Should unlimited editing be restored?

[Guinevere]

Personally, I'm not a fan of unlimited editing. In conversations in the real world, we don't get to erase what we have said from people's minds -- but we can correct, explain, or apologize. Or not.

1 week is more than sufficient -- and looking over the board, once threads fall away, only a small percentage ever come back to life.

[loCAtek]

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

Yup, my last blog was on Eblogger; it was started as requested by @merican Wom@n, to move my 'Homie Depot' thread to there and off CSB. (She didn't like my 'streetie talk'.) The response from friends on CSB, et al, was that the continuity was ruined by the last post showing up first, and they couldn't follow it. Thus so, they didn't read it.
In contrast, I showed Alpha Dog himself, the 'Alpha of Arabia' Blog/Thread on Plan B, which is chronological, and he sat and read the whole thing in one sitting ...finally made a response too.

Meanwhile, the Homie Depot thread, not eblog, on CSB, elicited many responses [yourself included] ...because folks could actually read it in the order intended.

And um, I said I'd follow the consensus of the poll; but I don't know why you'd doubt the popularity, as the numbers, as logged on the forum page show- Happy Trails, With Friends like these and Alpha of Arabia, have less than fifty in-posts, but show hundreds of views. At its height, Happy Trails had over a hundred hits in one day!

...you may recall, the idea/suggestion to have a Personal Works thread was mine;

This is mine, cause I have it!

I would like a place to post my bloggy scribblings, someplace other than a blog naturally. Over there in the back would be fine, we could set up tables and a mic, and darken the lights so I can't see folks nodding off as well.

All the other good names are taken so, I suggest: The Writer's Bloque!

viewtopic.php?f=1&t=117&p=799&hilit=Writer%27s#p799


...you, BSG, seemed to whole heartedly approve at the time. What you claim isn't popular now, is what you read eagerly.

While the intention to Blog/Thread was largely supported, with the one dissenting voice, leaving this board. Hmmm...

[BoSoxGal]

loCA,

When I open Plan B in the morning, I go to 'unread posts' and start reading new material from there.

In order to make threads I'm not interested in drop off the list, I have to open those threads momentarily. I don't read what's in them; I haven't read any of your stuff since you started with the shit over a year ago.

I imagine I am not the only person who manages new posts this way. If it were possible to block certain threads (all of yours, for instance) I would - it would save the time of opening threads just to get them to go away.

My point is that you might want to flatter yourself a little less.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Also it records a 'View' everytime anyone opens it - including the original poster. I'd think that numbers might be reduced if one did not check out their own thread to read what others have posted or post more of one's own or er..... read one's own clever post again and er.... edit repeatedly and er.... boost the numbers. But hey, that's just me

[Sean]

It's worth pointing out lo that nobody has suggested that you get rid of your blog threads. People have been offering alternatives to you where you can do your vital editing to the end of time. Don't try to turn their attempts to help you into something they're not.

[Gob]

loCA,

When I open Plan B in the morning, I go to 'unread posts' and start reading new material from there.

In order to make threads I'm not interested in drop off the list, I have to open those threads momentarily. I don't read what's in them; I haven't read any of your stuff since you started with the shit over a year ago.

If you ignore them, the next time you open Plan B they will still show as unread in the forums list, but they do not show up on the "view new posts" list.

[BoSoxGal]

When I use that button, I keep getting the threads in the list that I've already read the most recent post - that's why I stick to 'view unread posts'.

[Scooter]

(1) Use "view unread posts" to read only those threads you want to open.

(2) Back to the main page, on the far right click on "mark forums read" and all remaining unread posts will disappear from that list.

[Rick]

(1) Use "view unread posts" to read only those threads you want to open.

(2) Back to the main page, on the far right click on "mark forums read" and all remaining unread posts will disappear from that list.

Beat me to it.

ETA: Each room also has it's own "mark read" thing, that's actually how I do it, read the ones I want skip the rest.Uh one more time I guess I ought to add I'm using Absolution, I'm guessing they all have similar features though.

[Lord Jim]

Also it records a 'View' everytime anyone opens it - including the original poster. I'd think that numbers might be reduced if one did not check out their own thread to read what others have posted or post more of one's own or er..... read one's own clever post again and er.... edit repeatedly and er.... boost the numbers. But hey, that's just me

And don't forget all those folks who are viewing threads so they can pour over ancient posts looking for minor typos that they can point and giggle at....

