Editing someone else's post

[Q-C]

There is no harm omitting material from a post so long as what you omit doesn't change the meaning. I do this for the long-winded folk (although truth be told I rarely read anything more than three paragraphs). It's best to avoid omitting stuff in the middle of a sentence and if you do be sure to put ellipses in to show it.

I have noticed some people boldface the parts being quoted that they remark on. This is not standard and could be deemed changing the meaning subtly, but I suppose so long as one attaches a "boldface mine" it is fair enough.

Yeah, another forum I was on, you needed to acknowledge if you boldface or underline or italicize a quote so I always do.

Plus, *snipping* was highly frowned upon. Entire quotes were the norm.

[Frank Merton]

I thought *snipping* was what monitors do if they remove unacceptable stuff from the original quote. It isn't standard but I suppose that doesn't matter because what has happened is clear enough.

[Still Waters]

I think you guys are forgetting something here. Whatever you do or don't do to edit a quoted post, the original version of the post is still visible on the forums for all to see.

It's always a good idea not to quote the whole post you're replying to when it's a long one, it's unnecessary too when you can cut out the parts that aren't relevant.

While we're on the subject of quoting posts - Time and time again we see members coming into a newly posted topic and quote the entire OP with their reply. There's no need to do this because if you're the first person to respond in a thread it's obvious who/what you're quoting.

[Q-C]

I thought *snipping* was what monitors do if they remove unacceptable stuff from the original quote. It isn't standard but I suppose that doesn't matter because what has happened is clear enough.

I meant "snipping" as in any member only quoting a part of a quote. I might misuse the word.

Stranger things have happened. See OP.

Edited June 5, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Space Commander Travis]

the thing that i always find really really funny is when someone alters what someone says in a post they're quoting so it says something funny or hilarious, usually to insult the person they're quoting, and they say "fixed that for ya". I find that so funny and clever.

[Space Commander Travis]

Plus, *snipping* was highly frowned upon. Entire quotes were the norm.

That's perfectly reasonable to save space, and I think is a courtesy to the reader, if you just want to reply to a particular bit. Like I did there in fact.

[Q-C]

That's perfectly reasonable to save space, and I think is a courtesy to the reader, if you just want to reply to a particular bit. Like I did there in fact.

Agreed! Sure is easier and shorter. But this particular forum preferred quotes in their entirety. Saved having to **re-read the original (however you locate it) and to check for accuracy** anyway when the argument/debate was about context. And "what I actually said was".

Which isn't uncommon.

** added underlined when edited post**

Edited June 5, 2014 by QuiteContrary

[Junior Chubb]

I checked the rules and there is no rule. But we all agree that you shouldn't do it. What a can of worms that'd be!

I have had the opposite happen to me...

I pasted a link from something completely irrelevant into a post after losing track of what was in my clipboard. It was picked up on and quoted by another user who pointed it out. Luckily enough it was soon enough to edit my original post but the suspect link was trapped for eternity out of my reach in the other users post where he quoted me.

[Junior Chubb]

That's perfectly reasonable to save space, and I think is a courtesy to the reader, if you just want to reply to a particular bit. Like I did there in fact.

Especially with images, threads are harder to follow if broken up with the same image repeated over and over. Images, large reams of text and embedded videos are all fair game IMO.

You can also edit a post after some has 'liked' it to create some interesting results

Edited June 5, 2014 by Junior Chubb

[Q-C]

Haha! That's what *unlike* is for...^^^

[lightly]

I have had something completely irrelevant pasted in my clipboard after losing track of what link was picked up on and quoted by another user who was original but suspect.

Luckily enough ,it was soon pointed out by the other users post where he quoted me from a post out of my reach enough to edit my post.

The link was me trapped for eternity in the opposite I was into. It happen to a it.....

Edited by Junior Chubb, 05 June 2014 - 04:49 PM.

yup, it can get confusing when you mess with other's posts.

Junior Chubb likes this

Edited June 9, 2014 by lightly

[Space Commander Travis]

Actually, one thing that can get confusing is that the time it says on a post is one's local time, and this can, as I'm sure we're aware, vary according to where you are in the world. This can mean that if someone quotes a Post, it can have a different time on it to the time that it says on it for you. This can be particularly confusing if they don't quote it using the quote buttoon, but copy & paste it.

[Frank Merton]

That's perfectly reasonable to save space, and I think is a courtesy to the reader, if you just want to reply to a particular bit. Like I did there in fact.

I agree with that but care must be taken that what is left out didn't deal with your criticism or something unfair of that sort.

I don't know how many times I've been tempted to correct some egregious mistake in what I'm quoting, and in normal scholarly quotes that is allowed (better than a "[sic]") if one doesn't want the person you quote's mistake to interfere with the points being made and the correction is just that and not a form of oneupmanship or change. I don't do that here because it's agin' the rules.

[Frank Merton]

A mistake I make now and then that I would dearly appreciate someone "fixing" is when I type "now" when I meant to type "not," and of course my spell-checker doesn't catch it. Hence, I say, 'My opinion about that is now such and such" when my intent was "My opinion about that is not such and such," kinda the opposite. Must really confuse people.

[Junior Chubb]

Junior Chubb likes this

He certainly does

[Likely Guy]

I agree with that but care must be taken that what is left out didn't deal with your criticism or something unfair of that sort.

I don't know how many times I've been tempted to correct some egregious mistake in what I'm quoting, and in normal scholarly quotes that is allowed (better than a "[sic]") if one doesn't want the person you quote's mistake to interfere with the points being made and the correction is just that and not a form of oneupmanship or change. I don't do that here because it's agin' the rules.

I have a hard time believing that English wasn't your first language.

*just sayin'*