Quoting & editing another post within your reply (excluding mods)

[Tea Drinker]

OK, that's pretty clear consensus. I'll leave typos alone if I see any in something I'm quoting.

[MariaE]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

[Surianne]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

Me too, I've always thought it was more polite to fix the typos -- keeps from drawing other people's attention to it. 

Whereas I see the "fixed it" post when you disagree with someone as being quite snarky/rude.  Funny how opinions can differ so much.

[Yvaine]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

Me too, I've always thought it was more polite to fix the typos -- keeps from drawing other people's attention to it. 

Whereas I see the "fixed it" post when you disagree with someone as being quite snarky/rude.  Funny how opinions can differ so much.

I've really only noticed the "fixed it" thing when people were trying to be funny, for the most part. But no way would I ever correct someone's typo. That would just feel pretentious.

[Surianne]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

Me too, I've always thought it was more polite to fix the typos -- keeps from drawing other people's attention to it. 

Whereas I see the "fixed it" post when you disagree with someone as being quite snarky/rude.  Funny how opinions can differ so much.

I've really only noticed the "fixed it" thing when people were trying to be funny, for the most part. But no way would I ever correct someone's typo. That would just feel pretentious.

What would make it pretentious?  I'm not arguing, just trying to understand this to decide whether or not I should stop doing it...to me it just seems like the nice thing to do, so I'd prefer to keep doing it if only a few people are bothered by it as the exception. 

I usually fix typos in quotes because I assume if the poster had noticed it, they'd have fixed it themselves, and it can clear up confusion.   Typos seem much more glaring in quoted posts.   Particularly if I'm debating with someone, I don't want them to think I pulled out that post to deliberately emphasize their error!  Better to correct it and pretend it wasn't there in the first place.

But if there's a real reason not to that someone can explain, then I'll try to remember to stop.   

[Mental Magpie]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

Me too, I've always thought it was more polite to fix the typos -- keeps from drawing other people's attention to it. 

Whereas I see the "fixed it" post when you disagree with someone as being quite snarky/rude.  Funny how opinions can differ so much.

I've really only noticed the "fixed it" thing when people were trying to be funny, for the most part. But no way would I ever correct someone's typo. That would just feel pretentious.

What would make it pretentious?  I'm not arguing, just trying to understand this to decide whether or not I should stop doing it...to me it just seems like the nice thing to do, so I'd prefer to keep doing it if only a few people are bothered by it as the exception. 

I usually fix typos in quotes because I assume if the poster had noticed it, they'd have fixed it themselves, and it can clear up confusion.   Typos seem much more glaring in quoted posts.   Particularly if I'm debating with someone, I don't want them to think I pulled out that post to deliberately emphasize their error!  Better to correct it and pretend it wasn't there in the first place.

But if there's a real reason not to that someone can explain, then I'll try to remember to stop.   

By correcting it, you're drawing attention to the fact that is was wrong.  People who just read the first one then read yours are likely to noticed you've corrected it.  To me, that is double pointing out the error.  It's like smelling a fart and pointing out that you're pretending to not smell it (under the polite fiction that the person didn't fart at all to begin with).

On top of that, it also kind of says, "Hey, you didn't do well enough in your original post, what with your typos, so I'm going to fix them for you and do a better job!"  I know that's not the intent, but it still comes across that way, to me, anyway.

[MariaE]

Interesting. I feel that leaving it in points it out more than changing it does. Especially if I'm only quoting a sentence or two. I can see it being different if I'm quoting an entire post.

Me too, I've always thought it was more polite to fix the typos -- keeps from drawing other people's attention to it. 

Whereas I see the "fixed it" post when you disagree with someone as being quite snarky/rude.  Funny how opinions can differ so much.

I've really only noticed the "fixed it" thing when people were trying to be funny, for the most part. But no way would I ever correct someone's typo. That would just feel pretentious.

What would make it pretentious?  I'm not arguing, just trying to understand this to decide whether or not I should stop doing it...to me it just seems like the nice thing to do, so I'd prefer to keep doing it if only a few people are bothered by it as the exception. 

I usually fix typos in quotes because I assume if the poster had noticed it, they'd have fixed it themselves, and it can clear up confusion.   Typos seem much more glaring in quoted posts.   Particularly if I'm debating with someone, I don't want them to think I pulled out that post to deliberately emphasize their error!  Better to correct it and pretend it wasn't there in the first place.

But if there's a real reason not to that someone can explain, then I'll try to remember to stop.   

