Forum Configuration Change: Extend the time to edit one's own post

[Spoom 8]

I'd like to request that Captain Ewok change the configuration of the forums to allow users to edit their posts for more than five minutes after they're posted. Sometimes I notice that something needs to be amended to what I've posted and due to the limitation on post edit times, I may be forced to double-post instead.

Most threads here don't proceed at a rate of a post every five minutes, so usually when a user wants to edit a post, it's not a case of wanting to go back on something they've said before, it's a case of wanting to simply add something they've subsequently found.

I suggest simply allowing post editing for 24 hours after a post is made. This should be a simple configuration setting in the administrative interface of the forums for Captain Ewok.

Thoughts?

[Calypso 464]

I completely agree.

FAE

[rsn 135]

Unless this change includes notifying others in the thread via email of the change, then I can see how allowing someone to edit their post 24 hours after applying it would cause some confusion. What happens if you edit your post 23 hours later after numerous people have already commented on/quoted the original post? I'm not sure why it is a problem to double-post, just quote your original post and add your new comments.

[Otto 83]

I think the current setting (5min?) is perfectly fine. No need to extend that further (IMO).

(After the elapsed time - can simply quote your original post and add your edit...)

Edited October 16, 2009 by Otto und Karin

[Spoom 8]

Unless this change includes notifying others in the thread via email of the change, then I can see how allowing someone to edit their post 24 hours after applying it would cause some confusion. What happens if you edit your post 23 hours later after numerous people have already commented on/quoted the original post? I'm not sure why it is a problem to double-post, just quote your original post and add your new comments.

Those people who have already quoted the post in question would not have their quotes changed, due to the nature of how quoting works. Editing posts already causes a notice to be placed at the bottom of the post, so anyone who accused someone of changing their meaning after the fact would be able to point at the "edited" notice at the bottom of the post.

For many forum applications (I'm not sure specifically about this one) there are mods that will show *every* time a post is changed. That could be something to be looked into.

Double-posting increases the size and post-count of a thread needlessly, and isn't as intuitive as having the changes merged into the initial post.

[rsn 135]

Unless this change includes notifying others in the thread via email of the change, then I can see how allowing someone to edit their post 24 hours after applying it would cause some confusion. What happens if you edit your post 23 hours later after numerous people have already commented on/quoted the original post? I'm not sure why it is a problem to double-post, just quote your original post and add your new comments.

Those people who have already quoted the post in question would not have their quotes changed, due to the nature of how quoting works. Editing posts already causes a notice to be placed at the bottom of the post, so anyone who accused someone of changing their meaning after the fact would be able to point at the "edited" notice at the bottom of the post.

For many forum applications (I'm not sure specifically about this one) there are mods that will show *every* time a post is changed. That could be something to be looked into.

Double-posting increases the size and post-count of a thread needlessly, and isn't as intuitive as having the changes merged into the initial post.

Online forum threads are not documents, they are pieces of a conversation that are generally presented in chronological order. What you are talking about is similar to a wiki. Allowing someone to add to their post 1 day after the original post is going to confuse a lot of people unless the change is presented in the order it was made (relating to the other posts in the thread). If, lets say, an OP follows the conversation to track advice/answers, they are likely going to follow the posts as they appear. I doubt they are going to like having to traverse all of the posts in the thread every so often to make sure no one has added advice or changed their advice.

[Spoom 8]

Online forum threads are not documents, they are pieces of a conversation that are generally presented in chronological order. What you are talking about is similar to a wiki. Allowing someone to add to their post 1 day after the original post is going to confuse a lot of people unless the change is presented in the order it was made (relating to the other posts in the thread). If, lets say, an OP follows the conversation to track advice/answers, they are likely going to follow the posts as they appear. I doubt they are going to like having to traverse all of the posts in the thread every so often to make sure no one has added advice or changed their advice.

I argue that this happens so rarely, even in forums that allow editing an infinite time after a post is made (e.g. most phpBBs in a default configuration), that it's almost a non-issue. I base this on years of forum experience as anywhere from a user to a full administrator.

However, very well, if this is a concern, make the edit timeline one hour.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Spoom

[Rhiannercakes 14]

The only time the 5 minute thing bothers me is when I figured I could add something else or clarify what I was talking about... or even fix spelling mistakes!

Which happens quite a bit.

I'd like to see maybe 10 minutes or more.

Edited October 16, 2009 by Rhiann

[William33 110]

From the moderation perspective, 5 minutes of edit time is appropriate and here's why:

1.) Everyone should have access to a spell checker. If not, the Google toolbar offers one and it is free.

2.) With respect to long, detailed posts, most people draft them in Word and then post. This offers plenty of time for afterthoughts, clarification and so forth.

3.) Given the periodic "disagreements" among the regular members, five minutes is appropriate so that original points are a matter of record.

4.) If an amendment is required, you simply add another post.

In closing, most websites offer 5 minutes or less of edit time.

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

2.) With respect to long, detailed posts, most people draft them in Word and then post. This offers plenty of time for afterthoughts, clarification and so forth.

Has this been polled?

[Spoom 8]

Most forums I've been on allow unlimited edit time, actually. News sites are another story, but they're a different beast altogether.

And I agree with Wingnut Slayer; I doubt most people actually go to the trouble of opening an external application to type out their posts for a forum.

Personally, the best solution I can see would be to have posts have a restricted-to-the-poster Wiki-like nature, where the previous revisions are kept in a clickable history link. That offers the best of both worlds, but I don't know if such a mod is easily available for this forum software.

Again, I think an hour would be a good compromise.

Edited October 17, 2009 by Spoom

[William33 110]

We can make that happen....See polls.....

2.) With respect to long, detailed posts, most people draft them in Word and then post. This offers plenty of time for afterthoughts, clarification and so forth.

Has this been polled?

[Darnell 8,479]

What is the 5 minute time tick?

Does it start from the 'save' action, or the 'add reply' action?

I seemed to get hosed up recently, when I thought I had 5 minutes.

Also - once yer in edit mode (after first save ) - how much time do you really have to save the new edit ?