# self-deleted posts: not really deleted



## Bonjules

Hola,
It just happened to me that a forer@ published
(without my permission, obviously) part of a post
I had entirely deleted myself. I had done so because
the same person had posted just before mine went out
and I felt my post was not appropriate any more, given the new situation.
The forer@ was able to do that due to the instant e-mail
notification.
I guess we can not always expect that other forer@s will
respect our wishes in what we want to publish and what not. Aside from the fact that in this instance this was used to put me in a bad light, this does not seem a good
situation to me. Maybe there could be a short delay before the E-mails go out so the poster can review the entire picture after the post appears since often intervening posts habe been made ( at least a few minutes would seem reasonable, during which time
he/she could see if the post is still necessary/appropriate).


----------



## Nunty

I know the feeling, Bonjules. 

What I don't understand is that signatures are "dynamic", if that's the right word. If I change my signature it changes retroactively on all my old posts, too. But if we edit or delete a post that has been quoted, the quote doesn't change. This strikes me as particularly odd now that we have the little button that refers us back to the post that was quoted. (Am I making any sense here?)

I suppose I just don't understand, but it seems odd.


----------



## Jana337

Nun-Translator said:


> I know the feeling, Bonjules.
> 
> What I don't understand is that signatures are "dynamic", if that's the right word. If I change my signature it changes retroactively on all my old posts, too. But if we edit or delete a post that has been quoted, the quote doesn't change. This strikes me as particularly odd now that we have the little button that refers us back to the post that was quoted. (Am I making any sense here?)
> 
> I suppose I just don't understand, but it seems odd.


I know what you mean but it is not compatible with other functions. For example, I can take a sentence from your post that I want to comment on:

[quote="Nun-Translator, post: 1985186"]
What I don't understand is that signatures are "dynamic", if that's the right word.[/quote]

Now let's say that you do not like it stylistically and that you split it into two sentences. How could the software know how to deal with it? 

Or I can quote you without any clickable link to your post:

[quote=Nun-Translator]
 What I don't understand is that signatures are "dynamic", if that's the right word.[/quote]

Or even without your name:

[quote]
 What I don't understand is that signatures are "dynamic", if that's the right word.[/quote]

If I quote your signature, it will remain in the post forever even if you change it. So these are totally different things.

Jana


----------



## Nunty

OK, Jana. I believe you. 
(I'm a nun. Believing in things I don't always understand comes easy.)


----------



## Jana337

Nun-Translator said:


> OK, Jana. I believe you.
> (I'm a nun. Believing in things I don't always understand comes easy.)


Unlike your boss, I am not easily contented with belief - I want you to understand.   

Jana


----------



## roxcyn

Bonjules, that is very rude of the person to do that, and I thought our rules were to respect other people on this forum?


----------



## Nunty

Jana337 said:


> Unlike your boss, I am not easily contented with belief - I want you to understand.
> 
> Jana


So... please explain 

Here's my problem: The signature lives in the UCP, somewhere on the planet Server. It's saved, and if I change even one word of it, that change is reflected in both directions on the time line. A post I write lives somewhere in a forum on the planet Server. It's saved, too, and if I change even one word of it, that change remains forever more; i.e. going forward on the time line.

Now I write a post and someone quotes it. There's is a cute little button that refers someone to the entirety of my deathless prose in its original setting (i.e. going backwards on the time line). For instance, the person who quotes me makes lots of helpful changes to my spelling and grammar and does that in red. But if she clicks on the little button, the hapless reader is zapped back to my original post in all its misspelled and ungrammatical glory.

So there seems to be some kind of link between the clickable button and the original post.

Right so far?

My question, I think, is this: Since there is that link between the original post and its citation later on, why does the citation not reflect changes in the original? If I go back and edit my post with a huge note in even brighter red, saying (with apologies to Benjie): "That's not a mistake, you fashist moron; its inovashun", why doesn't that change appear in the citation?

In Bonjules case, if I click on the little button in the quoted post, I get beamed to a deleted post. Kind of weird, no?

Sorry, Jana, but you did say you want me to understand.


----------



## Jana337

> Right so far?


Right but: The 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





 thingy sends you back to the place where the quoted post is (the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 is brought about by inserting the post number into the quote tags).  The content is variable. It has to be this way because otherwise, quotations would no longer be editable. You couldn't pick a sentence of mine that you wish to react to.

There's nothing inherently special about quotations that would require the above; they are simply programmed that way. It would be technically possible (and quite easy I guess) to change the software so that quoted posts would be updated. In other words, posts would be like signatures. In that case, however, you would have to quote everyone in full and you couldn't write corrections inside the quote (yes, I know that you are against it anyway). It would also have adverse effects on the forum life: The thread logic would go awry because people wouldn't know what exactly you responded to. But that's another story.




> In Bonjules case, if I click on the little button in the quoted post, I get beamed to a deleted post. Kind of weird, no?


No (by the way, the case is under review), there's no little button because the poster did not quote a post from this forum but an e-mail notification. If you hit the quote button while the post is still alive, the 
	

	
	
		
		

		
		
	


	




 link will be there but you will get an error message once you try to click on it. If the post is deleted and you somehow know its content (from an e-mail notification), you can simply copy it and wrap it into [QUOTE][/QUOTE] but there will be no link. The morale: Even if the software worked "your" way, it would be impossible to stop this kind of unethical behavior.

Back to post edits: Actually, people tend to complain about the opposite: They reply and the poster changes the post, which often makes the reply nonsensical or worthless, or both. That's why the grace period for edits was shortened to one day.

Jana


----------



## Nunty

I'm hesitant to say it out loud, so I'll whisper: I think I understand now.
Thanks, Jana.


----------



## mkellogg

Bonjules,

As someone who doesn't reread many of his messages till after they have been posted and whose spelling is awful, I can guarantee you that I'll implement that feature if vBulletin ever makes it available!

Mike


----------

