# Spoiler Box Redux **URL:** \ **Category:** About This Message Board\ **Created:** [May 25, 2012, 1:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061 "2012-05-25T13:30:39Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 10\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Acsenray](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/acsenray/32/4519_2.png) [@Acsenray](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Acsenray)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 12:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/21 "2012-05-26T00:45:50Z")
> [@](#): > > As long as the meaning isn’t changed, you have not violated the copyright as long as your changes are clearly marked. > > At least, I can only think this reticence is due to the unusual copyright policy, as that’s so different from every other board I’ve seen, and I’ve never seen another board so concerned about this. For smooth operation, you guys really need to look into other solutions. Heck, even adding a clause about modifications needed for administrative purposes would probably ease the tension. It has exactly zero to do with copyright law. The policy of not changing posts had to do with integrity, reliability, credibility, etc. ---
**Author:** ![PlainJain](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/5daacb/32.png) [@PlainJain](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/PlainJain)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/22 "2012-05-26T01:27:09Z")
> [@VinylTurnip](#): > > Very well, here is a link to [a video of Rick Astley](http://notreally). A nice trick-fuck. I liked the addy, too. Lastly… I _just_ got your “location”. :smack: ---
**Author:** ![C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b2d939/32.png) [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C_K_Dexter_Haven)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 11:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/23 "2012-05-26T11:51:32Z")
> [@Acsenray](#): > > It has exactly zero to do with copyright law. The policy of not changing posts had to do with integrity, reliability, credibility, etc. I ain’t no lawyer, I only know what I was told by READER legal staff when we got the Message Boards started. It does have to do with the legal issue of who bears responsibility for a post. As a hypothetical example, if someone posts something defamatory about (say) their landlord, by name, then they can be sued for libel. If board moderators commonly edit posts, then Board Management can bear legal responsibility for the content of the boards. Because we do NOT allow moderators to edit posts, Board Management would bear no liability – it’s a public bulletin board where anyone can post what they like. Yes, I misspoke when I said we can’t do substantial editing. We can’t do any editing other than very, very minor corrections. Could we edit in a reason for the addition of spoiler tags? Sure. In the “Reason for Editing” slot. Could we summarize what’s been hidden in the text of the post? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t. ---
**Author:** ![Ellen\_Cherry](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ellen_cherry/32/3600_2.png) [@Ellen\_Cherry](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ellen_Cherry)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 3:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/24 "2012-05-26T15:02:14Z")
> [@TBG](#): > > Maybe you could’ve done it this way > > That way you wouldn’t need to know anything about the subject at hand other than someone else had reported it for spoilers, and you’ve told them that they can look at whasisname’s post for context. > > Just because a post that is entirely a spoiler box comes immediately after another post, I wouldn’t assume it’s definitely a response to that exact post, particularly if I noted the post being moderated to add the spoiler box. Before clicking the spoiler, for all I know someone else could’ve posted between when whoever started writing his post and when he actually submitted his reply. That would have been a good idea. I’m sorry I didn’t think of it. ---
**Author:** ![VinylTurnip](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b2d939/32.png) [@VinylTurnip](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/VinylTurnip)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 4:47pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/25 "2012-05-26T16:47:28Z")
> [@Rico](#): > > An Anti-Rick-Roll! About damn time. Not to be confused with the exceedingly rare _reverse Rickroll_, where Rick Astley tricks you into watching a video of yourself singing. ---
**Author:** ![Beastly\_Rotter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/45deac/32.png) [@Beastly\_Rotter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Beastly_Rotter)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 11:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/26 "2012-05-26T23:18:59Z")
Warning: major spolier ahead. [SPOLIER](http://forum.mazda6club.com/attachments/mazdaspeed6/81629d1329491346-new-rear-spoiler-stupidspoiler07.jpg) ---
**Author:** ![mister\_nyx](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/df705f/32.png) [@mister\_nyx](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mister_nyx)\ **Post date:** [May 26, 2012, 11:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/27 "2012-05-26T23:26:08Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > I also dislike that, but I dislike something even more. So, allow me to hijack this hijack for you, thanks. 😉 > > I hate the “tinyurl” type of blind links where you can’t really tell where the link is going to take you, but at least with those you’re usually aware that you’re about to be taken to some unknown site. But I noticed a new, even more insidious variation of this, and that’s with Google’s own version of “tinyurl” type redirects. [**Ambivalid** tends to use 'em](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=15095429&postcount=137) a lot, and I wish he wouldn’t, but I haven’t wanted to disrupt a thread (other than this one) by mentioning it. > > You click on it thinking, oh it’s just a Google search result or some other Google related page, and BAM you end up at some random, unknown site. What’s even more puzzling to me is that, unlike tinyurl, the URL isn’t even all that short. So I’m not exactly sure what the benefit of obscuring the direct URL actually is. > > [/hijack] Google started doing this, I dunno, like a year or two back? And it’s really annoying. I believe the purpose is to see how often people who did a given search clicked a given link, so they can refine their search results. (That’s why they’re long, not short – the link probably references both the result URL and the search used to find it, which would naturally need a huge huge identifier because it’s referring to a record in a colossal database somewhere in Googleland.) Before, they just served up a plain link but that would give them no way to determine which links people actually clicked. But it’s really frickin’ annoying when you want to link to a search result – you have to go to the extra step of opening it in a new tab, even if it’s a page you’ve already seen and don’t need to see again, and then copy-pasting the contents of your URL bar. The guy may just not have noticed that he’s copying these irritating Google links instead of real URLs. ---
**Author:** ![MrDibble](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mrdibble/32/114_2.png) [@MrDibble](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MrDibble)\ **Post date:** [May 28, 2012, 7:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/28 "2012-05-28T07:31:10Z")
> [@voltaire](#): > > You click on it thinking, oh it’s just a Google search result or some other Google related page, and BAM you end up at some random, unknown site. What’s even more puzzling to me is that, unlike tinyurl, the URL isn’t even all that short. So I’m not exactly sure what the benefit of obscuring the direct URL actually is. > > [/hijack] Huh. I never noticed those - turns out that RedirectCleaner add-on has been shielding me from them. ---
**Author:** ![Irishman](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/b487fb/32.png) [@Irishman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Irishman)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/29 "2012-05-29T20:05:22Z")
> [@C\_K\_Dexter\_Haven](#): > > Could we edit in a reason for the addition of spoiler tags? Sure. In the “Reason for Editing” slot. Could we summarize what’s been hidden in the text of the post? I don’t know, but I wouldn’t. Interesting conundrum, thanks for the explanation. This does seem a bit dubious, mods already add mod notes to posts. Things like adding a link to Cecil’s column, with a Mod Note that the link was added. I don’t see why adding a mod note in brackets that states “[mod note: spoiler applies to previous post]” would not fit the same level of involvement. It is not changing the intent or wording of the message, just clarifies the moderator action. ---
**Author:** ![Munch](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/munch/32/5281_2.png) [@Munch](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Munch)\ **Post date:** [May 29, 2012, 11:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061/30 "2012-05-29T23:07:48Z")
> [@Irishman](#): > > It is not changing the intent or wording of the message, just clarifies the moderator action. Exactly. And even if the rule was that you cannot even do this, then that’s a really stupid fucking rule. Putting a note, in brackets, preceded with “Mod Note:” cannot possibly be construed by even the densest of morons to be changing the meaning (or even intent) of the post. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/spoiler-box-redux/623061.md?page=1)