Search Ideas

Maybe allowing deletion of exact duplicates with no parents is reasonable?

Too niche/specific for an extra feature tbh. If accidental duplicates happened often, then maybe.

I don't think so; just having a Wall of posts on my profile is fine, no funny business. Here I was only hoping to delete an accidental mis-post. Maybe allowing deletion of exact duplicates with no parents is reasonable? But this is just a cleanliness/organizational thing, and kind of a fluke, probably not an issue worth spending much time on. (But I stand by #5143, and regardless of the size of the revision. Seems cleaner to me to only show the latest version, no diff.)

Discussions have an ‘Archive’ button for top-level posts. It looks like a box you’d put on a shelf in an archive.

Top-level profile posts could have such a button, too. And I could add an ‘Archived’ tab.

Would that help you achieve what you’re looking for?

… OP only generally responds to the latest version of a criticism …

I’m not sure that’s generally true. But regardless, OP should address all pending versions of a criticism.

I’m open to letting people contact me for serious cases (like accidentally posting their password or credit-card details). And then I can delete that content manually in the database.

Aside from that, we’d need to identify a case where simply criticizing a post isn’t enough. The criticism can state the reasons one would otherwise have for deleting a post.

Another problem with letting people delete posts is that others may have written a comment in the meantime, which they then can’t submit.

It can still mess up the continuity of discussions when the post to be deleted has parents.

Another choice: criticize one for being a duplicate. In the criticism, link to the original and instruct people to ignore the duplicate.

It does, but it has no universal way to semantically check why a criticism was generated this way. All it knows is that the criticism was generated as part of a superseding revision, but it doesn’t know the meaning of the contents of that revision.

But the system does have a way to identify automatically generated criticisms.

Yep. Was going to say this, too. The system has no semantic way to check the content of a criticism. So it has to assume that every unaddressed criticism is substantive.

But sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count toward the battle-tested badge!

But sometimes revisions can be substantive, and OP could defend against one version, and in that case it should count to the battle-tested badge!

I question whether previous versions of a criticism should contribute to the battle-tested count, as they do currently. Someone can make a spelling correction to the criticism, which creates the "supersedes" criticism of that previous version of the criticism, and that then contributes to the battle-tested count. This seems wrong, since that counter-criticism is not substantive, and even if it were, OP only generally responds to the latest version of a criticism (may not even have known about previous versions; all of this happened in: https://veritula.com/ideas/5089-knowledge-growth-such-as-in-genes-in-the-biospher).

Okay to allow for posts that have no comments or criticisms? Or only for posts on one's profile (perhaps also meeting that criterion)?

Deleting posts can really mess up the continuity of discussions, and allow for dishonesty.

No way to delete posts. Posted same thing twice by mistake (unexpected Chrome behavior). Choices are to leave the duplicate, which seems inelegant, or to revise it into another whole post, which I did, but that contributed to the issue in #5143 (creates an unclear green and red update post).

My profile shows my revision to #5126 under Wall and under Activity, but not the post itself under the Wall. The revision is a jumble of red and green highlighted text (in this case, because the revision was significant), hard to read. Wall should only show latest versions of posts, not edits to them. Edits should go under Activity. And/or have the previous post versions viewable with the little arrows, as usual (and as done in the idea-focused view, after you click on the idea itself). Always show latest versions of ideas on the Wall so it's clear and easy to read.

I agree this feature should be optional and toggleable but that doesn’t address its (potential) shortcomings. It just kinda hides them.

I’m saying it’s not clear to be how deeply nested comments would be shown.

If I’m understanding you correctly, you dislike having to scroll up and down in a discussion. You see empty space on the right and you think it should be filled. Hence your suggestion to put top-level ideas next to each other rather than on top of each other.

But then where do comments on each top-level idea go? Do they still go underneath? Nesting needs indentation. So that means deep nesting gets lots of indentation. So there’ll still be plenty of empty space.

Those are the kinds of things we’d need to figure out to have a mature design proposal ready for implementation.

Removed hyphenation

This may be too subjective, but I've always really disliked end-of-line hyphenation, of the kind currently used here. I find it pretty disruptive to the flow of reading, AND a source of visual clutter. That's a heavy cost for the supposed benefit of a justified margin, but we don't seem to be getting that benefit here either; the margin still appears jagged. A justified margin itself is unnecessary, if you ask me, but it can in any case be accomplished the other way, where small spaces are distributed between words in each line as needed. To me the latter method of the two is better for readability, no contest. I would advocate for the third/default method, here (jagged margin, no funny business), since justified margins seems needlessly formal.

Yeah, I'm not sure why I wrote this... I remember the option for number of criticisms now. I guess it slipped my mind.

Thanks, fixed.

Maybe I’m misunderstanding you, but that’s how standing bounties work already.

When you fund a standing bounty, you set the number of criticisms you’re willing to pay for, and the amount for each.

If that’s something you want to do for your current bounty, you still can, before current funding runs out.

See also “How Do Bounties Work?”