-4

I'm upset that my question caused such negative responses. For my part I am sorry to have contributed to the Bait, Bully and Gang activity that I feel the post was creating. I was on the defensive for a misunderstanding based on, what I can only conclude, was a bad tag--if it had been tagged philosophy of programming then I would likely not have angered the "design pattern" followers who, I now realize, take these questions very seriously.

That said. My question is not being acurately edited by Mr.Trapp. While it is his determination this is best for the community, it is actually not a good edit.

First, if someone wants to ask a different question, they should make their own post.

Second, if you want to improve the quality of the site's answers, do not allow people who Bait, Bully or Gang to make snotty comment in someone's post if there is a misunderstanding of terminology--as was the case here.

Third, To change the details of my post and morph into a better question is good for "future users" to read a title that maps closer to the results, but is this why people ask questions? I don't think of myself participating here to create some generic Wiki on programming. I think of it as a very specific Wiki. If the question didn't come off correctly then I think it should stand as it is--warts and all.

I don't believe it is in the interest of a participating community to have their questions smoothed over when it suits a moderator's sense of editing duty. The information is out there, its the synergy between the questions and the answers that makes it more meaningful than if I had just posted a question such as "what is a design pattern?" I can find this answer on Wikipedia (and I liked to it in my post).

And if you insist on hyjacking my question, then I will want to have my name removed from it--because its no longer my mistaken question but some generic "I should have used google" goof. AND I want my reputation points back, too.

"Programmers is collaboratively edited: your question has been revised to better align with the answers received and so that it can remain open and hopefully be of use to people in the future. We can disassociate your name from the question if you don't want to be associated with it anymore: just let me know." 1

  • 2
    The post was anonymized per your request and your reputation has automatically been recalculated. – user8 Oct 14 '11 at 3:01
  • Mark's is correct. However many folks, myself included are not impressed with Mark's tact. The number of antagonstic negative comments is rather high. Sometimes it's more about how you say it than what you are saying, especially if you would like to see people's behaviour changing. – Michael Durrant Mar 22 '12 at 20:40
  • I don't want to change anyone's behavior, speak for yourself. Only opening your heart to God can heal the lamb who's lost in the wilderness. – xtian Mar 23 '12 at 2:42
  • Ok, the problem with your question as I read it is this. Read this senctence: "I'm having problems understanding cars and what a car is and isn't, particularly in respect to parking lots. Is break, shift down gear, full throttle a car? If so is Q-park the same car?" – Pieter B Jun 12 '14 at 8:58
  • Pieter B. I'm only the tiniest bit interested why you've revisited this post, because I've happily forgotten about it. While its often the case people post here to ask for help with their questions, for my part that's not the case here. I'm objecting to the way the moderator altered my question. I was demanding my name removed from the post. What's up? Are you bored or interested in bullying? – xtian Jun 14 '14 at 13:36
5

For background before the edits were made, your question was based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of what a "design pattern" is, and when people answered to that question, you added an entirely new question about what type of "parent pattern" Git is.

The issue about adding a second question after you received answers to the first I think we agree on is not the way to go because it invalidates all the answers thus far. If you want to ask a follow-up question, ask a new question that can attract new answers to that specific question.

Now to the issue of revising your original question. This isn't a discussion board: we're looking for long-lasting question-and-answer pairs that'll help future visitors, not just yourself.

It's hard enough that your question is based on a flawed premise that I'm not entirely convinced very many people would ever make, but it's all the more difficult when your question is difficult to read. If we can't make your question at least findable and readable by the few people who might have a similar question in the future, it doesn't belong here.

To that end, this is the summary of changes that were made to your question:

  • Revision of the title to match the body of the question and SEO
  • Retagging with the appropriate, specific tags instead of vague tags like "philosophy", "theory", and "patterns"
  • Formatting and capitalization, including the use of a blockquote for the multiline quotation and the capitalization of Git
  • Change DRCS to DVCS, the more recognizable term for systems like Git
  • Incorporation of the problem you're trying to solve:
    • That you are unclear whether certain things are considered design patterns
    • That you want to know what to call them if they're not design patterns

And that's it. Which of these changes, exactly, are you objecting to?

0

I can see where having "I'm having trouble understanding" added to a question might be a bit annoying. However, you were trying to tie together 3 concepts (patterns, push/pop etc, version control) that, as you saw, almost all programmers consider to be essentially unrelated - to the point where programmers might have an easier time understanding your question with "I'm having trouble understanding" as a lead in.

Also, such a lead in might tend to prevent down votes, since people who see the concepts as unrelated might think the question showed poor research effort, though I don't think that was the case. Saying "I'm having trouble understanding" does at least imply you did research.

It seems you may have meant it in a higher level, somewhat metaphorical sense, but even at that level I don't think most programmers think it's a useful way to think about it.

You were also to some degree collateral damage of some comments by programmers who felt that the idea of design patterns had become overused, and considered your question an example of such overuse. The comments were more directed at that than at your question, but I can where that plus down-votes plus edits led to a pretty negative experience - sorry about that. It's possible the tag contributed, but you had "design pattern" in the question (which does have a fairly specific meaning within the programming community, despite it possibly growing more overused).

Other than that, I don't think the final form (as of now) of the question is very different from the original, so I don't think "hijacked" is a fair description of what happened.

  • I think you missed the point of my post. You spent the lionshare of your response addressing the conflict I had with others who did not like the content of my question. This post is about the misrepresentation of my question. Its about rewriting a mistake to make it "cleanly map with the answer". If This is the intention of the moderators on the site, then I propose information be added to the FAQ. Something to the effect that SE does not value the author's intent over "the good of the site" when editing posts, and that a user can request the post be removed from their account. – xtian Oct 14 '11 at 12:58
  • And as far at the chage to the question, all I will say is My Q: IF A IS MEMBER OF B, THEN IS C MEMBER OF A, OR SOMETHING ELSE?; MT's Q: IS C MEMBER OF B?; – xtian Oct 14 '11 at 13:12

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .