24 hour period to edit a post

[Genecks]

I looked at one of my posts and thought, "Man.. I have some writing issues in this."

I was slightly tired the other day; therefore, my posts weren't on top of things.

 

I should have made the sentence double negative; it would have been more accurate. However, I can't edit, because the ability to edit has been locked away after a certain period of time.

 

Would it be possible for an administrator to bring the editing time up to 24 hours?

If the editing time feature can not be brought up a few hours, then how much time do I have to edit?

[Phi for All]

I believe it's set for six hours. I'll check to see about increasing it.

 

The problem is, everyone usually wants more and more time. We need some kind of short limit because we've had people who went back and changed posts people had already responded to, which makes the forum look really weird to someone coming late to a thread. We've also had people get pissy and go back and put "..." in every post to satisfy the minimum character limits.

 

But I'll take it up with management. Would twelve be better than six or does it have to be twenty-four?

[herpguy]

I like Genecks idea. Sometimes I'll post something right before I go to bed and then think about what I posted for a few minutes until I fall asleep. Then, I'll realize that I said something wrong. So I'll wake up after getting a full night's sleep, and try to edit mo post. Unfortunately, I can't because of the time-limit.

 

Even 10 hours would be fine with me, however it will make me very happy if you would raise it to 12. Thanks.

[ecoli]

I think the point of the time limit, is that so people really think about what they are typing.

 

I don't think the time limit should change, because people edit posts after people respond, as it is, increasing the time limit would only make this worse.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

We've actually had a few people go back and edit all of their posts to be blank (save for a message saying "blanked"), which completely destroys thread continuity.

[GutZ]

I guess thats why the delete post option that BB has isnt enabled?

[Phi for All]

I think the point of the time limit' date=' is that so people really think about what they are typing.

 

I don't think the time limit should change, because people edit posts after people respond, as it is, increasing the time limit would only make this worse.[/quote']This is a very good point. It might be handy for the occasional post you flubbed, but lengthening the limit has much more potential for being abused.

[reor]

You shouldn't reply if you're tired. Write down your thoughts, so you don't forget them and post the next day.

I should follow my sayings more often...

 

EDIT: Some forums show edit date and time, so, i guess it's not that hard. Would it be possible to lock the original text, but keep the ability to "endorse" it after some hours? I'd recommend to limit the full edit time to 1 or 2 hours, and 24 hours for supplement.

[mooeypoo]

You shouldn't reply if you're tired. Write down your thoughts' date=' so you don't forget them and post the next day.

I should follow my sayings more often...

[/quote']

I agree completely, but usually, the problem is that if you don't post on time, the discussion is changed -- or editted, or added, or took a different turn -- by the time you wake up and want to post it, it's irrelevant

 

But yes, I agree, people should try to concentrate on their posts, or at least do what I do: appologize if they have something important to say but are too tired to worry about grammar (hey.. to my defense: english is my second language..

 

I didn't see that many non-grammatical horrible-problems in the threads though.. appearantly, even if you're tired, the posts are usually understood..

 

~moo

[woelen]

I would most like unlimited possibility of editing posts, UNTIL someone has added a more recent post in that thread, regardless of whether that is in response to your post or not (telling the difference would be impossible for a piece of software like that is driving SFN).

 

That method assures thread continuity. I'm inclined to say, however, please think twice before you post. If you have to take back all kinds of things, while others have responded already to that, then it is more appropriate to add a new post.

[insane_alien]

woelen, what about ninja posting? if someone submits a post at almost exactly the same time as some one else. if the person whos post got in first hppened to want to edit his last post cause he realised he done somethng stupid i.e. 1=2

and wanted to change it. the 6 hour limit is fine for me

[Phi for All]

So far, I haven't seen any really compelling reasons to change. Longer editing time may be nice for the few of you who would respect it, but there are many more people out there (especially people we don't know *yet*) who would take advantage or abuse it.

 

The more I think about it, the more I see editing beyond six hours will end up being a crutch. Better to think harder and proofread before hitting "Submit Reply". For the occasional post where you were "slightly tired" or bombed out of your mind, you can always request a Staff member make specific changes or even delete the post if there have not been a bunch of replies to it. And as woelen said, you can always add a new post explaining why your old post was bollocks.

 

Btw, did you know that if you edit within 5 minutes of posting, your changes won't even incur a "Last edited by:" marker?

[zilchonymous]

Having to bear being stuck with imperfections hinders contribution.

How about limiting edits just in politics- and religion-related forums where there is more inclination for abuse?

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

That's not possible in vBulletin.