hey, who am I to tell u mods howta spend yur time.:p

Causing the community to appear smarter and more articulate by editing is a good thing ;) after all it's all about perception right?


I know one thing for sure, if it wasn't for spell check, this old plumber couldn't write his way out of a paper bag! Bahahahaha!

 

[wblock]

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?

This is a "how long is a piece of string" question.

And is this something about which there's a somewhat-formal policy, or is it purely at the discretion of each individual mod?

No, there is no formal policy beyond the "Forum moderators will edit or remove inappropriate comments." in the forum rules.

 

[joeschmuck]

My two cents...
I will periodically edit posts of others only if they are missing formatting information such as code brackets. I will not edit grammar, we could spend all day on that alone and many people posting do not have English as their primary language. Lastly I will take action of inappropriate postings which violate our forum rules.

I say that the moderators should not edit content except as I noted above. Just my two cents.

 

[Mlovelace]

Meh, it's doesn'ts bothering mi at all ifs these moderatorz fix all my speelings mistkes and suches. ;) have fun with that one @wblock

 

[Jailer]

Uh oh, detecting a freenas ofrums meem commming on

 

[fracai]

We're about to re-invent leetspeak.

 

[Jailer]

We're about to re-invent leetspeak.

Is there an EITF RFC for that?

 

[anodos]

Uh oh, detecting a freenas ofrums meem commming on

Vell, zeere-a ere-a oozeer veys ooff trunsleteeng oooor furoom pusts. Bork Bork Bork!

 

[joeschmuck]

@Mlovelace luk at wat u started. Guud job.

 

[danb35]

This is a "how long is a piece of string" question.

Only because you refuse to pin it down any further. I can only conclude that your position is that moderators can and will edit posts in any way, to any extent, and for any reason, they deem fit. If that's your position (or, more precisely, if that's iXSystems' position), that needs to be explicitly stated.

But whatever my feelings on the subject, I'm surprised to see that a strong majority (though, admittedly, a majority of not too many votes) has no problem with giving the mods free rein. So a mod decides that you didn't mean to write what you wrote, and edits your post to his mistaken impression of what you meant to write, and that's OK? That seems to be what the majority's saying, and that surprises me.

 

[Jailer]

I don't care what the mods do. If they go what I feel is over the line then I leave the forum and don't come back. Period. And so will plenty of others if things ever get to that point.

It's not an issue with me per se but more of a self correcting problem if it becomes one.

 

[cobrakiller58]

snip* So a mod decides that you didn't mean to write what you wrote, and edits your post to his mistaken impression of what you meant to write, and that's OK? snip*

A respectful PM will normally get the desired results in said situation, if that fails you can elevate the issue to an administrator or request assistance from another moderator.

Generally on the forums I lurk moderators are chosen based on their input and demonstrated demeanor on the forum or are known IRL by the administrators and are essential granted the right to use the powers in anyway they see fit in the best interest of the forums. @Jailer said is pretty accurate if a moderator is abusing that power the other moderators will compile user complaints and the administrator will remove the moderator when it begins to effect the morale of the forum. I would like to see more votes on this particular poll but it appears that this is definitely not the case with this issue.

 

[danb35]

A respectful PM will normally get the desired results in said situation, if that fails you can elevate the issue to an administrator or request assistance from another moderator.

But to send a PM, respectful or otherwise, you'd need to know who made the edit--the note only says the post was edited by "a moderator". When I asked in the thread, I got the non-answer I posted at the beginning of this thread. And since the mod in question is an administrator, I'm not sure how far there is left to go up the chain.

If they go what I feel is over the line then I leave the forum and don't come back.

...which is pretty much the point of this thread: Where is the line, and/or where should it be? I still don't have a clear answer to the first, though it's sounding more and more like there isn't one. I have a fairly strong opinion on the second, though it's looking as though I'm in the minority. If it reaches a point that I can't live with it, I can always just leave, but I thought it would be more useful to raise and discuss the issue in hopes of preventing that.

