Should unlimited editing be restored?

[Lord Jim]

I use ETA when I'm adding content....

But I'll be damned if I'm going to bother to type out stuff like "Edited to remove one of the two times I accidentally typed the same word in a row" or "Edited to correct a typo where I accidentally hit the wrong key" or "Edited to change "their" to they're"....

That's just silly...

(Not to mention the fact that then I'll probably have typos in my edit explanations and have to go back and edit them too.... )

[Rick]

Hey!

Edited to add: I removed a bunch of stuff that really didn't make any sense and was prolly misspelld any how.

[Lord Jim]

I had to edit that post because I left out the word "to" before the word "type" in the sentence, "But I'll be damned if I'm going to bother to type out stuff ..."


I'm hopeless...

[Andrew D]

If the board automatically displayed the date(s) and time(s) of all edits, you wouldn't have to do anything.

[Joe Guy]

If the board automatically displayed the date(s) and time(s) of all edits, you wouldn't have to do anything.

It does.

[Scooter]

Not if no one has posted subsequently. He has a bug up his ass and so has decided to harp relentlessly about something he knows cannot be changed.

[Lord Jim]

I'm not sure why this is that much of an issue...

If you post something, and no one has posted anything after your post, then there's no way that anything you change could possibly make anyone else who posted in response look foolish, dishonest, clueless, etc., because you changed your post.

By definition...

If there hasn't been a response posted, no one can claim "well, I answered your argument, but then you changed your post"....

It seems to me there would have to be a "response" for that even to be an issue....

Again, by definition...

So what is the issue exactly, with somebody being able to edit their post once, twice, or countless times, without the edits being recorded and published, if nobody has responded?

I was under the impression that the whole issue about editing posts was based on the idea that there had been a response....

And if somebody was really concerned that a post might be edited that they didn't think enough of to respond to, couldn't they simply "respond" using the quick response feature and put in the word "response" or even a single letter and hit submit?

And then there'd be a response to that post which would log the number of edits to the post that preceded it, as well as the most recent time it was edited....

[oldr_n_wsr]

So what is the issue exactly, with somebody being able to edit their post once, twice, or countless times, without the edits being recorded and published, if nobody has responded?

It is possible that someone is in the process of responding via regular response (or quick response or another editor) and the first poster changes the post before submit is hit by the reponder. Don't know if that ever happened, but it could.
But another way to "control" that is to "quote" the first post entirely, then one could see the differences. But of course the responder could also edit the first post, or the first poster could claim that the responder edited their post.

Tangled web indeed.

I'll stop now.

[Daisy]

The editing limit is in place to prevent the removal or changing of posts made some time ago as per LJ's explanation.

It stays in place because of this.

Plan B doesn't have a problem with anyone editing their own work and have given the longest possible window of opportunity to do so.

It's really a moot point and hardly worth the effort of arguing over. If you haven't found or no-one has picked up on grammatical or comedic errors in a post in a week, they're hardly going to bother in six months time.

[Andrew D]

I'm not sure why this is that much of an issue...

If you post something, and no one has posted anything after your post, then there's no way that anything you change could possibly make anyone else who posted in response look foolish, dishonest, clueless, etc., because you changed your post.

By definition...

Except that conversations on this board have a way of migrating from one thread to another. Haven't you ever posted something to the effect of "but in another thread, you said ...."?

[The Hen]

I've got it! Let's just stop communicating. Problem solved.

[Gob]

Well at the moment we have 100% in favour of keeping the week limit.

Except that conversations on this board have a way of migrating from one thread to another. Haven't you ever posted something to the effect of "but in another thread, you said ...."?

In the rare occurrence, very rare I should imagine, that the post referred to was the very last post in a thread, a post over a week old, where the poster had not themselves indicated they have changed it, then we may have some difficulty determining the truth.

I think we'll have to live with that until a software mod can be found which marks all edited posts.

[BoSoxGal]

I volunteer to jump from inactive thread to inactive thread posting 'full stop' , just in case!






Not.

[loCAtek]

they're hardly going to bother in six months time.

Except, that it might.

Not that I'm going against the poll, so let it stand. However, as stated, I'll just have to ask you, the Admin, to edit posts longer than a week, in maybe a 'Clean up in Aisle 3' thread, as was started to clean up spam.

The longest stretch of a case where I went back quite far to re-post, was in the 'Happy Trails' thread. From Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:17 pm to Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:31 pm, edited 2 times in total.

I don't leave it sitting 'round in 'documents' because at the time, I post it- I think I'm done, and don't know that I might want to change it in the future.

[Joe Guy]

This is a non-issue.

There is no reason that anyone should need to edit a post that is weeks or months old when they could easily edit it in a NEW post inthe same thread if they think something needs to be changed.

At CSB I argued for no limit only because it had been that way for a very long time before Gwenharryfur realized it was that way and decided that she wanted to change the rule against the will of an overwhelming majority that just happened to not agree with her paranoid trollfriends.

This is just another drama that should be avoided.

[BoSoxGal]

loCA, you might just have to accept that Plan B is not your personal publishing house - and I doubt your fan base is nearly as large as you might think.

Get a blog, already. They have counters.

[oldr_n_wsr]

From Sun Feb 06, 2011 11:17 pm to Sat Apr 09, 2011 8:31 pm

I can't even remember what I posted yesterday let alone something I posted a month or more ago. Going back to edit it wouldn't even be in my thought process. But then again I am a

[loCAtek]

I said I had a blog, it didn't have a counter. You don't recall, your posts in that thread, on CSB, BSG?

[BoSoxGal]

I sure don't; when the board is unlocked I'm sure you'll remind me.

I recall once PMing you to encourage your writing - or maybe that was on board?

But I haven't read anything you write in your various blog threads in a long while; it would be akin to watching a Mel Gibson movie. Much as I love Jodie Foster's work and respect her as a person, I can't get past the vile personal behavior of Gibson long enough to enjoy The Beaver.

Too bad.

eBlogger is free, lets you edit endlessly, and you can install a counter that allows you to wallow in fan approval. Check it out.

[Jarlaxle]

It already does Andrew, as long as there has been another post made after the one being edited.

Thanks, Sean.

In my opinion, any posting which has been edited should automatically and ineradicably show the date and time of the editing regardless of whether there has been another posting.

An honest poster can always add; "I edited this due to........" if they wish. Many posters already add "ETA".

I have to say I don't usually bother...my edits are usually things like fixing links, correcting typos, fixing bad quote blocks, and the like.