Editing of posts.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
Editing of posts.
In my opinion some members should be allowed to edit there posts (yes, that means we're not equal) after people have replied. They earn this by showing long-term overall responsible use of the forums. Who decides this circumstantial responsible use and its circumstantial duration; who better then all the members, by vote.
By the opinion of all the members, do I wanabe, deserve to be able to edit my posts at any time for the purpose of correcting and improving posts.
An alternative would be to restore this privilege to all but those accused of, and proven by scotts opinion, (our honorable and generous web master) to be misusing the edit feature.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~edit~~~~~~~~~~
Since no one has replied I can edit this still:
I encourage others to make similar requests.
-
- Posts: 1877
- Joined: November 16th, 2009, 11:03 am
- Contact:
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Now consider user 1 edits the first post after a response has already been posted when he could just make up a follow up post to this:User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
With the rules the way they are, he couldn't edit it as such and the discussion would more appropriately be shown in a way that makes sense to future readers as this:User 1 writes: After thinking it over, I think terrorism is always wrong. [edited]
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
I would also like everyone to note that the forum rules require everyone to proof read their posts before submitting them and require users to use a spell-checker.User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
User 1 writes: After thinking it over, I think terrorism is always wrong.
Anyway, here's an explanation I provided in a different thread:
As it is, if you have a valid reason for editing a post, simply PM the moderator with instructions and the moderator will edit the post for you. But to avoid misunderstanding, threads being taken out of context or intentional destruction of the accuracy or linear nature of a discussion, moderators currently must approve and make any edits after a post has a response made to it.I feel it would be dishonest, for example, if I was to go back and change what I wrote in a post after someone has replied to make a criticism in the reply inapplicable. More importantly, it can confuse future readers of the discussion if posts are altered or deleted. In analogy, consider the difference in understanding between hearing only one-side of a phone call as opposed to hearing both sides, or receiving a transcript of a conversation that has been edited after-the-fact by one of the people involved in the discussion.
If a post needs to be edited or deleted after it has been replied to, a moderator or admin needs to do it to ensure the thread as a whole makes sense. Namely, the moderator will determine if there is a valid reason for the edit (as opposed to making a new post), if the edit would cause replies to not make sense anymore, if the replies could also be fairly edited by the moderator to keep the thread sensible to future readers and if it would be better to for a new post to be made rather than an edit of a post that has already been replied to.
If someone else replies while one is in the process of making an edit, the edit won't be blocked. In other words, one should only be blocked from making an edit when they click on the button that says 'edit' not when they click submit after already having clicked edit and being brought to the screen to modify the post.
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- wanabe
- Posts: 3377
- Joined: November 24th, 2008, 5:12 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Gandhi.
- Location: UBIQUITY
- Contact:
In your dialog approach; the proper way to 'change ones mind'(on a stance) would have been to make a new post, certainly. Most posts here don't just take up a couple of lines and rather than editing a few parts of a post we now have to make a new one, now this isn't much work thanks to copy and paste, but it takes up unnecessary space regardless.
Why after so long did you change the editing feature if you felt that way? I can think of no other reason than some people simply have misused the editing feature and you are disabling every bodies ability to do so because of the exceptions of a few. A practical solution it may be, but fair it is not.
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
Code: Select all
User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
__________edit___________
User 1 writes: After thinking it over, I think terrorism is always wrong. [edited]
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
Code: Select all
User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
User 1 writes: After thinking it over, I think terrorism is always wrong.
Code: Select all
User 3 writes: User 1, how can you think terrorism is ever acceptable?
Code: Select all
User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable. [Edit:] User 2 responded to the above, but after thinking it over, I think terrorism is always wrong.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?
Scott, I understand how your solution is the easiest and most reliable way to avoid misunderstanding between posters, but even so I would like to be able to make addenda using my own judgment to avoid misunderstanding.
- Zewpals
- Premium Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 11:25 am
I strongly recommend making the edit feature one that only allows editing at the very bottom or top of each thread and mandates a certain type of box with the title "EDIT (insert date and time here) to encompass the edit (similar to the quote box, but automatic rather than manual). This could solve both issues.
- Alun
- Posts: 1118
- Joined: July 11th, 2009, 8:55 pm
- Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- The admin formerly known as Scott
- Posts: 5786
- Joined: January 20th, 2007, 6:24 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
- Contact:
Thanks!
Scott
"The mind is a wonderful servant but a terrible master."
I believe spiritual freedom (a.k.a. self-discipline) manifests as bravery, confidence, grace, honesty, love, and inner peace.
- Zewpals
- Premium Member
- Posts: 184
- Joined: June 16th, 2010, 11:25 am
Perhaps there could be a notification chart, table, or bar for each individual thread that allows people to know of the past 5 or 10 most recent Edits? Something along this line would help thread posters from missing a new Edit. I suppose the Edit table could have the poster's name, the post number, and the time of the Edit, just to facilitate work flow. Perhaps I'm jumping too far ahead and perhaps this is a silly suggestion, but I believe this could be a useful future addition.
Also, I suppose that Edits should be uniquely identified and able to catch the eye of readers, whether they are identified by a color (word color or color of box around the edit), a shape, a particular font, or any other means. Thanks a lot Scott!
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: October 6th, 2010, 7:22 am
Thanks!
Scott
Hi Scott I see you wrote that in July, it is now October, when is it to be added?
- 美国g
- Posts: 73
- Joined: October 1st, 2010, 11:30 pm
- Location: China PR
Give you a second to add this feature?Kapra wrote:Okay, that seems like the best solution. Instead of changing what was already written, one would be adding to the post to include clarifications which is agreeably for the best. Just give me some time to add this feature.
Thanks!
Scott
Hi Scott I see you wrote that in July, it is now October, when is it to be added?
You're a mod or something?
- ChaoticMindSays
- Posts: 253
- Joined: August 28th, 2009, 8:52 am
-
- Posts: 195
- Joined: October 6th, 2010, 7:22 am
Thank you Chaotic not being rude or anything . haha at Astins comment I thought that was evident. Of course I was addressing Scotts post but for some reason at the time the quote feature didn`t work.Quote:
Astin wrote:
Give you a second to add this feature?
You're a mod or something?
Chaoticmindsays wrote:
He was attempting to quote Scott.
-
- Premium Member
- Posts: 971
- Joined: June 11th, 2009, 10:18 am
Anyone afraid of someone changing an argument, can quote that person. Only the post is changed, not the quote. There, problem resolved without it being a problem to others.
Not being able to reply to individual post separately is another major irritation.
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023