Some deleted posts by moderators seem to be unnecessary actions

[LoyceV]

I noticed another problem with merging posts: I sent 12 Merits to this post, which was deleted and merged with this post. My Merit was meant to highlight a post that's worth reading, and although the user still owns the Merit, the fact that the Merit doesn't show anymore is bad.

[philipma1957]

I noticed another problem with merging posts: I sent 12 Merits to this post, which was deleted and merged with this post. My Merit was meant to highlight a post that's worth reading, and although the user still owns the Merit, the fact that the Merit doesn't show anymore is bad.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3558380

If you scroll his merits received it shows you gave 12 to a deleted post

While in fact the post was merged.


It is misleading it makes it look like you do not have good judgement and give merits to posts so bad they get deleted.

[JollyGood]

I noticed another problem with merging posts: I sent 12 Merits to this post, which was deleted and merged with this post. My Merit was meant to highlight a post that's worth reading, and although the user still owns the Merit, the fact that the Merit doesn't show anymore is bad.

I am surprised it had not been noticed before. I suppose the merit system was not taken in to account when posts are merged. It defeats the object of giving merits to a post in the first place if the merits are with the receiver but others cannot see the merits associated with that post. This is something that should be discussed.

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?action=merit;u=3558380

If you scroll his merits received it shows you gave 12 to a deleted post

While in fact the post was merged.


It is misleading it makes it look like you do not have good judgement and give merits to posts so bad they get deleted.

As a temporary solution to problem that requires further debate and until a permanent outcome via consensus is agreed, it might be worth considering to make it impossible for moderators to either delete or merge merited posts.

[Cricktor]

As a temporary solution to problem that requires further debate and until a permanent outcome via consensus is agreed, it might be worth considering to make it impossible for moderators to either delete or merge merited posts.

You're joking, aren't you?

If users stopped violating rule #32, there would be no merge issues to cry about. It's rather simple to me, pay attention to rule #32!

[LoyceV]

If users stopped violating rule #32, there would be no merge issues to cry about. It's rather simple to me, pay attention to rule #32!

If the last post in a topic is updated instead of creating a new one, it doesn't show up in the Watchlist. It's even worse if it's a long post: users following that topic have to waste time reading the post again to find out what was edited.

[hilariousandco]

As a temporary solution to problem that requires further debate and until a permanent outcome via consensus is agreed, it might be worth considering to make it impossible for moderators to either delete or merge merited posts.

That would be a terrible idea. People would just merit posts so they can't be removed. People merit plagiarized and AI posts all the time as they can initially look well thought out. If you merit a post and it gets deleted they still have the merit it just isn't shown what for so it's no big deal. Alternatively, I guess mods could choose to keep the newer post and merge it the non-merited one if possible.

Decided to unlock the thread because another group of posts from a long time ago were deleted in the Premier League thread. Some of the posts were probably consecutive because the thread is self-moderated and I deleted low quality posts (or those from farmed accounts and signature spammers).

Regardless of the member in question, is it necessary for moderators to be that eager to delete 16 posts at a time? In my opinion, this seems to be an excessive action.

It's because the reports are coming in on them. I don't think it is a big deal and they're probably being unnecessarily reported not to mention they're time consuming to handle and edit, but at the end of the day they still technically break the rules, as annoying as it may be for all involved.

Honestly... there's something here that's not adding up. I'm getting confused myself...

~

Clearly, these generic messages, with no explanation for the deletion, make no sense. Things could be a little more transparent. Otherwise, things won't change because people are left wondering what they did wrong.

The generic messages not explaining why the posts were deleted is the frustrating part.

I scrolled up and discovered that that post was from 2022. Maybe it was bumped and the moderator decided to delete all the posts after it was bumped. That shouldn't be the best approach because the post is still open and anyone could just bump it still.

As no explanation (apart from the generic delete message) was given, you are left wondering what was actually wrong with the post to the degree a moderator deleted it. Certainly not the best approach.

