Return to Answer

I agree with T.J. on this, and will add my own additional reason why this disturbs me: because this means that SO (but really Jeff) is exerting editorial control over the style of what I wrote. If there is something offensive (or such) in my content, I accept that is the responsibility and duty of the moderator.

I agree with T.J. on this and will add my own additional reason why this disturbs me: because this means that SO (but really Jeff) is exerting editorial control over the style of what I wrote. If there is something offensive (or such) in my content, I accept that is the responsibility and duty of the moderator.

Update: And this is it, my final words on this matter -- and possibly my final contribution to SO:

It seems to be there are such bigger forms of noise to address on this site, than to make an arbitrary decision, for an arbitrary definition of noise (because I still haven't seen you give an objective definition of what counts as noise), and enforce it by fiat over the protestations of the community with nothing more than an assertion that you are right.

You insisted that the redundant "@postowner" should be removed because it is noise, and then say that a simple "postowner," is not. This simply makes no sense. It seems like you are acting like that @ convention started with SO and has a single universal understanding of its purpose and meaning. But it didn't start here. It started on other bulletin boards, and forums, and places like twitter; with the purpose of indicating who you are talking to.

I will reiterate what I said in a comment below: I simply do not believe people enter @postowner with a thought in their mind that it will notify the post owner. They do it to indicate who they are talking to. So in that sense their intention is exactly the same as "postowner,".

I think SO has a bigger problem. More than once I have heard colleagues make the comment that they don't participate in SO because they don't like the community. That they feel it is filled with blunt arrogant responses, and that it doesn't feel welcoming. So they reap the benefits of SO without contributing.

Actions like this one, and removing salutations and thanks, take out the kind of vital social lubricant needed to make SO feel less clinical and more collegial. Each time turning SO into a place for people like @sixlettervariables (I am not picking on you sir, but you expressed your opinions rather definitively, and thus make a good example), and less for people like me.

My example is anecdotal, so I cannot say how large it is, but I urge you to take it seriously. Because if you want So to grow, and thrive in the future, then THIS is the kind of signal v. noise you would be worrying about. The one that gets more people to be active and contributing.

All this experience in contributing has done for me is convince me you flaunt precedent (the use of @postowner on other sites, ignoring the social niceties that help make us more individual and relatable, and how links are styled; to name a few), in favor of views you feel are right, but simply cannot prove. Contributing hasn't been a positive experience for me, and it just makes be want to go back to my previous leach status. Which is what I am likely to do.

Look at the votes on your own answer in this matter. Clearly there are more than a few people who disagree with you on this, but you refuse to acknowledge this this with any kind of meaningful response on this, or respond with any kind of citation that shows that removing @postowner, greetings, or thanks has any meaningful affect on the readability and comprehension of conversations here (because ultimately that is what Signal v Noise is about).

I am simply right about this...

I agree with T.J. on this, and will add my own additional reason why this disturbs me: because this means that SO (but really Jeff) is exerting editorial control over the style of what I wrote. If there is something offensive (or such) in my content, I accept that is the responsibility and duty of the moderator.

But when you alter the nature of what I write, simply because you don't like it -- and let us face it, this is what it boils down to. Because I don't think you can point to an objective measure of what constitutes noise and what doesn't. It is based on what you prefer.

And look, it is great to have a coherent vision, it is what shapes the greatest products, and I expect you do it in what you write and how you present SO; however when it extends into editorial control over MY style, that crosses a line with me.

I wasn't entirely joking when I suggested your filters might remove (or add) oxford comma's next. While it seems silly it is hard to see a consistant philosophy that says it is OK to remove greetings (a verbal lubricant that dates back to the mists of time), but not something like the Oxford comma.

I agree with T.J. on this, and will add my own additional reason why this disturbs me: because this means that SO (but really Jeff) is exerting editorial control over the style of what I wrote. If there is something offensive (or such) in my content, I accept that is the responsibility and duty of the moderator.

But when you alter the nature of what I write, simply because you don't like it -- and let us face it, this is what it boils down to. Because I don't think you can point to an objective measure of what constitutes noise and what doesn't. It is based on what you prefer.

And look, it is great to have a coherent vision, it is what shapes the greatest products, and I expect you do it in what you write and how you present SO; however when it extends into editorial control over MY style, that crosses a line with me.

I wasn't entirely joking when I suggested your filters might remove (or add) oxford comma's next. While it seems silly it is hard to see a consistant philosophy that says it is OK to remove greetings (a verbal lubricant that dates back to the mists of time), but not something like the Oxford comma.

Addendum: I am not -- in chicken little like way -- trying to say that the sky is falling and SO is editing for content willy-nilly. What I am trying to say is that "clutter" is a deeply deeply subjective thing; and Jeff hasn't even attempted to explain why greetings and @postowner are clutter. He has simply asserted that they are.

And I do not feel it is appropriate to edit other peoples words for style.