Humor will not be tolerated!! -Portia

Marduk wrote:But can I help it if the man is brilliant?

And handsome.

krebscout wrote:

Marduk wrote:But can I help it if the man is brilliant?

And handsome.

Woah there. That's a little explicit.

Marduk wrote:I'll admit, some of it just might be my pride getting hurt, but when you've offered in the double digits of corrections to incorrect or incomplete information, and been told every time "we're sorry, we know this is factual information, but we don't like the idea of being corrected" and then also see any sort of criticism laid out here, in this board ESPECIALLY for the reader response to board questions, it gets to you eventually.

For what it's worth, the only Board people who even see comments before they're accepted are the editors. (Also admins, but they don't handle rejections.) As such, please remember my previous plea not to take out your frustration on an entire group because you have a problem with a few of them.

However, I really have to defend the editors. (No, I'm not talking about myself here.) I happen to know that they aren't particularly prideful people; I cannot imagine any of them saying "We know this is factual information, but we don't like the idea of being corrected." They do have a fairly strict comment policy, as far as I can tell, but that has nothing to do with being full of themselves and not wanting to admit that the Board can be wrong. You seem to be reading the wrong motive into their actions.

(Where did you get that idea, anyway? Currently comments simply disappear if they're rejected; there's no rejection reason like with rejected questions, so it's not from there.)

I for one would like a rejection message. That way we can better learn what is a good comment. Or we could see more into the minds of the all powerful editors, either way it would be a win for the readers. Also, a better guideline for comments might help improve the number and quality of comments, since that has been mentioned. They could even use the guideline as a form rejection. "Comment does not meet guidelines".

I would like a comment rejection message, but not for that reason. I only tried to submit a comment once since the change-over. And it said "comment waiting for approval", and then when I returned to the home page it was gone. I had no way of knowing if an editor rejected my comment within 2 minutes of me adding it, or if the computer dumped it somehow. So I just had to let it go.

I agree, I think a rejection message would be nice; CPM mentioned something about adding one, I think in the form of an e-mail sent at the time of rejection. To my knowledge that hasn't happened yet, but I think it's a good idea.

Marduk. Awwww. For sweet! I always try not to be offensive, but I always fear I am. I can be rather opinionated at times. Which is why I've tried so hard in this conversation to show that I'm being curious, not argumentative.

And I just wanna correct one thing. You said you were surprised that I thought you had nothing good to say about ANY writers. That is untrue. I said, "But I rarely hear you say good things about writers. At least in general. It's very possible you've said great things about specific writers or specific questions." I was trying to say that I don't hear you say good things about the general category of writers. Y'know, the lumped sum of them. Individual writers I'll grant you. And you just proved me to be right there! Wooo!

LJ, almost all of my comments were submitted before the changeover. I'm also including in that list corrections I've made through the forums here. And of course, they would never say that they aren't accepting a comment because they don't like being corrected, but when they agonize over minute details or the technical aspect of how it is submitted, that's how it comes across. To me, if a comment or correction has good content, I would find a way to get it submitted, rather than (what seems like) finding a reason to reject it.

Marduk wrote:LJ, almost all of my comments were submitted before the changeover. I'm also including in that list corrections I've made through the forums here. And of course, they would never say that they aren't accepting a comment because they don't like being corrected, but when they agonize over minute details or the technical aspect of how it is submitted, that's how it comes across. To me, if a comment or correction has good content, I would find a way to get it submitted, rather than (what seems like) finding a reason to reject it.

I don't know about that, I've never had a problem getting a comment through. I've had a few rejected, but I knew that I was pushing one or more of the limits when I submitted it and expected its rejection. I've even had some get through that expected to get rejected.

The differences in experience may be part of the misunderstanding of intent. I don't believe I've had a comment rejected, and prior to applying the majority of my contact with the board was via comments. Granted, this was some time ago; so the capricious comment-cutting editors may have been in the window between then and now.

For the record, I feel like the editors have done a great job of editing out my comments. I am looking over "My Questions;" I have 56 altogether and I'd say about 45 of those are comments. I think the editors have edited out about 15 of those. Every single one they edited out clearly fit in the "not accepted" category (just stating opinion, redundant, etc.) while all of my accepted ones had some substantial fact or source to expound the answer.

-wired

P.S. My favorite comment that got rejected was this: "RE: Board Question #43460 - It should be noted to the reader that people such as werf, the raving anti-Utahn, who hate places because of the high concentration of Mormons in the culture, will absolutely hate the Celestial Kingdom. You might want to work that one out.

-wired, who hopes this comment is constructive enough to be added and who is not from Utah"

I figured there had to be sometime I could post it.

My comments have been accepted or rejected seemingly based on the whim of the editor considering it. I hope this is still the case.

wired wrote:It should be noted to the reader that people such as werf, the raving anti-Utahn, who hate places because of the high concentration of Mormons in the culture, will absolutely hate the Celestial Kingdom. You might want to work that one out.

