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

[Space Fractal]

no, I think time restricted is very fine, and I personally would not have any problem with it, even I voted no.

The only exception would just been the very first post, so project status and/or version numbers can been updated in the subject.

It here it can been a problem if we cant update the project or software version numbers of it (hence I would need example remove version numbers general in my MultiJuke thread in the first post, if it would been locked).

[csa3d]

no, I think time restricted is very fine, and I personally would not have any problem with it, even I voted no.

The only exception would just been the very first post, so project status and/or version numbers can been updated in the subject.

It here it can been a problem if we cant update the project or software version numbers of it (hence I would need example remove version numbers general in my MultiJuke thread in the first post, if it would been locked).

I too am on board with this if so inclined.  I also don't care if we never have limits on edits as well.
-csa

[superbigjay]

In my case, I found usefull to be able to edit the title of the first thread to reflect the current status of a project...

Jay 

[Kaytrim]

In my case, I found usefull to be able to edit the title of the first thread to reflect the current status of a project...

As did I, please bring this ability back.

[shmokes]

I agree with Saint.  The overwhelming response to the poll was "no".  I understand where Patrick is coming from that by the time you recognize that a person is an abuser they have already caused damage, but you can say that of all kinds of things.  I just don't think the problem is bad enough to impose an ongoing hardship on hundreds of decent members in order to protect against a really rare problem.  Afterall, you don't invade an apparently powerless country because it might have weapons of mass destruction, do you?  No.  You wait until the country at least demonstrates a capability, and probably until it makes some act of aggression against you.   

I'm against preemption.  Not many people do this, and when they do, it must simply be reported and they'll never do it again. 

[ChadTower]

I just lost the ability to run reasonable organization in the NFL Last Man Standing thread.   

[Tiger-Heli]

It's not a big deal to me either way - I only edit posts if something I said was inaccurate - if it was after the new time limit I can always add a reply saying "Link to site X in reply #17 above should now go to site Y instead..."

[SGT]

I don't like the new restrictions for two reasons.

1)  Harder to update sticky threads like the high score patch thread in the software forum.
2)  I realize a few days later that I have posted instructions with incorrect information.  Now whenever someone refers back to them, I will have led them in the wrong direction.

[saint]

Fixed. Everyone is allowed to edit their posts again. However, we now have the ability to remove this from specific users. Users who abuse the edit to hide things or whom otherwise make it seem likely that they will do so will lose the ability to edit old messages. Note - I do know there is a difference between someone making an ass of themself, realizing it, and editing their post to make nice versus someone doing it to be a jerk.

--- saint

[bfauska]

Saint = big dumb dummy.

I mean... we love saint.

Edit:  ummmmmmmmm nothing, nevermind.

[Dmod]

Thanks Saint.

Much better system IMO.   

[Santoro]

yay.   

[Level42]

Thanks ! 

[danny_galaga]

time limit sounds like an idea. but definitely more than an hour. maybe a day. will help stop confusion. wont stop all problems naturally...

[Cakemeister]

Is there a way to have unlimited edits possible on the first post of a thread and a time limit on editing responses?

That way you don't mess up the project announcements or buy/sell/trade threads, Shmokes can do his grammar edits, and you catch the uvulas and meecrobs.

[shmokes]

I wouldn't object to a time limit, but I'd want the time limit to be like two weeks.  As long as a thread is active I might edit a post, never for content, but for clarity/grammar, etc., in case someone comes in late and reads through the whole thread to catch up.

[unclet]

I like the ability to edit my posts.   I do it all the time.  After I write a bunch of text and then post it, I tend to read it again soon after posting it and decide I was unclear in certain areas and quickly edit it to fix it up.  It would be annoying to have to make new posts explaining how my previous posts were not as informative as possible.   I would imagine most people do not go back and delete everything they wrote. 

I also like having the ability to be able to edit the very first post in a topic I started with new version release information, etc ......  so people can simply open up the thread and see the most current updates to a project, etc.... which is being worked on or which announces a new version of software .... etc....

[ChadTower]

FWIW, there is a small window of a minute or two after a post is made that you can edit it without having it marked as edited.  It's not long enough for you to post something insulting, have the person read it, then have you remove it to cover your tracks... but it is long enough for you to proofread your post and make a couple quick tweaks to it for clarity.  I do that all the time.

[shmokes]

I always assumed that window was exactly as long as it took for someone else to enter or refresh the thread after you posted.  So if you post a message and nobody goes into the thread for 24 hours you can still modify it without it being marked as edited, but if you post in a fast moving thread and someone starts reading your post 20 seconds after you post it, the window is only 20 seconds big.

[ChadTower]

That's definitely possible.

[Bones]

I would like to be able to edit other peoples posts. Can you make this possible?

[saint]

Done!

[patrickl]

 

[bfauska]

I think Bones is the Awesomez!!!



(Last edit by Bones 11/19/07 11:30am)

[bfauska]

I think Bones is the Awesomez!!!



(Last edit by Bones 11/19/07 11:30am)

HEY!!! that's not what I said.

[ChadTower]

Suddenly, for Bones, BYOAC is Better Than Life.

[tommy]

I think posts should be able to be edited one time only and only after 5 minutes of posting, after that time any legit post that needs to be fixed for a real reason as in grammar can be allowed. Other than that it is not needed.

If you need to say anything else just make another post.

[patrickl]

You haven't been paying much attention to this thread have you?

[ChadTower]

...and there is no way to determine why a person is making an edit.

[WunderCade]

I know that...until I discovered the 'Preview' feature...I relied heavily on the edit function. Another thing is that a lot of people tend to read their posts after posting it, they catch the mistakes ie. typos, double words sentences, etc. and they can't resist going back in an fixing them.

[missioncontrol]

I know that...until I discovered the 'Preview' feature...I relied heavily on the edit function. Another thing is that everyone tends to read their posts after posting it, they catch the mistakes ie. typos, double words sentences, etc. and they can't resist going back in an fixing them.

I don't read my post after I post...  so I guess not everyone reads their post after they post...

[ChadTower]

I don't read my post after I post...  so I guess not everyone reads their post after they post...

I'm not sure mission reads his posts while he's posting them.

There's nothing wrong with going back for a quick spelling or grammar edit.  I don't remember anyone saying that...

[WunderCade]

so I guess not everyone reads their post after they post...

I know that...until I discovered the 'Preview' feature...I relied heavily on the edit function. Another thing is that a lot of people tend to read their posts after posting it, they catch the mistakes ie. typos, double words sentences, etc. and they can't resist going back in an fixing them.

Fixt. using the *edit* feature 

[Hoopz]

In B/S/T on 12/14/2007, a user became frustrated with how people were asking questions regarding his items for sale.  He asked for everything to be done via PM.  When they continued to ask questions, he deleted the original post and started a new one.

I think in any spirit of the rules, that this would be something that should be avoided.

[saint]

Yes, I saw that and removed his ability to edit posts.

[BORIStheBLADE]

I say let us modify our post and don't let a few bad apples ruin it for the rest. I also think we should have the option to delete threads that we created if no one has posted.
Perfect example, I created a thread tonight in the wrong forum. I can't delete it so I chose to message a mod to see if he can move it. Maybe he'll end up deleting it???
If I were to create another thread in the right forum it would look like I'm double posting and most people don't like that. Right.......??

[DaOld Man]

I vote to leave the editing ability in.
I make some pretty stupid looking typos that i sometimes have to fix after I see them on the big screen..

[saint]

It's been set so you can edit your posts unless someone abuses it, and then only that person loses the ability to edit posts.

[tommy]

It's been set so you can edit your posts unless someone abuses it, and then only that person loses the ability to edit posts.

Great job, now if we can only get this idea to be accepted all over the world for many ideas.

[ChadTower]

I propose we remove tommy's ability to edit a post before posted.