Can we please edit our posts?

[David_Old_Jersey]

I probably only post half of what I write

and 10% of what I do write I probably shouldn't have posted - I won't say "regret", but upon reflection see that not entirely neccessary

But my ambition in life is to work on that 10%. (downwards ).

[David M]

Fishspearit,
The thread in the moderators forum on this topic indicates that the moderators are against the idea. It probably will not happen. I was the only voice who wanted to lengthen the time. After reading the other moderators thoughts on the idea, I was convinced that they were right.

I'm glad you brought up the idea FishSpearit. The people who run this forum do make great efforts and put in quite a bit of thought and time into making the website run well.

I want to make sure you know that your idea was discussed thoroughly and that your idea on how to improve the website is very much appreciated.

Thanks

[GMac]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I probably only post half of what I write

and 10% of what I do write I probably shouldn't have posted - I won't say "regret", but upon reflection see that not entirely neccessary

But my ambition in life is to work on that 10%. (downwards ).

Mate, all I can say to that is

Welcome to my world

I write, I preview, I tweak, I preview, I think and then sometimes I push Submit. Sadly I often then have to quickly edit due to poor spelling.

My ambition in life is not having to suss DOJ's post to spell the word ambition, while at the same timing thinking "I hope he has spelt it right'

[Pelagic]

As ma ol grandpappy used to say:


“Edits are for ED-iots….so speak yer mind fella!”


(Not really!...just sounded kinda cute)

Seriously, I think the present system works fine and if you sleep on a statement and then decide you were mistaken or misunderstood, that time period deserves a new clarifying post.

[Hud3]

To add a bit to what David M said...

This has been a good discussion, with all sides of the questions hashed out pretty thoroughly. In deciding to keep the edit time limit as is, we were heavily influenced by the need to keep continuity in the threads. The ability to "quote" a post and re-state it differently, plus the option to ask a moderator to edit for you is not an ideal solution for some, but it works.

The issue of allowing the original poster to modify the initial post in the thread is an in interesting point, because feedback from subsequent posters might cause significant re-thinking on the part of the OP. This can often be the case with a Poll thread. If the OP thinks that posting new thoughts within the thread isn't sufficient, please take advantage of the option to have a mod edit the original post. We'll be happy to do it for you.

Thanks for raising the issue, Fishspearit, and thanks to everyone who took part in the discussion.

[Boomp]

Imagine a world where politicians could edit what they say...endlessly....Oops, I think we're there already!

[Fishspearit]

I appreciate that the moderators gave it good consideration. I promise not to bring up the issue for at least another year

[nautical62]

I'd also like to thank the moderators for considering the opinions of forum users when making decisions about site changes. Thanks for all your work.

[Ex-Calif]

Originally Posted by Fishspearit

I appreciate that the moderators gave it good consideration. I promise not to bring up the issue for at least another year

Sure you don't wanna go back and make that 6 months

[David_Old_Jersey]

Originally Posted by GMac

My ambition in life is not having to suss DOJ's post to spell the word ambition, while at the same timing thinking "I hope he has spelt it right'

Benefits of a private edukation, not only can I spell ambition but I know what it means .

Just a wild thought......but what about giving the thread starter certain Mod rights? Maybe not direct access, but allowed to instruct the real Mods to have off topic (or "unhelpful"?) posts / content deleted and noted accordingly ("Deleted / Edited on instructions of DOJ").....maybe restrict this privilege to those with more than 50 posts / 3 months membership (to screen out the hit and runners). Obviously this is open to abuse () ........but if someone is known to use this ability in a way that folk do not like, threads they start would just not get posted on so much.......just an idea as I can think of a couple of threads that would read better with a tidy up - and the Mods would not get blamed

I have mentioned it before, but I would move every offending post into one ginourmous thread called "Davy Jones' locker". and maybe even add a few threads entirely - it would not be readable in any meaningful sense (which is half the point), but would also remove the charge of censorship - as well as being more of a polite threat ..........would fit in well with Thread Starters having edit / delete powers as folk (who cared?!) could see what was deleted to form their own judgement.

[Ex-Calif]

David - Your idea has merit. Giving the thread starter "god" privilege is a big step.

When the mods on the forum take action, we discuss it as a group in almost every case. Very rarely (except in cases of obvious spam) do we operate in a vacuum.

We also take guidance from AndyR and Janet. A thread starter doesn't have that guidance and of course the huge temptation for "the few" would be to eliminate every post that disagrees with the thread starter.

Every member has the ability to question every post. Hit the little caution flag below the poster's name, explain your concern and send it. Every mod on the forum gets an alert email and a thread is automatically started in the back room where we discuss it.

I'd be interested to hear other thoughts on this.

[theonecalledtom]

What about the author getting an "Amend" button? This presents them with a new posting entry and the result goes in the normal conversation time line but a tag gets added to the original posting "Amended at 15:53pm after 5 tequilas, link: SomeInlineLinkToAmendment"

That way the original conversation still flows but it is clear that the author was not happy with the original posting having seen the followup.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by theonecalledtom

What about the author getting an "Amend" button? This presents them with a new posting entry and the result goes in the normal conversation time line but a tag gets added to the original posting "Amended at 15:53pm after 5 tequilas, link: SomeInlineLinkToAmendment"

That way the original conversation still flows but it is clear that the author was not happy with the original posting having seen the followup.

That's definitely he best idea I've heard so far. It doesn't disrupt or confuse the thread. Offhand, I don't see any negatives. Other than it might not be easy to implement. I don't know how much coding Janet does and how much is mainly configuration.

Most threads take twists and turns and the focus changes. Often, the only way to intelligently respond to these is to read the entire thread. Many times someone responds and it's obvious they didn't do this. I think this idea might clear up some situations for the OP, but it still doesn't mean people shouldn't read the entire thread.

Before posting I assess the situation. If the discussion is contentious or heated in any way, then I think it's a must to read the entire thread, even when it's many pages long. Just for safety, I usually do it anyway. It's seldom I don't. I can usually find a way to look like an idiot, but reading the thread cuts down on that a little bit.

However, I think your idea could have benefit especially in technical questions where later down the thread they realize that there is additional information that changes the actual question that needs addressing. This is just one example, I'm sure there's more.

All in all I think it's acceptable to leave it just the way it is, but, so far, your idea is the only one that I don't see any objections to, and still see benefits.

I'm headed to the boat. Have a great weekend! I plan to, myself.

-dan

Another thing I do. Since I took some time rewording the above post a few times, I clicked "preview" and then scrolled down to make sure no one else posted in between that might make my post superfluous.

EDIT: On your idea, might be good for the amend post itself to be flagged in some way. While reading through the thread, it would make it stand out as a post with important information amending the focus of the thread.

[dacust]

Originally Posted by David_Old_Jersey

I probably only post half of what I write

and 10% of what I do write I probably shouldn't have posted - I won't say "regret", but upon reflection see that not entirely neccessary

But my ambition in life is to work on that 10%. (downwards ).

And we appreciate that. LOL

But, seriously, I'm with you. Especially in contentious threads, I find myself writing a long answer and then at some point: Dang, quit that. I don't need to get involved in another one. I hear that voice:

DAN, STEP AWAY FROM THE SUBMIT BUTTON...

So, I hit the back button and go read another thread. Hopefully one with one of those interesting DOJ stories in it.

-dan