I meant timestamps on the "Post Deleted" and "Post Edited" footnotes themselves.
A Change For The Worse
Sort:
I know, what did you think I thought you meant? 
Um, hang on while I edit my post....
So, what you're saying, Catalyst, is just remove the 'delete' function permanently and just keep in the 'edit', allowing users to completely empty their posts of content.
Makes sense to me. Objections?
Ease of use.
Other than that, no.
Then, Erik, if you're listening, this might actually make more sense than my original suggestion. Lets call it an improvement.
Catalyst, I think trying to write it so that one post in each thread is an exception to the rule is harder than just making a rule that covers all posts.
Oh, I see. Just out of interest, how much experience do you have in coding a website?
Oh right, cool. Got any advice to share? 
Right. Well, anyway, Erik is bound to adopt at least ONE of these ideas. They're all good. So, lets just sit back and wait for a new day, and a new forum, free of me owning threads I would rather swim in a lake of horse excrement than create.
One problem I've seen with the currnet delete functionality, if it were kept, is that it causes all subsequent posts to get renumbered. Any explicit references to post numbers end up offset from what they originally referenced as a result if the delete was an earlier post than the reference.
I still think the placeholder is better when a delete occurs.
Yeah, well, that's my original idea (not original if you suggested it first, TheGrobe, but sorry about that anyway) and I'd prefer if this was the chosen method.
A gap in the numbers would tell you that a post was deleted if you knew to look for it whereas a placeholder would tell you by whom and you couldn't miss it. I could go either way, as long as the numbering problem was addressed, but I'd prefer the placeholder.
Looks like a fix was implemented.
TheGrobe- Yes, timestamps would be another good addition to our forums. I suppose they do link somewhat to the suggestion here.