Edit Time Limit

I'd like to open up the discussion to us all regarding the issue of putting a time limit on the ability to edit posts. It was removed as several of us wanted and it's been a short while indeed but some problems are arising.

I really don't want to mention names and please don't guess because you will probably be quite wrong but there have now been instances where there have been alterations made that either subtely change the meaning of what is being said or indeed do so in a more substantial way. Sorry to be imprecise but I really don't want to point the finger at anyone.

Making corrections for spelling and grammar is one thing but I'm talking betyond that. These things are quite difficult to spot and I don't think I would have if I didn't read everything!

Up for discussion is my proposition that we could accept say a 30 minute limit. Enough time to spot an error but still stopping the less scrupulous from distorting what we are saying in a thread.

This is genuinely up for discussion and open for opinions please. If and when we have a consensus I will approach Admin and see if they are happy with the solution we suggest. Over to you!

I agree and 30 minutes is fine but maybe something like 10 minutes is sufficient. Most people ten to read the post straight after posting so any corrections would be done straight away.

There are two legitimate reasons, I think, for editing posts:

1 To correct errors. Punctillious writers like myself hate to see an error, perhaps weeks later, and not be able to correct it. But our obsessions should not dictate forum policy.

2 To update links to pictures. This facility is very useful.

Personally, I think that if somebody is malicious enough to change a post in order to change its meaning, then the solution is to rebuke him forcibly, and if necessary invite him to hie himself to another forum where less gentlemanly standards prevail.

G

Sorry John,
Though I can understand your very diplomatic statement here, I don't see how this is going to help us, in forming an opinion. You as a moderator have the power to intervene if things are out of order. What I really don't understand is that the "editing issue", has become so important these days.
I personally believe in the self regulating powers of this forum, and when things go really bad, you as a moderator can shut the thread down.( as you have done twice now, I believe) And you have other possibilities at hand.
Warnings stated by PM to correct the offender etc......and if nothing helps, eventually banning

Personally I can live with grammar mistakes by me or others, but losing the possibility to repair broken links from posted photographs
Please don't take that away.
And if you spot a "Troll", as described in a earlier discussion with the PUT, don't be "polite and diplomatic correct" Just kick him/her back under the rock it came from. You have my blessing.
Martin.

I think the link argument is strong enough to stick with the unlimited edit. I cannot recall if I ever used it but I know that I was annoyed at one point when I found out that there was a limit for edits on another forum.

I'm with George on the forceful rebuke of malicious changes. That should be enough.

Prieni

I very much agree with George here.

It is much, much better, to punish the guilty than the innocent.

I've been a member here for about a year and a half, and in all that time I've been impressed with its self-policing nature. Even when some of the discussions have become heated, and I'd concede that I've occasionally contributed to the warmth, there's been no genuine malice and nastiness. Misunderstandings, unnecessary offence-taking, the occasional high-horse climbing, do occur from time to time - as in life - but they aren't the norm.

My case for allowing unrestricted editing has been based on the lack of evidence for a need to impose restrictions, and hitherto I've seen no such evidence.

But maybe there is some, now.

It would be a great shame if, due to the influx of a large number of new members, the culture changed, but I do see that it might happen that restrictions become more necessary.

Before such change happens, if it is happening, I think it would be best to deal with the individual offenders before imposing widespread restrictions on the civilised majority.

Otherwise, we will have the situation where culture change is effectively forced on us by those that have joined most recently, and who have therefore contributed least to the community. I don't think that's right.

Freedom is hard-won, and all too easily lost.

Afterthought:

I am assuming that it's one or more of the newer members to blame.

I may be wrong, of course, but if it's one of the longer-standing folk, there's even less excuse for such manipulation, and all the more reason for forceful rebuke.

I was one (of many, I think) who requested the removal of the time limit. I don't recall there being one on the old forum site, but then, it wasn't needed. I just wonder why it should be needed now.

If the author of a post had a different meaning, other than the actual words he/she typed, why not change it to reflect what was actually meant?

If, on the other hand, somebody is abusing this privelege, a (textual) slapped wrist is in order via PM, or temporary/permanent suspension perhaps?

Am I the only person who's noticed an increase in slightly venomous postings of late?

I think 30 minutes is enough time to re-check spelling, grammar and posted links. It may encourage a little less 'eagerness' to replying, but entice a bit more thought on the given subject Also, there is the option to re-post any shortcomings or mistakes,further down the thread.
After 30 minutes, all that anger and frustration will be there for all to see, FOREVER



Mick

Keep the opinions coming. How often do we need to replace a link? In my case never as it happens - they are all still intact via Photobucket but if they aren't I haven't noticed so they must be very old posts!

There are two ways round this. One is to make a new post with an updated link and then get a Mod to remove the original if you wish. Or just get a Mod to post a new link in for you. Not a problem. If it's a rare ocurrence maybe that would be a good solution?

Is the linking issue more important than the editing one?

No, you are not.

For me it is, as long as the moderators have the "tools" and will to sanction, if needed.

Martin.

I need to often enough for it to be a nuisance not to be able to.

I do think this is solving the wrong problem.

Deal with the guilty, don't punish the innocent.

This issue is a real reflection of what's going on in society more generally, I think. More and more, bad people are getting away with things, and good people are having to put up with more and more erosion of their freedoms as a result. Notice that in real life, the erosion of freedoms does not, in fact, do much to solve the underlying problem.

I can't believe that the person or persons abusing the edit facility are many - why not just take action against them?

Unfortunately we have to live with the world as it is, not how we would wish it to be. I'm trying to find out here what the basic issues are so that I can suggest a solution that most people can accept is reasonable. I don't know what that solution is yet, so keep on posting those thoughts.

It's easy to say punish the guilty, but spotting the sort of things I have in mind is tricky. I do happen to have a very good memory but once something is changed, could you guarantee that you would notice? If any perceived problems can be addressed then simply putting a time limit in is by far the easiest thing to do because it cuts it out completely.

As regards Mods having the tools and the will to edit a link for you that's not a problem and there's no reason why it should be.

Agreed. I don't for a moment think you should have to be the sole policeman.

I'd suggest, though, that in any cases where someone felt misrepresented by someone else's nefarious editing, it would soon come to light because they, or someone else following the thread, would report it. You'd soon get an idea of who the miscreants were.


Cutting off the ability of the mischief makers to edit posts will only address post editing. It won't address the fact that if they do that, they'll probably do other things too.

And those other things will have the same sort of insidious effects on the pleasant culture here.

Incidentally, I would encourage all to use the quote facility, when they reply to specific points. It has the following highly desirable effects:

1) It means that the original text is there for all to see, thus discouraging the sort of manipulation we're concerned about.

... and when we're replying to a specific point, we're

2) More likely to have read it accurately if we quote it, and

3) Making it easier for others to follow the discussion.

[quote="John"]As regards Mods having the tools and the will to edit a link for you that's not a problem and there's no reason why it should be.[/quote]Witness this example, which I think you might have misunderstood, John. If I've understood him, Martin was referring to the will to sanction, not the will to edit links.