3
\$\begingroup\$

I was recently browsing EE.SE and came across this revision (Revision 2) by moderator Nick Alexeev on this question. I understand the revision of the tags, but I'm wondering why the simple "Thanks for your help!" on the bottom was removed. The text doesn't detract from the quality of the question as far as I can see; it's something that I myself have written on my answers and questions. Is this revision proper formatting of an SE question, or was it an unnecessary edit?

\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Because Nick is vicious. Or because of this. \$\endgroup\$ – Nick Alexeev Mar 2 '16 at 21:50
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Actually the content-free thanks line does detract from the quality of the question. Also, you need to actually read the rules. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 3 '16 at 13:04
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ You thank afterwards by accepting the answer. \$\endgroup\$ – Transistor Mar 5 '16 at 19:10
12
\$\begingroup\$

It's superfluous text. Greetings and salutations on questions are routinely edited out because they clutter the Q & A goal of Stack Exchange. AFAIK it is done on all stacks, atleast the four I've been on regularly.

Meta.SE on the subject Should 'Hi', 'thanks', taglines, and salutations be removed from posts? is a bit contentious, not everyone agrees, but the powers that be (Stack Exchange employees) dislike them.

Greetings are automatically removed by the system when posting. See employee Jeff Atwood's answer there (second one).

Thanks are implied, and should be shown via up votes and accepting an answer if appropriate.

If anything, you can always leave a comment on a good answer to say thanks (but those get trimmed eventually too). SE, all work, no play.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Adding a comment float the thread to the top of the active cue, and wastes more collective time than the in text thanks, by orders of magnitude \$\endgroup\$ – Scott Seidman Mar 4 '16 at 11:54
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ @Scott: Comment additions or changes don't bump questions. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 4 '16 at 14:14
-4
\$\begingroup\$

Because someone decided that there is something wrong with common courtesy. Frankly, I find it silly, and a waste of effort to edit such things out.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ While common courtesy is something everyone should partake in, I have to agree with Passerby's answer that the "thank you" is not necessary in this Q&A setting, and that type of kudos is shown through upvotes and accepted answers. Of course, I did post this under the Discussion tag, so it is good to hear multiple views on the topic. \$\endgroup\$ – htownclyde Mar 3 '16 at 1:35
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Common courtesy is not wasting people's time with content free fluff like insincere and obligatory "thanks". \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 3 '16 at 13:07
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ I don't know about you, but when someone leaves a good answer to my question, my thanks is anything but insincere. \$\endgroup\$ – Mikey T.K. Mar 3 '16 at 22:02
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ @Mik: But clearly the thanks can't be sincere before you see what you are thanking. \$\endgroup\$ – Olin Lathrop Mar 4 '16 at 14:13

You must log in to answer this question.

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