Back to [Archive] Meta

Missing forum thread
The author decided to remove it. There was no explicit policy against it, although it was implicit that threads should not be removed. From now on authors will not be allowed to remove them.
As stated above. I was not able to find a way to restore it. Apparently, the default setting is that all deletions are permanent, no backups are made.

I have removed the option of deleting one's own posts, so authors cannot do this again. I think however it is possible to edit all one's posts to be empty to hide things. I haven't found a technical solution for this yet, but the idea is basically that one cannot edit one's own posts after a certain amount of time has passed, e.g. 2 hours. (Administrators can still delete things, however, and there isn't currently a way to make it public which things have been deleted so that users can see if admins are abusing their power.)
the idea is basically that one cannot edit one's own posts after a certain amount of time has passed, e.g. 2 hours.

It's an excellent initiative. Generally, when I make modifications in my posts (and I do that often) it's to add something or correct errors in my wordings. Of course 2 hours is more than enough for me (or anyone else) to re-read my own message.


Can I ask something ? When looking at my old posts, the option to delete is still available. Why ? Also, I think 2 hours of delay for editing is too much. If it only concerns re-reading and corrections of posts, it's better to allow only 30 minutes. After all, if someone post a comment within the 2 hours and the other commenter delete one portion of his own message because he has read the comment after his own... etc...
If you are modifying edit options, I want to make two recommendations:

1- Fix preview. When I attempted to preview a post, the forum posted it, instead. That required me to edit it.

2- Fix remove for attachments. When I attempted to remove an attachment from a draft, the forum posted the draft. That required me to post two copies of the file to the edited post because I just wanted to change the file name, not alter the file otherwise.

If there are technical reasons why these cannot be accomplished at this time, I understand.

PS: Preview worked for me today. I'm baffled.
Most of stuff like this is hardcoded into the forum in PHP. I'm not an expert either in PHP or in this particular forum software, so unless someone else has already solved the issue somewhere on the net, it's unlikely that I will be able to fix thing.
The thread was deleted by accident because the author wished to remove the earlier version of the paper, which was turning up on google and could potentially be cited etc. Would it not be possible to ensure that only the published paper is available through google?
There is one option for doing that, namely to disable search engines from crawling the forums (using the robots.txt file). However, this not only results in no indexing of earlier version of a paper, but in all the forum info being unfindable. The optimal solution may be to disable SE only for the submission+post submission subforums, but I'm not sure that's doable.

Google Scholar should eventually end up with the right version since that it is the one available thru the journal website (not forum). Authors can also upload the right version to other sites such as ResearchGate to make sure people find the last edition.

For now, the lesser of two evils seem to be letting SEs index the forums.
In that case, wouldn't it be better to request all submittants that the numeration for the draft should be made explicit at the top of page 1 in the paper ? And title as well ? Such as, in parenthese "draft n°1". That has 2 advantages, first for the problem explicited by Barleymow, but also for helping reviewers knowing which version it is ?
That's a good idea, although already implicitly stated since the papers have no publication date, only a submitted date.
Ok for that. For example, the newly submitted paper of Dalliard has problem. It is so well presented that everyone can misinterpret it and believe it's the final version. Dalliard should have added "draft version" somewhere, or something else like "in reviewing process" or still else.