No more ghost-edits

Tony R wrote: I've just removed "So" from Henry Plainview's opening post and it shows quite clearly that it has been edited. So, I am confused.

I might be on the wrong tracks here, but to a certain degree I personally understood his point as such:

There's always the tag at the end of the first post after the topic has been updated:

Edited by Tony R - 2009 11 June at 21:04

But. A lot of people, me included, might never realise why such an action is performed. Perhaps and note like "Corrected spelling" or "edited due to use of inappropriate language" would be in its place at times. Then we'd surely know, that it's been edited, and we'd even importantly know why it's been edited.

Now i noticed the topic had been edited, and learnt that there used to be a word "so" there. Of course bringing this up might raise objections, but it would also stop people like me from wondering if the thread used to be something completely else, or if the first post itself was full of cursewords etc. because as you see in my quote, the EDIT-message doesn't really differ wherther it's the topic or the post itself.

Just you know, to take off the gestapo ways. We're not allowed to wear black trench coats, but we're never told why not. J/K of course, but this is how i understood his point, and I think it is a valid point to at least consider.

-Tuomas--

I don't believe that there is a problem with the change to the title so much, as the fact that the title was changed without a message to the original poster, or with the note that the post was edited by administrator x.  If the post says that the post was edited by Easy Livin or Dean, the poster can at least respond to that administrator with their point of view for why they posted what they did.  When the thread is "ghost edited", there is noone for the poster to respond to.  I believe that at least in this instance the lack of communication from the editor is why some forum members are upset.