RootsChat.Com
Beginners => How to Use RootsChat (Please don't post requests here) => Topic started by: arthurk on Friday 22 July 16 14:21 BST (UK)
-
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.
-
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
-
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 ;D ;D ;D ;)
-
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....')
-
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.
-
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
-
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
-
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
-
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. ;D
-
I suppose we could have picked any number to say it's possibly enough time. We also had to be aware that people may be posting in different time zones to other people.
So, yes so even though 24 hours is the same for everybody around the world our eight hours of sleep may be taken at completely different times, along with a times of a normal workday.
So if a person posted something at 8pm in the evening, then slept, went to work, came home had their tea/dinner/BBQ then they could well still just have enough time to edit their post with the current 24 hours.
Trystan
-
Trystan, thank you for your explanation of what is and isn't possible. As much as anything, I'm glad that you are aware that there is concern about some of the editing that's taking place, and that you are prepared to accept reports when things go wrong.
Whether the limit is changed or not, I wonder if it might be helpful for something about this issue to be made a sticky at the top of the How to Use RootsChat board, or included on the Guidelines for Posting page?
I was about to post this when I read your further comment:
I suppose we could have picked any number to say it's possibly enough time. We also had to be aware that people may be posting in different time zones to other people.
So, yes so even though 24 hours is the same for everybody around the world our eight hours of sleep may be taken at completely different times, along with a times of a normal workday.
So if a person posted something at 8pm in the evening, then slept, went to work, came home had their tea/dinner/BBQ then they could well still just have enough time to edit their post with the current 24 hours.
True - but the fact that we are a worldwide forum where people aren't all following the same hours suggests to me that a shorter limit is more appropriate. Never mind going to work and having a BBQ, if someone in the UK posts at 8pm, by the time they get up the next morning there could already be a whole load of posts from Canada and the USA, followed by New Zealand and Australia. And by evening, there could be a load more from people in the UK and Ireland who've visited during the day. Any edit to the original post after the first few minutes (OK, maybe hour or so) could potentially be nonsensical.
Arthur
-
I'm sorry that the 24 hour thing seems nonsensical to you for a worldwide site, but that was the very reason we chose it rather than a shorter time. :)
Yes it can result in some ridiculous edits along the way, but like I said, it's just a compromise. That's all.
There is a bit in the Frequently Asked Questions on the Help pages that explains that posts can only be edited for 24 hours:
http://www.rootschat.com/help/faqs.php#no_modify
-
If its not broke don't fix it.
I would just like to add I hope you stick with the system we have at the moment as I think it works very well for most people.
-
Hi - another return from the past ;D
If members like Arthur are really concerned about serious editing making a nonsense of replies, could I suggest that they could always quote the original when they reply.
Also, maybe we could encourage members to add EDIT or ADDED if they do want to make significant changes to a post. *
I vote for the status quo :)
* Added - if they are making more than spelling/grammar changes.
-
If its not broke don't fix it.
I would just like to add I hope you stick with the system we have at the moment as I think it works very well for most people.
I disagree with you, actually.
Some fast moving topics, some mysteries which people are striving to solve, thirty replies may be posted in a 24 hour period. So it is quite probable that an edit will not be noticed. In those circumstances it would be better to post a new reply saying that you have done further research since your previous comment, and therefore you want to add further detail.
-
Hi - another return from the past ;D
If members like Arthur are really concerned about serious editing making a nonsense of replies, could I suggest that they could always quote the original when they reply.
Welcome back Gadget. ;D
I agree about quoting in a post, although its better to only include part of the relevant post rather than the whole original post and/or reply as it then gets even more confusing. :-\
I also vote for the status quo. ;)
-
Strange how things happen, the very thing being discussed here has happened within the last hour on a thread I am watching / commenting on ::)
Frank.
-
Another perspective:
For people who need time to process new information, the 24 hours is a gift.
