Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

24
  • 2
    There are excellent reasons to leave the @reply intact, but IMO, this isn't it; the SE sites are wikis, and other people will edit your words. Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 2:27
  • 3
    This is a bit over-dramatic. No one is censoring your speech or putting words in your mouth. The system is just removing some clutter. If the system could also automatically correct comma usage accurately, I don't see how that would be a bad thing either. Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 15:09
  • 1
    Define clutter. Define clutter in such a way that you could clearly say greetings are clutter, and oxford commas are not; without simply asserting that. Greetings are a natural part of out speech so editing them out is a form of censorship. You may find it to be an acceptable form of one, but it is still one Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 21:54
  • 3
    Greetings and salutations are an eye sore. In my other job I've got to fix your problem no matter how nice or rude you are, why can't SO be the same? So save the time writing "Hello" or "Thanks" and include more code or debug output. Then again, I'm a left brained person who just wants folks to get to the point... Commented Jul 5, 2011 at 22:22
  • 1
    @BillyONeal There is a difference between editing for content and editing for style. Fixing typos and/or punctuation is not the same thing as changing the tone or writing style. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 0:37
  • 2
    @JockM: If I changed your variable names on SO, that'd be changing your style. Likewise if I only switched "doesn't" to "does not", that'd be changing your style. If I removed a "please help me" or a "thank you for your time good sirs and ma'ams", that'd be editing out extraneous fluff. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 0:42
  • 3
    @JockM: You didn't address the OP in your answer, "Dear T.J. Crowder", nor did you end it with "Sincerely, JockM" (I'm sure T.J. thought that was pretty rude </sarcasm>). These are equally extraneous. You cannot glean anything from "Hello" or "Thank you!!!!11!1one" which helps you answer their question (besides the obvious, "have you actually read the FAQ before posting on SO?"). Edits, manual or automatic, should increase signal and decrease noise. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 1:16
  • 2
    While I'm not sure I've seen it said quite so succinctly, I think most of the "rulings" on these types of issues are consistent with a "get to the point" philosophy. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 2:33
  • 2
    @sixlettervariables I don't want to enforce a style of mandatory greetings or endings in exactly the same way I don't want it enforced by automatically removing them. I am saying that what is signal and what is noise in these cases has no objective measure. They bother you, clearly, but they don't bother me (nor most people I know). So in that regard I agree with you that "Edits, manual or automatic, should increase signal and decrease noise", and would argue that if you cannot prove that something is signal or noise you shouldn't touch it. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 3:37
  • 1
    You know, those Oxford commas are a bit of an eyesore... ;-) Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 4:59
  • 2
    No, but seriously, within a question things like "Hi Fellow Coders!" may be standard social lube, but they don't increase clarity and thus removing them doesn't decrease it; for me, it's a different category. Removing the @ direction does reduce clarity. Irrespective of the notification system, comments may not be directed at the post owner. There's a difference between "Be careful doing this, it can bite you" and "@postowner: Be careful doing this, it can bite you." To remove my explicit direction when commenting is the thing I believe is wrong, unnecessary, and a waste of time. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 5:01
  • 1
    @sixlettervariables: Style is Jock's thing. Mine is the reduction of clarity, the unnecessary-ness, the waste of time (they're already having to fix bugs in it, and as any software developer will tell you, adding complexity increases maintenance hassles), and the intrusiveness. SO is wiki-like, I expect people (people) to edit my content to an extent. I don't expect a mindless system to strip out my explicit direction, which I've included for clarity, being (again) marginally smarter than the SE engine. :-) Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 11:58
  • 1
    @T.J. There is more at stake than simple clarity. I very much doubt if you did comprehension tests on posts with greetings and signoffs; and ones without that there would be any difference, and no one is attempting to come back with any kind of proof, just opinion. But removing this social lubricant can go a long way to making SO seem dryer, gruffer, less welcoming, more blunt. I encourage anyone to come back with a link to a study or test (or the like) that shows that removing any of these things has any effect on clarity or comprehension. Commented Jul 6, 2011 at 14:55
  • 4
    @JockM, unfortunately in this case the only opinion that matters is Jeffs. His is so tightly held that I'm not even sure proof would sway him, if all it proved is that there's no difference - you would need to prove that the lack of greetings was actively harmful, and there's a good chance that the proof would still be rejected. Commented Jul 11, 2011 at 17:33
  • 2
    @Mark And that is a shame. I personally believe that (to quote Carl Sagan) "extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." I can understand people who say greetings and thanks are not required. But to turn not required into damaging noise without a shred of any kind of any kind of proof makes no sense. But that's ok it's Jeff's playground, and I don't have to stay... Commented Jul 11, 2011 at 17:52