A request and a concern.

[Parge]

First the concern. It's refreshing to be able to preview posts. I think everyone can agree on that. I was also pleasantly surprised that I was able to go back and edit a post for clarity (I accidentally a verb or something). I'm concerned that this ability can be open to abuse. I'd hate to think that any of us would abuse that feature and memory hole any of our cock-ups. I wonder, short of removing it, how we could go about ensuring it doesn't get abused?

Also, as a suggestion/request, I wonder what people think of "like" buttons or karma tracking. I suggest this not (wholly) because I am a karma whore myself. Sometimes it's nice to note your appreciation of a good post while not weighing in with your own comment. It gives the lurkers a chance to participate anonymously or semi-anonymously. There are mods out there for both flavours of like/karma buttons. What do you think?

[Lsuoma]

First the concern. It's refreshing to be able to preview posts. I think everyone can agree on that. I was also pleasantly surprised that I was able to go back and edit a post for clarity (I accidentally a verb or something). I'm concerned that this ability can be open to abuse. I'd hate to think that any of us would abuse that feature and memory hole any of our cock-ups. I wonder, short of removing it, how we could go about ensuring it doesn't get abused?

Only by disabling editing and deletion of posts can you entirely prevent the possibility of abuse. There is no other mechanism. There are time thresholds, however, beyond which editing and deleting are forbidden. What do people think about enabling those options? What might be suitable time periods?

Also, as a suggestion/request, I wonder what people think of "like" buttons or karma tracking. I suggest this not (wholly) because I am a karma whore myself. Sometimes it's nice to note your appreciation of a good post while not weighing in with your own comment. It gives the lurkers a chance to participate anonymously or semi-anonymously. There are mods out there for both flavours of like/karma buttons. What do you think?

I'm open to the suggestion, even though it's not something I see as essential, if only for the reason that I prefer participants to lurkers.

However, if people want it, I will try to find the time to implement it...

[John Greg]

Hmm. Well, that's a bit of a tough call. But, we are operating on the honour system, aren't we? Yes, someone might go in and edit a post to make themselves look better, but at the same time, editing a post for mistakes, honest mistakes, can be pretty important. But then abuse might happen....

In a sense, I see not allowing editing to in itself be a sort of administrative form of censorship.

I don't know. I'm going to wait until more folks pop in with opinions and see where that leads my thinking on the issue.

[Lsuoma]

I've already done a poll on the Karma/Like question, and I MAY do one on editing. I'm not sure I'm so concerned about deleting - a way to handle that would be to forbid users from deleting, but allow mods to do so.

In effect, a user could delete a post by editing its content or sense out of existence, but that would be pretty apparent.

I'm all ears on this one (yes, I know that's Prince-of-Walesist...)

[Parge]

I think the time limit thing is just the ticket. If a fair delay is available before a post becomes uneditable, we can go back and fix any issues of clarity that we wouldn't see immediately. After that, if the consensus is that you're an idiot, you'll have to either slink off or offer a retraction.

Not that I think we should wade into drafting a forum policy, I think a voluntary code of conduct might keep things tidy. If we agree, we might include that any edited posts should include an explanation for the edit.

[GrafVonBek]

Yep, I've already edited a couple of posts (messed up quotes, forgot to add something etc). Sticking an explanation for the edit at the bottom and a time limit would be no big deal. I wonder, is a copy of the original post (before editing) kept on the server anywhere? If so, that could be used to resolve any disputes over "creative editing"?

[Darren]

I think the JREF forum has a 10 minute editing time limit. It also has a little "Edit reason" box which allows you to attach a note explaining why you edited - is this an option on pbpBB? This has worked well on JREF. If you really want to edit a post after the 10 minute limit, you can PM a mod and they will edit for you if they see fit (along with a mod note explaining what was edited and why).

[John Greg]

I was not aware, before today, that there was an option for time-limiting edits.

I think that's a good idea. And if a poster really needs to make an edit, and has missed the time limit, they can just post a new post linking to the old post and explain why the edit was done.

I like this idea.

[franc]

15 minutes is a good time window. Gives you a chance to re-read and reconsider after a cigarette. After that, it's concrete.

[Lsuoma]

Okey dokey, this all sounds sensible to me. Yes, the "Reason for edit" box is there (I used it upthread). I'll make it 15 minutes for editing. What do people think about deleting? I'm leaning towards no deleting, but if someone want to get rid of something, they can edit the crap out of it - and give a reason why - or make a justifiable case to a Mod.

Comments?

[Lsuoma]

Actually, I'd like to be able to disable user deletes for something that someone has replied to, but that is ugly since a reply can easily be simply another post on the thread.

Regarding recovering edited/deleted posts - no, there is no versioning (at present) in the backend database. I' could trivially write a SQL trigger to capture edited or deleted posts, but that's kinda like stalking :-)

Until it's shown that common sense isn't working I'm going to let this ride, but I definitely want people's thoughts on deleting...

