Should the time to edit posts be reduced?

[arthurk]

Currently messages can be edited for 24 hours after posting, but this sometimes causes problems. More than once recently I have replied to a post and on checking the thread later found that the original post has been edited. This can have a number of effects, such as:
(a) the addition to the post changes it so much that the answers following appear pointless or wrong;
(b) when you are subscribed to a thread you are not notifed of edits, so you may be sitting waiting for a response or acknowledgement from someone, totally unaware that they have put it in the original post.

Can I therefore suggest some changes to the method for editing messages, any or all of which might improve the situation:
1. Reduce the window for editing from 24 hours to something like 15 minutes, or else leave it open only until a reply is posted
2. All edits to be differentiated from the original message, with time of editing shown
3. Notifications to include edits as well as replies

I appreciate that some of these might not be possible, but I think they might prove beneficial.

Arthur

EDIT (1):
On reflection, maybe 15 minutes would be a bit draconian. To make my suggestion more widely acceptable I'll amend it to one hour.

EDIT (2):
The first edit here was done as a kind of experiment. See reply #42 and onwards for a bit of explanation.

[sarah]

Hi Arthur,

We can set the the timeframe for edit to anything between 24 hours and 15 minutes but we set it at 24 hours to give people the chance to edit typo's or dates etc I will have to ask Trystan on some of your points as I do not think that some of what you asked is possible

Regards

Sarah

[arthurk]

Thanks, Sarah. I'm subscribed to this thread so unless the follow-up goes in as an edit I should be able to keep track of it 

[JenB]

we set it at 24 hours to give people the chance to edit typo's or dates etc

Sarah, the problem is that sometimes people go much further than this and abuse the edit facility to make very significant alterations to a reply, sometimes almost reversing what they originally said (as Arthur has pointed out). This has happened to me on several occasions. When I actually notice that someone had made a significant edit I now usually point it out so that other posters are aware.

It would be fairer on everyone if the people concerned made a new posting rather than furtively editing an earlier one.

Some time ago if an edit was made after a certain period of time had lapsed the fact that this had happened would actually be shown on the posting (it said something like '...last edit by jenb at 16.45 hrs....')

[smudwhisk]

While I do appreciate that heavily editing posts after replies can cause issues, I do feel that 15 minutes is far to short a period to then lock posts forcing a new post to revise an earlier one. I have seen that some RCers don't always read all posts before posting and with this you can get disjointed replies. I suspect restricting editing further could well make the problem worse.

[Treetotal]

I'm not sure that this would work on the Photo Restoration Board as there are times when a restored photo needs to be amended or colours changed and the 15 minute slot would mean that we can't remove a photo that we are not happy with. The results can look different when posted and faults  show up in different lighting conditions.

Like Jen...I too remember a time when an edit was displayed and the time of edit given.

I also have experienced posting a reply only to see that an earlier poster has edited their reply which can be quite annoying as it looks like you are just repeating an earlier answer.

Carol

[arthurk]

I believe the editing window on another forum is only 10 minutes, and it doesn't seem to cause too many problems. I do feel, though, that 24 hours is too long.

While I do appreciate that heavily editing posts after replies can cause issues, I do feel that 15 minutes is far to short a period to then lock posts forcing a new post to revise an earlier one. I have seen that some RCers don't always read all posts before posting and with this you can get disjointed replies. I suspect restricting editing further could well make the problem worse.

If people find their posts look silly and can't then edit them, they might learn to take a bit more care before posting - one can always hope! As it is, it's often those of us who reply who end up looking silly because we appear to have made an unnecessary point or answered a question that hasn't been asked. Which is preferable?

I'm not sure that this would work on the Photo Restoration Board as there are times when a restored photo needs to be amended or colours changed and the 15 minute slot would mean that we can't remove a photo that we are not happy with. The results can look different when posted and faults  show up in different lighting conditions.

I don't often visit the Photo Restoration Board so I'm not familiar with how folk work there, but I'm happy to accept that this may be a special case.

Trystan - is it possible to have different limits on different boards?

Arthur

[trystan]

The title of this topic has been changed to "Should the time to edit posts be reduced?"

At one point in time people were able to edit their posts without any time limit. This led to the abuse of the edit facility that you mention.

I believe the editing window on another forum is only 10 minutes, and it doesn't seem to cause too many problems.

Each website has it's own ways of doing things, what works for one community of people may not work for everybody. The balance that we try and strike is to give a reasonable bit of flexibility for people to carry out edits. We all make blunders and go back to a post now and again. We quite often read a spelling mistake only after we walk away from a post and then read it again.

Trystan - is it possible to have different limits on different boards?

No unfortunately the edit time is set for the whole site, not for different boards. 

2. All edits to be differentiated from the original message, with time of editing shown
3. Notifications to include edits as well as replies

There are operational reasons as to why this cannot be done.

A time limit of 24 hours was put on the post editing option. This was seen as a balance between allowing people sufficient time to edit their post, and reducing the likelihood of the abuses of editing a post. In general it has worked well.

There are a couple of workarounds, although not ideal.

If a post is quoted in a reply then if the original poster does change their post then it will become quite apparent (as the quoted text would remain in your reply.)

If a person is seen to abuse the edit facility then use the "Report to Moderator" function. The matter can then be looked into, where we can have a quiet word with them.  If this is not forthcoming then then there is there are options that we can take, including having the edit facility removed from individuals on a case by case basis.

Trystan

[groom]

I wonder how many people go back a day later to look at their posts, perhaps 12 hours would be enough? I admit I do tend to edit mine, but that is usually because I've spotted a glaring spelling or grammatical error - I blame predictive text.