From Brothers Judd
In the meantime, folks have expressed a legitimate concern that when I diddle some comments then all comments become unreliable.
Yes, it’s the photo-editing problem in miniature, where any consistent pattern of editing makes everything suspect.
However, in the interests of fairness I promise not to ever edit a comment again, though I will in turn just go ahead and delete those that are offensive, false, and non-responsive, even if they also contain valid points.
I have mixed fellings about this. It seems that pointing out moving goal posts is also consider non-responsive so I’m not sure how much good this will do. On the other hand, it’s a step forward and after all, his weblog, his rules.
As I noted in that earlier post, it’s the invisibility that’s the problem, not the control. For instance, with this kind of issue, how do I know that others aren’t pointing out the counter-factuals and having their comments deleted? It is for this reason that the standard convention is to not delete, but to replace the content with a note that it was removed. This provides a much more accurate view, without sacrificing control. I don’t think it would take much more effort, either.
I know it’s obsessive, but I spent a lot of time at Brothers Judd and I still read it as much as any other weblog.
ON the other hand, I suppose I should have a policy as well, even though I don’t get enough comments to need one.