By correcting it, you're drawing attention to the fact that is was wrong.  People who just read the first one then read yours are likely to noticed you've corrected it.  To me, that is double pointing out the error.  It's like smelling a fart and pointing out that you're pretending to not smell it (under the polite fiction that the person didn't fart at all to begin with).

On top of that, it also kind of says, "Hey, you didn't do well enough in your original post, what with your typos, so I'm going to fix them for you and do a better job!"  I know that's not the intent, but it still comes across that way, to me, anyway.

I feel that not fixing it draws attention to it. As in "Look, look, look! I'm quoting something with a spelling error!!!" Whereas fixing it makes a polite fiction that it never happened in the first place.

[Yvaine]

I feel that not fixing it draws attention to it. As in "Look, look, look! I'm quoting something with a spelling error!!!" Whereas fixing it makes a polite fiction that it never happened in the first place.

See, and I feel like ignoring the typo and pretending I didn't see it makes the polite fiction, while fixing it makes it absolutely clear that I saw it.

[MariaE]

I feel that not fixing it draws attention to it. As in "Look, look, look! I'm quoting something with a spelling error!!!" Whereas fixing it makes a polite fiction that it never happened in the first place.

See, and I feel like ignoring the typo and pretending I didn't see it makes the polite fiction, while fixing it makes it absolutely clear that I saw it.

Obvious to the person who made it, perhaps, but other posters are unlikely to remember a typo was made in the original post, and I see no attention to draw attention to the typo by repeating it.

And if the person him/herself doesn't remember making the typo either (which is very likely if a couple of pages have gone by), they're not reminded of it either

[Yvaine]

I feel that not fixing it draws attention to it. As in "Look, look, look! I'm quoting something with a spelling error!!!" Whereas fixing it makes a polite fiction that it never happened in the first place.

See, and I feel like ignoring the typo and pretending I didn't see it makes the polite fiction, while fixing it makes it absolutely clear that I saw it.

Obvious to the person who made it, perhaps, but other posters are unlikely to remember a typo was made in the original post, and I see no attention to draw attention to the typo by repeating it.

And if the person him/herself doesn't remember making the typo either (which is very likely if a couple of pages have gone by), they're not reminded of it either

But then what if you genuinely don't see it? Does it make it rude to have not noticed it? I figure "polite fiction" means I do whatever I'd have done if I really hadn't noticed the typo--i.e. nothing.

[Giggity]

I'd rather be quoted accurately than corrected.

[MariaE]

I feel that not fixing it draws attention to it. As in "Look, look, look! I'm quoting something with a spelling error!!!" Whereas fixing it makes a polite fiction that it never happened in the first place.

See, and I feel like ignoring the typo and pretending I didn't see it makes the polite fiction, while fixing it makes it absolutely clear that I saw it.

Obvious to the person who made it, perhaps, but other posters are unlikely to remember a typo was made in the original post, and I see no attention to draw attention to the typo by repeating it.

And if the person him/herself doesn't remember making the typo either (which is very likely if a couple of pages have gone by), they're not reminded of it either

But then what if you genuinely don't see it? Does it make it rude to have not noticed it? I figure "polite fiction" means I do whatever I'd have done if I really hadn't noticed the typo--i.e. nothing.

I think this is one of those situations where it's not rude to do it and it's not rude to not do it either.

Giggity, guess I don't see correcting a typo as being quoted inaccurately. Besides, I'd rather be quoted for what I meant to type rather than for what I actually typed (which is a slippery slope I know, which is why I only apply it to blatant typos and mix-up of names).

[Judah]

I'd rather be quoted accurately than corrected.

This is how I feel about it too.  Quote my post as it is, not as you think it should be.

[Yvaine]

I ignore typos unless a message is so mangled as to be incomprehensible (which is usually because of autocorrect on people's phones, I think). And in that case I'm going to ask for a clarification, not try to decide what the person meant to type and fix it myself.

[Aeris]

I'd rather be quoted accurately than corrected.

I agree completely. I would find it incredibly presumptuous and high handed for someone to correct my typos when quoting me. Quote me correctly or not at all, but don't presume to 'fix me', and don't edit my submission like you're my grade school teacher. I think that's incredibly rude. I would think it was snotty, and that the person doing it was trying to be catty and subtle about their one-upsmanship.

The only possible thing that would be ruder would be leaving the typo but inserting [sic] behind it.

Ignoring it says that you didn't even see it. Fixing says "I saw it, and I want you to know I saw it."