@Manjot probably not, followers need not update in real time (likely) .. it's probably by design. You can bring it up on meta if you like, provided you don't see a similar question.
@Manjot wasn't this already explained to you yesterday? You need more attention or something?
If a user consistently writes crappy English in his questions I think his/hers gravatar should be outfitted with a http://www.google.co.uk/images?hl=&q=dunce+cap for a week . I'm talking about stuff like this: "And U would like reuse"
Anonymous and unregistered users with < 15 reputation (the amount required to earn the upvote privilege) will now see
this question/answer was helpful
on every post in the area that a logged in user would see "add comment":
When the post area is moused over, the area expands to:
...
@nil no, that was Japanese Seizure Robots. (google it, but don't click on it if a) you're epeliptic b) you've got your speakers on or c) don't want to view a lot of google ads on one page)
I can't agree... I stick to one room, this one, and considering my past historical usage of chat rooms would not expect more than one room to be merged/accessible from one spot.
I answered. I was downvoted several times, by different users. Not whining, just want to understand.
The answers above mine are saying the same thing I was saying. But they were upvoted, and I was downvoted. Any body have feedback as to what the difference is?
Yeah, it was. This is a topic that pushes my buttons. And others too apparently. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but changing my words without necessity is not ok with me. if I'm wrong, say so, and edit it, or ask me to edit by preference, but because someone thinks what I said might offend someone someday maybe? BTW, I haven't had anyone do this to me, but I keep seeing it done to others, and the question keeps coming up.
It is a bit odd that the FAQ says "If you are not comfortable with the idea of your contributions being collaboratively edited... this may not be the site for you" at the same time that we're encouraged to grow our reputations -- constantly on display as a numerical score! -- based on those very contributions.
I didn't go against editing, if it wasn't subjective. I said it would be rude to edit if it was subjective whether there was rudeness or not. I, frankly, find censorship of others opinions far more abhorrent than rude, and perhaps that does mean this is not the site for me.
But I like the site in general, and I don't want to get chased off.
You're taking it out of context, significantly, by bringing up 'disagreement'. I haven't seen you post any examples of what you believe to be unfair edits.
This is the crux: if you're editing out offensive stuff just to satisfy some personal pet peeve ("I DON'T LIKE GENDER-SPECIFIC PRONOUNS - THEY'RE A TOOL OF THE MALE-CENTRIC MALEOCRACY!"), then you're doing it wrong.
If you're editing out offensive stuff to avoid dragging the Q&A off-topic, then you ARE improving the content.
The original author can roll it back either way of course. And if it bugs you that he did so, you're better off flagging than getting into an edit war.
But - and here's the point of disagreement I feel - if you can edit first you might avoid dragging in a moderator (who probably doesn't have the time to form a nuanced opinion and may just delete the whole thing) and save everyone time and frustration.
Sometime, folks really don't realize they're being offensive in their language - I've successfully revived posts that were down-voted, flagged, flamed, etc. just by editing - no other action needed.
I'm fine with editing first. As long as the offensive comment is not subjective. But if you have to explain to them that they are being offensive, then they also deserve the opportunity to edit the language themselves.
Again, if it is clearly offensive, edit first. If it is your opinion vs. theirs then don't.
If I call you a whore. That's offensive. If you say I am censoring others, I would be offended, but you might not be. Should you delete the comment?
And I would say that that kind of thought is where freedom of speech gets chipped away until it doesn't matter at all... But you might find that offensive politically. Do you edit it out?
Regardless of your definition, the site provides numerous ways of cleaning it up, rolling it back, discussing it, bringing in mods... There is no problem here, that I can find.
SE isn't about creating good little PC people - if your writing improves as part of your participation on the site, great, bonus... but you (the writer) are not the primary audience
Edits are for the benefit of the vast, vast majority of readers who show up from Google and don't know or care what site they're on.
We want focused, well-written content for them. We want them to soak up the idea that this "stack" site == quality, so the next time they're looking for quality, they look here...
We don't want the to walk away thinking, "gee, there might have been a good answer there if it hadn't devolved into bickering over some inflammatory language"
@Shog9: If I ask a question, I am the primary audience for the answers, at least until i accept an answer. I agree with all of that. but if it has the effect of "cleansing" the debate until debate isn't allowed...?
My suggestion is that IF IT SUBJECTIVE whether it is offensive, you use those other tools rather than taking it on yourself.
If it's subjective... scratch that, almost any non-trivial edit is subjective. If it's a change that YOU ARE NOT PERFECTLY CONFIDENT SHOULD BE MADE, then don't make it.
@zenbike No.
Mods are there to handle disputes and pick up slack
So if there's a fierce flame-war raging in the comments, yeah get a mod involved.
@zenbike - you can edit your last comment by hitting the up-arrow, or a previous comment via the menu on the left-hand side of the comment (I can't quite parse that)
@zenbike Prevent the flame war rather than incite it. Believe it or not, most people are not as tactful as they think they are. Leaving a comment can often be the quickest way to start an argument.
(and don't forget - there's an "explanation" field provided along with edits... Use it to justify why you're editing, and you have comment + improvement rolled into one, without the same impression of "publicly calling out" another user)
@zenbike Any time the answer to a common problem is, "involve a moderator", we're in trouble. Moderators don't scale.
If the community can't moderate itself, using the tools available, under most circumstances... it will devolve into chaos.
When there is a full-featured revision tracking and rollback system that makes it trivial to go back to a previous version, is it really "removing the problem child"?
@zenbike That is the solution though. And I know - from bitter experience - that it takes a while for some people to understand this... That's why it's spelled out bluntly in the FAQ on every site.
@zenbike I started out on SO, thought I have some involvement in other sites. This spring I was hired on as a part-time community coordinator for the SE network.
I've been around on these sites for close to three years now.
@zenbike Again - the Q&A system isn't for speaking your mind. There's chat, if you want to do that. There's Meta, if you want to do that regarding the site itself. We're even building a blog-system...
@zenbike Some of them are many people's opinion. Some of them are opinion backed up with fact. Sometimes, the proof of fact and the opinion it justifies are from different sources...
Every answer is an attempt to solve the problem in a question. There may be some opinion involved, but they are not just opinions, and they are not owned by the authors.
@zenbike, I've been just watching so far, but I now feel compelled to ask what your goal is. You are obviously not stupid; your grammar and spelling are decent, and your thoughts are coherent and well-organized. But your philosophy seems to be fundamentally different than the Stack Exchange network's philosophy. As long as that's true, I'm not sure where this discussion can (productively) go.
You might search and find a question that matches your own... Only to be met by dozens of responses, some answering the question, others pointing out problems with that answer, others responding with clarifications, others going off on tangents...
it can take quite a while just to determine that the answer isn't there
The idea behind the SE sites is simple: there are other places for conversation and debate. We don't need to replace them. What's lacking are sites that provide Question + Answer in a succinct format where you can get from the former to the latter without extreme amounts of effort.
Anonymous and unregistered users with < 15 reputation (the amount required to earn the upvote privilege) will now see
this question/answer was helpful
on every post in the area that a logged in user would see "add comment":
When the post area is moused over, the area expands to:
...
