PDA

View Full Version : Edit Earlier Posts



jhughes
15-05-2011, 07:43 AM
Hi everyone,
In the thread "MCC Bullet Marathon?" I wish to change the title such that the "?" is removed. But there is no edit button at the bottom of the post: may I ask why this is? And what can I do about it?

Adamski
15-05-2011, 09:13 AM
There is an Advanced Edit option which allows you to change the title. Go to "Edit" then to "Go Advanced".

jhughes
15-05-2011, 10:41 AM
There is an Advanced Edit option which allows you to change the title. Go to "Edit" then to "Go Advanced".
Yes but for some reason there is no button allowing me to edit at all!

Garrett
15-05-2011, 11:21 AM
if it is over 24 hours since the post then I don't think you can edit.

Don't know if this is relevant or not.

cheers Garrett.

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2011, 12:05 PM
Outside the edit window posts can only be edited by an admin or mod. I've edited the title.

jhughes
15-05-2011, 03:52 PM
Outside the edit window posts can only be edited by an admin or mod. I've edited the title.
Thank you. But may I ask why it is not possible to edit posts from >24 hours ago?

ElevatorEscapee
15-05-2011, 06:48 PM
^^ I agree with the poster above.

Whilst I understand that the 24 hour "posters can't edit their own posts" rule has been in force for quite some time now, I wonder if is this a moderation decision or simply a default setting for vBulletin.

Sometimes I cringe when seeing a post I made a couple of days previously which has an obvious typo, and it seems incongruous to me that I can't go in and edit it to make a simple correction... after all, it's my own post!

Is there a genuine reason for preventing such editing? For instance, are people afraid that whatever they are responding to will be edited, thereby making their response look stupid? (This would partially explain the rather unnecessarily repetitive "quote", "quote", "quote", habits that people have here, overusing the "quote" function to reproduce what everyone can read just by looking at the post above.)

Or is this simply a default setting from vBulletin? (I notice that the 'other' site has a similar policy).

In any case, if there is the ability to change the time limit, I would encourage it to be changed to allow the original posters to edit their own posts regardless of the time elapsed from their original post. This would also lessen the workload of the moderators by them not having to respond to requests based on timing delay issues. :)

Kevin Bonham
15-05-2011, 11:20 PM
We have made a deliberate decision to retain an edit window though the length of the window has been varied in the past.

We think the edit window is important so that posters remain accountable for what they have posted (with the exception of stuff said in the heat of the moment that a poster quickly decides is a bad idea). If there is no edit window silly posters (not that we have too many of those anymore) can back-edit to distort the record of the debate.

It is also a good protection against the common spammer trick of posting a seemingly normal post then editing in links days later.

If someone wants something edited after the window has expired then we're generally happy to do it (though if someone wants hundreds of typos expunged as opposed to the odd one then they should type more carefully in future!)


This would also lessen the workload of the moderators by them not having to respond to requests based on timing delay issues.

Thanks for the concern but I strongly prefer the workload to the alternative.

jhughes
20-05-2011, 05:08 PM
We have made a deliberate decision to retain an edit window though the length of the window has been varied in the past.

We think the edit window is important so that posters remain accountable for what they have posted (with the exception of stuff said in the heat of the moment that a poster quickly decides is a bad idea). If there is no edit window silly posters (not that we have too many of those anymore) can back-edit to distort the record of the debate.

It is also a good protection against the common spammer trick of posting a seemingly normal post then editing in links days later.

If someone wants something edited after the window has expired then we're generally happy to do it (though if someone wants hundreds of typos expunged as opposed to the odd one then they should type more carefully in future!)



Thanks for the concern but I strongly prefer the workload to the alternative.
What's the problem? If people edit their posts to change to the record of the discussion then they are only compromising their own integrity...on the other hand, disallowing the correction of typos after 24 hours is a huge problem: people are made to look like fools because they are unable to change a siple mistake.

Of course if people do modify their posts and change the nature of them then these can simply be treated as violations of forum rules.

Kevin Bonham
20-05-2011, 06:02 PM
What's the problem? If people edit their posts to change to the record of the discussion then they are only compromising their own integrity

Not if it had already been compromised to a greater degree by what they had written and wished to remove.


...on the other hand, disallowing the correction of typos after 24 hours is a huge problem: people are made to look like fools because they are unable to change a [simple] mistake.

But we can change it for them. Though I don't actually think that making a typo error in a post generally makes someone look like a fool anyway. Except if someone does it while flaming someone else for making typo errors, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to change it. :doh:


Of course if people do modify their posts and change the nature of them then these can simply be treated as violations of forum rules.

Not really sure I'd want to go down that road. I know from another forum I'm a mod on (where there is no limit on edits) that some posters find the temptation to engage in cover-ups very strong. Even if you make the practice possible but have a rule restricting when it can be used, they might say that their edit outside the window was only fixing a typo and there might not be any way to test that. Indeed on that forum we sometimes get cases of posters posting just to quote an embarrassing or stupid post made by someone else, just to make sure the original poster can't "retract" it in any way. I can do without that sort of thing being necessary here.

jhughes
21-05-2011, 06:48 AM
Not if it had already been compromised to a greater degree by what they had written and wished to remove.



But we can change it for them. Though I don't actually think that making a typo error in a post generally makes someone look like a fool anyway. Except if someone does it while flaming someone else for making typo errors, in which case they shouldn't be allowed to change it. :doh:



Not really sure I'd want to go down that road. I know from another forum I'm a mod on (where there is no limit on edits) that some posters find the temptation to engage in cover-ups very strong. Even if you make the practice possible but have a rule restricting when it can be used, they might say that their edit outside the window was only fixing a typo and there might not be any way to test that. Indeed on that forum we sometimes get cases of posters posting just to quote an embarrassing or stupid post made by someone else, just to make sure the original poster can't "retract" it in any way. I can do without that sort of thing being necessary here.
But surely there is a big difference between things like correcting typos and grammatical mistakes and then changing the tone of the discussion completely? How could it possibly result in a dispute?

Kevin Bonham
21-05-2011, 12:54 PM
But surely there is a big difference between things like correcting typos and grammatical mistakes and then changing the tone of the discussion completely? How could it possibly result in a dispute?

Well, suppose A makes a post attacking B. B, who isn't a regular poster, finds the post weeks later and replies to it angrily but doesn't directly quote it. As soon as A sees B do that, A immediately edits his post so it looks like B's reply is misrepresenting A and barking up the wrong tree, thus making B look foolish. There is an edit stamp showing on A's post showing it was edited after B replied, but A says he just noticed a typo and didn't change anything that mattered. Some people who saw the post when first posted reckon that A has indeed changed the text significantly, but A says that he did that not long after posting, to tone it down. Unless the original was captured by a search engine or Wayback in its original form many days after it was posted, it may be impossible to establish that A substantively altered the post after B replied.

Now, this may all sound unlikely or extreme but it is actually mild compared to some of the cases of deliberate deception we have seen here in the past.