Regards
Crowsfeet
-
even though 24 hours is the same for everybody around the world our eight hours of sleep may be taken at completely different times, along with a times of a normal workday.
So if a person posted something at 8pm in the evening, then slept, went to work, came home had their tea/dinner/BBQ then they could well still just have enough time to edit their post with the current 24 hours.
Trystan
I agree that 24hrs is perfect for most although possibly not long enough for some....depending on circumstances.
I do think however that if the original poster makes significant changes/edits....they should actually quote their original submission prior to the edit with the original post to inform previous respondents of a significant change & include a note to say........"SEE EDIT ON ORIGINAL POST" & a wee explanation as to having the original info. wrong ???
On another note though....
I have read "Subject" headings which have drawn me to a thread & the info. contained thereafter by the poster on the thread has no significance to the original "Subject" heading ::)
Annie
-
The current editing time suits me.
I'm often posting via a device that is a bit "wobbly" and prone to shutting down the browser unexpectedly, so I like to post and then edit before a post gets too long as it is rather frustrating to type out a message and then have to retype.
-
I'm happy with the 24 hour limit too. When it was first introduced (after having unlimited edit time) I didn't think it would give enough time, as I'd sometimes returned to previous threads to discover spelling mistakes that I could not live with. ;D However I am used to the 24 hour limit and find it works well.
I know some people do alter their posts but I have not noticed the substantial content changes others have mentioned.
I often fiddle with my posts after posting, but generally to make slight changes or to add something (and I try to include the word 'added'). It has even happened that I have posted something which, upon reflection, I think may not be appropriate, or may be open to misinterpretation, so I choose to delete or substantially change it. I must add that this has never messed up the flow of a thread but I like to have some flexibility to make changes if I wish.
15 minutes to change a post would not be enough for me. On some fast moving threads even 15 minutes can see numerous other posts made. People can always chip in and say that a particular post has been highly edited hence replies may not make sense ....
I thought that an edited post showed the time it was last edited? :-\
I do quite a lot of rootschatting on my ipad with a small text window and sometimes have to rush a reply and return later to find lots of typos. How embarrassing.
I think that removing or reducing the ability to edit your own post may lead to "bitty" posts where you will have to say "I forgot to add such and such to my previous post", even if there have been no other replies, or any replies given do not relate to what you have posted. As it is now, you could return to your post and add whatever you wanted to add. It will also give the moderators more work to do with people requesting them to make changes to their posts.
Sorry this is a bit long winded. :)
-
Works perfectly for me! Status Quo please.
I really don't know why this is a problem for the OP! Perhaps a literacy problem? ???
I notice this thread is also posted in PLEASE DON'T POST REQUESTS HERE!
-
If anything i'd increase the time to 2 days I often have to rush off and cant get back to computer on same day
but there is still apossibility to request modifiers to alter something or add a note if there's a serious thing .
on GR we can edit at any time most people add a star at bottom of post then an explanation of what they.ve modified .
I think this site is brilliant .
+ people on it make suggestions + critisisms very politely
lots of respect flies around even when opinions differ .
-
Works perfectly for me! Status Quo please.
I really don't know why this is a problem for the OP! Perhaps a literacy problem? ???
I notice this thread is also posted in PLEASE DON'T POST REQUESTS HERE!
Everyone else who has contribute to this thread seems to be offline at the moment, so I will offer a suggesion until the OP returns to explain, but I am guessing that this was posted on the "how to use rootschat" board because it a question about a 'feature' within rootschat. It is also not a request, more a suggestion, so I can understand the reason for starting the thread here.
Both Sarah and Trystan have contributed to the thread and seem happy to leave it where it is. :)
On the threads that my and Arthur's paths have crossed I have always found him to be extremely articulate, very helpful, his replies are thoughtful and well intended, and he never (that I have noticed ;)) gets it wrong.
I suppose it just takes a couple of occasions where editing posts effects someone's (often much researched) contributions to a thread, to spur them look for changes to be made to prevent this happening again. I am presuming this may be the case here and the reason for this thread. :)
-
The current set-up suits me fine. :)
But if there is to be a change in the time to edit posts, I would prefer something a bit longer than 10 or 15 minutes.
-
Works perfectly for me! Status Quo please.
I really don't know why this is a problem for the OP! Perhaps a literacy problem? ???
I notice this thread is also posted in PLEASE DON'T POST REQUESTS HERE!
Sorry Jeanne, I also have to come to Arthur's defence here, although I haven't, to my knowledge, had any dealings with him before. I think what he was concerned about was the fact some people go back to their post hours later and add things, which then makes the following posts superfluous or nonsensical. I have had one or two cases where I've posted a reply, only to find a previous poster has then edited their post and added that fact. It then makes it look as if I haven't read the thread properly!
I'm not sure where literacy comes into this and as Ruskie said it isn't really a request as such, I always read that as meaning don't ask for look ups in this section.
-
Perhaps a literacy problem? ???
I'm mystified by this comment :-\
-
Perhaps a literacy problem? ???
I'm mystified by this comment :-\
I find it offensive.
-
An edit can have the effect of making following posts appear to be irrelevant.
-
An edit can have the effect of making following posts appear to be irrelevant.
See groom's post #25.
-
I'll post a fuller reply to some of the comments later, but in the meantime, could I invite you to re-read my original post at the beginning of this thread?
Arthur
-
Why not make any changes obvious with strikeout etc, similar to changes that are made in Microsoft Word when "Track Changes" is turned on?
-
An edit can have the effect of making following posts appear to be irrelevant.
As pointed out in line 4 of the original posting :-X
-
I think the biggest problem with any edit, however and whenever it is done, is that if it is in a much earlier post it can be missed, as most people don't read back through the thread each time before they post new information!
-
Why not make any changes obvious with strikeout etc, similar to changes that are made in Microsoft Word when "Track Changes" is turned on?
This is quite a good idea for changes in content, but not typos, and rearrangement of words (as I tend to do). ;D
-
I think the biggest problem with any edit, however and whenever it is done, is that if it is in a much earlier post it can be missed, as most people don't read back through the thread each time before they post new information!
Precisely.
-
An edit can have the effect of making following posts appear to be irrelevant.
I think the biggest problem with any edit, however and whenever it is done, is that if it is in a much earlier post it can be missed, as most people don't read back through the thread each time before they post new information!
Precisely.
It is recommended to read the entire thread before posting for the first time though ....
-
I'm fine with the current limit. Some enquirers take a few days or longer to respond to information provided for them so I think there should be time given to edit posts. Either to correct mistakes or to add new discoveries or just enhance the post. When researching enquiries you don't know how many people are searching for the same information and what sort of information is going to be posted so responses can be rushed. Sometimes you can see that wrong or unhelpful information is being posted and there can be a rush to find the right information. You can be on a roll collecting relevant information and then need to step back and do an edit to present the information better. I always re-read threads so see nothing wrong with edits. I think you need to do re-reads regularly to get the big picture of the thread.
Blue
-
I totally understand and appreciate where Arthur is coming from here, but feel that an hour to amend or edit a post is not long enough.
There may be people using this site who have learning disabilities - who may need some time to alter their posts, I think a shorter editing time would be unfair to them.
I have altered my posts in the past, and have entered the word 'EDIT' in capitals in the hope people read it.
:)
-
I sincerely apologise that my remark caused people offence! It was certainly not intended to be!
It was simply what I saw as a light hearted comment - because it was posted to a thread marked, please do not posts requests here.
Again, I am sorry, it's only my own literary skills and my sense of humour that were out of line.
Jeanne
-
I think anybody that knows you on RC Jeanne would also know that you would never mean to cause any offence to anybody :)
-
I think anybody that knows you on RC Jeanne would also know that you would never mean to cause any offence to anybody :)
Exactly! Misunderstandings happen and things don't always come out as you mean when written down. Perhaps that is why people go back and edit their posts. ;D ;D
-
OK, time for some replies. First of all:
I sincerely apologise that my remark caused people offence!
Apology accepted - and thank you for doing so in a fresh post rather than as an edit, otherwise I might have missed it ;)
There is a bit in the Frequently Asked Questions on the Help pages that explains that posts can only be edited for 24 hours:
http://www.rootschat.com/help/faqs.php#no_modify
Yes, I'd seen that, but I was wondering if it would help to suggest that if subsequent posts have been made, any editing should be limited to typos etc.
If members like Arthur are really concerned about serious editing making a nonsense of replies, could I suggest that they could always quote the original when they reply.
In the thread that prompted my initial message here, mine was the second response (so not separated by a whole load of scrolling) and I was replying to the whole of the message rather than only one bit, so quoting seemed unnecessary.
In this case, even quoting the whole message as it was at that time would have eventually looked silly because (a) the OP added the comment as an extra note on the end, and (b) it would then have appeared that I had selectively quoted the problem as originally posed and ignored the OP's resolution of it. (It still does look a bit like that, only without the quote.)
It may be hard to believe, but I do understand the wish to edit one's own posts. Quite often, I rush off a reply in the hope of being one of the first to answer a question, and then have to go back to deal with typos or something I've forgotten.
But this question seems to come down to finding the right balance between a poster's desire to edit, and other people's annoyance when it is done in a way which makes their posts look silly or unnecessary.
Arthur
-
I'll post a fuller reply to some of the comments later, but in the meantime, could I invite you to re-read my original post at the beginning of this thread?
Just wondering if anyone actually did this? The fact that I was able to edit the original message in the way I have raises a few questions:
Would you have known about the changes I made if I hadn't referred to them in a later message?
Does it bother you that the message is now somewhat different from what I originally wrote?
If you responded to the original version, do the changes make you feel silly, or that you wasted your time?
I didn't set out here to deliberately mess around or play games with you, but when I started reading opposition to a 15 minute limit, it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see what would happen if I altered my position a bit, but only in the original post.
It has, I'm fully aware, made some of the posts here appear less relevant, and I apologise to those who are affected by that. But the same thing is happening frequently on the other boards, and it can be confusing and annoying there too.
Anyway, thank you all for listening.
Arthur
-
I'll post a fuller reply to some of the comments later, but in the meantime, could I invite you to re-read my original post at the beginning of this thread?
Just wondering if anyone actually did this? The fact that I was able to edit the original message in the way I have raises a few questions:
Would you have known about the changes I made if I hadn't referred to them in a later message?
Does it bother you that the message is now somewhat different from what I originally wrote?
If you responded to the original version, do the changes make you feel silly, or that you wasted your time?
I didn't set out here to deliberately mess around or play games with you, but when I started reading opposition to a 15 minute limit, it occurred to me that it would be interesting to see what would happen if I altered my position a bit, but only in the original post.
It has, I'm fully aware, made some of the posts here appear less relevant, and I apologise to those who are affected by that. But the same thing is happening frequently on the other boards, and it can be confusing and annoying there too.
Anyway, thank you all for listening.
Arthur
Yes, I did go back to read your original post. You have made a strong case very eloquently and very effectively. Well done
Edit to ADD. You have convinced me
-
Hi Arthur,
The issue here seems to be more about manners and etiquette of enquirers in original posts. Your proposition however would affect everyone's posts which seems harsh to me. Perhaps enquirers need more guidance to ensure that people are not sent on a wild goose chase or are made to look silly by appearing to misunderstand the op? I would agree that if the query in the original post is significantly changed there should be a follow-up post by the op to inform people about these important changes.
Blue
-
Everybody makes mistakes, the ability to alter/remove a mistake that could cause embarrassment or offence from the World Wide Web is good to have and, I think, helps the spontaneity of some of the threads on here.
Of course there are always some who abuse any facility in various degrees. If you find that a post is not what it was before your post you can always make a mention of it, maybe has a "edit" of your answering post, if you notice it during the allotted time span.
-
Hi - another return from the past ;D
If members like Arthur are really concerned about serious editing making a nonsense of replies, could I suggest that they could always quote the original when they reply.
Also, maybe we could encourage members to add EDIT or ADDED if they do want to make significant changes to a post. *
I vote for the status quo :)
* Added - if they are making more than spelling/grammar changes.
Ah, a voice from the past and one that I'm sure is well aware that, in the 'past,' malicious editing was quite common.
-
If you find that a post is not what it was before your post you can always make a mention of it, maybe has a "edit" of your answering post, if you notice it during the allotted time span.
I might take to doing something like that if it was really bad, although in general I feel that any comment on other members' netiquette is best left to the moderators.
In the recent case that riled me I was well out of time for editing my follow-up post. When I'm subscribed to a thread that I've contributed to (which happens automatically with the settings I've chosen), I keep the latest notification of a new post, and when it's gone quiet for about a week I unsubscribe. In this case, I felt rather miffed that the OP didn't post a follow-up or thank you, but then when I went to unsubscribe I found he'd done this by amending the original post. And as I said above, edits don't generate notifications.
This may, of course, mean that other people who I've decided not to respond to in future because they appear rude and ungrateful are actually nothing of the sort, but I can't check this without going through all their posts, and I'm afraid I (mostly) have better things to do.
Arthur
-
It might be worthwhile reporting incidences as they could be termed a wrongly posted message and repeat offenders could be identified this way. Reporting text says:-
"Use this function to inform the moderators and administrators of an abusive or wrongly posted message."
Blue
-
Hi - another return from the past ;D
If members like Arthur are really concerned about serious editing making a nonsense of replies, could I suggest that they could always quote the original when they reply.
Also, maybe we could encourage members to add EDIT or ADDED if they do want to make significant changes to a post. *
I vote for the status quo :)
* Added - if they are making more than spelling/grammar changes.
Ah, a voice from the past and one that I'm sure is well aware that, in the 'past,' malicious editing was quite common.
Hi Gadget, nice to see you back, hope you are well. 😀
I do not have a problem with the 24 hr edit limit, and agree on quoting former text or use edit/adding if any changes are made other than spelling or grammar etc.
On the other hand can maybe appreciate what Arthur is saying, and can only say have found him to be a very helpful, knowledgable and polite individual in replies to threads I have viewed he has contributed towards. Arthur I am also guilty of not reading all of a thread over and over once posted.
Eranto, am curious of the definition of 'malicious editing' is it when another posts/adds info to a reply they have gained from another poster that has posted after them? So it seems that they found the info and the true finder looks as if it's repeated. I was on thread recently and one poster accused another of ETA. Editing to add/amend post with info they had found.
Just interested in your thoughts.
ADDED: What is malicious editing..anyone?
Cas
-
Please do not forget that there is the "report to moderator" button on every thread on RootsChat - people use this button for all sorts of instances including editing a post our of time, reporting a folk needing help etc
:)
-
I am still wondering what a malicious edit is?
Erato..Please do not throw comment out there when no reply, to possibly incite board, it is unnessary.
I have been hear a while, will say have seen a few in discord, but never malicious.
Cas
-
I would be quite concerned if the 24 hour limit was changed. Quite a few times I have posted something in answer to a query, then some hours later, when there have been no replies, I thought maybe it would be helpful to add more information to the original posr. On other forums/boards, (forums.MoneySavingExpert.com for example) if you edit a post a note appears on the edited post saying e.g. "Edited at 16:33 July 17th" and it even asks you to enter a reason for making an edit, where people often write "typo", "added link" etc.
Also someone mentioned the titles of posts. Could RC make it easier for posters to edit the title of the post? You often see embarrasing spelling mistakes or typos in a title, and one's often sure that the poster would prefer to be able to go back and correct the title without having to ask a mod.
-
I think we can edit titles currently.
It may be that only the original poster can edit the original title?
-
I am very happy with the 24 hour limit for editing posts.
I might get a couple of answers to something with people querying what I'm asking and find I've typed the wrong year(or century!) I need to go straight back in and change the original.
What about the instances where people ask for help with living rellies,and name them.
We then tell them to please remove the names of living people as it is not allowed.
They then have the opportunity to do so. 15 minutes would not be long enough.
My thoughts are the same as an earlier poster (whom I can't seem to find now ;D ) if it ain't broke don't fix it.
Carol
-
I think we can edit titles currently.
It may be that only the original poster can edit the original title?
I think that is right, only the person who started the post can change the title permanently, which makes sense, otherwise it could be altered after every post. However, I think that editing can only be done for 24 hours as well and after that you need to contact a Mod.
-
Just going back a little here, just wanted to say thank you to Arthurk and others for accepting my apology!
Jeanne 🌺🌺
-
The subject title can only be changed by the OP for 24 hours, however the suject heading to an individuals reply can be changed at any time.
See the suject heading to this post, which I have changed.
Scouseboy, you know that this can be done, because you have done it on another thread which is how I found out about this 'feature'. I had never seen this used before and it doesn't seem to be too useful. :)
I also wondered what a "malicious edit" is or was. I must be unobservant because I haven't noticed one of those either.
;D
-
I also wondered what a "malicious edit" is or was. I must be unobservant because I haven't noticed one of those either.
;D
Nor me. I'm hoping Erato puts us out of our suspense soon.
I see the title has stayed as you changed it, is that usual or is it because I quoted you?
-
I also wondered what a "malicious edit" is or was. I must be unobservant because I haven't noticed one of those either.
;D
Nor me. I'm hoping Erato puts us out of our suspense soon.
I see the title has stayed as you changed it, is that usual or is it because I quoted you?
I have no idea groom. ???
At the risk of going off topic (sorry Arthur) I think I will have to try a little test. ;)
Added: I just re-quoted you and the suject heading reverted to the original. ??? I did not amend the heading. Interesting .... :)
-
At the risk of going off topic (sorry Arthur) I think I will have to try a little test
That's OK, I've said more or less everything I wanted to, probably more than once.
-
Ruskie, Groom, from memory when I once changed the title on one of my posts a few years ago, only my post had the change of title, and the other posts stayed the same. That is where the Moderators come in, and as Sarah is on here, perhaps can enlighten us to Groom's question :D
Cheers
KHP
-
Hi Groom,
When you reply to a thread it will always use the title at the start of the thread but as you have quoted a reply (by clicking the quote button) it looks like it has picked up on that heading.
Yes - just tried it ;)
Sarah
-
I haven't gone through all 8 pages but:
1. 60 minutes is a pretty standard limit for editing posts. Whenever I have needed to edit a post it is to reconsider what I have said or to spot an example of my own bad spelling.
2. Tagging a post with date and time of last edit is a standard feature on some board software. If available it seems reasonable to use it.
3. Some boards only allow the last post to be edited. Not unreasonable on most boards, editing should be to correct mistakes at the time. A correction after somebody has responded is best made in a new post.
5. It is good manners to post a reason for the edit, this is commonly done when edits are timestamped
-
I haven't gone through all 8 pages but:
1. 60 minutes is a pretty standard limit for editing posts. Whenever I have needed to edit a post it is to reconsider what I have said or to spot an example of my own bad spelling.
2. Tagging a post with date and time of last edit is a standard feature on some board software. If available it seems reasonable to use it.
3. Some boards only allow the last post to be edited. Not unreasonable on most boards, editing should be to correct mistakes at the time. A correction after somebody has responded is best made in a new post.
5. It is good manners to post a reason for the edit, this is commonly done when edits are timestamped
What was point 4?
Fortunately you have more than 60 minutes to edit currently ;D
-
Point 4 is that I can't count :)
and I would never go back and change a post that had been replied to.
-
Point 4 is that I can't count :)
and I would never go back and change a post that had been replied to.
I think that just about sums it up, if everyone stuck to that rule (apart from correcting spelling and grammar) there would be no problems.
-
Point 4 is that I can't count :)
and I would never go back and change a post that had been replied to.
I think that just about sums it up, if everyone stuck to that rule (apart from correcting spelling and grammar) there would be no problems.
The issue raised in this thread is about misleading members by changing the question in the first post of the thread without referencing it in a follow up post. The editing of posts is a very useful facility and I would be opposed to any changes. If there is a problem in a thread it should be reported.
Blue
-
The issue raised in this thread is about misleading members by changing the question in the first post of the thread without referencing it in a follow up post.
True, but exactly the same problems can arise if subsequent posts are amended after they have been responded to. Peter and Groom have understood what I meant and all its implications, and I would have said the same as them myself if I hadn't thought I'd said enough already.
Arthur (original poster)
EDIT:
When I wrote my reply I quoted Blue70's post in its entirety, as it then was. Now that I have posted it, I see that Blue70 has edited his/her message, but without mentioning this.
-
The issue raised in this thread is about misleading members by changing the question in the first post of the thread without referencing it in a follow up post.
True, but exactly the same problems can arise if subsequent posts are amended after they have been responded to. Peter and Groom have understood what I meant and all its implications, and I would have said the same as them myself if I hadn't thought I'd said enough already.
Arthur (original poster)
EDIT:
When I wrote my reply I quoted Blue70's post in its entirety, as it then was. Now that I have posted it, I see that Blue70 has edited his/her message, but without mentioning this.
Yes I added to my point. I did not mislead anyone by changing a question or opinion. My edit emphasises my point. Editing is there to make posts better. I think it's wrong to make people feel bad about editing.
Blue
-
However, Inconsiderate editing spoils the flow of fast moving discussions.
-
However, Inconsiderate editing spoils the flow of fast moving discussions.
Good grief we've moved from appeals to restrict editing to policing the flow of discussions ;D
Blue
-
Yes I added to my point. I did not mislead anyone by changing a question or opinion. My edit emphasises my point. Editing is there to make posts better. I think it's wrong to make people feel bad about editing.
I agree, you did not change the meaning (though you did add the bit about reporting), but the fact remains that on occasions people do use edits to do just that.
I'd probably get my knuckles rapped for doing so, but in theory I could now go and re-edit my post #69 in such a way as to pre-empt everything that you have said in post #70, and make your reply look silly or pointless. (Don't worry, I won't.) Would you be happy about that?
Arthur
-
However, Inconsiderate editing spoils the flow of fast moving discussions.
Good grief we've moved from appeals to restrict editing to policing the flow of discussions ;D
Blue
How do you manage to re-arrange my words to get the word "policing" I wonder?
-
I've suggested a way of addressing the problem you raised Arthur, reporting incidences where an OP has wasted our time and effort and made us look daft by significantly changing their question. I think restricting editing on the whole forum is going too far and punishing everyone for the bad manners of the few.
Blue
-
"in theory I could now go and re-edit my post #69 in such a way as to pre-empt everything that you have said in post #70, and make your reply look silly or pointless."
And that is the essence of malicious editing, something that used to be quite common back in the hey day of the Merry Pranksters [or perhaps we should say the Merry Gangsters] in around 2008-2010, along with multiple identities and sock puppets.
-
However, Inconsiderate editing spoils the flow of fast moving discussions.
Good grief we've moved from appeals to restrict editing to policing the flow of discussions ;D
Blue
How do you manage to re-arrange my words to get the word "policing" I wonder?
I used the word 'policing' to describe the process of keeping in order or watching over incidents of 'inconsiderate editing' to protect against the spoiling of 'the flow of discussions'. If you and Arthur are concerned not only in misleading OPs but anyone who edits their posts then that is intrusive and judgemental of you both. 'Inconsiderate editing' to me is a misleading OP not an edit that some people object to because they don't like people editing posts.
Blue
-
If you and Arthur are concerned not only in misleading OPs but anyone who edits their posts then that is intrusive and judgemental of you both. 'Inconsiderate editing' to me is a misleading OP not an edit that some people object to because they don't like people editing posts.
Blue, I think you are in danger of being judgemental yourself here. I have no objection to people correcting typos etc; what bothers me is where substantially new or different information is added after replies have been made to the original message. The occasion that spurred me to start this thread happened to be a change to an original post, but in my opinion the same principle applies anywhere in a thread.
Think of a thread as like a conversation: often it only makes sense if you follow it through in sequence. And just as you can't "unsay" or edit the words you spoke a couple of minutes ago, but have to actually say something new in order to correct them, so I feel it reasonable that the same should apply to a forum thread.
It's not about being judgemental or punishing people for wanting to make changes, but about hoping they will do so in a way that is respectful of others taking part in the thread. (And if the edits are presented in a new post, or at least referred to in one, there is a much greater chance of them being noticed than if they are slipped into a post from some time back which the conversation has moved on from.)
Arthur
-
Arthur, is it too late to add a poll too this thread?
-
Arthur, is it too late to add a poll too this thread?
No, it seems not, but I've never done that before and am reluctant to experiment on a lively thread like this one.
In any case, on a question like this concerning the way the forum operates, I feel it should be up to those in charge to decide whether the question should be put to a vote, and if so, in what form.
Arthur
-
Arthur, is it too late to add a poll too this thread?
I can't see why that is needed, people have expressed their views and in doing so have given reasons for them, both for and against, a poll doesn't do that. Trystan gave us his reasons for not changing and I think we need to respect them.
-
I've always thought a time stamp on edits would be good. Have you ever posted, noticed you forgot something, edited the post only to find someone has posted while you were doing the edit making you or them look a bit silly. Than you have to make another post telling them your post was changed in case they don't read back or think you are messing them around.
-
Many thanks to everybody who took part in this topic that Arthur started.
We have seen many people giving their opinions and their experiences of people editing their posts after others have replied. We've also heard from people who find it a benefit to be able to edit their posts in this time too. It has been a very interesting and lively read. :)
To this end then, as many have had the opportunity and time to contribute, I feel it's time to bring this topic to a conclusion.
As always with topics such as this one there can be many different views, sometimes with no clear consensus.
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.
The reasoning behind the editing time limit of 24 hours (and no shorter) was explained
As with many matters in life, things are very often a balance between a number of different ideals. This is an example of one of them.
So to those who wanted the editing time to be made shorter, I'm sorry to disappoint you. To those who wanted the editing time to be made longer, I'm sorry to disappoint you too.
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.
As always we are always amazed by the resourcefulness of RootsChatters in helping others, and the lengths that so many people go to to find that crucial nugget of information. There is quite naturally frustration and disappointment if a person then alters their post which can then make somebody else's reply look daft. It can also make the person who replied feel hurt by not being thanked or acknowledged.
Equally somebody may have taken a long time to type out a topic, painstakingly letter by letter. They may struggle with their sight, coordination, language, dyslexia, they may have memory issues or be unfamiliar with a keyboard. They then will post their message, and after a nights sleep re-read their topic only to realise that their post has spelling mistakes or things in there that may make themselves feel embarrassed. Some people may even reply and pick up on them typing in capitals, nit-pick on something else, or criticise their punctuation. For them, they can then edit their post and make the corrections in that time.
The good thing is though, is that we are all mucking in and helping each other as best we can. The same goes for the RootsChat itself and all the volunteer moderators running the site too. :)
Trystan