Editing Posts - How much time should we be allowed?

[Buck]

Let's set this question as a poll.

Please remember, our trans-Pacific delay can easily be 5 minutes. Hence, our Oz lads might not see their actual posts for 5 minutes before they have a chance to edit them. Our trans-Atlantic delay has not been determined.

[Handruin]

Let's set this question as a poll.

Please remember, our trans-Pacific delay can easily be 5 minutes. Hence, our Oz lads might not see their actual posts for 5 minutes before they have a chance to edit them. Our trans-Atlantic delay has not been determined.

I submitted 5 minutes, but I think there should have been an option for "no editing capabilites" for those who object to this idea.

[Buck]

Can the poll be edited? :)

[Handruin]

Can the poll be edited? :)

I've set a temporary lock until a moderator can edit the poll.

[Handruin]

Can the poll be edited? :)

I've set a temporary lock until a moderator can edit the poll.


OK forget the lock, all is set per Buck's request. People who don't like the suggested mod, just let us know in the thread.

[ihsan]

I read slow, moreso the writes. Plus I don't write very often in English so I vote for 10 minutes. About the time i can read and correct the grammars and typos.

[JKKJ]

15. I like the idea of coming back after a bit if you need to.

Posts would be marked as "edited" wouldn't they?
Could there be an option to choose to view either edited posts or the "redlined" versions? (just a thought)

[Will Rickards WT]

I voted before reading the thread.
I voted for 2 minutes but would have voted for 10 considering the delay.

[SteveC]

I voted for 5 minutes, but after reconsidering, I think it should stay the way it is. I know I make my fair share of spelling and grammatical errors, but I don’t see how fixing them will really change anything about the intended message. They’re just cosmetic errors that we all make from time to time, and I don’t see it as a big deal.

Steve

[Mercutio]

Two minutes, at an uppoer maximum. I'm thinking "fix that annoying spelling error", here.

Honestly, I'm not totally comfortable with the idea at all, but ten minutes+ is almost certainly enough time to re-write a major post, which would fall into the "changing history" trap we've never wanted to get into.

[Groltz]

Unlimited time to edit one's own posts. This is especially important when a person wants to edit a "For Sale" item's price, etc.

I have had to ask moderators here to edit a few my posts in the past. The notion of having to go tug on someone's shirtsleeve and ask "Can you please help me?" is demeaning, especially for a forum at the maturity level this one is.

As an example, CDRlabs forum is phpBB based like ours. Their 3600+ members can edit their own posts anytime. From what I can see this causes no problems, rips in the space-time continuum, or any other worrisome events. It is just convenient.

Established SF members should have the ability to edit their posts at any time without expiration. If a particular member wishes their own ability to be restricted, the request should be granted on a individual basis. If a forum member was to use the ability for an unethical purpose, they should be warned and then stripped of it, if necessary.

[P5-133XL]

I'm sorry but I'm the one that voted no editiing. My rational is based on the number of times I've responded to a post and by the time' I've finished I discover, someone else has responded while I was constructing my reply. If there needs to be a delay of 5 minutes to cross the pacific and at least 5 minutes to actually read the post and edit it that produces a 10 minute delay. During that delay it is reasonable that occasionally people will have already read and started responding to the post. They then may be responding to something whose meaning may have entirely changed because of the editing. I don't think we need that kind of confusion and that it is simply better to have a subsequent post correcting the first (if that is necessary).

[Cliptin]

I'm with Mark. No need to restate the sentiment. In addition, allowing editing of posts generates another chance to introduce more spelling/grammatical errors.

[Tea]

I voted for ten, although I've never actually come across a problem on any of those boards that allow editing posts in all the time I've spent on them. So I'd actually be in favour of no limit, but in the interests of some sort of unity plumped for the minimum practicable time.

[Tea]

PS: if we do go with an edit period, what am I going to do about a new sig?

[Buck]

PS: if we do go with an edit period, what am I going to do about a new sig?

Don't worry, it will still fit.

[Tea]

:(

[Jake the Dog]

Quen fo teh Re-ytpe ?

[JKKJ]

Buck, stop that! You seem to be picking on Tea and Tannin today!

You too Jake (lucky I checked before I hit submit....)

[Bartender]

You know JKKJ, I've counseled Buck many times about his sarcasm towards Tea and Tannin. But once he gets a hold of a drink, he's a pain to control. You need to pump several more drinks down him before he goes numb and quiets down. Thanks for stepping in.

[Buck]

________

[The JoJo]

I voted for no editing, just out of principal. I hate it when visiting boards and reading replys to an edited post that has nothing in common with the replys.

Ok, I'm pretty confident that wouldn't happen here, not with this group of people.

If there would be a possibility for editing, I think 10-15 minutes would be ok.

[James]

Transpac latency is not 5 minutes. It averages about 180ms for RTDs to the west coast.

[Fushigi]

I'm also going for no edit capability.

To me, it's simple. I use the Preview button and read my posts before clicking Submit. Once in that habit you will find that you catch & fix your errors with no worry of anyone seeing them. Additionally, I sometimes find that, upon reading my own posts, what I've written isn't exactly what I wanted to say and do a context edit. Finally, it helps me catch malformed BBCode fragments before submitting.

(Note: This message was Previewed & edited before being posted)

- Fushigi

[time]

None here either, thanks, for all the reasons already outlined.

I would like to add that I think people are too sensitive about typos. Don't you realize how much entertainment it provides the rest of us?

I am joking, BTW, hopefully to make a point.

Permanent posts are part of the character of the forum. In real life, if you tell someone, "You suck", you don't get the opportunity to go back and change it to "You rock", thereby leaving everyone else to wonder why you got a punch in the nose.

I think this makes people more carefully consider what they are going to say before hitting 'Submit'. Just like in real life.

I feel that with a fifteen minute safety net, most people will fire off posts without putting in as much thought. It follows that the standard of posts will fall, and one of our driving ideals is to maintain that standard.

On the other hand, I don't see how any of this applies to the For Sale forum. Why not make it editable for up to 7/14/30 days?

If we must have editable posts, then obviously I'd favour the one to two minute range, but is that any real advantage compared to previewing?

[Tea]

Oh don't be ridiculous, James. I'm not talking about pings and it's disingenuous of you to suggest that I am. Loading this "reply" window just now, for example, took me 15 seconds. It doesn't always take that long, obviously, but it's nothing unusual. (As a side-note, SF has been really slow all day. I don't know why. Other pages seem to be loading OK.) If the reload of the thread after I post this follows the same pattern we will have:

~15 seconds to display the "thanks for posting" page.

~5 seconds looking at that page (or however long it is - maybe it's two or three.

~30 seconds to reload the thread.

That's close enough to a full minute after posting before I can even start re-reading it to be sure it's error-free. Two minutes is useless. Might as well have none at all.

[Tea]

Ahh: a perfect example. The "thanks for posting window" came up in short order, about four seconds, and the thread re-loaded in another ten seconds or less - closer to five. (i.e., a little sluggish but OK.) Then I immediately hit "reply" to say "ha- just to prove me wrong it's working fine now". And .... Three minutes forty seconds later, I gave up waiting, hit "back", hit "reply" again. This time it brought up the posting window in between 20 and 25 seconds. Even on a five minute edit cycle, I would have been rooted.

[Tea]

Eight minutes to make that little post, and I wan't dragging my feet. One quick preview and bang: posted. Your Worship, I rest my case.

[time]

Perhaps the answer for Tea is a minimum time between preview and submit, say thirty seconds? ;)

[Tea]

Is this better?