Deletion of posts

[gerald.d]

Hi -

Is it too much to ask for the courtesy of an explanation for the deletion of a post?

Thanks.

[Marko]

Be careful about what you're asking for... ;)

[Frank Petronio]

It's a private forum and they can do whatever they want, moderating is a thankless job.

But it is a bit heavy handed here, no offense to QT, Ralph, Ken, and Commander el Supremo Kirk.

[Sal Santamaura]

...But it is a bit heavy handed here, no offense to QT, Ralph, Ken, and Commander el Supremo Kirk.I appreciate the moderators' efforts greatly, but would say that sometimes their hands are too light on the delete button. :)

[Vaughn]

Usually there is a short reason given for a deletion, such as "Not LF", or "Politics", along with the name of the moderator who deleted the post. If you would like a more in-depth explanation, you might wish to contact the moderator who deleted it.

Vaughn

[cdholden]

Usually there is a short reason given for a deletion, such as "Not LF", or "Politics", along with the name of the moderator who deleted the post. If you would like a more in-depth explanation, you might wish to contact the moderator who deleted it.

Vaughn

or you could just remain unhappy and demand your money back.

[kev curry]

I think that we should all sign a petition and present it to congress or even go direct to Obama (he's a model democrat) asking if they could intervene here directly and force ''them'' to allow politics and religion to be once again discussed in the lounge with impunity! We could send Kirk for some med training in case anyone gets gouged or loses an eye. Blood could easily be soaked up with a bucket or two of sand. There's tons of that stuff in Iraq. It would be great! A month or two in camp gitmo would rehabilitate any mods that failed to comply with an Obama decree! It might take longer for Kirk, he's a real bad ass;-)

[cdholden]

SInce talk of politics aren't welcome here, that means I shouldn't express my disgust to putting such hope in the hands of any politician.
Needless to say, if you're going for results you need to call Chuck Norris.

[gerald.d]

I'd be more than happy to discuss the issue with the moderator who deleted the post, but there's no indication as to who deleted it, hence this thread.

[kev curry]

Judging by the merciless speed used in chopping off the ''Osama burial'' and the ''obesity'' thread we might in reflection have to utilize special techniques to successfully rehabilitate Ken the Bruce Lee;-)

Thanks for nuking the Obesity thread Ken this place just got a lot leaner and meaner;-)

[Frank Petronio]

If we can't make fun of killing a nasty old man on dialysis then we ought to at least be able to vent on fat people.

[Brian C. Miller]

So go and post some more in the latest Rag on Peter Lik (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=75439) thread.

[36cm2]

If we can't make fun of killing a nasty old man on dialysis then we ought to at least be able to vent on fat people.

Frank, with all due respect, many nasty old men on dialysis are in fact also fat people. I think we should commend the moderators for their consistency in the abscence of mutual exclusivity.

Kev, your post was so offensive that I dropped my box of donuts and had to stop watching the Jerry Springer show. That being said, the Ken Bruce Lee comment was so funny that I forgave you.

Leo

[Ralph Barker]

Posts that don't conform to the guidelines usually get deleted, often after being reported by another member. We usually do a "soft" delete of such posts, including a brief explanation for the action, which leaves them in the index. Soft deletions also indicate which moderator took the action.

The guidelines (which all members agree to follow when registering) have been carefully crafted based on years of experience of running the forum - almost twenty, now. We take them seriously, and make a concerted effort to apply them evenhandedly, as a means of keeping the forum true to its objective - the discussion of LF-related matters.

[RJC]

My reply to Geralds question regarding the posting of 6x17 images was also deleted - I had merely indicated that there had been a specific thread for these images. Is even the discussion of 6x17 now completely verboten ?? Bring on the thought police .....

[William McEwen]

I agree with all who say moderating is a thankless job. Still, sometimes they seem like overreacting, cheese-eating surrender monkeys. (This post won't last!)

[Kirk Gittings]

I'd be more than happy to discuss the issue with the moderator who deleted the post, but there's no indication as to who deleted it, hence this thread.

I don't think it was me as I was on vacation for awhile, but tell me what thread it was in and I will try and figure it out.

[RJC]

I don't think it was me as I was on vacation for awhile, but tell me what thread it was in and I will try and figure it out.


Gerald asked in the Image Sharing and discussion thread if it was OK to post his 6x17 images. I replied that there had been a specific thread for these.

Having just reviewed the thread that I referred Gerald to I realise what an unseemly bun fight the subject had become. However, just to delete the posts (Geralds question and my reply) without any explanation seems like heavy-handed moderation to say the least.

Rob

[Kirk Gittings]

Image Sharing and Discussion is a sub-forum, what thread was it in?

