Time limit on editing

[DepricatedZero]

http://www.leagueofreason.org.uk//viewtopic.php?p=130628#p130628

So I came upon this thread. Curious, I read. Confused, it took me a few to realize what I was reading: Replies to content that had been edited out.

I can think of two ways to impose a limit on editing. The first is simply put a time limit, like 1 hour or something. I can't think of any time I've had to go back after an hour to fix a post - usually my fixes come in the first 10-20 minutes as I realize I forgot something to include or mistyped something. I think after that time frame, a new post would be more appropriate to clear confusion on a previous post, rather than to edit it(which could make replies look nonsensical). Simply destroying the content of a thread outright...isn't cool.

The second option that occurs to me is to prevent editing after a reply has been made. I'm not sure if functionality for that already exists for phpBB but I think it ought to. It would be similar to the "there has been another reply since you began writing yours. Do you still want to post your reply?" thing

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

I don't think you should criple the system just because 1 user severly missused it. I would rather say, issues warnings to people missusing the system to intentionaly scar the topic. The example topic given should be remove because as of now consitutes nonsensical spam. I do not agree however that you should limit the edit time to 20 minutes, I do often edit stuff beyound that point. Sometimes I'm do a poorly writen post late at night while tiered, when I wake up in the morning and re-read it again I get embarassed for having writen such a train wreck of incomprehensible phrases and I edit them to make it readable, something I wouldn't be able to do if the 20 minutes limit was in place.

 

[DepricatedZero]

just to clarify, I did say an hour limit, not 20 minutes. I'd be fine with 12 hours even. There's a point though that it's simply more appropriate to respond and clarify, than to edit and further obfuscate the issue. I'm not talking about crippling the system.

 

[Dean]

This was, in fact, my idea.

On the one hand, it seems that limitless editing privileges have the potential to cause grotesque problems like the one shown in that thread with relative ease. But in hindsight, this was a very rare occurrence, and given the relative maturity of most posters in this forum, I don't think this will happen at any point again, really. It seems unlikely.

My reason for raising this possibility, was for the fact that in any given conversation, some consistency is needed, and it just isn't necessary to have unlimited editing privileges for regular users, meaning that one can edit posts to the extent that the conversation becomes unrecognisable, as it did in that thread. So I'm torn. Perhaps we should VOTE on it! Do you have access to create polls?

 

[DepricatedZero]

I totally plagiarized this idea from Dean, it's true.

No, I can't create polls. At any rate, it's true that this is an extremely rare occurrence, so probably better off to not worry about it unless it starts becoming an issue.

 

[CosmicSpork]

We have limited editing times on the debates forum but not elsewhere. That's not to say we can't apply it to the rest of the forum, but thus far it hasn't really been an issue for normal use in the 3 years we have been running. Obviously if it is an issue, it can be easily resolved by imposing the time limit.

 

[Dean]

We have limited editing times on the debates forum but not elsewhere. That's not to say we can't apply it to the rest of the forum, but thus far it hasn't really been an issue for normal use in the 3 years we have been running. Obviously if it is an issue, it can be easily resolved by imposing the time limit.

Or to put it another way: we could either leave it, since this is *unlikely* to ever be an issue again. Or alternatively, by imposing a time-limit, it could be ensured that this sort of thing could never happen, pretty much. I'm not sure. And anyway, it doesn't even need to be 20 minutes, because the whole forum isn't as strict a dialogue as in a debate thread. 24 hours seems short enough to prevent any egregious abuses, but also (more than) long enough to allow editing, to correct spelling, etc, etc. But it seems like 6 and 2 threes. E.g. of equal validity to the current system, given that this has not happened before in the LoR's three years. Matter of perspective, I guess. Oh well.

 

[CosmicSpork]

One of the main reasons it wasn't imposed is because some people were making listing threads that would be edited over months being updated. Time limits can only be applied to forums or ignored for the whole site on an account basis. So kind of makes it difficult We will see how we get on but I appreciate this being reported as a potential issue

 

[Prolescum]

I don't see the point, really. There are scenarios where editing an earlier post for posterity is the better solution (dude, I edited that post to better reflect my position, taking your criticisms into account), and I don't believe removing the feature has any notable benefit.

 

[australopithecus]

So long as quotes are used effectively I see no need to a time limit. Anyone who needs to edit a post for honest and constructive reasons shouldn't be tarred with the same brush as those who do it to be dishonest.

 

[Gekidami]

Hows about a time limit for a quick stealth edit, but if you're too late it says the post was edited ("Post Last Edited: Dec 26 2011 at 11:30pm"), that way there'll be proof of later edits without outright gutting the option. Several other forums work like this.

 

[Master_Ghost_Knight]

Hows about a time limit for a quick stealth edit, but if you're too late it says the post was edited ("Post Last Edited: Dec 26 2011 at 11:30pm"), that way there'll be proof of later edits without outright gutting the option. Several other forums work like this.

!

There is already proof of later edits. If you edit after some one posts, it says edited (and when). ^^look example above.

 

[Gekidami]

...Then i fail to see the issue, all is fine.

 

[Laurens]

I vote against this motion

I can see how the editing system might get abused, however there are plenty of good reasons one might wish to edit a post after a certain time. Misspelled url, errors in bb code, to add something to a post that would be unnecessary to create a whole other post for...

I often edit my posts a while after I've made them, simply because I realise that my grammar or spelling was terrible after reading through it again. Most of us can respect the notion of not deviously editing posts, we're grown ups after all...

 

[scalyblue]

Note that even a 12 hour limit wouldn't have prevented the issue in the OP; all the edits were made within a few hours.