Edit and/or delete a post.

[mike_godwin1]

Is this ever going to be a feature of this place?

[mike dixon]

There are plans to implement the ability to edit your own posts for a short time after they are made (e.g. ten minutes to correct typos/misspellings). I don't think there are any plans to allow people to delete their own posts. If you don't want something to be preserved permanently on the net, don't post it.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Editing posts after posting them opens up the door for alot of Bevis and Butthead behavior. One responds in a way to create an argument; then changes the post too look like a saint. Folks then respond to the ill/odd/extreme comment and then appear as the real idiots; since the ill first salvo was retracted. Then they #2 chap trys to retract their response; and yet another responds before 1& 2 are gone. Entire threads get ruined and deleted when ediing is allows on some boards. One should just THINK before one posts on the web; writes a letter to an editor; carves ones name on a tree. At some point folks need to develop personal responsibilty for their actions as a part of being an adult.

[bobatkins]

We will add the ability to edit for s SHORT time after posting at some point. It's on the list of things to do.

 

The emphasis here is a SHORT time. Time enough to correct any typos which should have been caught on the edit and preview screens BEFORE posting. My vote would be for a 1 minute time frame, but I don't get to vote!

 

After that, no edits or deletions will be allowed.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Maybe these idea(s) are impossible to add:.<BR><BR>(1); ie Having some type of notification that says the thread you are replying to was just edited in the last minute or two. ie the purpose to reduce a second launching of ICBM's to nuke the last post as wrong; ie to reduce bickering by a mistake posted on the last post.<BR><BR><BR><BR><br>(2) Or another way that might be impossible is to allow the quick edit in the first minute; but LEAVE below ones post the original way too; ie what was changed. Thus if I called a person a duffus;and retracted it; the original comment; ie launching of the attack is recorded for all to see ie like a well documented engineering drawing where the changes are documented to show what the revisions are; IS and WAS. <br>Thus If I started or another started a ruckus on a sane logical thread; WHO started it and WHERE it started would show up like gangbusters; since the changed "stuff" would be say in color/different font/etc and the old stuff posted too.

[mike_godwin1]

<b>Mike Dixon - </b><i>If you don't want something to be preserved permanently on the net, don't post it.</i><p>

 

<b>Kelly Flanigan - </b><i>One should just THINK before one posts on the web; writes a letter to an editor; carves ones name on a tree. </i><p>

 

Jeez.. I was just asking about being able to correct a mistake in a post or just deleting it to start over. I've been on this internet thing for over 18 years now, so I know how this crap works. I run systems like this for a living.

[kelly_flanigan1]

Thus with my goof on the first post:<BR><BR>One responds in a way to create an argument; then changes the post too look like a saint.<BR><BR>would be corrected to:<BR><BR> One responds in a way to create an argument; then changes the post <b>to</b> look like a saint. <BR><BR>Where the somewhere below would be: <BR><BR>edited 03:18 IS: <i>to;</i>WAS: <i>too</i><BR><BR>A scheme like this would reduce salvos launched to excite folks then delete the record of the first strike; since the launch of the first punch would be left in the "what was edited revision block".

[bobatkins]

It would be much easier and less work for the site to simply leave things as they are. You have the chance to review and edit your post before it's committted to the database. If you don't use that opportunity, then any errors are your own fault.

 

Adding comments about what was edited etc. is just getting way too complex. A 60 second edit window might be an acceptable compromise.

[frank_ernens]

I seem to make a lot of typos/slips posting on this site - more later, on why. I generally notice them in a couple of

minutes, and either leave them alone if obvious (e.g. negative meaning, missing words) or make an immediate follow-up

with the correction. You'd need 2 to 3 minutes to complete the edit; 60s is not long enough.

 

As to why, I think it's because the confirmation screen renders text with lines that are too long to easily read. In the

forums, the ads on the right make the lines short enough. If you added an empty box to the right in the confirmation

screen, or increased the borders, I think the need for this feature would go away. Resizing my browser window won't narrow the text lines.

 

I think you should tread carefully allowing edits. They are widely abused elsewhere.

[joshroot]

The official answer to this is that I am considering adding a 5 minute time frame for typo edits. But it is not high on my list of things to do.

 

Photo.net has operated just fine for a decade without the ability for people to edit their posts. It has also saved us a lot of trouble with the kind of abuse that deletion/editing can bring.

 

In short, what was said earlier is correct: If you don't want something to be preserved permanently on the net, don't post it.

[JDMvW]

It's really annoying to notice after you've posted that you used "it's" as a possessive or wrote "to" instead of

"too". So here's one vote for some kind of short term editing for typos. How about retaining an editing

capability until someone else posts? Perhaps too complicated to implement, though perhaps not more than a set

period of time elapsed? This would avoid the problem of post hoc "improvements" to a post, though on a hot topic

on a "hot" day, it might not leave any time for corrections at all.

[JDMvW]

I went to a few threads, and noted that there is usually at least 5 mins between postings on new threads, which lengthens as the thread ages. So a correct-until-a-new-post-is-made-to-a-thread policy would usually leave as much time as the 5-min policy and more for fading threads.

[garry edwards]

*As to why, I think it's because the confirmation screen renders text with lines that are too long to easily read. In the

forums, the ads on the right make the lines short enough. If you added an empty box to the right in the confirmation

screen, or increased the borders, I think the need for this feature would go away. Resizing my browser window won't

narrow the text lines. *

 

I don't get this problem. I think the reason you see the adverts is that you're not a subscriber.

 

I took over the admin of a British phototography forum a couple of years ago. At the time, I was a moderator on PN

and so knew all about the strange behaviour of a minority of members and because of this I didn't allow editing

(except in the 'For sale' forum, where people were able/encouraged to delete their own posts once the item had been

sold) but later allowed editing, with no time limits.

 

That facility has never been abused and is rarely used. My own experience is that members only wanted it when

they didn't have it :-)

[petemillis]

sometimes I'd like to edit a post to correct typos, but not really any big deal. What does get me is when posts disappear - it feels like a part of my life has been stolen from me when I've gone to the effort of participating in a thread, then find the thread has vanished without trace...not even a little note is left behind to say why the thread has gone! I feel like not bothering at times.

[lex_jenkins]

Pete, I can't speak for other moderators, but sometimes when one or two bad eggs stink up a thread, especially a long thread, it's easier to just delete the whole mess. Yup, it's a shame that constructive participants also lose their posts. But some folks can't resist messing things up for others. And if you edit only their offensive remarks, they'll claim censorship or accuse you of misrepresenting their statements through selective editing.

 

Occasionally I'll lock a thread and leave the offensive remarks intact for future reference, as long as they aren't libelous or dangerous. Seems to avoid any possibilities of misrepresenting what was really said.