Removal of comments.

[ABERS]

Well there we have it. Along witha comment on today's POTD I added a comment questioning anothers' comment on the picture. Nothing rude, just pointing out that it was over the top in it's praise of a very mediocre picture.

True to form those comments have been deleted. Could you please arrange for the remainder of my comments to be deleted and also have the good manners to tell me why such action was taken.

Thank you.

[GeoffWessex]

I see your comments were 'edited', ABERS, but not deleted..... not quite so bad. I agree with your point, though.

[highlandscenics]

I share your comments ABERS.....this is what I put....



I must admit...the lips were the first thing that I noticed...the rest is soft focus, almost like the lips were pasted onto a blurred portrait shot. Its OK but worthy of POTD?...........

Read more: http://www.photoradar.com/photos/113...#ixzz0rFKY8XQo

[Semaj]

This picture is not my kind of thing so I prefer to make no comment, everyone is entitled to say what they think of the picture and should not be pulled up about it. I think this is why it was edited. It would be a dull world if we all had the same opinion.

[Dagwood]

Probably someone objected to lips being mentioned . After all it is a body part and the PC police are open to misinterpreting simple words like that! I've just tried to sell a pair of oars on a local rag's Freebie pages. No! they didn't misinterpret Oars as being something or someone not normally found on the Free section but they would not let me describe the blade size! I ask you, is there anything we can't say that has a double meaning without some idiot thinking we are either a terrorist, pervert, paedophile, plain old thug,or desperately in need of protection from ourselves??
Dagwood

[Stormsong]

Ridiculous!!!! The thought police reside at PR. Why give other togs the opportunity to comment if you are going to censor them? No wonder this site has lost a lot of participation because anytime you add your point of view, it's edited. Unacceptable. I think we should take it to the European court for breach of human rights.
By the way, a certain staff member gushes about the photo in question - my half blind dog could have taken a better shot.
Regards,
Denise

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by ABERS

....and also have the good manners to tell me why such action was taken.

Thank you.

Thank you for your prompt non-reply.

[Marcus Hawkins]

Abers

Apologies for not replying the day of the original post.

I edited your comment for the reason Semaj gives above. We all have different opinions and I think we need to respect that.

Posts in this thread saying 'true to form those comments have been deleted' and 'anytime you add your point of view, it's edited' are inaccurate. I have only ever edited one other comment – and have only had to resort to banning one member – in the site's history. Not a bad track record, I think.

The terms and conditions of use of the site enable us to edit content – PhotoRadar certainly isn't alone here. I removed one line from the end of the comment.

Thanks

Marcus

[ABERS]

Thank you Marcus.

It's hard to 'bite one's tongue' when you see remarks so over the top when applied to such an average picture. When this happens again I shall resist the temptation to hold an opinion on another's opinion and obvious lack of understanding of things photographic.

Cheers
Abers.

[Marcus Hawkins]

Of course, it's not the opinions on another's opinion I'm trying to discourage here - I just think there are more effective ways to express them. That way we might encourage those new to photography to participate more frequently.

All the best

Marcus