inquiry Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 We can make it 100% necessary for the software to include a note if a post is edited. Should we make this a requirement? Feel free to comment on why you voted yes no, or other and why. Note administrators and original poster are only people who can currently edit post by someone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 No. I frequently edit just because I noticed a typo or grammatical error or something tiny. There's no reason to add a tag to make it look like I changed the content of my post. If I change the content of my post, I make a clear note of it. I don't really understand the purpose of this if over half my posts end up with an edit tag. Edit to add: If you do change it so that the software requires the edit tag, is there also a feature that easily allows the poster to give a reason for the edit? 7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matmat Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 No. I frequently edit just because I noticed a typo or grammatical error or something tiny. There's no reason to add a tag to make it look like I changed the content of my post. If I change the content of my post, I make a clear note of it. I don't really understand the purpose of this if over half my posts end up with an edit tag. Edit to add: If you do change it so that the software requires the edit tag, is there also a feature that easily allows the poster to give a reason for the edit?You can state your reason in your edit. I'm strongly in favor of turning this feature on (I edit my posts a lot for grammar/spelling/clarity etc. too). Ideally, there would be a grace period to allow changes without the tag being added (although I imagine that's not really an available setting in the software) I've seen a bunch of instances where an OP was substantially changed for content without any note and several subsequent replies looked wrong and out of place with people wondering what happened. At least this way there'd be a record and a timestamp of when things happened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 (edited) You can state your reason in your edit. I'm strongly in favor of turning this feature on (I edit my posts a lot for grammar/spelling/clarity etc. too). Ideally, there would be a grace period to allow changes without the tag being added (although I imagine that's not really an available setting in the software) I've seen a bunch of instances where an OP was substantially changed for content without any note and several subsequent replies looked wrong and out of place with people wondering what happened. At least this way there'd be a record and a timestamp of when things happened. On the forum I frequent most often, users can edit their posts within 15 minutes of making the post. After some period of time (10 mintues?) the edit tag always displays when the post is edited, otherwise the poster can choose whether or not to include it. There is also a short text field offering the poster to give a reason for the edit that, when filled in, displays in smaller text beneath the post. I'm in favor of something like that, but requiring the edit tag always seems completely unnecessary. Edit to add: This may be against the terms of service of BBF, in which case Inquiry or someone can delete this text/post/me/whatever, but here is a link to an example post with the edit tag and a reason provided by the poster for the edit. This link goes to another forum, so if you're at work and afraid of sites you've visited, or if you find the internet in general to be a frightening place, you're better off just staying in BBF. Edited June 24, 2011 by jjbrr Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 It doesn't matter how often I check my post or if I use the preview the Moment the post was sent, I encounter an error..... This would result in nearly all of my posts having an edit line. People would waste time to reread my post unless they carefully compare the posting time with the edit time.So I am against a forced edit tag. People will realize that if they want that a change to a post is noticed they have to add a remark or a new post. If you answer to a post that might be changed, quote it, the quote does not change. But I it is enforced , that won't stop me posting. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antrax Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 A common implementation allows "free" edits until more posts are made in the thread.I'm for it, I see no reason not to be. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I think it should be on by default. It's not that complicated to check time difference between posting time and edit time. For spell check and grammar stuff we can use preview, and even if it's edited a bit later i don't think it would bother subsequent readers that much. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
helene_t Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Setting it on by default without forcing it would solve most issues of the kind mentioned by matmat, I think. If it is always forced I think it is a terrible idea. For the reasons mentioned by jjbrr and hotshot. If there is a grace period of say 10 minutes and/or if it is forced only after new posts have been added, I don´t feel strongly about it. Maybe upvotes should be cancelled once a post has been edited. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Foxx Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 IMHO posts that have no votes or replies, should be editable for half an hour and still stay clean. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mycroft Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I agree with the no-people; I frequently notice a "clarification word change", never mind a spelling mistake or suit error, even after preview. I do, religiously, add the edit tag (or write my own) if I make an edit that might, even, change the meaning of my words. I don't think it's necessary for most people to know I went in - even two days later, when I reread it - and fixed myrcoft to mycroft (or mycroft to Mycroft), for instance. I do think it's necessary - so I do it - to tag a change that would queer something said in reply, or even "clarified last sentence of first paragraph". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 I agree with those suggesting a 10minute grace period, until there has been a reply is also good. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjbrr Posted June 24, 2011 Report Share Posted June 24, 2011 Inquiry et al, can you see what a user wrote in a post before it was edited? If so, can you not just reserve the right to either restore the post or to post the original content in the thread if a poster pulls a Cayuga? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Inquiry et al, can you see what a user wrote in a post before it was edited? No Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 I like the grace period thing; I always find things I have to change too. But still it must be kept in mind that the edit line will mean nothing if the changed text is not indicated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blackshoe Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 I don't think an edit line should be required. I do think it should be included when a substantial change is made. I've seen original posts that were edited because somebody pointed out something or other, but there's no indication when they were edited, or why, or what changed, and that makes several later posts in the thread very confusing, to say the least. We do have the strikeover code available; it would be good to see more use of it. OTOH, if an admin is deleting something because it violates the ToS or whatever, it should be deleted, not just struck over. Note: I'm as guilty as anyone of editing some of my posts without explanation or including the edit line. Usually immediately after I post when I realize I mispelled something or left something out. Mea culpa. As Apple (Computers) said to Apple (Music), sosumi. :lol: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1eyedjack Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 I think that as long as there are no votes attached to the post and no subsequent posts in the thread then the poster should be allowed to edit without noting. And I see no reason for a time limit to be attached to that facility. Personally I am not fussed either way, but I can see good reasons for forcing an edit-by line if there have been either votes attached or subsequent posts. I would not be too fussed if I were forced to apply an edit-by line even to correct minor grammatical errors within a few minutes of posting. Like many other responders many of my posts would "suffer" from this, but the suffering is not painful. Just adds a bit of white noise to the post. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
inquiry Posted June 26, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 The only option available is to either ENFORCE the edit line, or not enforce it. There is no option for conditional enforcement (if after 10 minutes, if after a down vote, etc). We can either turn on the requirement that the edit line is automatically added (along with the time of the edit) or it is not automatically added. I am leaning towards advocating to decision makers that we requiring it, although when I saw years ago you could add this requirement, I thought we should not add it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bbradley62 Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Are we talking about fixing something that isn't broken? Have there been problems caused by a lack of an "edited" note? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jillybean Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 The 'edited by' feature is only useful if a reader can tell what was edited. The onus is on the author to include a comment if they change the content in any significant way. Having an automatic, 'edited by' comment with no description only adds clutter. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diana_eva Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Are we talking about fixing something that isn't broken? Have there been problems caused by a lack of an "edited" note? Not really problems, but there have been posts altered significantly after some replied were made, making the continuations look off topic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BunnyGo Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 The 'edited by' feature is only useful if a reader can tell what was edited. The onus is on the author to include a comment if they change the content in any significant way. Having an automatic, 'edited by' comment with no description only adds clutter. I agree. I doubt it's possible to force edits (maybe default at least) so that edits appear in bold, but if it is I'd support that. I wouldn't mind it, even for my 30 second grammar fixes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vampyr Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 The only option available is to either ENFORCE the edit line, or not enforce it. There is no option for conditional enforcement (if after 10 minutes, if after a down vote, etc). Why not? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hotShot Posted June 26, 2011 Report Share Posted June 26, 2011 Why not? If you look down at the end of every page, you will discover a link to the company that develops this forum software. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Free Posted June 27, 2011 Report Share Posted June 27, 2011 I don't see many advantages of forcing it. We have the option to display it, perhaps you can change the default setting for new users. I don't have any strong feelings about this though, but I know many of my posts would contain it because in many cases I change them within the first 15 minutes or so. Just adding something small, correcting a typo, noticing that I didn't read the OP correctly, the post I quoted was just modified,... So the suggestion to not apply this within the first few minutes is definitely something to consider if you're planning to enforce the "edited by" note. I've never used this note, so I've got a question: if you modify your post multiple times, how many "edited by" notes are displayed? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.