It's understandably annoying and I have requested in the past an option to state why a post is removed as a lot of people are often completely unaware or what rule was broken.

[Cricktor]

If the last post in a topic is updated instead of creating a new one, it doesn't show up in the Watchlist.

Is this really a frequent enough issue, that someone has an update to a post within less than 24h of his last post?

And if the last post hasn't received any merits than simply save the content, delete your last post and post a new one with your update appended, clearly marking what has been updated. Should work for the Watchlist, shouldn't it?

It's even worse if it's a long post: users following that topic have to waste time reading the post again to find out what was edited.

You can add some clear markings to help users to identify your new edit/update to the recent post. Maybe like:

<previous content>

Last edit:
...

[KingsDen]

As a temporary solution to problem that requires further debate and until a permanent outcome via consensus is agreed, it might be worth considering to make it impossible for moderators to either delete or merge merited posts.

You're joking, aren't you?

If users stopped violating rule #32, there would be no merge issues to cry about. It's rather simple to me, pay attention to rule #32!

If post A was merited and Post B is without a merit, then B should be merged to A and not the reverse. Does it even make sense? Is one post merged with another, or does it mean that when posts are merged, both A and B losses their original and then co-exists like Post C.

I don't know if you guys understand me. With what LoyceV discovered, it would be bad for merits given to a quality post be transferred or shared by a low quality post.

[joker_josue]

If the last post in a topic is updated instead of creating a new one, it doesn't show up in the Watchlist.

Is this really a frequent enough issue, that someone has an update to a post within less than 24h of his last post?

And if the last post hasn't received any merits than simply save the content, delete your last post and post a new one with your update appended, clearly marking what has been updated. Should work for the Watchlist, shouldn't it?

I think the OP of a topic should never be subject to this type of situation.
If the content is not spam or clearly a forced bump, the OP should have the autonomy to post as many posts in a row as they deem appropriate, even in a period of less than 24 hours.

I think this rule is being looked at very literally, and not based on what it was created for. This rule was created to reduce spam, or to reduce errors from users who respond to others in different posts, instead of in a single post.

Now if at 8am it was important to pass on information about a service or something like that, and then at 2pm it becomes important again to pass on information, the OP wouldn't have to wait for someone to make a post between these two periods, nor would he have to delete the history (which can serve as a log) of what is happening.

Forcing a post in the middle of this period promotes spam more than the OP making 2 posts at different times, about different points.

[philipma1957]

If the last post in a topic is updated instead of creating a new one, it doesn't show up in the Watchlist.

Is this really a frequent enough issue, that someone has an update to a post within less than 24h of his last post?

And if the last post hasn't received any merits than simply save the content, delete your last post and post a new one with your update appended, clearly marking what has been updated. Should work for the Watchlist, shouldn't it?

It's even worse if it's a long post: users following that topic have to waste time reading the post again to find out what was edited.

You can add some clear markings to help users to identify your new edit/update to the recent post. Maybe like:

<previous content>

Last edit:
...

Yeah on my 7 or 8 years of posting Difficulty

It has caused issues.

And since the difficulty estimate constantly changes every second I have run into a lot m of issues with it.

Not so much any m ore and the promotions and btc giveaways ended a few years back as mining became commercial vs home oriented.

And in loyces memory is empty thread please consolidate your wallets it is still an issue.

[LoyceV]

Is this really a frequent enough issue, that someone has an update to a post within less than 24h of his last post?

Sometimes. But the problem is bigger than that: posts made days later are also merged.

And if the last post hasn't received any merits than simply save the content, delete your last post and post a new one with your update appended, clearly marking what has been updated. Should work for the Watchlist, shouldn't it?

That works for the Watchlist, but doesn't feel right: when I am in a signature campaign, I don't want to remove a post (that I got paid for!) to repost it with a small edit. Even though it isn't related to forum rules, it feels wrong.

