New to Typophile? Accounts are free, and easy to set up.
Create an account
Typophile RSS | More Feeds
What's that post all about in Hottest titled is this sick & wrong?. It seems to have been deleted.
Oh wait, here:
At first I thought this thread was going to be about that "re-evaluating Gill Sans" article lol.
Hmmm…that’s not the only thread I’ve seen disappear lately.
i took it down. i realized i had approached what i wanted to get at all wrong. will repost (perhaps) when i regain a bit of steam.
> What’s that post all about in Hottest titled is this sick & wrong?
I wondered about that too, and the other day tried to find it in vain. Now I know what happen...
> i took it down
Paul, with all due respect, I think that was a bad move on your part. Not just because I happen to have contributed to the discussion and now feel that it was time down the drain, but also because if everyone starts erasing their posts on whim this place will become too chaotic for my taste.
I have the most respect for this site's moderators, but please next time use the powers that were entrusted to you a little more carefully. Thanks.
Oh no! I got you in trouble Paul. Sorry.
The thread title is still on the Hottest list now, and still cannot be accessed. That's frustrating and confusing for readers and members alike. Please avoid these carrot and stick situations---is it too much to ask that moderators have the integrity to apologize when they make a mistake or mess something up?
No need to apologize Ray.
j a m e s
yes, it was wrong and sick of me to take it down, but i did so intending it to be a temporary measure. all apologies. the thread is back up, but i modified my original post and the thread title. (is that fair play? anyone else can always do the same. leastways, i didn't convert all my posts to periods, as has been deemed as fair in other cases.)
> is that fair play? anyone else can always do the same.
Just because we can do it doesn't mean we should. I don't think I need to remind you that Typophile's biggest assets are its users and their contributions. If those disappear this webcommunity will completely loose its meaning of existence.
> i didn’t convert all my posts to periods, as has been deemed as fair in other cases.
I don't know what others think but I actually find that quite annoying. If people are not sure if they want their posts to remain available, they should abstain themselves from contributing to the discussions.
BTW, this reminds me of a claimed bug where posts that are edited move to the bottom of the thread. To me that's a feature rather than a bug, and I think it should remain that way. This will held users more accountable of their actions.
they should abstain themselves from contributing to the discussions
i'll have to remember to do this more in the future.
BTW, this reminds me of a claimed bug where posts that are edited move to the bottom of the thread. To me that’s a feature rather than a bug, and I think it should remain that way. This will held users more accountable of their actions.
I beg to differ, Miguel. On the type ID board it was common practice to make the ID and then go back and insert the link. Now we find ourselves adding the link into an additional post, which is extra work for everyone (poster and reader) and falsely moves you up in "Prolific Posters". I also sometimes reread my posts and feel I could have worded something more elegantly. Or maybe I said something I wish I hadn't said. I think to then have the edited post slip to the bottom is a bad idea, since it can make the responses confusing. I'd rather see the edits be somehow visible, so that others can see what was edited, rather than messing around with the order.
that's actually a great idea -- edited posts showing up as bold, or a color or something.
If we were all on Leopard we could use "Time Machine" to see the unedted post :-)
> On the type ID board it was common practice to make the ID and then go back and insert the link.
I know, and in several occasions I didn't get first place because I always spent the time confirming the ID and looking up all the information to provide along with it :-( So, moving to the bottom upon adding the missing information is just fair ;-P
> I also sometimes reread my posts and feel I could have worded something more elegantly. Or maybe I said something I wish I hadn’t said.
You can always post again clarifying everything up. I feel that's the right way to do it, as that's what happens in real life. I mean, we all have our bad moments where we say things we shouldn't, but do we go around everyone's head and edit or delete their memories?
This is just my view, of course. I guess that online I abide to the same rules as I do in real life, instead of becoming a different (virtual) persona.
In real life I am a 14 year old boy from Papua New Guinea, with a passion for motocross and death metal, but who yearns deep inside to be a girl, and wishes there really were unicorns.
Here at Typophile, however, I get to pretend to be a graphic designer in New York City!
The reason I converted post to periods was a protest against a barrage of personal insults which the moderators let stand.
I guess that online I abide to the same rules as I do in real life, instead of becoming a different (virtual) persona.
i'm sure you try to be the same person online that you are in life, but i don't think anyone can ever really do this. i mean, are you the person you are to your friends, to your family, to your colleagues, to strangers?
i don't think it's fair to liken a discussion board to a real discussion. In some ways they're the same but in some ways they're completely different. For one, a discussion board discussion can (hypothetically) exist forever and anyone who wants to join it can. discussions don't work this way in real life, therefore participants in an online discussion have incentive to present themselves and their ideas in the best light possible.
You feel (if i understand correctly) that once something is written, it should be forever. I don't feel that way. I don't mind that you have the original discussion opener in your mind, as you "contributed" to the original discussion. However, i think that if i can rephrase myself to make myself better understood by newcomers to the discussion, it is desirable to do so. i have edited myself several times writing this post, i don't see why i should have to stop doing so once i have pressed the "post comment" button, if i feel that i can further clarify my intentions.
i'm human. i make mistakes. i should be able to correct them if i have a chance. i've made every effort to act ethically in this instance and throughout my interactions here on typophile. if you disagree with my actions, you're entitled to your opinion.