[Badger3k]

Not sure how easy it is, but to use ATBC again, they have two rules (regarding edits) - only registered users can edit, and only those who have posted for a bit and seem to be more stable are allowed to edit - when dealing with IDiots and creationists, who have a habit of going back and editing their posts to make changes to their arguments, it's a bit of a safety measure. I assume that they can be turned off for certain posters is we have abuse, so maybe that would be a good option. If someone edits their posts to change the past (I prefer to put the "ETA" and my edit, leaving the original post as is for posterity) then that can be considered abuse and potential loss of editing privileges. Just a few thoughts.

ETA - I think it's best not to delete anything - leave that to the admin/mod position(s). If someone said something so vile or bad that it needs to be deleted, let that be done top down. Too much chance of someone posting something bad then deleting it - damn, tried to find the "fail" (or "win"?) Facebook trick. It went - post a horrible comment on someones status, then when someone takes the bait and calls you names, you delete yours and they look like they are talking to the original poster. Cheap trick, but it can be done to make someone else look bad as well as make great fodder for quote mining. When dealing with the irrational, taking precautions is sensible.

[Lsuoma]

Good stuff, B3K. I'm pretty certain I have those options. I'm thinking:

• * No edits or deletes for unregistered users
  * No edits or deletes for new registered users ("new" = those with less than, say, 20 posts)
  * Edits for registered users
  * No deletes - if someone wants to get rid of something they either
  - 1. Edit the sense out, which makes it clear that something is awry; or
  - 2. Convince a mod to delete

Love to hear thoughts or comments...

[John Greg]

Lsuoma, My only comment at this point is that I agree with your proposals, with one minor change: I think 30 minutes before no more edits is more practical. I lose track sometimes, and feel I could really use that extra 15 minutes to keep my ducks in a sensible row. If no one else feels that extra time is necessary, that's cool. I'll just try harder to keep on my toes.

[GenerallyFading]

PPPPPLLLLLLLLLLLLEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEAAAAAAAAAASSSSSSSSEEEEEEEEEEEEE keep the edit function! Sorry, but I am such a bad typist, and I have a bad habit of typing too slowly for my brain and end up missing important words out.

How would you stop 'annoying' lurkers from disliking every single post left here? I would love for lurkers to be engaged but I can just imagine certain parties spending hours on here, clicking 'dislike' 30,000 times.

[Lsuoma]

Delete feature is gone, except for mods. Edit feature is going to remain set at 15 minutes until further notice.

Regarding edits, it's worth pointing out that an edited posts will always show up as having been edited. Also, if one is concerned about people editing to make replies look bad, then quote the relevant bits of original post in your reply. If they don't appear in the original but do in the reply, then check to see if the original was edited after the reply was posted. Gives some sort of reality check at least...

Also, best practice for editing is to leave the original body intact and append the clarification at the bottom.

[Dilurk]

The other way of doing it would have been wiki style, everything is logged that way. A simple edit could be ignored.

[Saint N.]

I'd be fine with removing the edit feature completely, as long as the preview button stays around. I honestly didn't even notice it was there until there was a discussion about it. Besides the potential for abuse, another possible problem with people constantly going back to edit their comments is that anyone who replies to the content of the original comment might have to keep going back and update their replies to reflect the newly edited comment; I can see this becoming somewhat tiresome over time. (Not to mention it might encourage us to pay closer attention to what we're writing if we know that we can't alter it, even in the first 15 minutes). But I'm not hostile towards the format in play right now, and am willing to see how it works out if others are keen on it.

[Lsuoma]

The edit time is now set to two minutes - see this posting.

[Not Registered]

Would a mod like the following: http://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/p ... revisions/ solve most peoples problems with editing? (By its description, it tracks the revisions to a post.)

Just thought Id suggest it.

[Lsuoma]

Would a mod like the following: http://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/p ... revisions/ solve most peoples problems with editing? (By its description, it tracks the revisions to a post.)

Just thought Id suggest it.

Thanks very much indeed, Not Registered. I'll take a look, and may install if I like the look of it.

For the time being there is a no-delete/no-edit thread going on over here. It appears very much as though I misjudged the demand for such a beast, but I'm not one to say that I never make mistakes.

[Lsuoma]

Would a mod like the following: http://www.phpbb.com/customise/db/mod/p ... revisions/ solve most peoples problems with editing? (By its description, it tracks the revisions to a post.)

Just thought Id suggest it.

Planning for an outage to install this tomorrow. Thanks, Not Registered.

[Dave]

You're welcome. Hope it works out.

-- Now Registered. :^)

[Wonderist]

Only by disabling editing and deletion of posts can you entirely prevent the possibility of abuse. There is no other mechanism. There are time thresholds, however, beyond which editing and deleting are forbidden. What do people think about enabling those options? What might be suitable time periods?

To repeat a suggestion I made on a similar thread, another forum I frequented only allowed editing *before* anyone else posted a reply to your post/comment. And only trusted users could do this in the first place. The purpose was to reduce editing maintenance for forum mods, but by restricting it to unreplied-to posts/comments, there was pretty much zero problem with revisionism.

[Lsuoma]

Editing by users is forbidden. Period. Makes it nice and easy.