Poll - editing options

[Lsuoma]

OK, here is a poll to see how folks think about the ability to edit posts. I am just as interested in the arguments for and against the options listed in the poll as I am in the number of votes for each option, and will likely be guided more by the arguments than the votes in my decision.

Some of my thoughts and feelings:

All edits to posts are now captured and can be recovered and made public by mods and admins (this is, at present, just me, BTW) if appropriate. While possibly adding some value, this ability, to me at least, is by no means a panacea.

• First, I believe it is most likely to be wanted in situations where tempers are flaring, and blood pressure is high - even having access to edited posts may not smooth ruffled feathers and salve wounded pride or egos. Having this ability as an "I told you so" option doesn't REALLY add value in such circumstances.
• Secondly, it involves me doing stuff, and like many males, I'm basically a lazy cunt.
• Thirdly, it could be perceived as aligning the admin or mod function with one side of an argument.
• Fourthly, it relies on a mod or admin being available.
• Fifthly, at bottom, all it really does is push trust and verification back onto being onto the mods and admins. This is a given anyway since I can make any changes I like while not being audited.

I can see the advantage of being able to correct a typo or add an afterthought, but if it's going to induce or inflame paranoia, or increase friction then, quite frankly, I'd prefer to turn it off completely.

I also think that posters shouldn't worry about making a typo, or missing a point: the former case is mind-bogglingly trivial, and a follow-up post can address the latter case. If your post requires so much editing that a simple follow-up is insufficient, then I think that a good case could be made that the edit is getting too close to revisionism to be comfortable.

I'm going to allow you to change your vote on this poll, but if you do so, please consider noting that fact in a comment, and adding why you changed your vote.

My vote, BTW, will be for no editing.

[John Greg]

Justi is just going to love this.

After much fence sitting, sawing back and forth, and inner contemplation -- ooh the lights; t[/color]he lights -- I have decided to vote for no editing allowed.

After all, we do have Preview, which we did not even have at ERV. So, I think that should suffice.

[John Greg]

Aw damn. I muffed it! :evil:

[John Greg]

:lol:

/goofball

[astrokid.nj]

I initially voted to allow editing for 5 mins.. but then after seeing how good this commenting system is (i.e allows allows kinds of formatting buttons) as well as the preview, I changed my mind to No Editing. Its really the drawbacks in commenting systems on other blogs that have made me want the edit buttons on those sites.

[The Pelagic Argosy]

The ability to edit one's posts is a civilized function which is allowed on most, if not all, of the boards that I participate in. I appreciate how this may be abused on boards where contentious topics are likely to be discussed, and in those cases I'd agree that the timeframe should be short—and that edits are registered in the post and timestamped. I voted for 5 minutes, but I'd be fairly happy with 2. The reason that I am against disabling the function entirely is that it sends the signal that none of the participants are to be trusted even in the slightest, and that such an atmosphere is disrespectful and poisonous. It's like admitting that this is a place for untrustworthy trolls. In any case how is a window of 2-5 minutes to be abused? Only the most puerile troll would wish to exploit it and the effect would be laughable, particularly considering that most respondents will quote a contentious post thus revealing the change.

I'm a little puzzled by the rejection of post editing entirely. I do hope it isn't in response to The Justicar's session on the fainting couch in regard to this issue, as a short editing window renders his point moot. Further to that topic, I'm sure that everyone agrees that post deletion should not be practised or permitted, and surely it has been admitted that the forum tag referencing the phrase that dare not speak its name was an error of judgment and can we please get over that now. (As for the rest of TJ's speech, I'm afraid I suffer from attention problems and was not able to make any sense of it.)

[Lsuoma]

There are a few reasons for me.

1. It's less work for me to have to worry about any editing.
2. There's less work involved in having to respond to paranoid folks.
3. It's a very clear policy.
4. People can't use it as a reason for not posting here.

Of course, with my super-admin powers none of the last three is going to persuade the real TinFoilHat Brigade, but y'know what? Fuck 'em!

[John Greg]

Well, for what it's worth, Lsuoma, I agree.

[John Greg]

This is kind of discouraging. We have 75 registered members, and 16 votes.

WTF?

This poll ought to stay up for a couple of weeks before it get's taken down. Maybe you could spam it in the endless thread?

[Lsuoma]

Actually, I had a long, hard think about it today, and I've made my mind up. Editing is going. No editing at all. I will retain the capability to edit - in theory I could turn it off, but I can never remove the ability to turn it back on, and I also have access to the database and I can go and edit the SQL directly - but I'm not going to use it.

Executive decision. End of story.

[Saint N.]

Actually, I had a long, hard think about it today, and I've made my mind up. Editing is going. No editing at all. I will retain the capability to edit - in theory I could turn it off, but I can never remove the ability to turn it back on, and I also have access to the database and I can go and edit the SQL directly - but I'm not going to use it.

I think in the long run this would be the best way to handle it. Now no one can cry foul about the potential of revisionism. Cheers.

[Dave]

Well, obviously, the ship has already sailed, but my comments FWIW (likely not much):

When I first suggested the edit tracking mod, I did not realize that it would only make the edits visible to Admins and Moderators. What I was hoping to see was a "See Original" or "See Edits" button that would appear on any modified post, for any user. In such a case, where the editing is entirely transparent, I would not have a problem with allowing editing, at least for a reasonable time frame.

Obviously, however, that is not the case, edits are invisible to the vast majority of users, so I would agree with your executive decision: Do not allow edits.

[Wonderist]

On the Rational Response Squad forums, new users are not able to edit their posts, but member who are *both* regular *and* trusted to be responsible/reasonable are allowed to edit their posts as a courtesy for typos, bad formatting mistakes, wrong links, etc. It is expected that if someone edits their post that they should leave a note [edit: like this, explaining why.] It was used rarely in practice, but often enough that it *saved* mods time because obvious problems, especially formatting and broken links, could be fixed by responsible members instead of mods. Mods always had a list of recent changes to monitor which would allow them to quickly review the changes; not sure if phpbb has a similar review queue.

So, if it's possible to reconsider the decision, I would vote for 'no by default, but use an additional user group to give trusted members the ability/option'. The 'trusted member' identity was generally useful for other reasons, too.

Is there a way for folks to have flags/badges here? I'm thinking limited but useful ones only, like 'pit regular' or something like that which might correspond to membership in the 'trusted member' group. If badges are easy enough to manage, I wouldn't mind having something like 'noob-friendly' or 'welcomer' or something along those lines to indicate I don't mind helping noobs with their questions and whatnot.