none
My question asked on the SharePoint forum has disappeared ?! RRS feed

Answers

All replies

  • Hi,

    Your post still exist. The reason why you can't navigate to it or getting an error is because your thread has been deleted by the moderator.

    I suggest contacting the moderator of that Forum (you've posted to) and verifying as to why the thread got deleted.

    Thanks.


    Forums Test Lead
    Friday, November 6, 2009 8:14 PM
  • Hello,

    The thread I'm talking about is this:

    http://social.technet.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/sharepointadmin/threads


    Can you tell me please how can I "contact the moderator of that Forum " ?

    Thank you
    Saturday, November 7, 2009 9:25 AM
  • You post was deleted by me because it had ?! in the Title.

    I do not accept attempts to attract attention to a post by the use of exclamation marks in the Title (or the use of several question marks)

    Your quote in the first post here was incorrect. 

    Your title was not as you say here "Cannot connect to default SharePoint web site by using a limited account ?"

    that would not have been deleted.

    It was in fact (and I have checked) "Cannot connect to default SharePoint web site by using a limited account ?!"


    Your post here if done in a SharPoint forum would have been deleted too - as it too ends in "?!". There is ABSOLUTELY NO NEED to have exclamation marks in your Titles. The Title is for a problem description only. It may have one question mark but nothing more.

    FAQ sites: (SP 2010) http://wssv4faq.mindsharp.com; (v3) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com and (WSS 2.0) http://wssv2faq.mindsharp.com
    Complete Book Lists (incl. foreign language) on each site.
    Saturday, November 7, 2009 10:02 AM
  • Hello,

    Thank you for answering so promptly, I understand and I will follow the rule you've mentioned.

    I am also sure that deleting someone's post without notifying him in any way,  is not quite a gentleman's approach.

    Saturday, November 7, 2009 10:54 AM
  • I used to Edit the post by removing the extra !s and ?s (etc.) and asking the posters not to do it again.

    They almost always did.

    I've noticed that when I just delete posts, posters get the message much quicker and future posts from them don't have !s or extra ?s (or any of the other attention attracting attempts).
    Saturday, November 7, 2009 11:26 AM
  • In reading this thread, I have a comment and a question.

    Comment: It would seem that it would be an effective approach to post a message saying "Messge Deleted Due To Rules Violation" so that the person doesn't either repost the same problem, assume there is a technical problem, or open another support request somewhere else (like this forum). This is a commonly observed practice seen in many message board systems throughout the English speaking world,

    Question: What are the other rules that might get one's message deleted, especially those that are as subtle as adding a single exclaimation point to a subject line?

    Sincerely,

    Kelly Brady, MBA
    Crossover Solutions, LLC
    Microsoft Partner
    Microsoft Small Business Specialist

    Friday, December 3, 2010 10:12 PM
  • When you delete a message you need to give a reason. I then do. If the forum software meant for instance that people who posted a deleted message were shown that reason, the problem would be solved.

    Your suggestion of a message saying "Message Deleted Due To Rules Violation" would in this particular kind of case (a new thread) mean there would be a new off-topic thread in the forum. If I delete a post in a thread (vary rare occurence but occasionally needed) then I do post a message in the thread explaining why.

    Usually these days I edit away additional exclamation marks (1 or more); additional question marks (more than one); trailing "...."; use of "Help" in Titles; use of "Urgent" in Titles; and change CAPS to non-caps in Titles (and tell people in the visible "why edited" the reason for the edit). However if there are two such techniques in use to try to push a post ahead of the queue (for instance URGENT!) then I will still delete.

    There are guidelines for Moderators but in the end it is up to the individual Moderators of a set of forums just where they want to draw the line. My particular dislike is a) for people who think their question is more important than anyone elses and thus try the above kinds for techniques to push their posts ahead of the queue (includes saying in the text that they want an answer asap) and b) people who are so eager for points that they ask (typically) in their sig people to mark their posts as answers (or indeed those people who propose their own posts as answers).

    The key thing is that the Moderator(s) is consistent.

