Am I hallucinating or was it once possible to edit posts on the messageboards here? What gives?
You have an hour. After an Hour you can no longer edit. It has been that way as long as I have been here.
You have an hour. After an Hour you can no longer edit. It has been that way as long as I have been here.
Aha! That makes sense. Thank you!
Your welcome.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
You have an hour. After an Hour you can no longer edit. It has been that way as long as I have been here.Aha! That makes sense. Thank you!
Although it does make sense and has indeed been the case on these boards as long as I have been here, it is also pretty annoying. There have certainly been cases when I wanted to go back and edit posts that were days old. Often it was a desire to update them with new information that stemmed from the discussion that came later.
The edit window we provide means enough opportunity to fix typos, or realize a post does not read the way you've intended, but prevents people from "going back in time" to move the goalposts or making those who've replied to them look foolish or deceptive.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The edit window we provide means enough opportunity to fix typos, or realize a post does not read the way you've intended, but prevents people from "going back in time" to move the goalposts or making those who've replied to them look foolish or deceptive.
Hmm, I can see what you mean. In theory, it sounds like it could be useful for what you say, but on all the other boards I have been on (including some small ones and some very large ones), what you describe has simply not been a problem in practice, even though they allowed unrestricted editting. I think the restriction deals with a theoretical problem that does not really occur in practice with any great frequency and its only real effect is thus to inconvenience users.
The edit window we provide means enough opportunity to fix typos, or realize a post does not read the way you've intended, but prevents people from "going back in time" to move the goalposts or making those who've replied to them look foolish or deceptive.Hmm, I can see what you mean. In theory, it sounds like it could be useful for what you say, but on all the other boards I have been on (including some small ones and some very large ones), what you describe has simply not been a problem in practice, even though they allowed unrestricted editting. I think the restriction deals with a theoretical problem that does not really occur in practice with any great frequency and its only real effect is thus to inconvenience users.
Disagree. Imagine you post in a multi-page thread. Two days later, you decide to come back and edit. The only people who will ever read your edited post are the ones who didn't read it unedited; everyone else will just read the (x new) and never know you amended it. If your point is to contibute to an ongoing conversation, the best thing to do is to make a new post with your new points in it. You can link back to your old post if you like.
I wanted to edit my post on a PbP OOC thread. Guess the hour time-limit means my OCD side can't go back and make everything grammar-perfect! :)
Disagree. Imagine you post in a multi-page thread. Two days later, you decide to come back and edit. The only people who will ever read your edited post are the ones who didn't read it unedited; everyone else will just read the (x new) and never know you amended it. If your point is to contibute to an ongoing conversation, the best thing to do is to make a new post with your new points in it. You can link back to your old post if you like.
Seconded. It's also incredibly frustrating when someone wants to be juvenile by "taking their toys and going home" by deleting all of their posts or editing them to be blank.
I commend Paizo for not allowing this.
Chief Technical Officer
|
Imagine you post in a multi-page thread. Two days later, you decide to come back and edit. The only people who will ever read your edited post are the ones who didn't read it unedited; everyone else will just read the (x new) and never know you amended it. If your point is to contibute to an ongoing conversation, the best thing to do is to make a new post with your new points in it. You can link back to your old post if you like.
That is indeed one of the reasons: People expect new content to be added at the end of a thread, not somewhere in the middle. Not only would allowing long-term edits subvert that expectation, but it also wouldn't trigger the mechanisms that let people know when new content has been added to threads, including (x new) and RSS feeds.
|
The edit window we provide means enough opportunity to fix typos, or realize a post does not read the way you've intended, but prevents people from "going back in time" to move the goalposts or making those who've replied to them look foolish or deceptive.
Hmm, I can see what you mean....I think the restriction deals with a theoretical problem that does not really occur in practice with any great frequency and its only real effect is thus to inconvenience users.
I've caught people out doing exactly that (moving the goalposts). Or accusing others of doing so, when it's clear that someone else quoted the post exactly as it stands, over an hour after it was written.
|
Imagine you post in a multi-page thread. Two days later, you decide to come back and edit. The only people who will ever read your edited post are the ones who didn't read it unedited; everyone else will just read the (x new) and never know you amended it. If your point is to contibute to an ongoing conversation, the best thing to do is to make a new post with your new points in it. You can link back to your old post if you like.That is indeed one of the reasons: People expect new content to be added at the end of a thread, not somewhere in the middle. Not only would allowing long-term edits subvert that expectation, but it also wouldn't trigger the mechanisms that let people know when new content has been added to threads, including (x new) and RSS feeds.