[RJC]

Sorry, as I recall it was in Post your first (LF) shot, Gerald can correct me if my memory is failing me.

Rob

[Vaughn]

My reply to Geralds question regarding the posting of 6x17 images was also deleted - I had merely indicated that there had been a specific thread for these images. Is even the discussion of 6x17 now completely verboten ?? Bring on the thought police .....

Most times one does not get to read the post that "broke the camel's back". On a recently pulled thread (on obesity) I was working on a post about my bicycle commute and when I tried to upload an image, I got "invalid link". I eventually worked out that the thread was deleted, but missed the final post of two.

So, it may not be "thought police" but just a nasty post you did not see before the thread was deleted.

Vaughn

I fully appreciate the moderators' efforts here, and in the end, I believe that anyone too upset over the moderators' work, can leave and probably will not be missed -- except for perhaps their entertainment value. :D

Vaughn

[RJC]

So, it may not be "thought police" but just a nasty post you did not see before the thread was deleted.


The thread still exists, the deletion of posts was very selective. How does that help Gerald, who is a new member ?

Rob

[Kirk Gittings]

Can't help you. It was not a soft deletion and left no record. It was not me.

FWIW, when a thread goes wrong I don't do allot of hand wringing over which posts should go or stay. This job doesn't pay enough to lose sleep over. I apply a very broad brush. If people don't like it....well its just a silly online forum.

[taulen]

The author of the thread also chimed in, and asked there to be no more posts with this kind of discussion, so I think thats why they where deleted, and not just "removed".

[Vaughn]

The thread still exists, the deletion of posts was very selective. How does that help Gerald, who is a new member ?

Rob

I am afraid it does not help directly since it was an individual post that was deleted, and not the example I gave of a thread deletion. My error. But perhaps it will inform him in his future use of this forum, and thus be of some indirect help.

Vaughn

[Leigh]

Kirk,

One thing that would help the assembled masses is a change in the way the New Posts search works.

As it is, it takes into account whether or not I have looked at a particular thread. If so, it won't show up when I click on New Posts.

This is a terrible inconvenience.

I frequently want to revisit a thread, for any number of reasons, and I'm left to search individual sections to find the thread of interest.

This is not default behavior for vBulletin. Somebody had to set up this option specifically. I'm active on many fora that use vBulletin, including being moderator on one very busy site. None of the other sites have this option set on the New Posts search.

If you could reset that option so it doesn't care whether or not I've viewed a particular thread, and returns results based solely on the time stamp, it would greatly facilitate making changes to our own posts.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[RJC]

Well, he'll certainly be informed that asking a simple question regarding a particular image format can be deemed offensive, and is unlikely to receive the courtesy of an explanation. Sad.

Rob

[Sal Santamaura]

...in the end, I believe that anyone too upset over the moderators' work, can leave and probably will not be missed -- except for perhaps their entertainment value...I do not find them in the least entertaining.


...I apply a very broad brush...The broader, the better. :)

[Kirk Gittings]

Kirk,

One thing that would help the assembled masses is a change in the way the New Posts search works.

As it is, it takes into account whether or not I have looked at a particular thread. If so, it won't show up when I click on New Posts.

This is a terrible inconvenience.

I frequently want to revisit a thread, for any number of reasons, and I'm left to search individual sections to find the thread of interest.

This is not default behavior for vBulletin. Somebody had to set up this option specifically. I'm active on many fora that use vBulletin, including being moderator on one very busy site. None of the other sites have this option set on the New Posts search.

If you could reset that option so it doesn't care whether or not I've viewed a particular thread, and returns results based solely on the time stamp, it would greatly facilitate making changes to our own posts.

Thanks.

- Leigh

We have been through this discussion before. Send an email to all the moderators via the button in the bottom right explaining your request (contact us). I have NOTHING to do with the setup of the software. That email will make sure your request gets to the guy who can make changes in the software.

[Leigh]

My apologies. I didn't realize we had discussed this previously.

I shall do as you suggest.

Thanks.

- Leigh

[Vaughn]

My apologies. I didn't realize we had discussed this previously.

I shall do as you suggest.

Thanks.

- Leigh

Personally I do prefer it the way it is -- I do not want to "New Post" to bring up posts I have already seen -- I only want new ones. Your desired modification would make the search almost meaningless to me. APUG's "New Post" works the same as here. But APUG does have a "My Posts" search function which would do want I think you want to do -- it is very handy. They also have "My Threads" which brings up all threads one starts.

