Discussion in 'Forum Techie Questions And Suggestions' started by Griff, Feb 23, 2016.
How long do you want posts to be editable (by their owner)?
I entered 24 hours, but I am perfectly happy with the way it is at the moment.
Edit: Changed my mind. Glad I did it within the 3 hour window
as it is, its easier to follow threads when people dont go back and change the point their making
I voted for keep it as is, but I wonder if there is a way to set a "delete" window separately from the "edit". The delete window should be pretty short, like 3 hours, but could allow a little more leeway to fix a typo, say, or soften an insult (or intensify one?).
I chose 3 hours. I usually fix my mistakes in that time. Sometimes I miss things but that's not too often.
Thank you Griff.
See you down the road
I go for unlimited because ancient man only had three numbers they could comprehend: One, Two and Many.
Of the three, I always choose "Many" - which works well for guitars, but not so well for ex-wives...
And, if somebody's going to be editing their posts to mess with a situation then I'll just put them on my ignore list - that's ALWAYS worked well!
I guess I really don't understand the logic of limiting this at all. I really don't understand this revisionist history stuff.
But if I see misspellings in my post or I have said something that I regret I would rather have the ability to edit or delete without having to bother the moderators. Also hyperlinks which no longer work or that have an error can be fixed.
But no big deal one way or the other. But thanks Griff, for putting this out in an opinion poll.
I generally spot my typos straight after posting so I correct there and then so 3 hours is more than enough.
If there is somebody who wishes to lighten or (heaven forbid) strengthen a comment then a new post is an option.
Peace Love and Guitar Practice to you ALL.
I will admit I went for the three hours, mainly for correcting typo's. If someone takes offence to something I have said, or misinterpreted something, then I can apologize with a reply to that specific persons post, or explain better in a new post. I doubt that anyone on here would intentionally try to make a fool of someone by changing their post, after a reply had been made, but it could cause loss of continuity in the thread, if the original post was changed. A new post would be better to clear up a point if it is causing any confusion,or misinterpretation. Crossroads has a point that hits home with me though, non-working links. Just my 0.02c
When Kevin is in his element...it takes a few days to come back to reality. I would say a year...just sayin'.
Oooh, Crossroads' lobbying campaign is working! No limit is now the leading choice!
BUT... so far only 30% have voted for no limit - the other 70% of the votes are for SOME limit.
I don't think an unlimited ability to go back and rewrite history is a good thing. If you have second thoughts about something you wrote just make another post and explain or apologize.
David for me it's not so much about rewriting history, take a hyperlink that is no longer working. Do you want to go through 4 pages of a thread to find the new link or new information?
It's just a forum.... Do we seriously care about revisionist history??? Silly to me...
Which should be a pretty good indicator that "no limit" isn't the popular solution.
Forums I'm on that allow endless edits always have threads the end up with "..." posts in them where some newbie doesn't get the response he wanted on his thread so goes back and deletes his comments. IMHO It's pretty rare someone goes back and changes a comment to reflect a different view. On many of those forums the regulars know to quote a post they are replying too as it saves the original comment for prosperity. Quotes don't update with posts and datestamps keep everything real.
On the other hand, when considering something like updating hyperlinks on old posts... edits to previous info are rarely seen by the regulars as they just click on the "unread posts" button which, as far as I know, doesn't go back to edited posts. So you end up posting the new link further down the thread anyway, or a post that says "Sorry Joe, I posted an update to the info back on the first page, you must have missed it" and Joe makes some witty reply about not reading every 14 pages of the thread each day to check for edits. The only time that seems to work is on stickies that show, for instance, a technical drawing for Telecaster body. As the drawing is revised the first post gets updated and everyone knows to look there for the latest version. General discussions? It's the internet and everyone should be aware a three year old post may not contain a correct link anymore.
There are arguments for both sides. In the end it's Griff's forum and if he wants time limits so be it. In this case the poll shows a time limit is desired by most. The length of the limit might be the next debate. I don't really care either way so haven't bothered to vote...
Desmodog!! Vote damn it!! don't wimp out!! ...
I chose 3 hours - cause of typo or I said something stupid which I don't know is stupid until I see it in words.
I am not convinced I voted correctly:
1) I am not against unlimited - but it could get messy if people go back and change things without the rest of us being able to respond. It is possible the change could have effected the direction of the thread.
2) When we communicate on this forum it should be dynamic and similar to people talking (give and take). Keeping the edit capability to 3 hours is more of the "I can't write what I am thinking" therefore I can take another stab at what I meant to say (and in better English - grammar and all). Changing after a few days is more like trying to change history - which is done all the time and always by the victors, but that is a thread for another day.
Scott (that's my name at least for the next 3 hours)
Voting! So Griff is making a democratic decision? Sometimes it gets confusing. I've heard many times in my life, "Scott, you thought this was a democracy? Silly boy". Griff will do what he things is right or what he thinks the people want? Sorry - I'll probably look back and want to delete these comments.
Scott (for the next 3 hours)
That is the first step towards self awareness. Congratulations!
Griff, in his ultimate wisdom, has envisioned your dilemma in advance and provided a "Change your Vote button" see above.
BTW I am giving out free guitar tuners...just sayin.