Apparently this is a big problem....

[alice]

Personally, I'm not a fan of unlimited editing. In conversations in the real world, we don't get to erase what we have said from people's minds -- but we can correct, explain, or apologize. Or not.

1 week is more than sufficient -- and looking over the board, once threads fall away, only a small percentage ever come back to life.

Agree 100%

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.

If your sole contention for unlimited editing is for the purpose of tweaking your own stories, then it's absoloutely not at all the duty of administrators or moderators to do that for you. Or to do it for anyone else either, so it's not a personal thing.
This forum was very definitely not set up as a channel for you to publicly display your stories (neither was CSB). Nor as a channel for anyone else - so again, it's not a personal thing.
It is nice for you that as a result of being a member of the forum you have had an area where you have been allowed to put your stories, or journals, or bird watching tales. But that's as far as it goes.

If you feel that it is so important for you to tweak the contributions at later dates, I would probably be suggesting that firstly, you keep copies of your writings elsewhere, because there is no obligation for the old forum posts to be archived indefinitely or saved for you - if the forum ceases to exist you will have lost your unpublished works, and all the tweaking and editing in the world won't be worth a thing.
Secondly, if you keep a copy for safekeeping elsewhere, I would suggets that you do any tweaking on that copy, because if you are ever going to try to publish your works anywhere at all, you won't be able to just do it straight from the threads in this forum - you will require your own saved copy.
Thirdly, if you are wanting to tweak and adjust them for the specific viewing pleasure of specific people (I think I saw somewhere that you got Alpha Dog(?) to read them and he commented on them), you could then give them their own personal copy of the stories, which would of course be a much more personalised thing than just getting them to read them from a random forum. if the stories meant a lot to those people, they would be making any comment directly to you if you presented them with their own personal copy. And a personal copy should - normally - be a much more cherished gift than seeing it in some random forum that isn't even some prestigious writing forum or even a forum with a membership of multi-thousands. It's just a xmall mish mash miscellaneous chat forum [**no offence intended to the forum owners**]

I don't believe that too many people do go back and re-read old threads on a random chat forum, even if the threads contain somewhat serialised stories or journals or birdwatching stuff. I apologise - I haven't read them all myself. I come here to visit in little fits and starts, and do miss some of the threads. If there is a sort of serialised ongoing story, I don't go back to the beginning to start the whole thing or see what I missed; I just end up skipping the thread altogether. Again, it's not intended personally - I am very time poor nowadays and come here more for the random mish-mash and hopefully for a bit of friendly debate now and then.

If you specifically feel that you want to edit some old post of yours from some past timeframe, you could just do a new post on your own thread - the thread that contains the post you want to edit. You copy the post that you want to edit as a 'quote', and then you correct it in whatever manner you like.
You can highlight, italicise, or colour change the corrections - or not, that would be totally up to you.
Anyone who is interested can read the new, edited post.
Anyone who cares enough can go back to your previous post and compare the unedited with the edited. They would know which post you had edited because of the quote details
If they did care to that extent, they wouldn't lose any continuity becaue they could reread the other posts and re-establish the order of it all in their minds.

And that reminds me ... regarding a comment you made somewhere around this forum (can't remember if it was this thread or not) about a blog you used to have and some people saying they didn't read them becaasue the blogs style means the stories end up in backward order and don't show the continuity the same... my feeling is that if people are interested enough they will read the next instalment as soon as they are aware it's on the blog, and they will therefore be reading in order. If they want to catch up, it doesn't take much to realise on a blog that you have to scroll down and start reading from the bottom up. I've done it many a time when I've come across an interesting blog during some internet travel or other- I read the article/story or whatever, and then get involved in it and curious about the previous instalments, so I scroll down and start from the earlier point, working up. Most people are familiar enough with blog styles by now that I'm surprised that small detail was enough to put them off your blog entries.

I think I've commented on things from about four threads across this forum at the moment.
Sorry - I read earlier when I had time, and am answering later. Hope it's still made sense.


And I hope that came across as constructive advice, which is the manner it was intended


I came back here to vote, and then nearly forgot. That'll be about the third time I logged into the forum and then forgot. I'll just go and do it now before I make it a fourth time ....