I can see an exception for the first post.
A lot of threads are "hey, let's get some ideas together" and letting the OP keep the first post updated with those ideas would be quite useful.
Nasty corner case to code for though ;)
It's also incredibly frustrating when someone wants to be juvenile by "taking their toys and going home" by deleting all of their posts or editing them to be blank.
On this issue, I disagree even more strongly than on editing posts. Although I can see how deleting posts could theoretically be done in a juvenile manner, I think deleting one's internet identity should always be an option, along with all the posts one has made up to that point. Sure, it could be linked to removing one's profile and not be available as a separate option, but it should be possible. For me, this trumps the possibility that somebody will use that right to be juvenile.
Most boards I frequent allow the deletion of posts (and their editing) for unlimited periods of time and all that without (or at least without major frequency of) the sort of juvenile behavior you describe as possible. For the sake of full disclosure, I will also admit that it is true that I don't recall ever having to delete one of my posts on these or other boards (unless it was a double/Triple/multiple post), but the comfort of being able to do so is reassuring. The policy of being unable to delete one's posts reminds me of some social media scandals, where information stayed behind on the servers even after users deleted their profiles...
I've been thinking about that precise corner case for awhile now and it's something I'd like to do because "reference posts" and the related discussion thread can be good things. But yeah, it's a corner case and we don't have the specific code to allow it yet.
This is indeed the main case I was thinking of when saying it is frustrating that we cannot edit posts after one hour. It is not, however, the only case. Noticing spelling mistakes in one's posts after one hour is also not uncommon. Worse still, one sometimes makes factual errors in one's post (e.g. a mistake in a calculation when discussing balance issues), which are later corrected by others in the thread. It would be nice to be able to correct them.
|
|
On this issue, I disagree even more strongly than on editing posts. Although I can see how deleting posts could theoretically be done in a juvenile manner, I think deleting one's internet identity should always be an option, along with all the posts one has made up to that point. Sure, it could be linked to removing one's profile and not be available as a separate option, but it should be possible. For me, this trumps the possibility that somebody will use that right to be juvenile.
There would have to be a placeholder left, to inform subsequent readers that a post once resided there. Otherwise there could be unfortunate repercussions; imagine Posters A, B and C post their thoughts, in that order.
If Poster B removes his post with no evidence it were ever there, it would look as if Poster C were addressing Poster A, which could be confusing at best, or at worst, taken as inflammatory.
There would have to be a placeholder left, to inform subsequent readers that a post once resided there. Otherwise there could be unfortunate repercussions; imagine Posters A, B and C post their thoughts, in that order.
If Poster B removes his post with no evidence it were ever there, it would look as if Poster C were addressing Poster A, which could be confusing at best, or at worst, taken as inflammatory.
Exactly. The ability to remove or edit posts completely screws with the conversation you're having. You don't get to un-say things you said in normal conversation. As far as correcting oneself, well, that's what subsequent posts are for.
I can't get behind any reason to remove posts. If you don't want it distributed publicly for life, don't post.
On this issue, I disagree even more strongly than on editing posts. Although I can see how deleting posts could theoretically be done in a juvenile manner, I think deleting one's internet identity should always be an option, along with all the posts one has made up to that point. Sure, it could be linked to removing one's profile and not be available as a separate option, but it should be possible. For me, this trumps the possibility that somebody will use that right to be juvenile.There would have to be a placeholder left, to inform subsequent readers that a post once resided there. Otherwise there could be unfortunate repercussions; imagine Posters A, B and C post their thoughts, in that order.
If Poster B removes his post with no evidence it were ever there, it would look as if Poster C were addressing Poster A, which could be confusing at best, or at worst, taken as inflammatory.
Sure, I agree, there would need to be a placeholder for the deleted posts.
There would have to be a placeholder left, to inform subsequent readers that a post once resided there. Otherwise there could be unfortunate repercussions; imagine Posters A, B and C post their thoughts, in that order.
If Poster B removes his post with no evidence it were ever there, it would look as if Poster C were addressing Poster A, which could be confusing at best, or at worst, taken as inflammatory.Exactly. The ability to remove or edit posts completely screws with the conversation you're having. You don't get to un-say things you said in normal conversation. As far as correcting oneself, well, that's what subsequent posts are for.
