Editing Posts

[ewv 0]

Dang. I did it too, Brian. "Atlas" not "Atlass". We need an Edit button, Betsy!

Preview before submitting?

[Betsy Speicher 0]

We need an Edit button, Betsy!

When a moderator edited and rewrote one of my late husband's postings on another forum, it was intolerable. That was one of the reasons that, when Stephen and I started THE FORUM, we made it a policy not to allow editing.

Because we have previewing and you can always do a quick follow-up post, it usually isn't a problem. If you want a whole posting deleted for some reason -- a duplicate post or you wrote something really awful -- send me a PM and I'll see what I can do.

[Laure 0]

Dang. I did it too, Brian. "Atlas" not "Atlass". We need an Edit button, Betsy!

Preview before submitting?

Yep, I always do. And then I see some glaring mistake after it's posted.

(Betsy - I understand the need for the no-edit policy. Sometimes on other forums, people go back and make substantial changes/deletions in their own posts, which have already been replied to, and then you get into a situation of "he never said that!"... "uh, I could have sworn he said that... what the heck?")

[ewv 0]

...We need an Edit button, Betsy!

Preview before submitting?

Yep, I always do. And then I see some glaring mistake after it's posted.

'Add reply - Enter' has a way of doing that as a kind of built-in automatic proof reader for irreversible mistakes, doesn't it?

It can help to let a post sit for at least a few minutes and then come back to it before submitting.

(Betsy - I understand the need for the no-edit policy. Sometimes on other forums, people go back and make substantial changes/deletions in their own posts, which have already been replied to, and then you get into a situation of "he never said that!"... "uh, I could have sworn he said that... what the heck?")

On those forums especially, save the whole page you are replying to. I use the scrapbook plugin for firefox to archive pages.

[PhilO 0]

There are many possibilities regarding edits, and I think at least some of them would be appropriate here.

A common denominator for any approach would be to retain all versions and indicate that another version was available, unless a moderator deleted it entirely. However, unless the Forum software already supports that capability, it would be difficult to hack up.

Beyond that, I've long thought that the ability for the poster to edit a post within, say, 15 minutes, would go a long way towards fixing mistakes, including mistaken "Add Reply" rather than "Preview Post" button presses. If edits are supported at all, that probably wouldn't be a difficult thing to hack up, since it involves a simple conditional time check.

Another approach would be to permit the poster to edit a post, within a longer timeframe (a day or whatever), as long as nobody has replied.

[jdperren 0]

There are many possibilities regarding edits, and I think at least some of them would be appropriate here.

A common denominator for any approach would be to retain all versions and indicate that another version was available, unless a moderator deleted it entirely. However, unless the Forum software already supports that capability, it would be difficult to hack up.

Beyond that, I've long thought that the ability for the poster to edit a post within, say, 15 minutes, would go a long way towards fixing mistakes, including mistaken "Add Reply" rather than "Preview Post" button presses. If edits are supported at all, that probably wouldn't be a difficult thing to hack up, since it involves a simple conditional time check.

Another approach would be to permit the poster to edit a post, within a longer timeframe (a day or whatever), as long as nobody has replied.

The best approach, in my view, is to allow edits provided no one has replied, or posted afterward. That way, the original content can be modified for spelling, grammar, and intent, without any disputes arising about 'But, you said...' (which on this forum would be extremely rare anyway). I don't believe the issue of the moderator altering posts is relevant since i) the moderator of this forum wouldn't do that, ii) the moderator has that ability anyway, I believe, via an option in the Admin panel, iii) the moderator has only to abstain from doing so and to limit edits to the author of the post. It simply looks sloppy and wastes time to have posters post things like 'Oh, I meant to say 'ensue' rather than 'ensure'. I, too, often have the urge to correct posts and want them to be accurate.

I think this can be an area of reasonable compromise without loss of intellectual integrity.

end of soapbox speech.

[ewv 0]

There is no legitimate editing purpose for editing posts that cannot already be accomplished with preview before submitting. In rare cases you can ask the moderator to remove something, if appropriate, if something occurs to you later. You can also respond to your own posts at any time later if you want to qualify or expand on something, or if you change your mind.

