Jump to content

Modify Quotes when original changes


pequeno
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, Rikki said:

Personally, I don't think that's fair on the person who has quoted you. It could substantially change the meaning of their response. I think the quote needs to show what you had said at the time you were quoted.

Not if you correct a broken link, a misspellings...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 1/18/2019 at 8:57 PM, pequeno said:

Not if you correct a broken link, a misspellings...

But there's no way to know if that's the case from a technical level. Either we update the text in quotes when the original source has been edited...or we don't.

I agree with Rikki, adjusting the text inside a quote has the potential to severely change the meaning of a post unfairly. After all, what we'd show in the quote is not in fact what was originally quoted. If you said "I hate cats" and I quote you and say "I agree", but then you change your post to "I hate dogs" then you have changed the entire meaning of my response. That could have serious repercussions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can comment on situations where in my case, the modification of quotes would be very appropriate:
1.- When we correct a wrong link in the original text.
2.- When we correct a bad word that has not been filtered by the system.
3.- When we correct the writing because it has spelling mistakes or is badly written.
4.- When we correct/modify an image.

It is not always necessary to keep the original intact even in the quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree with IPS. The mere possibility of misuse through altering the meaning means it should not be possible at all. 
It’s the same reason why Twitter has no edit feature, not even for a few minutes or even seconds after posting. People instantly comment and retweet what you said and so this must be locked down. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, opentype said:

I agree with IPS. The mere possibility of misuse through altering the meaning means it should not be possible at all. 
It’s the same reason why Twitter has no edit feature, not even for a few minutes or even seconds after posting. People instantly comment and retweet what you said and so this must be locked down. 

It is a point towards limiting the editing overall though, not to prevent quotes from updating. I know that for all the theoretical discussions here, in practice I have to modify quoted text very often, which is simply inconvenient. Not to mention that when user changes display name the quotes keep the original, which is another can of worms. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

47 minutes ago, jair101 said:

in practice I have to modify quoted text very often, which is simply inconvenient.

Often, users ask me to modify a data in which they have been confused or updated, and it is very laborious then having to modify the quotes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, jair101 said:

I know that for all the theoretical discussions here, in practice I have to modify quoted text very often, which is simply inconvenient.

It's not a theoretical discussion here, we all are real board owners and we just prefer the way it is and how it was from the beginning in community software. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd be very concerned if quoted text changed based on the original content being changed. It would confuse members, make moderation much more onerous and, as @Rikki said, change the meaning of responses to quoted text after the event.

 

On 1/21/2019 at 4:09 PM, bfarber said:

If you said "I hate cats" and I quote you and say "I agree", but then you change your post to "I hate dogs" then you have changed the entire meaning of my response. That could have serious repercussions.

Cats are awesome... I've changed my mind and I now support this proposal. 😎

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, pequeno said:

Often, users ask me to modify a data in which they have been confused or updated, and it is very laborious then having to modify the quotes.

Indeed, also in my experience such harmless examples are much more frequent than a member trying to edit his original comment maliciously. I do accept that both sides have their pros and cons, just in my community I do have much more trouble editing posts and quotes multiple times, then having members trying to intentionally edit posts to mislead others. Maybe my community is an exception.

And in any case limiting the edit time is much better tool to fight malicious editing then preserving the original content in quotes. 

Edited by jair101
Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...