Re: Avoiding accidential reposts

[sundialsvc4]

A still more practical solution would be to allow the owner of the post (necessarily excluding Anonymous Monk ...) to [soft-]delete his own posts.   Otherwise, the existing “consider” system probably works pretty well ... as does the system which says that, for a post to actually show-up, somebody other than the author probably had to give their nod to it.   I see little reason, little ROI, to come up with a technologically complicated system to deal with a circumstance that (a) only occasionally happens, and (b) when it does happen, can be “eyeballed.”   We do not want to make too much extra work for the programmers, nor for gods, who already do plenty-enough spam cleanup every day for the rest of us as it is.   (And we sincerely thank those of you who do that.)

It’s not that I object – I don’t – but I find myself idly wondering, “okay, if we actually did that, and rolled it into production and so-on with all that such things entail, would it have been worth it? ... Would it turn out to be problematic, such that we had to back it out again?”   I am not automatically persuaded that these answers would be Yes and No.

[LanX]

What is  [soft-]delete  supposed to mean?

Many simple mortals like me are occupied with the consideration system not only gods and other group members.

(even you could help, your rank is high enough)

Saving us 1 min per day is worth the discussion since it allows us volunteers spending time in more useful things.

[sundialsvc4]

Mea culpa, I am rather fond of HTML meta-characters.   Regardless of what you may have seen at the time you made this comment, now you should see left- and right-bracket characters.

As for what you are saying here, Rolf, yeah ... you are preaching to the choir.   All of us are volunteers, and we all see the same Considerations.   Are pure-duplicate posts really now such an issue?   (He said, suddenly awkwardly ...) I don’t know ...