> i mean, are you the person you are to your friends, to your family, to your colleagues, to strangers?
Yes, pretty much. Online I don't attempt to be something I'm not in real life. For me it's much harder to pretend than to be myself, and that applies to pretty much everything I do.
> For one, a discussion board discussion can (hypothetically) exist forever and anyone who wants to join it can. discussions don’t work this way in real life
That's a good point.
> However, i think that if i can rephrase myself to make myself better understood by newcomers to the discussion, it is desirable to do so.
Absolutely. And you can always do that in a new post, can't you? Adding a new post not only makes the discussion richer, IMO, but also avoids the risk of making a post downstream somewhat nonsense. That's why I think that kicking an edited post to the bottom of the thread is a safer and better option.
BTW, am I right to believe that when moderators edit posts they don't get misplaced?
No moderators comments fall to the bottom just like everyone else's.
I disagree that it is good that the comments fall to the bottom. It messes with the conversation. However, I do wish edited comments were colorized so we could see editing occurred.
How did this become a discussion about real life? I'm pretty sure most of us long time Typophile's aren't much different in real life. Once a nerd ... ;^)
Online I don’t attempt to be something I’m not in real life.
nor do i, but i don't share everything with everyone.
>i mean, are you the person you are to your friends, to your family, to your colleagues, to strangers?
>Yes, pretty much.
well that's the difference between you and i, i guess. i'm much more guarded in my conversations with strangers than i would be with my close friends, and that's what online discussions are: conversations. sometimes i slip and become a bit more familiar than i would like, think about what i have written, and then wish i could take a bit back. i don't think that's wrong as long as i'm honest about changing your posts, as i have always tried to be.
Once a nerd ... ;^)
What is it with this nerd crap? We're just people who like our work.
Everybody use a computer these days, you don't have to be an obsessive antisocial teenage boy to "get" it!
"but i modified my original post and the thread title. (is that fair play?"
Only if you are a politician.
"Once a nerd ... ;^)
What is it with this nerd crap? We’re just people who like our work."
Hear, hear! We're not type nerds. We're type GEEKS. Let's get the terminology correct, please.
Well, I'm a nerd, too, but definitely a geek.
If you google nerd and geek you will see reference to the fact that these words have been used in opposite ways on the East and West coasts of the US, so far as whether the connotation was negative. These are recent words and how negative or positive they are seems to be somewhat fluid.
I'm with Nick: just throw them into the trash heap of stale slang, and use some more expressive and precise language.
And generally: we are not what we do, and our value is far more than our vocations and interests. Simplistic labels devalue people. Respect.
Geek: a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.
Ah. So Ozzy Osbourne was a geek back in the day.
"Simplistic labels devalue people. Respect."
Geek is perhaps a loaded term. Some would use it condescendingly. Some would use it as a compliment. Some use it to make millions of dollars (Geek Squad).
a carnival performer
"How does one get so low?"
--Tyrone Power as Stanton Carlisle in the 1947 film noir Nightmare Alley.
Oh c'mon! I bundled myself in there when I said it.
I guess we could just stick with “typophile”, but that might give non-designers the wrong idea. I’m pretty sure my parents would think it has something to do with movies about letters starring Vanessa Del Rio.
I don't agree. Sometimes it helps to clarify what a thread is meant to be about to change the title or it's body text. Obviously it can be a slippery slope but I don't think it's wise to make a blanket statement. This is inevitably going to be a grey question requiring judgment - which will fail sometimes.
I do agree with Miguel that when in doubt it is probably best not to change things because of the violence it does to the clarity of ideas being exchanged. I have definitely seen some threads here where the narrative became muck as a result of edits & retractions. I wasn't happy about that. I would like to have the opportunity to make up my own mind. Also what he said about 'only makes the discussion richer' and his point that in most cases clarity can be established as part of the flow rather than by re-writing a post, struck me as particularly pertinent and insightful.
However all this talk about pretending and real life though strikes me as a little bit too much like unasked for armchair psychoanalysis. I would leave that out.
What is it with this nerd crap? geek etc.
I too knew that Tiff meant this affectionately. It's a generational and/or regional thing I expect. No biggie.
> That’s why I think that kicking an edited post to the bottom of the thread is a safer and better option.
To me that sounds very illogical. Discussions get very confusing because of it, since for example a post with an answer or reply end up above the post they were an answer or reply to. It almost becomes randomized; very inconvenient for a proper discussion.
The same goes for the suggestion that edits become bold or colored. That would render the ability to set something in bold yourself useless. Also posts will look like candybars with edits in color and attract unnecessary attention to themselves, looking chaotic.
