When an original post is deleted then, contrary to what happens on Tumblr, all re-blogs of that post, including any that include additional content, are automatically deleted. The original poster knows this happens, of course, because they deleted it. But everyone else who re-posted it with their own content added, knows nothing about it. It's just gone.
I raised this as a call about a month ago and the reply was that this was a deliberate policy in order to protect privacy. And it appears that many users like this idea because it provides (some) protection and control over their original content.
However, my argument was that this was unfair on those people who added content - in the form of captions - in their re-blogged posts, because they ended up have significantly reduced control over their content. And, indeed, if they're not aware of this behaviour and take steps to back up their content then they actually lose original content that they may have spent a significant amount of time creating and that they are quite attached to.
So my counter-suggestion was that rather deleting all downstream re-blogs, they could all stay in place, but a dummy, blanked-out post could be inserted in it's place.
The support team suggested that this might be implemented in a future release...
SO... reason for this post is twofold: First to raise it up to a level where other people can add their comments and thoughts. (I already made posted this discovery on the main site, so at least other people weree aware that backups were important if they didn't wish to lose their content.)
Secondly, it's so that it doesn't get forgotten about.
I understand that whatever support may have said, that doesn't mean that it will be implemented, or that it will be implemented any time soon. But, IMHO, it's a pretty big problem that should be addressed just as urgently as other requests that are currrently underway.
[As another example, this happened to another post of mine from a few weeks ago: the original poster posted some of their own photos, together with a long caption. I re-blogged it with another quite long caption - specifically because she asked me to re-blog it with my captions. A few weeks later, we realise it's no longer there. She didn't know about it, and, of course nor did I. Turns out it was deleted because it was deemed to fall foul of the TOS. I won't explain here what terms it was deemed to have violated, but I think it's fair to say that it was by no means obvious that it did so. I'm not complaining that it was deemed to be a violation - I'll do that in another discussion! - but it's a further example of re-blogs getting deleted with no knowledge. In this case, I had a back-up of what I had written, at least, because I now do that.]
Please sign in to leave a comment.