Modifying Messages

[Satya]

I am finding this function to be intermittent since I rejoined this forum.  For example, I can modify my post on Andrew's Journal, if I want, but not the Irritating Internet Laws posts I made.  What gives?

I can edit this post on this forum, btw.

[TylerDurden]

Goodsamaritan has made it so that we can modify our posts for up 5 minutes after posting. He says it's to avoid people arbitrarily deleting all their own posts, during some argument, thus making threads incomprehensible - he, apparently, does this with all the forums he supervises. Feel free to make your case, though, if you feel the need.

[Satya]

Goodsamaritan has made it so that we can modify our posts for up 5 minutes after posting. He says it's to avoid people arbitrarily deleting all their own posts, during some argument, thus making threads incomprehensible - he, apparently, does this with all the forums he supervises. Feel free to make your case, though, if you feel the need.

Okay, I can go along with this new rule ... but 5 minutes!!!  I am a busy family person.  So if I try to post something coherent, get up to go piddle, and come back, I am stuck with whatever nonsense in spelling or grammar I have up there?  Please please please give us 15 minutes for editing!  Otherwise I will be afraid to post without careful reviewing beforehand.  Is that why it's been so quiet around here lately?  Everyone is afraid their bad spelling will be up for eternity?

At least, Tyler, I have noticed that you are not afraid of bad spelling errors.  Good for you not to care.

[goodsamaritan]

15 minutes sounds reasonable.  What do the moderators think?

[TylerDurden]

Quite honestly, I  would prefer an 8-hour limit, as often one is concentrating on so many different webpages at the same time and one needs a fresh perspective/new viewing of the page to correct things.

I haven't used the spellchecker, because it didn't work the last times I tried it, months ago, it just came up blank.

[Satya]

Oh, yes, 8 hours is even better.

You know, Tyler, I was only teasing about spelling.  But the new Firefox browsers have it built in.  So as I type, I get red underlines on possibly incorrect spellings.  Something to look into, as it is quite handy.

[RawZi]

15 minutes sounds reasonable.  What do the moderators think?

    I'm not nor ever have been a moderator. 

    That said, I was in one forum where a post needed to be deleted, and it took over a day; because it was not set up for it. 

    Then recently, in another forum, a long standing member must have had a bad day and so was posting attacks, then ten minutes later deleting, then posted apology, then deleted twenty minutes later, then more attacks, etc for an hour or so, until he got his account deleted. 

    Eight hours does sound good for me personally too, but then I'm thinking some imbalanced person may take advantage of that to make and delete attacks, and come out smelling like roses if our forum is very large in the future, and most of the members or the moderators were not viewing that area at the time.   

    I trust you guys will come to a decision that works well.  I didn't really have a problem here, I just didn't know about the five minute rule.   

[coconinoz]

i'd prefer 1 hr for deleting 1's post & 8 hr for editing/modifying

honestly, i find the current system annoying but have been trying to tolerate it thinking it reflects a software or programming limitation, which hopefully will be overcame soon

come to think about it, if quality posts are a desirable thing on this forum....
or maybe this 5 min rule is telling us that quality posts are something no1 cares about around here -- i wonder

how many writers, musical authors, athletes, etc. are at their best perfection in 5 min???

[coconinoz]

ok, so here we go again

when i said "quality posts" in my message above i did not have in mind a doctoral dissertation kind of thing
rather, my point is how to ease 1's expression of feelings, moods, intentions, knowledge, doubts, etc. etc. in order to enhance the author-reader communication > the author is satisfied w/ the piece, which conveys what was wanted to convey & the reader reads the piece understanding, as much as possible, something not too different from what the author intended

if i wanted to sound humorous i would not want to sound silly -- this is something i presently do not have the skills to accomplish in 5 min or less (i can always get better, of course; may be this silly 5 min rule will nudge me into instantaneous perfection; we'll see)

[coconinoz]

if i wrote that columbus came to america last year & 6 hrs later realize that was a mistake...

[goodsamaritan]

As to the logic of corrections:

The poster can always make a new reply with the correction.
The poster can always make a reply by reposting the whole post corrected and edited.
I think the forums should freely record what we thought of typing at the moment.

If after a few hours you think you posted something your secret police of your communist country will be offended, then maybe you can ask a moderator to erase your post?  This doesn't happen very often.

[goodsamaritan]

8 hours seems too long to edit a post.  A reply will be better.
There will be interesting threads where people will just chime in and we have a wonderful conversation.
If people are allowed to edit their earlier posts, the new people reading the threads will be lost as to the logic of the conversation.

In the meantime, let's try 15 minutes grace period to modify a post.

[JaX]

I also agree on the 8 hour edit policy... I would even say more than 8 hours. the reason for this being that sometimes you come back next day and realize a mistake...

If people use the quotation function when replying to each others posts then it won't cause any confusion if a post that has already received replies is edited.