[joker_josue]

Is this really a frequent enough issue, that someone has an update to a post within less than 24h of his last post?

Sometimes. But the problem is bigger than that: posts made days later are also merged.

And if the last post hasn't received any merits than simply save the content, delete your last post and post a new one with your update appended, clearly marking what has been updated. Should work for the Watchlist, shouldn't it?

That works for the Watchlist, but doesn't feel right: when I am in a signature campaign, I don't want to remove a post (that I got paid for!) to repost it with a small edit. Even though it isn't related to forum rules, it feels wrong.

The job of a moderator is not easy - I've been a moderator on other forums and I know what it's like.

However, the moderator should not look at posts individually, but rather at the entire context of the topic. Of course, there are posts that clearly need to be deleted or merged, but others are made in more detail, and the context of the entire topic must be analyzed to see if it makes sense or not.

It bothers me more to browse the forum and see posts/topics with just ".", than to find two posts in a row from the same author that make sense and are from different contexts.

I've already set an example on TalkImg. If the service goes down for maintenance at any point, I want to be free to report it here, regardless of who was the last person to post in the thread. If the service resumes after 3 or 4 hours, I want to be free to come here again to report, without waiting for someone to have posted something before (in fact, why post, if there is nothing to say?). In turn, I would also like this information to serve as a log for the entire community, to understand how long the service was down and when it started and came back. Merging this type of post will break this information. You might say "the forum isn't for that," but I ask: Why isn't it? Isn't it a forum-related service? Even if it weren't a forum-related service, if it's a service designed for the community and heavily supported by the forum, why can't it do this?

[JollyGood]

I have had another 12 posts deleted today. Some are not in the Premier League thread. 

Clearly if a rule is broken and as a result moderators take action, I suppose the matter is settled however not being given a reason (for the post being deleted) is a concern. There has to be an alternative to the generic message.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Now, after a deeper look the feedback history of BenCodie it seems he has been selling stolen accounts in the past. Granted it goes back to 2016 but he also has accusations of scamming.

For those who might not have seen it, it is an apt time to mention I created a thread in June 2023 that is worthy of a read because of the very many good ideas put forward by members of the community during the discussion: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

[BenCodie]

I have had another 12 posts deleted today. Some are not in the Premier League thread. 

Clearly if a rule is broken and as a result moderators take action, I suppose the matter is settled however not being given a reason (for the post being deleted) is a concern. There has to be an alternative to the generic message.

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by a Bitcoin Forum moderator. Posts are most frequently deleted because they are off-topic, though they can also be deleted for other reasons. In the future, please avoid posting things that need to be deleted.

Now, after a deeper look the feedback history of BenCodie it seems he has been selling stolen accounts in the past. Granted it goes back to 2016 but he also has accusations of scamming.

For those who might not have seen it, it is an apt time to mention I created a thread in June 2023 that is worthy of a read because of the very many good ideas put forward by members of the community during the discussion: Tagging Accounts Sellers And Tagging Traded/Sold/Bought Accounts

Where is the link to this quote? I was not selling 'stolen accounts'. They were torrent accounts, anyone who is familiar with torrent account trading will know how their shelf life works. These are meaningless feedbacks. I never scammed anyone. Why getting some untrusted feedbacks from 2016 and using it in 2025? Even the most trustworthy members on this forum have false untrusted feedbacks. The post was probably deleted because of how inaccurate it was. Do better, and then maybe your posts won't get deleted. How about an apology while you're at it?

[hosemary]

The post was probably deleted because of how inaccurate it was. Do better, and then maybe your posts won't get deleted. How about an apology while you're at it?

No. Feedback is not moderated and this means that moderators don't evaluate the accuracy of feedback at all.
Therefore, for whatever reason JollyGood's post was deleted, it had nothing to do with whether the feedback was accurate or not.

Most probably, moderators deleted that post due to JollyGood posting in a row.