If you want to somehow show that a post was edited: add an automatic sentence in a smaller pointsize saying the post was edited plus the date and the time. :)
Correct. Edits should be seen as edits and in the hierarchy of things, fit below the original content. This creates an additional troublesome problem with long data however, when both the original and edit are long (and dissimilar from one another). I think that's why this problem is so often deliberately ignored. Some existing solutions that generally work out a little better are: to only give the author of a comment the ability to add a brief editorial correction in addition to the original (that is marked as such or so understood); Allow unlimited editing under the clearly marked disclaimer 'This content has been modified' (eBay); Or allow a brief time window for editing, after which your only option (regarding that specific comment) is 'delete' (Facebook); To run a 'diff' on the two comments, and to display the original—placing footnotes that correct it. That last one's hairy, and all of these are kind of under the assumption that the purpose of editing is to correct mistakes, rather than the full range of things one who edits may purpose to do (change mind, rewrite).
But it's a computer, and we've come to expect the tools we use to be somewhat silent and obedient. After rewriting several sentences, I don't want a computer telling me, "So you're changing your mind? You must be. This data looks nothing like what was here before you clicked edit. Maybe you're just changing your tone after reading how poorly you got your point across on the first try. Either way, that's what my rewrite comment button is for. You should have clicked that one. If that's what you meant to click, I can arrange something…"
I think having a time limit on edits (a la Facebook) is a reasonable compromise. It lets you fix grammatical or spelling errors or quickly retract something you really wish you hadn't said.
I also support a way to let the other readers know a post has been edited - either altering the look of the edited text or time stamping the edit. But slipping it down chronologically (which I believe Punchcut is planning to fix) just throws the entire thread off.
Be both wrong and sick, ceratainly..
Maybe one can argue on ethical grounds that edits on "General Discussions" threads should be limited, because a thread mimics a conversation. I don't believe that this applies to forums that are more informational in nature (like "Build" for instance) where I would even favor unlimited edits, especially if all previous versions of a post could be accessed through a history mechanism (like on Wikipedia, where it is even possible to compare two versions of an article).
A concrete way to do what I suggested above could be this: (1) under the avatar would appear all edit dates (2) posts would be ordered according to their first date so that editing would shuffle nothing (3) the last version would be the one appearing when we normally read a thread (4) to read a previous version, we would just click on the corresponding date and it would appear in some other window.
No one would be lost with the change which could even be unnoticed; posts would not be cluttered with edition notes; what is written could not be "unwritten". Implementation may be relatively easy.
Common practice on another site I frequent is to add a PS to your edited post, declaring what was edited (eg. Edit: Corrected spelling, added url.). It's a courtesy thing, right?
. . .
Bert Vanderveen BNO
Edit: Added this PS to clarify…
I too think that would be the most logical approach, Bert.
You find something like that on most forums. I don't know why you want to invent something incredibly complicated, like some of the suggestions made here. Making a problem out of nothing, really. :)
I often edit posts for grammar, spelling, typos and phrasing.
That wouldn't be so necessary if the comment formatting interface more resembled the finished post.
> Making a problem out of nothing, really.
The time a post is made determines who is the first to identify a font. This is very important, is it not? :)
Michel: Yes, I meant that people are suggesting all kinds of weird, complicated solutions for a problem that does not exist. The bug which
kicks edited posts to the bottom should be fixed, and then everything is fine. That way the timestamp stays unedited (I guess, like it was before), and Type ID's are unaffected.
Nick: I Agree, most of the edits I do are fixes of strange sentence-breaks created by the board interface, which were not there in the comment formatting field (that happens basically all the time, so a automatically added notice saying 'edited at time/date' would be unnecessary for such edits).
> The bug which kicks edited posts to the bottom should be fixed
A bug that has been there for more than 18 weeks becomes a problem. I'd like to understand the nature of the bug. I have no idea how posts are ordered. The timestamp of an edited post must change, since it is used to determine when a font was identified. If posts are ordered according to their timestamp, then edited posts must be moved to the end. Again, if ordering is determined by a date, the date of the first post must also be kept if we want posts not to be moved to the end; as a consequence, at least two dates must be kept for each post: that of the first post, and that of the last edit. Why then not keep at least those two posts? This would allow comparing the first post with the last edit, and I would feel better after editing a post because I never tell what I changed (usually typos, sometimes I add a few words because sometimes I tend to be cryptic).
I agree that pushing the post down probably isn't what I would have chosen. But it's not a choice now. Over time people may get used to the new system and until Typophile is ready to change it again I think that is the best course.
This is a good example of the community policing itself. Paul did a no-no and the community has called him on it. I don't feel a need to reprimand Paul in a private email, since I know him well enough to know he only has the best intentions. And I hope Paul knows me well enough to take my light but public rap on his knuckles the right way. =)
So this community (and the moderators) know, the policy is that Typophile NEVER deletes posts. In rare cases we have unpublished them -- this can happen when matters fall into legal territory that puts the viability of Typophile in a compromising position. In every case those unpublished threads still exist in the content system.
So, to that point James, if you're calling out threads that seem to have gone missing now is the time for the moderator(s) to make things right or provide a compelling reason back to the community as to the reason for unpublishing something.
The good people at Punchcut have said they plan to fix the bug that pushes edited posts to the bottom.
Why it's taken so long... I don't know.
Thank you good people at Punchcut!