I can't get behind any reason to remove posts. If you don't want it distributed publicly for life, don't post.
You can certainly remove notices you post on normal bulletin boards, so there is no reason for a lack of that ability on virtual bulletin boards. You don't get to 'unsay' the things you said anyway - people will still remember what you said, but that's just that - just as in the normal world bulletin boards, they will remember, but it won't remain posted for posterity.
As I said, I don't really make posts I desire to remove, but the inability to do so leaves me very uncomfortable. I may just take your advice and greatly limit my posting.
You can certainly remove notices you post on normal bulletin boards, so there is no reason for a lack of that ability on virtual bulletin boards.
Do you carry on conversations with people on a real bulletin board? Likening the two due to the outdated and inappropriate name of the electronic medium doesn't work.
This is undoubtedly part of the reason why many of these style sites are referred to as "forums" rather than "bulletin boards". Paizo opts for the term "message boards", which is slightly better than "bulletin board", but it's still a colloquialism that doesn't properly describe the function of the system.
You don't get to 'unsay' the things you said anyway - people will still remember what you said, but that's just that - just as in the normal world bulletin boards, they will remember, but it won't remain posted for posterity.
In this particular medium, you DO get to unsay.
This "written" medium is a public conversation between many people, and is accessible ad infinitum for those that weren't here at the beginning. The very nature of this medium is intended to allow the perusal of historic conversations and take part in them.
The ability for someone to remove their posts (or edit them more than currently allowed) undermines and corrupts that.
I've been thinking about that precise corner case for awhile now and it's something I'd like to do because "reference posts" and the related discussion thread can be good things. But yeah, it's a corner case and we don't have the specific code to allow it yet.
I have wanted this kind of feature for a long time.
I think it would be wonderful if the OP could edit the first post, and have a "Edited @xx:xx" appended to the post.
The Community stuff threads would become WAY easier to manage.
Houserule discussions where the OP posts something to work on would be nicer too.
Please continue to consider this feature.
As a moderator on a Neverwinter Nights forum, I've experienced someone "taking their toys and going home" before when they were removed from a Harpers' guild on the server. The player went through and removed pretty much every post they had contributed to group efforts, such as lists of allies and enemies, and elements they had contributed to guild discussions on in-character topics. We don't allow deletion of posts on our forum, but we do allow editing and they had gone back and manually blanked the contents of a significant number of their contributing posts. This was done out of what I can only interpret as spite for being removed from the guild.
So on that point, I very much like the time limit on the editing of posts here on the Paizo boards. Once someone agrees to post to a forum, they're contributing to a conversation, and the destruction of that conversation shouldn't be at the whims of one person.
I also like that there's no timestamp when a post is edited because I do frequently go back and immediately edit my own posts for clarity, spelling, and occasionally additional content.
To add to my comments, I wouldn't mind if the thread originator could edit his or her posts with the added caveat of a timestamp of the last update. It would be useful as Evil Lincoln describes, so I'd support that even if I don't support general post editing without a time-limit.
I've been thinking about that precise corner case for awhile now and it's something I'd like to do because "reference posts" and the related discussion thread can be good things. But yeah, it's a corner case and we don't have the specific code to allow it yet.I have wanted this kind of feature for a long time.
I think it would be wonderful if the OP could edit the first post, and have a "Edited @xx:xx" appended to the post.
The Community stuff threads would become WAY easier to manage.
Houserule discussions where the OP posts something to work on would be nicer too.
Please continue to consider this feature.
I could support something like this, provided that the moderators/staff have the ability to revert an edit/edits and lock a post, thereby preventing the toy-taking and home-going situation (or at least, negating it).
I see the utility in this particular instance, and have witnessed it work well, but have also seen my fear crop up in these specific instances.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I was going to start a thread about this, but found this one instead. Yay, lol.
This is the only website ive EVER visited that ive never had the ability to not edit my posts after 1 hour, and in all honesty, I find it kinda dumb.
I understand the reasonings put forward so far (oh, what if someone misunderstands a conversation?), but Ive also never seen it be an issue on any forums. Ever. Anywhere.
Yea, sure, leave a placeholder if a post is outright deleted, but most people (for use with the ABC posters in that order scenario where B deletes his), C in this example, would likely quote B in their post, so its quite apparent whos post C was responding to. Once B deletes his post, C's post stays the same, and it becomes apparent to later readers that B deleted a post.