Awesome.

Marduk wrote:LJ, almost all of my comments were submitted before the changeover. I'm also including in that list corrections I've made through the forums here. And of course, they would never say that they aren't accepting a comment because they don't like being corrected, but when they agonize over minute details or the technical aspect of how it is submitted, that's how it comes across. To me, if a comment or correction has good content, I would find a way to get it submitted, rather than (what seems like) finding a reason to reject it.

For what it's worth (not much, because I'm not in charge of accepting/rejecting comments), I agree with you that being rejected on a technicality would be really annoying.

Also, your earlier statement makes much more sense now that you've explained that "we're sorry, we know this is factual information, but we don't like the idea of being corrected" was how you felt, and not what they were actually saying. However, the way you presented it ("been told every time", followed by a statement in quotation marks) made it seem like you were either quoting, or at least paraphrasing, something they had actually told you. Maybe you were just trying to use hyperbole, but it comes across to me as putting words in their mouth. Maybe you could be more explicit next time? Discussions go more smoothly when no one feels like they're being misrepresented.

Hrmm, that's funny. I usually get in trouble for being so explicit. (Ok, sorry, poor play on words. But seriously, I'll try to be more clear in the future.)

Marduk wrote:Hrmm, that's funny. I usually get in trouble for being so explicit. (Ok, sorry, poor play on words. But seriously, I'll try to be more clear in the future.)

Haha, that's interesting that being too explicit is sometimes a problem too. I will freely admit that I take a pretty literal interpretation of what people say—in fact, Dragon Lady complains about it to me from time to time. Possibly this is just my preferences talking and most people interpreted you correctly. But thanks for considering it.

Laser Jock wrote:

Marduk wrote:Hrmm, that's funny. I usually get in trouble for being so explicit. (Ok, sorry, poor play on words. But seriously, I'll try to be more clear in the future.)

Haha, that's interesting that being too explicit is sometimes a problem too. I will freely admit that I take a pretty literal interpretation of what people say—in fact, Dragon Lady complains about it to me from time to time. Possibly this is just my preferences talking and most people interpreted you correctly. But thanks for considering it.

Oh my goodness, YES! LJ has a horrible habit of literally picking apart something you say, and holding you to the exact meaning of every word. The worst part is, he doesn't even know he's doing it. So I have to be like, "LJ! Chill! Sarcasm! "

For example. Actual conversation between LJ and I:

Laser Jock: What sort of erranding were you up to?
Dragon Lady: Return something at Roberts, mail stuff at the post office, return something at Babies R Us and hopefully buy something (but they didn't have it), then grocery shopping (where I "accidentally" bought a lemon meringue pie that was on sale.
Laser Jock: Haha. How do you "accidentally" buy a pie?
Dragon Lady: Well, I went in not meaning to buy a pie, then I did
Dragon Lady: isn't that what qualifies for an accident? Do something that you didn't mean to?
Laser Jock: Yes, but I don't think this quite qualifies. You did mean to, you just didn't at first. So this is a change of plans, or possibly even an impulse, but not an accident. You still quite deliberately put it in your cart, and when you paid for your groceries you fully intended to pay for the pie along with everything else.
Dragon Lady: well, that's why it was in quotes.
Laser Jock: Ah, that makes sense.

2 minutes later he was telling me that he did something that I had been telling him to do and I was teasing him for doing it, because it "went against his better judgment." (Note: I'm not actually quoting him here. I'm poking fun at his argument. I learned from the chat above that I have to be careful where I use quotes. )

Laser Jock: I know, you think less of me.
Dragon Lady: Psh.
Dragon Lady: I think more of you for coming to your senses and doing it.
Laser Jock: Haha. Just curious, how does that count as "coming to my senses"?

I was like, "AARRGGHH! Why must I defend every tiny word usage I use with LJ!" (Quotes for what I thought, not what I said.)
I actually said:

Dragon Lady: y'know, you take everything I say so ridiculously literally.
Laser Jock: Sorry. I really wasn't trying to misconstrue anything.
Dragon Lady: Just sayin'

Ok. I'm done with my "rant" (teehee) about LJ, inspired by LJ.

I must admit I am prone to be nitty-gritty literal as well. It's actually quite fun. I like to come up with new answers to "what's up?" (my personal favorite is "the direction antiparallel to the center of the earth").

Is there a difference between perpendicular and antiparallel?

Emiliana wrote:Is there a difference between perpendicular and antiparallel?

Short answer: yes.

Long answer: yes, but differs upon context. When dealing with vectors, they are parallel but pointed in opposite directions. (Dead Cat's comment seems to fall into this; a vector parallel to, but opposing, one going to the center of the earth would be 'up' for that locale more accurately than 'perpendicular to the ground' would be, as the latter would shift significantly while climbing a hill, for example.)

I, too, can tend to take things too literally. Sometimes it is in jest, so I can often skate by with claiming that when I make too big of a faux pas.