Should we remove the ability to modify your post once posted?

[saint]

Many times now someone has either deleted the contents of their thread because they were leaving the forum, or changed the contents of their threads out of anger, or changed the contents of their threads to hide something inappropriate they'd done. Should we remove the ability to modify your thread once posted to prevent this? The flip side is that if you need to clarify or correct something, you can't if we take this permission away.

Note - it can be done differently per forum. For instance, we would almost certainly leave this ability in the buy/sell/trade forum.

Votes? (Note - I'm after opinions here. I reserve the right to do nothing in true slacker fashion )

--- saint

[patrickl]

Of course people can abuse this facility, but there can also be legitimate uses for changing posts.

I like the ability to fix errors I made in a post. I guess I should use the preview more often, but often I only spot the typo's and badly formed sentences after I post. Or I need to fix links that don't work and the same with images.

Can you stop changes after a certain period of time has elapsed? Like maybe after an hour or a day?

:edit: See? Typo fixed 

[saint]

Hmmm.... /me looks into that.

[bfauska]

I'd say yes, but I think I want to go back and sabotage my posts right before I storm off in a few months.

Seriously though, I wonder if there is a way to make  pre-edit version always viewable (thru a link or something), so people couldn't post care-free crap with the intent of changing it, or go back and wreck any good info they had shared.

With out the option I mention above I think that the ability to edit posts is enough of a useful tool to make it worth keeping.

[XyloSesame]

My initial reaction was yes, completely remove the ability, save the BST and Project Announcements forums. However, repairing/removing broken links, whether URL or image, is a good argument for keeping this functionality.

Is there any way to simply append a post without having the ability to alter the original?

[jbox]

I much prefer the "View edit history" option if that's on the table. There are simply too many useful reasons for editing posts to remove it completely, and too many annoying reasons to edit your posts to think it's perfect as is. 

[Dmod]

I second patrickl's point since I'm often correcting horrible grammar and spelling mistakes after I've posted, but I suppose I could learn to use Preview.

[tommy]

I'd say regulate it on a case by case basis. When you see a person using this function in an improper manor take it away from that person and that person only. Don't treat this like everything else in the world in that we all have to pay for a few others mistakes.

[TOK]

I voted no, because even though we have the occasional spaz that goes back and changes all of their posts, its pretty atypical.

I usually only edit for grammar, but I'll confess that there have been times in EE and PnR I've typed a reply, read it a short time later and edited with a clearer head. I'm glad for that option, because regardless of how strong my opinion is, I'm not really looking to offend or hurt anyones feelings and sometimes you lose sight of that in the heat of the moment.

[Tiger-Heli]

I also like the View edit history option.

Another forum I am on has a time limit on modifying posts, but you can have an admin change it for you later if required, that works well also.

I often go back and add info on this forum, so I wouldn't want the capability removed totally.

[ChadTower]

If available, viewing the edit history is perfect.

I really dislike when people go back and change the actual content of what they've said when the discussion gets a bit heated.  If you said something you regret later, be a man, and just reply saying "my bad, I had an a-hole moment."  I've done that.

On the other hand, we do need to be able to edit in some forum sections.  I know in my project threads I tend to put up a skeleton post and then flesh it out later with details and/or pics.  I also wouldn't be able to run the Last Man Standing game  if I couldn't edit the first post.

[missioncontrol]

We have an edit button?

I very rarely use it... If I mess up my tags when posting a pic or url then I go back and fix it... as for editing typos, I don't worry about it, unless it is really bad. Those who edit post to hide what they originally said only hurt their own reputation, if they can't man up and backup what they said, they'll just delete their account and create a new one...


doesn't really matter to me, yeah some people edit grammar and such and that's fine, I just don't worry about it....

[Kaytrim]

I catch many a mistake after posting.  Sometimes I edit several times before I leave it alone.  I like the idea of a preview prior to final post.  However I still like the ability to edit our mistakes or fix links in a post.  I voted to keep the edit ability.  If this is to be limited to certain forums I would say keep it in the BST, Project, Artwork, Software and Main forums.  The others can be on a time limited edit if possible.

TTFN

[MinerAl]

I change ISPs fairly frequently (I'm a deal whore).  So my image links are always changing.  If I couldn't edit old posts, my super informative images would be lost forever.

It would be cool if there was a past versions view like in the Wiki (as mentioned above), but that doesn't sound like a minor change to implement.

[sirwoogie]

I change ISPs fairly frequently (I'm a deal whore).  So my image links are always changing.  If I couldn't edit old posts, my super informative images would be lost forever.

It would be cool if there was a past versions view like in the Wiki (as mentioned above), but that doesn't sound like a minor change to implement.

The best way to combat that is to post your images as attachments to the forum. That way, we're serving them, and you don't have to worry about image links. We keep them around forever.

[shardian]

I also vote for the "view edit history" if possible. 98% of the time, edits are harmless and meant to better clarify things. Sometimes I see an edit stamp and wonder what exactly changed though. I would say add mod approval to edits, but that would be WAY too much work.

If edit history is not possible, then I would then vote for probation or possible banning for abusers of the system.

[ChadTower]

Can't tell you how many times I've read someone's post, wrote up a reply, and by the time I hit submit they had edited out the content I was replying to... there are a few members that do this regularly.

[missioncontrol]

what annoys me is when a topic I've read is edited, then it's flagged as new again, so then I go to see what new replies have been posted and it turns out nothing new has been posted.

It's highly disappointing.

[heffe2001]

I would say for the most part, no, BUT...  What would be nice is to give us the ability to close our own posts in say the For Sale forum, like marking the item sold, but then not allowing those posts to be edited after being 'sold'.  Another forum I'm on does it that way, and it saves a bit of hassle if the deal goes bad, and the seller removes something, or changes the description after the fact.  As far as other sections, I'd have to say leave it as-is.

[RTSDaddy2]

I'd say leave it - as a college professor once told me, I write like I think (or talk...or something like that)...and sometimes my grammar stinks.  I know I've changed a review post three or four times once because I'd read a sentence that made no sense, fix it, save it, then realize that it STILL didn't make any sense, try again, etc....

[Space Fractal]

I have my self changed the topic sometimes when I have released a new version of my App (example old Arcade Music Box and new MultiJuke). Personly here there is not need to post a new thread every time I update the software. Hince I edit the topic instead (which mostly change version number and date for most).

This is a legal method for developers (like me) when releasing a new update, rather to start a new thread. So removing edit button can cause confuction and we would need to begin a new thread every time for a release, which should not been needed.

Other edits is some one wrote just to correct errors, and even one did removed the post for respect to the original author (as I remember in the Jukebox forum). I guess it was a negative post, that newer should been posted, but like when the does do that and wrote about it later. godus for that.

So I guess it have a handy use, but some can of course misuse it, which is sad. Maybe a time based ban is the only way here?

So a least in Jukebox and Software forum, I have newer seen that problem.

[rockin_rick]

I think that a good solution is to only allow previous text to be striked out when edited and not actually be able to remove it.  It's sort of like talking, I can't go back and make it so you never heard me in the first place, but the strikeout will get the point across.  And then only allow new info to be added to the bottom of the post with date and time of addition.  I find it highly annoying when someone posts something, and then goes back to delete it out - most often to hide them acting like an ass.  This then causes the person responding to them being an ass to being seen in the wrong light.  Perhaps if they knew that they couldn't hide being an ass they would do it less.  [Less drama, please.]

Rick

[Tiger-Heli]

Rick has a very good suggestion, IMHO.

[Space Fractal]

personnly I do not like the idea, if the edited posts is just a lots of spelling (like mines). I have seen on some forums, only the most recent post can been edited. That one work pretty well.

With outer word: Only the few last posts can been edited.

Another thing, the edit function can been timed too (apart from the very first thread for the below reason).

Again I have not see the problem yet for us software developers in both Jukebox and software, where the first original post sometimes to get updated, rather to wipe up a another thread.

[Chris G]

I think editing should be allowed so people can continue to annoy mission.   

