# 告知用户其贡献被删除的原因？

**URL:** https://meta.discourse.org/t/let-the-user-know-why-his-contributions-are-deleted/163440
**Category:** Site feedback
**Created:** [2020年九月9日 01:11 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/let-the-user-know-why-his-contributions-are-deleted/163440 "2020-09-09T01:11:46Z")
**Posts on this page:** 1
**Showing post:** 7

<div class="post-metadata">

### Author: ![JacobDK](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/meta/user_avatar/meta.discourse.org/jacobdk/32/133657_2.png) [@JacobDK](https://meta.discourse.org/u/JacobDK)
#### Post date: [2020年九月9日 01:37 UTC](https://meta.discourse.org/t/let-the-user-know-why-his-contributions-are-deleted/163440/7 "2020-09-09T01:37:11Z")

</div>

> [@codinghorror](#):
>
> 那些具体的帖子已经变得无关紧要了

我完全理解。不过在我看来，这确实能反映出该插件是否得到了妥善维护，或者是否还略显粗糙，因为它并未像帖子中所述的那样正常工作。直到我再次更新 Discourse 后，它才正常运行。对我而言，了解某个修复是否真正有效，或者是否获得了“官方”认可，是有价值的。

但让我们继续讨论我的主题——处理这种情况的最佳方式是什么？正如我和 Simon 在他提供的链接中所建议的那样，发送私信：

> [@Deleting posts and redirecting loss attention](https://meta.discourse.org/t/deleting-posts-and-redirecting-loss-attention/163161):
>
> I saw loss aversion/attention be referenced in several topics about deleted posts. I understand a design principle of Discourse is to prevent or redirect unwanted behaviour and users spending lots of time and energy over a deleted post is certainly unwanted behaviour. Telling them yes, loss attention is powerful. you can read more about it on wikipedia is not really redirecting that energy. The way deleted posts are evaporized for the user also seems to fuel a strong reaction rather than contai…

编辑：拼写错误。将“Giving”改为“Given”。

---

_[View the full topic](https://meta.discourse.org/t/let-the-user-know-why-his-contributions-are-deleted/163440)._