I realize so but the problem with Conejín’s reasoning is that preferences should be “respected”. Swearing is not NSFW but I will use an example anyways.
What if you like swearing a lot?
How the f*** do I fix my f****** reload script.
You might prefer profanity but that isn’t allowed here to an extent.
Like I said, I agree with the overall message but they’re not very good examples.
A better example would be “You’re misleading users, you cannot mislead users because it’s a preference.”
A post such as “How do I code?” is misleading. It’s under the assumption you’re asking for advice on how to code for first the time. However, the title “How do I code a gun to shoot?” is not misleading and it gives you the help you’re looking for.
Otra vez, lo implicaste
Let’s be specific always. @aelzc shows some good examples
Better example, thank you for clearing it up. I tried a better example, was probably looking at the wrong thing.
So, do i need to make another example? Well, i will make it:
Noobie paps: Potatos of watermelon
Noobie paps: Delicious potatos with some awesome flavours, one of them is watermelon!
Some summaries are required to be vague, to keep it short and simple.
For anybody wondering, that means you have complicated it again. I’m not complicating nothing, i’m just saying the truth, or i should say always lies?
I would like to stop continuing this discussion, which is making me upset.
Still adding extra words and not a summary.
A summary would be like I just said. You could just ask “How do I code?” but it’s NOT adding extra words to say “How do I code a gun to shoot?”
I don’t get what you’re attempting to prove with that as an example when it’s not a summary.
The summary would be “Potatoes and watermelons are delicious”, the summary would NOT be “Potatos of watermelon” OR “Delicious potatos with some awesome flavours, one of them is watermelon!”
Edit: So both of the examples you’ve shown are not summaries.
Yes, you don’t want to write a paragraph in your title. However, what you’re claiming is a summary when it is in fact not a summary and is in fact misleading.
But this is still a summary. And that’s what most of the people is doing.
It is, as i said. And i want to stop with examples right now.
It is in fact not a summary. It was words added, it did not summarize what you were talking about. You can claim it was a summary, but it’s not.
Ok after a while what I think you mean is not to bloat your titles.
Like
How do I fix my blue-icon script that reloads a gun called “Noob Killer 1337” which is located in StarterPack which itself is in the game?
That would be a bad title, as it presents too much information that would be unhelpful alone.
As I said before, if a few more words means your goal is clearer, go for it. You just fail to accept we have refuted your arguments. That is not constructive.
That’s still a summary, i will keep saying that, if you are saying that i should be more specific, then i will be more specific, and when im being specific, then the summary doesn’t becomes a summary anymore.
What do you mean with refuted arguments.
It’s not. By definition it wasn’t. It’s legitimately not. Can you please point out how it’s a summary?
Nope! Not true. I already gave you an example. You don’t have to bloat your titles.
“Potatos of watermelon” is too vague. It does not provide any context, information or anything else for the reader to understand.
“Delicious potatos with some awesome flavours, one of them is watermelon!” This is useless information, information that does not clarify anything. It does not add anything, it does not summarize, it actually takes away from your post all together.
“Potatoes and watermelons are delicious” provides all of the context needed, summarizes what the main post will be about and clarifies to the reader what subjects are being mentioned in what context. It’s short, it’s a summary, it’s simple and it’s easy.
Ok, i will make my last example:
The dog is walking.
Look Carl the dog in the garden, where he is walking happy.
If you are saying there’s useless information in the example, here it is, and this is becoming off topic to this thread, and we should stop in this discussion.
Still… not a very good example. It’s still adding extra words.
“Carl walked the dog in the garden” is the correct summary.
However, I agree. I’m tired of repeating myself over and over.
Hmm, so i guess your example that you gave before was also having extra words. And now i will stop replying to anything here.
You’ve said many times you’ve wanted to end the discussion. (It does not feel like it’s being dropped despite us both agreeing it should.) However, to clarify; it wasn’t adding extra words. If you can point out the extra words, that’d be great.
Edit: I responded before I saw your edit.
Edit 2: Edited phrasing
The last few posts are getting pedantic about the matter which is not what we hoped for. We’re completely open to feedback about what goes on in the forum which is why this category exists, but I think it’s taken too far a turn away from the original subject of the post. Please keep things on topic.
The point of the matter is that some users are upset that volunteers in positions with elevated permissions are making edits to posts where unwanted and it’s been said many times why this is the case or what potential ways to rectify the situation are. The core of the issue has been covered but if you want to discuss more about that then feel free.
I’ve said my piece already so I don’t care to reword it. It’s up to you to determine whether what I’ve said resonates with you or not; and the same with anyone else who has been adding in to this conversation.
The only way we’re going to get around to recognising and addressing the issue, should one be present, is to talk about the issue that was directly raised as opposed to specific branching examples. Each case of an edit is unique. Like I said, we have clear cut guidelines.
Guidelines don’t mean rules, they’re just a set of tenets for us to follow. Obviously we’re also expected to respect the OP’s decisions with their posts (i.e. if they countermand an edit), use common sense when applying edits and not do something absurd.
The Developer Engagement Team is a highly involved moderation team for the forums and they are more than happy to help you with any issues you are encountering on the forums so long as you raise issues to their attention (they look around too, so it’s not just passive moderation). For matters beyond discussing the subject of the OP specifically, feel free to touch base with them.
