Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't want users to be able to mess up conversations by mass editing or deleting posts. Think before you post on the internet.

[tolbs17]

That's called "moderating".

[kphoger]

I think people should have a 15-minute window to edit a post.

However, the point that has been brought up before is that some threads are constructed in such a way that the OP edits the original post with new info as it becomes available.

[Scott5114]

If a user is found to be editing/deleting posts disruptively, they may be given a warning for disruptive behavior and/or the ability to edit or delete posts disabled on a per-user basis.

The vast majority of users use the edit function constructively, so disabling edit/deletion rights globally would not be beneficial to the forum.

[Roadgeekteen]

If a user is found to be editing/deleting posts disruptively, they may be given a warning for disruptive behavior and/or the ability to edit or delete posts disabled.

The vast majority of users use the edit function constructively, so disabling edit/deletion rights globally would not be beneficial to the forum.

Ok that's good. Just don't like rage editing.

[tolbs17]

If a user is found to be editing/deleting posts disruptively, they may be given a warning for disruptive behavior and/or the ability to edit or delete posts disabled.

The vast majority of users use the edit function constructively, so disabling edit/deletion rights globally would not be beneficial to the forum.

Ok that's good. Just don't like rage editing.

Same here. Unless I realize the thread is stupid!

[Roadgeekteen]

If a user is found to be editing/deleting posts disruptively, they may be given a warning for disruptive behavior and/or the ability to edit or delete posts disabled.

The vast majority of users use the edit function constructively, so disabling edit/deletion rights globally would not be beneficial to the forum.

Ok that's good. Just don't like rage editing.

Same here. Unless I realize the thread is stupid!

Even if it's stupid, editing it will make the next few posts confusing for readers to understand.

[dlsterner]

I don't want users to be able to mess up conversations by mass editing or deleting posts. Think before you post on the internet.

Too heavy-handed IMHO.  There have been a few times where I've noticed a typo in my post, and my OCD compels me to fix it.

In any case my edits do not totally change the intent of the post.  I want to be able to change "I-496" when I meant to type "I-495".  As opposed to a Fictional thread that had its entire content changed to "7".

Edit:  Changed "compiles" typo to "compels".  I didn't purposely plan that!  Really!

[Roadgeekteen]

I don't want users to be able to mess up conversations by mass editing or deleting posts. Think before you post on the internet.

Too heavy-handed IMHO.  There have been a few times where I've noticed a typo in my post, and my OCD compiles me to fix it.

In any case my edits do not totally change the intent of the post.  I want to be able to change "I-496" when I meant to type "I-495".  As opposed to a Fictional thread that had its entire content changed to "7".

I like Scott's policy on disruptive editing actually.

[JoePCool14]

If a user is found to be editing/deleting posts disruptively, they may be given a warning for disruptive behavior and/or the ability to edit or delete posts disabled on a per-user basis.

The vast majority of users use the edit function constructively, so disabling edit/deletion rights globally would not be beneficial to the forum.

Thank you. Most people are sensible about using the edit button, and I do not like using forums where this ability is removed.

[1]

I'm strongly against restrictions, including the 15-minute window.

[tolbs17]

Or you can limit the number of words that you can edit.

[1]

Or you can limit the number of words that you can edit.

There have been times where I make a post containing two things and the previous poster ninja-edits, making me delete one of the two, as it's already answered or no longer relevant.

[Scott5114]

Or you can limit the number of words that you can edit.

The forum software does not have an option to establish an editing limit by word count.

[CoreySamson]

I think editing a title should need mod approval. That way we know what the thread was originally about. Other edits, no.

[1]

I think editing a title should need mod approval. That way we know what the thread was originally about. Other edits, no.

But if there's a typo in the title?

[Scott5114]

Those of you who habitually quote the OP in your replies are the real MVPs. Steve and I were able to revert a few of these post-blankings because of that.

I think editing a title should need mod approval. That way we know what the thread was originally about. Other edits, no.

The problem is that the forum software doesn't make any distinction between editing the first post in the thread (which what the thread title derives from) or any other post in the thread. There's also no way to "require mod approval" other than to outright deny edit rights and require any edit to be made by a moderator. (This means that we would have to spend more time servicing these requests and less time writing important posts like the history of Grand Alan Garfunkel or whatever.)

[1995hoo]

I agree that a time limit stinks. I’m a member of another forum that limits the editing time to five minutes after posting. It’s not enough time, especially given how often you get autocorrect- or touchscreen-related typos (neither of which were issues when that forum was founded)

I’m in the habit of saying why I edited a post; I got that habit from the same forum noted above because their software has a box for "Reason for editing." It’s optional, but I like the idea.

On the whole, the idea that some people may edit in annoying ways is not a valid reason to remove the option for the rest of us. Dealing with problem users as they arise is exactly the right approach.


Edited per the other post down below.

[Scott5114]

On the whole, the idea that some people may edit in annoying ways is not a valid reason to remove the option for the rest of us. Dealing with problem users as they arise is exactly the right approach.

"One person used a thing to do something sucky so now we're going to make it a rule that NOBODY can have it!" was a fundamental management axiom at my last job, which was one of the reasons why working there was so obnoxious.

[Scott5114]

Okay, I've been screwing around in the admin tools and want to make sure I didn't break stuff. Can someone confirm that they still have the ability to edit their own posts?

[tolbs17]

Okay, I've been screwing around in the admin tools and want to make sure I didn't break stuff. Can someone confirm that they still have the ability to edit their own posts?

Test. It works!

Thanks.

[1995hoo]

Okay, I've been screwing around in the admin tools and want to make sure I didn't break stuff. Can someone confirm that they still have the ability to edit their own posts?

….

Edited per the other post down below.

[Scott5114]

Okay, awesome. Thanks guys!

[Roadgeekteen]

I think editing a title should need mod approval. That way we know what the thread was originally about. Other edits, no.

But if there's a typo in the title?

Minor typos are fine, mods can approve changes.

[webny99]

On the whole, the idea that some people may edit in annoying ways is not a valid reason to remove the option for the rest of us. Dealing with problem users as they arise is exactly the right approach.

"One person used a thing to do something sucky so now we're going to make it a rule that NOBODY can have it!" was a fundamental management axiom at my last job, which was one of the reasons why working there was so obnoxious.

I must say, that's pretty much exactly how I feel about the stats page being canned...