    (I used to edit the first examples of things like exclamation marks but then delete the ca sixth or more in a session because I was by then irritated. That wasn't consistent. Now I edit the ones with a single violation and delete the ones with duplicate violations. That is consistent and is punishing the main offenders rather than the person (as here) whose post I read sixth in a session.) 

    You ask about other rules for deleting ...

    A. There was someone who in almost every post said that "it's very urgent". I edited out all these and asked him in the reason not to continue writing this. He kept on doing it. Finally I wrote in the reason that if he kept writing this I would delete his posts. It had no effect so I deleted his next post (which naturally also said "it's very urgent").

    You have to have the option of deleting posts if someone refuses to follow the "rules" for that set of forums. It's not a hammer that is needed very often (once or twice a year maybe) but it needs to be there.

    B. There is a guy who only ever makes posts that propose the use of his product. (He also never says that it is his product). This is using the forums as a marketing tool and as such is forbidden so his posts get deleted as spam. (There is of course more obvious spam - here it's the pattern of posts that make it spam).

    If say someone answers a lot of forum questions and occasionaly has a post suggesting the use of his product (and is open about it being his product) in a thread where thats's a reasonable post then it's OK. Key is that the % fits (roughly 90% good product-neutral posts).

    C. Spam. (Obvious spam that is)

    D. Posts designed to provoke a reply from the same person that suggests a product.

    These are sneaky ones. Post One: "Hi, I'm looking for a product that does XX". Post Two (same poster sometimes with different display name): I found this product that suits my needs.

    You need to be wide awake to see these but they do occasionally happen. Usually spotted because that product is suggested by the same person in other threads. Sometimes though they are simply not as clever as they think they are.

    E. Duplicate posts

    If intentionally then usually sent to two different forums. (Leading to parallel threads)

    If unintentional then sent to the same forum 10 mins later because the assumption is made the first post didn't make it-

    F. Posting the identical question both in an existing thread and as a new thread.

    Here the Moderator decides which of the two to delete. Roughly delete the new thread if the post to a thread was to a current, active thread; remove the post in a thread if the thread was old, inactive and leave the new thread.

    Again leads to parallel threads and again wastes people's time because the question could well be already answered in the other location.

     G. People who search the forums for a particular phrase and then post the same message to all the threads they find via the search. They don't care if the previous post in the thread was several YEARS ago or if the thread was already closed.

    Once the pattern has been spotted, all the posts are deleted.

    (These are people out to get points and/or to push people towards their blogs. Replies in Dec 2010 to threads started in 2007 and ended in (say) 2008 help no-one.)

     

    Is that enough for you to be getting on with :)

    Mike Walsh

     

     

     


    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links): http://wssv4faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters
    Saturday, December 4, 2010 7:17 AM
  • Seems to no longer be deleted. So thanks to the moderator who undeleted it.

    Ed Price (a.k.a User Ed), SQL Server Experience Program Manager (Blog, Twitter, Wiki)

    Thursday, March 29, 2012 6:51 AM
    Owner
  • Right. looks like Brent fixed it, but nobody replied anyway.

    I think deleting threads because of such minor problem in the title is a very drastic measure and I hope Mike is not doing it anymore.


    For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Becker's Law


    My blog

    Thursday, March 29, 2012 3:48 PM
    Moderator
  • Rest assured that as an ex-Moderator, I am no longer deleting any threads.

    Mike


    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links): http://wssv4faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters

    Thursday, March 29, 2012 4:22 PM
  • Rest assured that as an ex-Moderator, I am no longer deleting any threads.

    Mike


    SP 2010 "FAQ" (mainly useful links): http://wssv4faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    WSS3/MOSS FAQ (FAQ and Links) http://wssv3faq.mindsharp.com/default.aspx
    Both also have links to extensive book lists and to (free) on-line chapters


    Oh yeah? You want to become a Moderator again? =^)

    Ed Price, Azure & Power BI Customer Program Manager (Blog, Small Basic, Wiki Ninjas, Wiki)

    Answer an interesting question? Create a wiki article about it!

    Saturday, August 2, 2014 12:56 AM
    Owner