No, but it only appears if there was a later post at the time of the edit.
If the post was edited when the reply was being written, it can result in the effect you saw.
No, but it only appears if there was a later post at the time of the edit.
I've just tested this by editing my post above yours and the edit history still shows. AFAIK, that will only show if a post is edited after a subsequent post has appeared. (mjr beat me to explaining that.)My own practise is to show a reason for an edit eg a test in that case.L+1 wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 10:15am I think we used to have a strap line below posts which had been edited by the author e.g. - ‘edited by L+1, edited one (1?) time in total’.
Is this now discontinued in the new style?
I ask because I was reading the ongoing Spa Cycles thread in ‘Goods and Services’ and a poster has quoted someone else’s full post, the original of which is now shorter with no mention of it being edited.
Personally I would prefer the fact that someone has edited their post, sometimes to remove ill chosen language, sometimes just to correct a typo or error, to be recorded on the original post.
(my bold and colour)Cyril Haearn wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 10:19am ...Emphasis, italics, bold when quoting is falsification and is not allowed
....
Nor me. I would rather include a longer passage lest a reader wants to reference it, but draw their attention to the particular passage within it using this method. It avoids the reader having to check back in case of selective quoting.Psamathe wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 11:16am(my bold and colour)Cyril Haearn wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 10:19am ...Emphasis, italics, bold when quoting is falsification and is not allowed
....
It does seem to be still allowed under the new forum software. I think it is a reasonable way to help a reader to highlight as aspect particularly relevant to your response provided you are not attempting to falsify or mis-quote (I normally do as I've done here indicating below the quote that I've added bold and colour - and I don't see anything wrong with that as it's just helping other readers).
Ian
There are loads of posters so accommodating specific requests from a single member when quoting specific posts is unlikely to be realistic. And it helps others to make sense as to what is being said. To me it makes no sense - why not make it easier for others to read and understand a discussion.Cyril Haearn wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 1:13pm If one knows that one particular member, me, has mentioned this several times, asking for his texts not to be changed/falsified/italicised/bolded, (omission is ok...) it seems reasonable to comply with his wishes. Others may be less sensitive :wink:
New, and neat.RickH wrote: ↑6 Apr 2021, 9:44pm Is this new? Or have I just never noticed it?
Next to the "RickH wrote:" (or anyone else) at the top of a quote from an earlier post there is a tiny up arrow. If you click/tap on the it takes you to the quoted post. See example below (I note having added it - using the quote button on the original post - that there is a "time" & "user_id" tag inside the {quote=...} part
If a quoter does want to use this then adding who did the emboldening or whatever is IMO both necessary and sufficient.Bonefishblues wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 11:36amNor me. I would rather include a longer passage lest a reader wants to reference it, but draw their attention to the particular passage within it using this method. It avoids the reader having to check back in case of selective quoting.Psamathe wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 11:16am(my bold and colour)Cyril Haearn wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 10:19am ...Emphasis, italics, bold when quoting is falsification and is not allowed
....
It does seem to be still allowed under the new forum software. I think it is a reasonable way to help a reader to highlight as aspect particularly relevant to your response provided you are not attempting to falsify or mis-quote (I normally do as I've done here indicating below the quote that I've added bold and colour - and I don't see anything wrong with that as it's just helping other readers).
I don't think changing post colours is reasonable because red and green are famously difficult for many dyslexics and colour-blind people. So are low-contrast combinations — and now there is a dark theme available, every unusual colour is probably going to be low-contrast in one of the themes!Psamathe wrote: ↑7 Apr 2021, 11:16am It does seem to be still allowed under the new forum software. I think it is a reasonable way to help a reader to highlight as aspect particularly relevant to your response provided you are not attempting to falsify or mis-quote (I normally do as I've done here indicating below the quote that I've added bold and colour - and I don't see anything wrong with that as it's just helping other readers).
That's useful to know. I'd always assumed it was because the potential number of hits was too great to handle. Did you find out by accident or research?