SMF Development > Feature Requests

Requires admin re-approval if post modified by poster upon approval

<< < (4/5) > >>

emanuele:
* emanuele imagines people changing their posts 1 char at the time just to pass the "fix-the-typo" permission... :P
This is one of those "do-or-not" things if you want to have it right, IMHO.

BTW: mod is the way at the moment, IMHO. :)

Elmacik:
* Elmacik thinks that emanuele is very tired and doesn't like to read long posts
As I said before, by this way of thinking; we would have never needed post moderation system; as the moderator already had the power to edit/delete the *bad* message after it had been posted.

* Elmacik thinks for the second time; well, discussion is a discussion

emanuele:
At the time it was half an hour I was awake, so not particularly tired. :P

I don't understand where you read in my post that we shouldn't have the moderation.

I said that if we have to have this feature it must work for *any* kind of change, otherwise the way to workaround it can be found rather easily unless you put *a lot* of efforts in try to identify typos and/or legitimate changes to a post.
And: at that moment a mod would "demonstrate" how important is that feature to the other users.

So, please tell me where I said we shouldn't have post moderation.

That said, what the rational behind that feature?
The rational of the post moderation is usually fight spam.
The rational of this feature is...well, all I can think of is for forums that have a board that act as a market place or advertisement (like our showcase, I'm not saying sm.org wouldn't benefit from this feature), where people are allowed to post under moderation because the moderator shall review the posts before having them visible.
Now, I don't know how wide is the use of boards as market place/showcases, that's why I suggested a mod: 12000 downloads in a month would be a clear demonstration that this feature is highly needed, a single request from a single user that needs it well...Do you see my point? ;)

Elmacik:
Of course you didn't say we don't need post moderation; I said "in your way of thinking, we wouldn't need".

Because you said:

--- Quote from: emanuele ---once the post is approved moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post
--- End quote ---

Now I say, in this sentence, replace the word "approved" with "posted" and see what happens. Lets look at it together :)


--- Quote ---once the post is posted moderators and admins have the power to change or delete that post
--- End quote ---

OK, as you see, if you object the idea just because moderators already have the power to delete the *bad* post; just as well they have the power to delete *bad* posts after they are posted without post moderation. So, someone who objects "edit moderation" should have objected "post moderation" too by the same reason because the same reason applies.

emanuele:
You already made this point few posts ago:

--- Quote from: Elmacik on May 07, 2012, 12:15:39 PM ---Without post moderation, the moderator already had the power to edit or delete the post after it was posted. If we think this way; then post moderation won't be needed either. :) I agree on unapprove button, its better I think.

--- End quote ---
that's why I was surprised you pick it up again after my previous post...

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

[*] Previous page