Editing of posts.

[wanabe]

Being an older member(in join date) of the forums, I better remember a time when any user could responsibly edit their posts at any time. Recently some members, (haven't bothered to keep track of names) have abused this ability to edit, using it to erase negative and/or derogatory remarks so they are not caught breaking the forum rules. By this, all members have since lost this ability to edit because of the mistakes of a few.

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.

[Meleagar]

I prefer to be able to edit posts at any time as well. I don't really see the big issue in allowing people to edit at any time; I hate to see useful tools taken away from responsible users just because some irresponsible people abuse it from time to time - and even if they do, so what?

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

Consider the following example:

User 1 writes: I think terrorism is sometimes acceptable.
User 2 writes: I don't agree with that. What makes you think that?

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: 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?

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: 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.

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.

Anyway, here's an explanation I provided in a different thread:

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.

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.

[wanabe]

I completely understand Scott. I just enjoined the flexibility, and no necessary 3rd party involvement of editing my own posts. I think its a waste of the moderators time to have to edit posts for people per request. Granted people should be proofreading their posts; but sometimes one does not see a problem or something that can be further explained: until someone else tries to read their work.

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]

I agree. I believe that misuse or abuse of editing should be punished by removing the ability to edit later for those who make the mistake. However, I think it is perfectly possible to edit a post reasonably, for example by leaving the original post intact, but adding clarifying remarks to it. So for your example, Scott:

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?

I agree that the above is bad. However, even this solution has problems:

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.

since it may lead to this:

Code: Select all

User 3 writes: User 1, how can you think terrorism is ever acceptable?

If User 3 didn't read the whole thread to make sure User 1 hasn't recanted or modified his position. Of course in this case User 3 was negligent to do so, but the best solution would be:

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?

This looks contrived in a simple format, but I usually want to edit my old posts to avoid cases like User 3, where an unforeseen misunderstanding may be pointed out to me later. If I cannot go back and edit, I will have to repeatedly explain the basis of the misunderstanding to the next poster. I used this practice a lot in my discussion of natural selection, since I only wanted newcomers to have to read my first post, not every post I made in the thread, to get up to speed on my argument.

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]

Scott, I believe that editing prior posts is a necessity for new posters to jump into an old thread and not restart a solved argument. However, there are many problems with this as you have demonstrated.

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]

That's a good idea Zewpals; editing after a newer post has been made could be relegated to a box at the end. I would be happy with that solution. I am not sure how much work it would be for Scott to implement, though.

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

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

[Zewpals]

Oh great! That is exciting. Thank you Scott. I wonder if notifications of edits should be included, and if so, in what way?

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!

[athena]

We can't even delete old post in our own draft file. This is a problem.

[Kapra]

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?

[美国g]

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?

Give you a second to add this feature?

You're a mod or something?

[ChaoticMindSays]

Give you a second to add this feature?

You're a mod or something?

He was attempting to quote Scott.

[Kapra]

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.

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.

[athena]

I like forums where I can edit my post at any time, because frankly, I have good days and bad days. When I read something I posted on bad day, I can't make sense out of what I wrote. Sometimes it will take me several minutes to figure out what I was meaning to say. Or I really hate it when I meant to say "not" and can't go back and put the word in. That happens for me a lot.

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.