I'm not questioning that iX has the right to run this forum however they want--it's their forum, after all. They own (or are paying for) the hardware, the bandwidth, the storage, etc. None of us have a right, under the First Amendment or any other law, to post here. I'm addressing how I think they should run it, not how I think they must run it (in the sense of being legally obligated).

 

[Jailer]

I understand your point completely. Where you and I differ on opinion is I don't think it should be a hard fast rule on editing. If there is a mod that is being a bit overzealous in their editing of posts, report it to an admin. If enough people feel the same and report the same something will be done about it.

But that doesn't mean you can't post your opinion on it and it is good to have meaningful discussion about it if for nothing else to provide an awareness level for users and mods. And again if overzealous edits start showing up or edits to remove contrary opinions regular users will see it happening and the problem will correct itself as I previous stated by members leaving. As hard as iX has worked to change the perceived attitude of the forum I don't think that will become a problem. I also believe your starting of this topic adds an awareness level for everyone involved whether they agree with it or not.

tldr; discussion is good. :)

 

[BigDave]

So a mod decides that you didn't mean to write what you wrote, and edits your post to his mistaken impression of what you meant to write, and that's OK? That seems to be what the majority's saying, and that surprises me.

I hear what you're saying @danb35, but I also sense a bit of hyperbole here.

No moderator's janitorial adjustments of spelling and/or grammer is going to
go down well with ANY OF US if the Mod in question, begins to rewrite
posts at the kind of level you're suggesting here.

Let's discuss it sure, but could we tone down the "amendments" and the "law"
stuff? Take your Lawyer hat off for this and put on your Official community forum hat.

Self edited for correction of proper hat and the inclusion of the phrase, Official. 10:06am CDT May 6th, 2017

 

[Ericloewe]

*cough*

The official hat for this forum is a set of Beastie horns. In a pinch, AC/DC concert horns are an acceptable substitute.

 

[danb35]

I hear what you're saying @danb35, but I also sense a bit of hyperbole here.

I don't really think so; that's exactly what happened to the post in question. I wrote exactly what I intended to write. @wblock, for reasons known only to him (as he's thus far not chosen to share them), changed it to something I did not intend to write. It was not a "correction" in any sense; my usage was entirely correct. At best it's a disagreement of style.

The change is minor, subtle, perhaps even trivial. But it represents a line that, IMO, should not be crossed.

Let's discuss it sure, but could we tone down the "amendments" and the "law" stuff?

That's what I get for trying to clarify... Perhaps you missed my point, or perhaps I wasn't clear. What I was trying to say was that I don't see that the law is really implicated. I don't see this as a matter of Free Speech, as that phrase is normally used. I'm not going all Roman Moronie with "you have violated my farging rights, you cork-soakers!" iX has the right to do pretty much whatever they want in terms of moderation policy, and I'm not trying to argue, or even suggest, anything to the contrary. I'm arguing what they should do and not do as a matter of ethics and pragmatism.

 

[Robert Trevellyan]

So a mod decides that you didn't mean to write what you wrote, and edits your post to his mistaken impression of what you meant to write, and that's OK?

FWIW I'm with you on this. It's not OK.

My view comes partly from a place where I frequently realize, on rereading an email or forum post, that I initially misconstrued the author's intent. The consequences range from subtle misunderstanding of a technical point to getting all angry with someone for what turns out to be no good reason. So, I don't want anyone else fiddling with things in a small way. Removing or excising sections of posts, for cause, is OK because it's obvious.

 

[BigDave]

How do you feel about moderators fixing minor mistakes (such as it's/its or their/there/they're)?

@danb35
I voted to show that I would not have a problem (at all) with Mods editing for the proper use of apostrophe placements,
the correcting for the proper usage of the appropriate homophones and also correcting the capitalization of FreeNAS (a registered trademark).

IMHO what happened to your (danb35) post would not fall under MY definition of a "mistake" that warranted correction, on this we can agree.

My suggestion would be for the sponsor of this forum to step up with a published forum rule change that addresses the issue forthwith!