[alice]

Also it records a 'View' everytime anyone opens it - including the original poster. I'd think that numbers might be reduced if one did not check out their own thread to read what others have posted or post more of one's own or er..... read one's own clever post again and er.... edit repeatedly and er.... boost the numbers. But hey, that's just me

And don't forget all those folks who are viewing threads so they can pour over ancient posts looking for minor typos that they can point and giggle at....

Apparently this is a big problem....

They'd only have to go back to my old threads for that.
Even i find it hard to believe that I make so many typos - people who look back on every thread I've ever done must think I'm such an ignoramus

[MajGenl.Meade]

And don't forget all those folks who are viewing threads so they can pour over ancient posts looking for minor typos that they can point and giggle at....

Apparently this is a big problem....

'pore' LJ - 'pore'


point


giggle

[loCAtek]

if people are interested enough they will read the next instalment as soon as they are aware it's on the blog, and they will therefore be reading in order.

Yet, that's not what happened; I put word on CSB that there were new blog posts, and still folks claimed they didn't follow it, due to:
Completely new viewers (that is: net folk who first open the blog, and are were unaware of the continuity [like Alpha Dog]) were faced with opening the last post first. Followers from CSB or Plan B, have no 'bookmark' as to where the last post they read is now, in the queue; and missed the previous posts in the story order ...and again miss the continuity, making it unattractive to them.

I'm well aware that if I post 'Alpha of Arabia' to a chronological forum, folks will read it, as evidenced by the post count.



I could indeed send installments direct to Alpha Dog, but he doesn't need to read about them; he's already lived those events. He does the review as a favor to ME. As THE ONE who's been there and done that- he didn't like the blog; but he prefered the thread. I defer to the experienced expert, who inspired the breads.

I mean, look at my viewership now: ALL the ones who claimed to have me on ignore 95% of the time, are responding to my posts, like they never have before to the blog

[MajGenl.Meade]

I defer to the experienced expert, who inspired the breads.

Lo, Lo! Don't miss the window!



Meade

[loCAtek]

Also it records a 'View' everytime anyone opens it - including the original poster. I'd think that numbers might be reduced if one did not check out their own thread to read what others have posted or post more of one's own or er..... read one's own clever post again and er.... edit repeatedly and er.... boost the numbers. But hey, that's just me

Valid speculation; but boosting my own count would have to be intentional for what purpose ...? Knowing about the debate regarding the edit feature, before I knew it was going to be limited? ...before I knew my argument was going to be denied? That's a lot of effort with little foreknowledge; or else, folks really are reading the threads a lot.

[loCAtek]

I defer to the experienced expert, who inspired the breads.

Lo, Lo! Don't miss the window!



Meade

Shoot, what? I told you I miss this things from the get-go; wassup?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Also it records a 'View' everytime anyone opens it - including the original poster. I'd think that numbers might be reduced if one did not check out their own thread to read what others have posted or post more of one's own or er..... read one's own clever post again and er.... edit repeatedly and er.... boost the numbers. But hey, that's just me

Valid speculation; but boosting my own count would have to be intentional for what purpose ...? Knowing about the debate regarding the edit feature, before I knew it was going to be limited? ...before I knew my argument was going to be denied? That's a lot of effort with little foreknowledge; or else, folks really are reading the threads a lot.

Well perhaps. But you left out the first 4 ways that numbers are boosted without ever doing it on purpose. One makes an OP. Then one chooses to return to it to see how it looks. Someone replies "drop dead". One opens the thread to read that and then posts "up yours". We now have three views of which only 1 was someone else. Perhaps one looks back at "up yours" to see if it's spelled correctly. That is now 3 to 1. In seconds, the number of views is 75% the original poster and only 25% someone else. Now one does edit the OP. That is now 4 to 1 - 80% the original poster. And so it goes. Why once in a while I might even open a thread just to read the entire thing in sequence because it was amusing in total.

I've even been known to open a thread with NO views because I'm sorry for whoever posted it.

The point is not whether or not x number of views means the thread is very interesting. The point is that the number of views does not PROVE that.


Meade

[Rick]

Do we get prizes for numbers now?

[MajGenl.Meade]

I think it's a form of patience or solo.