I agree. ”...on grounds that I’ve never seen anything voted down that far before...” isn’t literally true in the strictest possible sense. Implicitly, it means the editor also did not think of any sufficiently compelling counter-arguments upon reading the piece.
So unless removal for being downvoted by orders of magnitude more than anything else (including those previously removed, to avoid evaporative cooling) was the rule before the editor removed the post, the content of the post had a good deal to do with its removal.
I am not saying it is the wrong decision because of this, but I would prefer the formulation: “Post removed from main and discussion on grounds that I’ve never seen anything voted down that far before, and it seems to me the downvotes are probably justified.”
It’s important not to imply the post’s removal wasn’t a matter of editorial judgement, since it was, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
I have no issue with people making editorial judgements provided they are upfront about it. On the face of it, EY is saying he removed the post purely on the basis of popularity, as though he is deferring judgement to others. You assert he wasn’t and that no-one would be misled but if you just leave things implied there is a lot of scope for misunderstanding and it is a way of not taking responsibility.
Outliers are interesting. If it was me, I’d be checking it out.
I agree. ”...on grounds that I’ve never seen anything voted down that far before...” isn’t literally true in the strictest possible sense. Implicitly, it means the editor also did not think of any sufficiently compelling counter-arguments upon reading the piece.
So unless removal for being downvoted by orders of magnitude more than anything else (including those previously removed, to avoid evaporative cooling) was the rule before the editor removed the post, the content of the post had a good deal to do with its removal.
I am not saying it is the wrong decision because of this, but I would prefer the formulation: “Post removed from main and discussion on grounds that I’ve never seen anything voted down that far before, and it seems to me the downvotes are probably justified.”
It’s important not to imply the post’s removal wasn’t a matter of editorial judgement, since it was, not that there’s anything wrong with that.
Arguably no one will be misled, and the editorial explanation by EY is perfect and Gricean.
There’s “still something sort of awesome about a guy who could take on the entire western world from a cave somewhere.”. I began writing but did not post three posts of my own for this site because I think them not good enough. One is about Newcomb’s problem, one is about tattoos, and one is about cooking.
I have no issue with people making editorial judgements provided they are upfront about it. On the face of it, EY is saying he removed the post purely on the basis of popularity, as though he is deferring judgement to others. You assert he wasn’t and that no-one would be misled but if you just leave things implied there is a lot of scope for misunderstanding and it is a way of not taking responsibility.