I understaand Vic's point, about adding new info to the end of the conversation, etc, but really, if you changed it, do you guys REALLY think alot of people are just going to continually alter their original post in a conversation, instead of making a new one? I dont forsee that being an issue.
Also, with most forums, if you edit a post, it will list IN the post that it has been edited by whoever (so you know if it was the poster or a mod), and when it was edited.
My suggestion would be just to give it a try, and if you feel its out of control for whatever reason, then change it back. Yea, you dont gain much by being able to edit indefinitely, but this just seems to be enforcement of a rule that doesnt need enforcing.
Please, dont take any of this personally. This isnt an attack on anyones point of view on this subject. If you disagree, thats fine. just putting in my opinion.
Question, and, as you disclaim, so shall I, not an attack.
Save for first-post editing as detailed above, what would you really need to edit more than an hour after your initial post, that couldn't be resolved with a follow-up post?
I found it a bit odd when I first showed up here, given than many other forums allow permanent edit ability, but really, I haven't missed it, and I'm honestly curious what use it would serve that couldn't be equally served adding a post.
|
|
Nothing major, thats for sure. Biggest thing is probably that occasionally in PbP games I play in, I will forget to change what name Im posting under, an hour goes by, and I cant change it. Just kidna bugs me to see it in there, lol.
So, yea, nothing serious, but it seems to me that its about as important an implementation as making rules to when you can eat crunchy peanut butter on your sandwich, instead of creamy. Stupid example, but some people prefer one, some the other, but do we really need a rule set for when and why we can eat which one?
Also, crunchy is the best. Just sayin.
I personally think it odd, but I do see both sides of the debate. My question is, are the mods willing to make alterations (the fixing of typos, miscalculations etc) on behalf of the poster if they are asked too? Of course this could be a problem, if the mods are getting a million messages a day asking for changes, but in some instances, I think that it could work.
Nothing major, thats for sure. Biggest thing is probably that occasionally in PbP games I play in, I will forget to change what name Im posting under, an hour goes by, and I cant change it. Just kidna bugs me to see it in there, lol.
So, yea, nothing serious, but it seems to me that its about as important an implementation as making rules to when you can eat crunchy peanut butter on your sandwich, instead of creamy. Stupid example, but some people prefer one, some the other, but do we really need a rule set for when and why we can eat which one?
Also, crunchy is the best. Just sayin.
And that's cool, but I'd argue then that if it's really not that important if it's set to A or B, why do we need to flip the switch the other way?
Obviously, I'm biased towards the current setting, given my experiences with the abuse of the opposite setting, so take that for whatever it's worth.
As I mentioned earlier, I have seen, and on RPG-centric boards no less, the feature abused to go back and wholly delete large swaths of posts, or edit everything blank. I've seen it on the WotC/Gleemax site, at EN World and others.
Unfortunately, it has been used to remove some incredibly useful content that I had benefited from, and I'd hate to see that happen again, hence my support of the setting here.
Paizo isn't alone in this setting, mind you. RPG.net doesn't seem to allow eternal edits, either.
As I mentioned earlier, I have seen, and on RPG-centric boards no less, the feature abused to go back and wholly delete large swaths of posts, or edit everything blank. I've seen it on the WotC/Gleemax site, at EN World and others.
Unfortunately, it has been used to remove some incredibly useful content that I had benefited from, and I'd hate to see that happen again, hence my support of the setting here.
I have seen that happen too. Particularly when the responses to a post were against the position of the original poster (that poster would then delete/blank his post), but also in some cases where someone posted a rules question, it was answered, and then the poster edited the original post to say something to the effect of "question was answered".
I'm happy with the current settings on this board :)
I've been thinking about that precise corner case for awhile now and it's something I'd like to do because "reference posts" and the related discussion thread can be good things. But yeah, it's a corner case and we don't have the specific code to allow it yet.
So instead let them do an addendum. The old part cannot be touched, but you can append stuff at the buttom. Mark the new material with a timestamp ("Added 14:29 Calistria 7, 4811 AR") and you're good to go.
Or maybe move the old version of the post to a spoiler box below the actual thread, containing a timestamp and the whole old text. Whenever they change the reference post again, another spoiler with the previous version is added to all the other versions. Put the whole shebang into another spoiler box with "This post was modified X times, last 15:49 Erastil 4, 4922 AR", and it won't clutter the thread unduly).
That way, you retain the posting history but still allow reference posts and collections.