POLL: When is it ok to edit a blog post?

[sqbr]

Reading this post about the controversial decision to delete posts on Boing Boing and the fact I just made a post I've had to edit several times based on people's comments got me thinking about (EDIT :)) editing blogs.

Here I'm talking just about personal blogs like this lj, not proffesional or semi-profesional/famous ones like Boing Boing.

EDIT (heh): My brain turned to mush just as I was finishing this, so I'm still not going to express this well, but: I've conflated "What you do personally" with "What you tend to think other people should do" and "what you think is an objective minimum standard for blogging", and of course these are not always the same thing (such an objective standard may not even exist). Also I should make it clear that while I do think there are certain basic standards of behaviour I would expect from most bloggers (e.g. not changing your posts and then lying about it) on the whole I think people have a right to run their blogs how they like (though I think it's good to make your policy clear if there's confusion)


[Poll #1215499]

I was going to have a question about deleting posts but couldn't get it to come out right, especially since I'd have to take into account friendslock/private posts etc. With regards to the Boing Boing thing I can kind of see why they deleted the posts without saying (though it's hard to say for certain if it's justified given they won't say the reason) but deleting all comments asking about it until they got around to making a statement is just rude.

For myself I pretty much never delete comments, but am pretty fast and loose with unmarked edits as longas they don't change the basic meaning of the post (lots of bad phrasing etc)

Comments

[alias_sqbr]

My personal feeling is that I hate it when I feel like I don't have the whole story, that I've missed something. I hate it when comments don't make sense because they are referring to something that no longer exists. Even an apology (that at least acknowledges the existence of a deleted post) doesn't make sense if I can't refer to what it's apologising for. I think that the best choice is to leave the original and make a new post. Alternatively add a clear edit of the existing one. I don't care so much about correcting typos and spelling errors, especially if it's immediately after posting, but if someone comments on it, make it clear that you've fixed it or again it's confusing.

Yes, I find that annoying too. Then again, I do have some sympathy for people who just can't stand their past idiocy being up for display, especially when, apology notwithstanding, they still get angry replies etc. I think the one thing I find pretty much unjustifiable is changing things and then lying about it.

In my opinion the one reason to delete objectionable stuff is when it's a very effective troll which other commenters are upset by and drawn into, or is just SO offensive that it's making people really upset. I mean I don't delete that sort of stuff myself (not that I get much of it), but I can see why you would.

[lauredhel.livejournal.com]

It all depends on the type of space, too. For me, Hoyden About Town is at least partly a debate space, though I still don't tolerate outright hate speech - stuff that I'm not comfortable hosting, or stuff that makes our regular commenters feel unwelcome. Some types of thread derails, too, though they're generally asked to take it to the appropriate space (the open thread, a relevant thread, or elsewhere) and then moderated if they look likely to get toey.

My LJ I do see a bit differently; not as a debate space, but as as place where more personal things are discussed. We're a bunch of friends there, and while newcomers are welcome, they are expected to fit into the crowd rather than expecting the crowd to fit around them, IYKWIM? But I get very few trolls and abusers there, far fewer than we get on HaT, which is not surprising.

continued in my reply elsewhere in thread...