When you send a letter or an email you have the responsibility to not send it until it is what you want to say. The same goes for the Forum. There are no time constraints or limits on how many times you can preview something to get it right. If you are not sure about something, then set it aside and come back to it rather than impatiently submitting and then wishing you hadn't. That also avoids wasting other Forum members' time in re-reading revised posts.

Aside from the reasons for the Forum policy of leaving the record in tact, non-editing of posts encourages responsibility for what one submits, which has enhanced the quality of the Forum. Stephen was right to set it up the way he did. Again, there is no legitimate editing purpose for editing posts that cannot already be accomplished with responsible use of existing facilities.

[PhilO 0]

There is no legitimate editing purpose for editing posts that cannot already be accomplished with preview before submitting.

Most can make the human mistake of accidentally pressing "Add Reply" rather than "Preview Post" or miss a typo the first time around. I do not see the value in having a constant stream of after-the-fact typographical corrections that could easily be corrected in the original post. It shouldn't be a license to rewrite an entire post but I've already suggested some of the possible ways to inhibit that kind of thing.

[ewv 0]

There is no legitimate editing purpose for editing posts that cannot already be accomplished with preview before submitting.

Most can make the human mistake of accidentally pressing "Add Reply" rather than "Preview Post" or miss a typo the first time around. I do not see the value in having a constant stream of after-the-fact typographical corrections that could easily be corrected in the original post. It shouldn't be a license to rewrite an entire post but I've already suggested some of the possible ways to inhibit that kind of thing.

If you watch what you are doing you will hit the right button; in a rare case of hitting the wrong one by accident, ask the moderator to remove it, and pay more attention the next time. I agree that a constant stream of typos is bad, so posts should be previewed before submitting; that is what preview is for -- to see exactly what it will look like. Editing posts after submission does not add to that, but does encourage sloppiness and a lot more .

[Mercury 0]

I am with ewv on the subject of editing posts. I don't believe we should now begin to revise fundamental policies of THE FORUM. If members would like to participate on forums which allow editing of posts and suchlike, you are quite welcome to visit them.

[B. Royce 0]

I am with ewv on the subject of editing posts. I don't believe we should now begin to revise fundamental policies of THE FORUM. If members would like to participate on forums which allow editing of posts and suchlike, you are quite welcome to visit them.

Ditto.

[Jay P 0]

I am with ewv on the subject of editing posts. I don't believe we should now begin to revise fundamental policies of THE FORUM. If members would like to participate on forums which allow editing of posts and suchlike, you are quite welcome to visit them.

I also agree; I think it's a good feature of the Forum that posts can't be edited. It's very easy to use the "preview post" button to check and see if there are errors.

[Carlos 0]

I am with ewv on the subject of editing posts. I don't believe we should now begin to revise fundamental policies of THE FORUM. If members would like to participate on forums which allow editing of posts and suchlike, you are quite welcome to visit them.

Ditto.

Ditto twice.

[alann 0]

I am with ewv on the subject of editing posts. I don't believe we should now begin to revise fundamental policies of THE FORUM. If members would like to participate on forums which allow editing of posts and suchlike, you are quite welcome to visit them.

Ditto.

Ditto twice.

Not to sound like a DittoHead, but I agree. I also think Betsy's earlier suggestion to email her if you really want something you posted changed or removed. Stephen did remove posts when they were inappropriate for the thread or the forum, including even his own, on one occasion. :-). This is a class joint -- a small business bank, not a B of A -- and I think this can be handled with an email to The Management.

I've certainly had my share of typos, some still standing I've made it an ironclad habit always to Preview my post before sending, sometimes multiple times.

[alann 0]

I also think Betsy's earlier suggestion to email her if you really want something you posted changed or removed...

... is a great idea.

Exhibit A.

[Ed from OC 0]

I like the existing no-edit policy. One can always post corrections and clarifications. I don't see that as some massive problem, and can live with the occasional follow-up post. I make my share of typos, and though I usually catch them, knowing I can't go back and correct makes me pay extra attention before posting.

As other forums have shown, the moderator's or author's ability to edit existing posts is fraught with problems. Let's not create that issue here.