Vaughn

[Ralph Barker]

Leigh, the logic is that if one has viewed a thread it is no longer "new" to that person. You can, however, devise your own search criteria that fits your personal needs better. Take a look at this thread:

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=17419

Or, you can subscribe to threads that are of particular interest to you.

[Lachlan 717]

The author of the thread also chimed in, and asked there to be no more posts with this kind of discussion, so I think thats why they where deleted, and not just "removed".

That's correct - I'm the OP and I did "chime" in.

When my request that the image-based thread not degenerate into a "what is/isn't LF" discussion, along with my suggestion to take it to an existing thread on the topic, was ignored, I asked the Moderators to delete these posts in order to keep the integrity of the original idea.

This was intended to be a Thread that gave hope to those starting out in LF that even those of you who post magnificent images possibly started with some dud ones.

It seems that I argued a compelling point, as the Moderators saw it fit to remove the what is/isn't posts.

And the Thread is better for it.

To save you time, if you want to post your 6x17cm shots, do it here. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=55679&highlight=6x17)

[onnect17]

Easy! Just sent a PM offering your help, less likely your message will end up deleted. Of course, I do not know if that will help the forum but at least you will not waste your time writing. And hurry reading, perhaps the moderator delete this thread too!

[gerald.d]

That's correct - I'm the OP and I did "chime" in.

When my request that the image-based thread not degenerate into a "what is/isn't LF" discussion, along with my suggestion to take it to an existing thread on the topic, was ignored, I asked the Moderators to delete these posts in order to keep the integrity of the original idea.

This was intended to be a Thread that gave hope to those starting out in LF that even those of you who post magnificent images possibly started with some dud ones.

It seems that I argued a compelling point, as the Moderators saw it fit to remove the what is/isn't posts.

And the Thread is better for it.

To save you time, if you want to post your 6x17cm shots, do it here. (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?t=55679&highlight=6x17)

Except what you are choosing not to address is that the what is/is not LF was clearly explained by someone who posted in the thread.

If shot on a LF camera using a roll back, then 6x17 is considered LF. That, apparently, is the way things work around here.

Still, you got your way. Posts deleted without explanation, in order to assuage your own personal definition of what does and what does not constitute LF, that would appear to be at odds with the forum's.

I get the message though - loud and clear.

I certainly won't be taking instructions from you as to where I can, and cannot, post LF images, but don't worry - I won't be troubling you, or anyone else here, again.

But to save any confusion for any other newbies who dare to tread these hallowed grounds, perhaps you and your friendly moderator should sort out exactly what the rules are around here, rather than arbitrarily making them up as you go along?

[Kirk Gittings]

But to save any confusion for any other newbies who dare to tread these hallowed grounds, perhaps you and your friendly moderator should sort out exactly what the rules are around here, rather than arbitrarily making them up as you go along?


The purpose of the forum is to provide a place for discussion of topics of particular interest to large format photographers. We especially encourage questions which will help build a repository of knowledge about the tools and techniques of large format photography, as opposed to "shopping" questions. For the purposes of this forum, we define "large format" as being essentially 4x5, or larger, sheet film. We do, however, allow what would otherwise be considered "medium format" sizes, IF exposed in a view camera (e.g. with a roll-film adapter), technical, or old-style press camera (e.g. the various Graphic cameras).

[Lachlan 717]

I won't be troubling you, or anyone else here, again.


Watch that the door doesn't hit you on the arse on the way out.

Mind you, I'll bet that you're harder to get rid of than a dog turd from the bottom of a tennis shoe.

[BrianShaw]

I certainly won't be taking instructions from you as to where I can, and cannot, post LF images, but don't worry - I won't be troubling you, or anyone else here, again.

Please don't bite off your nose to spite yoru face. In general this is a forum full of very nice people who share their knowledge generously. Do what I did when faced with similar situation: use the IGNORE function!

[Vaughn]

Gerald, we have many thousands of active members here. I hope your interaction with a couple members here and the misunderstanding of the forum's rules causes you to leave. We all have something to learn from each other.

I have been on this forum for four years or so. I just looked for the rules, and it took me awhile to track them down, so I can imagine that someone new may have trouble finding them. They can be found by clicking on "Guidelines" on the header on the top of the forum page. I found it to be a "hidden in plain sight" sort of situation.

Vaughn

[KenM]

Gerald, we have many thousands of active members here. I hope your interaction with a couple members here and the misunderstanding of the forum's rules doesn't cause you to leave. We all have something to learn from each other.

Fixed that for you, Vaughn.

[Vaughn]

Fixed that for you, Vaughn.

Thank you, thank you, thank you! -- how embarassing!

Too late for me to edit my post. Ken's correction is correct!

[KenM]

Glad to be of service! :cool: