Jump to content
The Official RONR Q & A Forums

Editing Posts


Recommended Posts

Those of us who have migrated from the old Q&A forum appreciate the ability to preview and edit posts. Especially those of us who have fallen through the "not hole" one too many times.

But I don't think posts should be editable once there's been a reply since doing so may make the reply appear inaccurate. For a parliamentary analogy, think of the difference between correcting minutes before they've been approved and amending them afterward.

I searched the IPBoard support forum and see that it's possible to establish a "grace period" (in minutes) after which a post can't be edited but I don't think that solves the problem.

Perhaps the Administrators could determine whether it's possible to block editing a post that's been replied to, and perhaps others can weigh in on this issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Those of us who have migrated from the old Q&A forum appreciate the ability to preview and edit posts. Especially those of us who have fallen through the "not hole" one too many times.

But I don't think posts should be editable once there's been a reply since doing so may make the reply appear inaccurate. For a parliamentary analogy, think of the difference between correcting minutes before they've been approved and amending them afterward.

I searched the IPBoard support forum and see that it's possible to establish a "grace period" (in minutes) after which a post can't be edited but I don't think that solves the problem.

Perhaps the Administrators could determine whether it's possible to block editing a post that's been replied to, and perhaps others can weigh in on this issue.

I think it's just a rule of common courtesy that a post shouldn't be edited in such a way so as to undermine the efforts of other posters. To that end, substantial edits likely should be made prior to any other replies being made. On the other hand, fixing simple spelling errors or adding citations shouldn't really be an issue after other posts have been made, unless of course, someone helpfully pointed out your error for you. :)

Since this board also has a private messaging system, and we also have e-mail, I would hope that we all are professional enough to settle any disagreements regarding this basic rule through brief consultation. Different posters will have had different backgrounds in their ventures through the Internet and may be used to different customs, possibly making such violations unintentionally. I'm sure they would gladly edit their posts back to the original if the edits caused unintentional harm.

Establishing a coded-in rule to the board itself on this issue seems like a bad idea, in my opinion, since such a system would likely be simplistic and not properly account for all the circumstances which may occur.

I can assure you that no vote will be taken on this subject. :)

I'm sure Mr. Mountcastle was just suggesting that members of the forum provide input for our esteemed administrators to weigh when making their decision, if any. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rule #2......There shall be no appeal from the decision of the Boss Lady.

Sounds like a pretty fair rule. However, I must take the advice we dole out so often and ask where this rule is located? :)

When you profile is vanquished into thin air and your IP address blocked without warning you'll learn not to question these things. It was nice knowing you. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it's just a rule of common courtesy that a post shouldn't be edited in such a way so as to undermine the efforts of other posters. To that end, substantial edits likely should be made prior to any other replies being made. On the other hand, fixing simple spelling errors or adding citations shouldn't really be an issue after other posts have been made, unless of course, someone helpfully pointed out your error for you. :)

...

Establishing a coded-in rule to the board itself on this issue seems like a bad idea, in my opinion, since such a system would likely be simplistic and not properly account for all the circumstances which may occur.

...

For what it's worth (and I know it ain't much :D , since 'no vote will be taken') I thoroughly agree with Mr. Martin. It's a matter of courtesy and common sense to use the edit capability responsibly. Having the forum software make the decision would be obnoxious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I want to add one other comment on this topic (since I know our opinions carry so much weight :rolleyes: )

Another board I participate in automatically adds a small note at the bottom of the post whenever a post is edited, like 'last edited by Blah at time XYZ'. Also when you go to edit, a 'reason for edit' line pops up, which the poster may elect to fill in, if he or she chooses to -- e.g. 'correct typo' or 'add information' or whatever.

I'm not sure if the forum software here has such capabilities, but the above approach quietly informs readers when editing has occurred, without trying censor edits in any way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not sure if the forum software here has such capabilities, but the above approach quietly informs readers when editing has occurred, without trying censor edits in any way.

The forum does have an "edit by line," but it's optional and the default is "off." Based on what I've seen, most posters opt not to use it. It does not include the "reason" part that you mention.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry everyone. The boss lady has gotten behind on reading the message board! Let me look into that. I have not seen where I can control the editing feature to that level, but if Mr. Mountcastle believes it to be true, I give him the beneifit of the doubt. He mentioned that he believes that there is a "grace period in minutes." How many minutes would we set the control to?

Bear in mind, that I do nothing without the express say-so of "the boss man." At the moment I am just researching.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry everyone. The boss lady has gotten behind on reading the message board! Let me look into that. I have not seen where I can control the editing feature to that level, but if Mr. Mountcastle believes it to be true, I give him the beneifit of the doubt. He mentioned that he believes that there is a "grace period in minutes." How many minutes would we set the control to?

Bear in mind, that I do nothing without the express say-so of "the boss man." At the moment I am just researching.

I sincerely hope that you and Mr. Honemann will not decide to adopt this particular approach (fixed grace period for edits), even if it is technically feasible.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The forum does have an "edit by line," but it's optional and the default is "off." Based on what I've seen, most posters opt not to use it. It does not include the "reason" part that you mention.

Thanks for the hint. The 'edit by line' description is confusing, which is why I hadn't thought to try it before. This option does put in a note that an edit was done, along with a time stamp, and the name of the poster who made the edit (normally the OP, although I assume that admins could edit also, should they choose to do so).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry everyone. The boss lady has gotten behind on reading the message board! Let me look into that. I have not seen where I can control the editing feature to that level, but if Mr. Mountcastle believes it to be true, I give him the beneifit of the doubt. He mentioned that he believes that there is a "grace period in minutes." How many minutes would we set the control to?

Bear in mind, that I do nothing without the express say-so of "the boss man." At the moment I am just researching.

Understanding that you are doing research and I do fear the wrath of Dan the Man I would say it would be difficult to figure out a good number of minutes for a grace period. Sometimes there won't be a reply for half an hour or longer. Other times there can be 4-5 replies within 2-3 minutes. Ten minutes might be OK when business is slow like in the wee hours of the morning but might be way too much time when there could have been multiple responses to the post in question (and responses to the responses).

I think the safest course of action is to have an understanding that there should not be any edits after there have been responses unless the edit is of the nature that it is not likely to be impacted by a later response (such as correcting spelling or grammar or supplying a page reference). However, if while the edit is being prepared a response has been posted which refers to the part of the post which is being edited there probably should be a further edit or a later post clarifying the situation.

Just a though FWIW.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry everyone. The boss lady has gotten behind on reading the message board! Let me look into that. I have not seen where I can control the editing feature to that level, but if Mr. Mountcastle believes it to be true, I give him the beneifit of the doubt. He mentioned that he believes that there is a "grace period in minutes." How many minutes would we set the control to?

Bear in mind, that I do nothing without the express say-so of "the boss man." At the moment I am just researching.

I want to make it perfectly clear that I do not advocate setting an arbitrary "grace period" (ten minutes? one hour?) after which a post could not be edited. I only mentioned that option to illustrate that default settings can often be changed.

So let me re-phrase my original question: If this forum started out with the very reasonable default setting that prohibited editing one's posts after a reply had been posted, would anyone be asking that that restriction be lifted? If so, on what basis?

In any event, I appreciate the (mostly) thoughtful contributions to this discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So let me re-phrase my original question: If this forum started out with a default setting that prohibited editing one's posts after a reply had been posted, would anyone be asking that that restriction be lifted? If so, on what basis?

I would. I think we are all adults here who understand netiquette which would include not editing a post so it would impact on a later response already in existence (such as adding additional information to the original post which renders an already existing response which was originally correct incorrect). I don't remember any of our members doing that (however one guest off the top of my head did). So putting that restriction on members may be overkill.

One of the really nice advantages to this forum is that we can edit to fix our "not-holes" or spelling or grammar without having to post again with the correction. There are many times where several replies are posted within a minute or two and if that restriction was in place it would force us to have to post again with the correction. If people do start being a bit too liberal with the editing to the detriment to later responses a gentle urge to please don't do that or post a later response to make any clarifications would suffice in most cases I believe.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would. I think we are all adults here who understand netiquette which would include not editing a post so it would impact on a later response already in existence (such as adding additional information to the original post which renders an already existing response which was originally correct incorrect). I don't remember any of our members doing that (however one guest off the top of my head did). So putting that restriction on members may be overkill.

One of the really nice advantages to this forum is that we can edit to fix our "not-holes" or spelling or grammar without having to post again with the correction. There are many times where several replies are posted within a minute or two and if that restriction was in place it would force us to have to post again with the correction. If people do start being a bit too liberal with the editing to the detriment to later responses a gentle urge to please don't do that or post a later response to make any clarifications would suffice in most cases I believe.

I agree that it's nice to be able to fix typos, or add relevant content, even after there have been responses to a post. Further if any particular individual is seen to modify history by editing, I'm sure other posters will respond by more clearly capturing that individual's original words by using the 'quote' function.

For example, should Chris H. wish to edit out some of his post above, he can do so; however, the copy of his words in my post is not accessible to him.

Only the small subset of board administrators presumably have the (occasionally useful, but generally unfortunate) power to edit OTHER people's posts. However, that occasional bolt from the blue is just part of the familiar weather on this forum, and regular posters have learned to live with it. :lol:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Only the small subset of board administrators presumably have the (occasionally useful, but generally unfortunate) power to edit OTHER people's posts. However, that occasional bolt from the blue is just part of the familiar weather on this forum, and regular posters have learned to live with it. :lol:

Yes, we can, but it has never happened, and if ever it does, you will be advised as to why. Posts have sometimes been deleted, but none have ever been edited.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, we can, but it has never happened, and if ever it does, you will be advised as to why. Posts have sometimes been deleted, but none have ever been edited.

You're right -- the occasional 'bolts from the blue' have been in the form of deletions, and I apologize if I implied otherwise. Outright deletion is easier to live with than having one's words partially edited by an outside force, in my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think we are all adults here who understand netiquette which would include not editing a post so it would impact on a later response already in existence (such as adding additional information to the original post which renders an already existing response which was originally correct incorrect).

One of the really nice advantages to this forum is that we can edit to fix our "not-holes" or spelling or grammar without having to post again with the correction.

The statement, "Non-members do have a right to attend and speak in debate" is substantially altered when the "not hole" is filled. If the poster catches it in time (i.e. before any replies), fine. If someone else catches it first, editing it would just leave people scratching their heads as to the correction. The ability to preview posts and to edit before replies would seem to be more than adequate.

But I'll yield to the responders' overwhelming faith in the common decency of people. Maybe this topic can be re-visited when there are one thousand members.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...