The idea that somehow newbies will be hopelessly lost and confused is insulting. I'm by no means an experienced grower, but I do consider myself to be of average intelligence. It's not rocket science to determine that "nep" refers to Nepenthes.
Anyway... Thank you, Andrew, for coming up with a reasonable solution.
Paul, I believe you were advocating for private contact about corrections?
Perhaps it is insulting, if that were what I meant. Andrew understood my meaning.The idea that somehow newbies will be hopelessly lost and confused is insulting. I'm by no means an experienced grower, but I do consider myself to be of average intelligence. It's not rocket science to determine that "nep" refers to Nepenthes.
Anyway... Thank you, Andrew, for coming up with a reasonable solution.
I think it's a good suggestion. I've seen these types of lists on other hobbyist forums.I have not read through all of this, so if everything has already been resolved, then please disregard this post.
However, I once made a list of common abbreviations for a turtle forum I was on. It was a good reference for new members of that forum and the same idea might help with problems here. There could even be a standard from for abbreviations to be used.
Just a suggestion, take it or leave it.
![]()
Luca, I can set the edit as invisible.... If people could agree that small edits like that are fine,
That could lead to further moderator tool abuse, the whole meaning of a post could be altered and no indication that it had been.
... when the context clearly indicates which genus is under discussion or when a TF member uses a common abbreviation...
And many find it intellectually lazy of people to have to have their information spoon fed to them. If someone posts a word you don't understand, it is your responsibility to ask the person who posted it what it means if it's important to you.But that's the whole point. A newbie (and I fully admit to being one) will not be able to parse that context or recognize that 'common' abbreviation and deduce exactly what is under discussion. I personally find it kind of annoying if people just assume everyone knows their obscure jargon. How hard is it to just be clear and precise? It smacks to me of people being lazy and/or revelling in their supposed superiority. Give me clear names and terms any day over that.
After reading everything here, & pondering -- SubRosa's post pretty much sums up my feelings. The downside to the revisions is significant (as evidenced by the existence of this thread) & the upside is so small as to be negligible**.I think the way to handle an alleged mistake posted on a public forum is with a post in the same thread respectfully offering the alternative information. This is not the job of mods, although they are not necessarily precluded from doing so. It's the job of any member with the information to put it out. It's the job of the mods to see that things stay within whatever guidelines on forum behavior the forum operator sets.
Posts will not be edited for nomenclature, if mods (or members!) feel they would like to continue this word, I would say they are welcome to PM the user OR post a new reply if they feel the error is strong enough/frequent enough to warrant it. But these efforts will be from users who may or may not be moderators and their PMs/posts are not from a moderator stand point but rather people who care about the correctness of the posts enough to take the time to do so. I realize sometimes that can make a topic go off topic, feel free to contact a moderator or admin and we are all able to "split" a post and make that nomenclature discussion it's own topic to help keep the topic, well, on topic. I know some here said they don't want a public reply... Hopefully the people that are helping (PMing and posting) can keep these people in mind and try to work with them in the method they would prefer, but I also hope that those people can understand if their preferred method is not always used.