[shmokes]

I would die without edit.  Literally.  I write such retardedly long posts that when I'm finally done, the thought of proofing it is too daunting and I hit the post button.  But once posted I can't help but read over it and immediately I see, not only typos, but entire words left out of sentences or two sentences run together nonsensically because my train of thought headed down another track shortly before actually reaching its original destination.  Normally the edit is finished within a couple of minutes of originally posting, and any significant edits made later on are usually accompanied with the "edit:" bit at the bottom.

I hate when people delete what they wrote previously, or even edit it to change the meaning without full documentation.  I think it's downright dishonest.  But I would rather live with the occasional weasel than live without the edit button (or is it modify?).  I think the revision history, if possible, is a great idea.  If it's not possible, my vote is "as-is".

[sirwoogie]

OK, we're going to see how a compromise works. We have the ability to enforce a lockout on edit after a certain period of time. I have set this to something reasonable that I think most people can work with. We'll let this feature stand for a while and see if there are any complaints.

[JoyMonkey]

OK, we're going to see how a compromise works. We have the ability to enforce a lockout on edit after a certain period of time. I have set this to something reasonable that I think most people can work with. We'll let this feature stand for a while and see if there are any complaints.

I was just about to suggest that. Great minds...

[Dmod]

Woogie,

Just curious... what's the limit set to?  I'm unable to modify my post from this morning (about 12 hours ago).

edit::  In Project Announcements, many of us have gotten into the habit of modifying our thread titles to reflect the date and content of a new update.  With the modified settings, I don't think this is possible anymore.

[sirwoogie]

It's less than 12 hours. I'm not going to publicly show what the timeout is so we don't have abuse of that system.

As for the project announcements, we can on a per user basis lift the editing restriction. If you need to be added, let me know.

[Space Fractal]

sound like a good idea.

 I would do like to stil couldl change the original subject, when we release new versions of our software (normally only subject). So we dosent need to add a new thread every time.

But it should ONLY been possible by the orignal post writer and in only the first post. Not in replyes or such.

[loadman]

I usually only edit for grammar, but I'll confess that there have been times in EE and PnR I've typed a reply, read it a short time later and edited with a clearer head. I'm glad for that option, because regardless of how strong my opinion is, I'm not really looking to offend or hurt anyones feelings and sometimes you lose sight of that in the heat of the moment.

me 2

[csa3d]

What about informational threads, such as the Control Panel Hole Sizes thread I'm keeping in the Woodworking section, where the goal is to update the top of the thread as new information is confirmed and added?

I've never experienced misinformation on this forum due to editing a post.  I vote against edit limiting, and if it's that big a deal, figure out a way to note that that post has been edited, not necessarily  what was edited (for simplicity sake)

-csa

[Santoro]

I'm not fond of the limitation.  I often modify first posts with running updates, and many of us change project thread names based on recent progess.  This precludes that.

[Level42]

I am strongly against it for the same reasons Patrick mentions, and lots of others here. The good guys are suffering from the bad here !

[patrickl]

I am strongly against it for the same reasons Patrick mentions, and lots of others here. The good guys are suffering from the bad here !

Actually, I suggested exactly what is now implemented by sirwoogie.

Maybe an exception can be made for first posts in the threads?

[Space Fractal]

Actually, I suggested exactly what is now implemented by sirwoogie.

Maybe an exception can be made for first posts in the threads?

That is what I think. it ONLY the first post, that might need to been updated, due to project change and such on. The rest is absolutt not a problem to been time restricted.

[RetroACTIVE]

Actually, I suggested exactly what is now implemented by sirwoogie.

Maybe an exception can be made for first posts in the threads?

That is what I think. it ONLY the first post, that might need to been updated, due to project change and such on. The rest is absolutt not a problem to been time restricted.

Me three!... I also like to add subtitle to my project announcement thread when I've done an update... as it stands now its locked and the title is out of date with my current postings/status... also I would like to put "finished" when done...

or... when posting to your own thread... allow the title to be reflected in the main post... this would keep the time limit guard in on older posts but still be flexible enough to permit the title changing...

[saint]

What I think I will do is to enable everyone to be able to edit their posts, and then remove that ability on an as-need basis if someone abuses it. May also see about tying it to newbie user status also? I'll talk to Woogie about it

[patrickl]

Lol.

Trouble is that the damage is already done by the time you learn that a user is abusing it.