This will be the last I comment on this topic, responses given or not. If you’re up to talk, send me a private message and I will be more than happy to sit down and discuss.
Let us know if you reach a resolution on this topic and I can mark your response as the solution @coefficients
Okay maybe I’m a little late to the party but I’ll throw in my opinion to the mix.
The idea of free speech is not recognized in most places - in fact, if you consider hate speech as a part of speech, I’m pretty sure there are laws against hurtful or inappropriate speech. And more often than not, as many Post Approval members and other DevForum people have mentioned, there are tenets and guidelines that we agree to when we sign up for the DevForum, or any organizational setting. This is how life works, we are not all barbarians and most people agree that chaos is not a good model for how we should live out our lives. The moderators here have all the power that is given to them to do what they wish with said power. If they can edit posts, hoorah. If they can change the wording of your title, then there isn’t much in our own power we can do, except, you know, re-editing.
But I agree with Soybeen.
Look, Roblox is not a communist organization. Sure we sign to give them the rights for many things we do on the website, and this is like any organization that provides the user with an interface such as this. But we have some say in what goes, and what doesn’t. We are the developers, without us Roblox can’t thrive the way it does now. And it’s nice to see that we are able to communicate on issues we disagree with in the first place; very few organizations will allow low-level members to negotiate and discuss the guidelines on which the organization is built. So we have a lot going for us and I think we should consider that as a huge benefit. And I think I’ll reiterate for the amount of times Soybeen has tried to make this clear, this is outside the issue that was brought up. We already know these things, and we are grateful for the opportunity we get to act on issues we have.
All we want is for our own words to be left alone - and I think this is substantial. This is really important and anyone who has studied a second language will know that meaning can easily get lost in translation. And perhaps the forum here is in English, but as you might find in this thread, not everyone is a native English speaker. And there are some younger folks probably who have less experience using fancy lingo or are unaware of how to concisely form their title to propagate their message. It seems that this is one of the main points people on this thread keep bringing up - these “harder to find” titles or “difficult to understand” or “conveys the wrong meaning” phrases are detrimental to the forum functioning properly. That they cause latency in finding a correct reply and in searching for existing threads.
But that is not an excuse to reform the title, even if the intention was to keep the sanctity of the original meaning and make it clearer for other users. This is washing away our identity and it is actually a form of censorship that is not acceptable in many, almost all, dare I say, organizations. Soybeen requested that there should be a feature that notifies users that this title is not the original author’s title. I don’t see the difficulty in doing this, not at all. We have terrain generation, UIGradients and advanced materials and lighting - is it that difficult to implement something like this? Correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m pretty sure the big up-and-coming features in Studio completely blow away the work that it would take to add in a little editor notice.
And if you feel confused at this point because I said Roblox can do whatever they want, I’ll reiterate again that WE have a say in what works and what doesn’t. We don’t have to be blind to whatever the guidelines may be and we can definitely improve upon what already exists. I’ve seen some arguments saying that we should follow rules and guidelines, but I want to remind those of you who believe so - who came up with these rules? What makes them fundamentally right? Roblox doesn’t have a monopoly on what is right or wrong, and they acknowledge this by letting us discuss what should and shouldn’t be allowed on their site. We have a right to voice our opinion. If our words get changed, then it is common practice that an editor is attributed to said post.
That is what we are asking for here. And I’m not going to repeat the many suggestions that have been given for applying a system like this or functionally similar, there are many. Even if there are folks here who “trust” the moderators, not everyone knows them personally and not everyone can blindly trust others on the internet to understand their intentions. If you want to relabel what we say in our titles, just add a little tick saying you guys edited it. It really isn’t that difficult.
For those interested, I haven’t actually written a post or title, so if that takes away from what I said, I don’t mind but really this reply I’ve made is just a summary of what I have read from the opinions here with a little bit of my own thrown in.
I’m pretty surprised to see this thread come from a reasonable developer.
The reason thread titles are edited is the same as why threads which are deleted by the OP after being “solved” are restored: the forum is a community resource. If threads are taken down pending a category change or rename, then other developers lose out on the ability to support that feature request or get a bug fixed because engineers can’t see the hidden thread.
So, assuming thread name changes are limited to semantics, ask yourself: what are the objective benefits of threads being closed instead of having titles edited? Does it benefit the community in any way? Does it actually provide a benefit to whoever’s thread was edited past a petty “I feel good about myself”? If these objective benefits exist, are they more important to the community than the benefits of editing titles?
Feelings are meaningless because one person may feel like threads should be closed, but another feels like they should be renamed. Feelings don’t get us anywhere except mob rule. Unless you can provide tangible, factual reasoning, then this conversation doesn’t amount to much.
I have to disagree strongly, for every reason @tralalah posted above. I don’t believe anyone should get to affect the words I post (especially anonymously), no matter the convenience it makes for them. I’m not so interested in convenience at the expense of what I believe are universal liberties we should all enjoy and uphold.
I’m also not taking an emotional standpoint. I’ve come to these conclusions practically, and logically, extended from deeper personal values.
This applies to any media.
Edit: I have had experiences in the past here where far more than semantics were edited into, and out of my posts. It is not just about the title example posted by buildthomas earlier in the thread- that was very minor but still a breach of the same principle.