I'd like to direct your attention to this answer's revisions. The OP asked about ways to get Exif data, and I provided an answer with both a client-side and a server-side solution. This answer seemed to be good as it was upvoted and accepted. However, more than a year later today, the OP edited my answer to remove the server-side part of it. I would have most likely thought nothing of it if it wasn't for his reason:

No PHP allowed in my answers

So not only does that make my answer less complete for people looking for a solution to the same problem he had, but the reason he did so was because of some hatred / bias against PHP? Am I being petty or is this plain not right?

  • 2
    to be fair, the question says he wants to do it all in the browser using Javascript. It's still odd to go to the trouble of editing out that part of the answer - I probably would have just commented saying I didn't want your server side solution. Dec 1 '12 at 23:17
  • 4
    @KateGregory: Exactly - that would have been appropriate. Editing out the content, especially with that inflammatory comment, is inappropriate IMO.
    – Jon Skeet
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:36
  • It seems like he is sticking to his guns on it, having rolled it back to his version. I rolled it back again, but I don't want this to turn into a big rollback war. How can we settle this?
    – Xeon06
    Dec 3 '12 at 15:35
  • 1
    I settled it by editing the answer so that unrelated PHP information comes after the correct part in the answer. Dec 4 '12 at 4:32
  • 3
    Also I don't see how this is bias: You don't post PHP answers in C++ questions, you don't post PHP answers in Python questions and so on. The question clearly stated, starting from the title, that it is a Javascript question. Dec 4 '12 at 8:55
  • It was your edit reason that led me to believe it was bias. "No PHP allowed in my answers". And to be fair, my solution still involved JavaScript; it's just that the heavy computing was done on the server. I don't think you can compare suggesting to use PHP with an AJAX call in a JS question to using PHP on a C++ question.
    – Xeon06
    Dec 4 '12 at 15:22
  • Regardless @MikkoOhtamaa as far as I'm concerned, I'm happy with the solution we have now.
    – Xeon06
    Dec 4 '12 at 15:22

That is plain not right. Feel free to roll it back. If the OP disagrees with your post he can always leave a comment and downvote. But that's about it. Destruction of content is inappropriate.

  • 4
    "Destruction of content is inappropriate." That's the first time I hear this on meta. Has there been a shift of politics while I looked elsewhere?
    – sbi
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:19
  • @sbi Dammit, you were not supposed to see that. Who turned the filter off?
    – Bart
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:20
  • 1
    – sbi
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:22
  • I am the spirit that denies....
    – Bart
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:24
  • 1
    Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!
    – sbi
    Dec 1 '12 at 23:24

As long as you are answering the original question, your answer is acceptable. The information you added about PHP, while it is not something that was asked, could be useful to somebody who wants to do the same thing, but has a server running PHP. I also read your answer as suggesting that is better to do it on server side. Even if it is not something the OP asked, it still a consideration that is worth being done.

As for the edits that are acceptable, I always refer to the suggestions given to who doesn't have the privilege to edit every post. I think the suggestions are still valid for who can edit any post.

  • fix grammatical or spelling errors
  • clarify meaning without changing it
  • correct minor mistakes
  • add related resources or links
  • always respect the original author

Removing part of an answer is not contemplated in those points. I would understand removing a part of an answer that is purely noise, such as complaining about something, but giving more information than required is not something I would consider noise, also because the answer is not just thought for who answered the question, but also for future readers.

  • I think in this situation, the last dot-point applies: "always respect the original author". Removing a significant portion of an answer, even if it doesn't directly address the question, is disrespectful of the answer's author.
    – Mac
    Dec 2 '12 at 22:07

I am the author of the question.

The question was specifically asking for the client-side solution in Javascript. The question is about avoiding the PHP server-side part, because it is unrelated to the use case and the knowledge for this is well known and established elsewhere. In my use case, as explained, it is really better to do it on the client side and that is why I asked the question in the first place.

The answer was ok, but it contained unnecessary beginning of PHP solution which is a server-side solution and is not related to the question. Because finding the real gem in the answer was difficult, I decided to edit the answer.

You must log in to answer this question.

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