Is it right to eolith remove posts?


…or should you let them stand regardless?

I’ve only been posting for a little while and am very much learning as I go along.

At the moment I thing it should stand as is – typos or not unless feedback suggests it’s offending readers.IMHO posts should be spontaneous rather than polished

what do you think?

 

Comments (4)

  1. Steve Lamb says:

    D’oh! I made a typo in the title of this post!

    It should read "edit" not "eolith!: -of course I’m not going to correct it!!!’

  2. Radhakrishnan Mukkai says:

    I agree with you. However, I was wondering if Microsoft tells its employees to remove posts, if it does not approve of it.

  3. Michael Kaplan says:

    Personally, I think the editing is fine, though substantive changes should be marked as such rather than trying to appear smarter or moer careful than one is.

    I lay it out in my editorial policy at http://blogs.msdn.com/michkap/articles/275412.aspx and no one has boycotted me yet as far as I know. 🙂

  4. Ed Bott says:

    I usually allow myself to correct a post for upto an hour after it appears on my blog. Few people will see it during that time, so I cut myself some slack. After that, my rule is that I will correct typos any time. That’s not a substantive change and it’s just common courtesy. ("Eolith"? I was totally confused!)

    If I feel like clarifying something or adding extra details after making a post, I will do so by adding text and prefixing it with an "Update" label. That alerts anyone that the post has changed.

    If I need to correct something in a post because I made a mistake, I will use strikeout to indicate what was incorrect and then use an update to indicate the new text.

    Those are my rules, and I’m comfortable with them.