OT: editing posts--Eileen?

[juliepoudrier]

I just saw a misspelling in a post I had made earleir this morning and when I went back to edit it got the message that the "time for editing posts has elapsed" or something like that. I wasn't allowed to edit. Not a big deal, though it is embarrassing as a professional writer to find mistakes I can't later fix. Is this something new to prevent people from deleting whole threads with the edit function? Or have I just been much quicker in catching my own mistakes in the past?

 

J.

[Miztiki]

She must have changed it because I've edited posts days after posting them. (I hate to find spelling mistakes in my posts too!).

 

Now I can't edit any of mine. I'll see how long I can edit this one.

 

EDIT: It's 2:49 and I can still edit. At least we're given some time!

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

That's exactly what it is. I put it in place after the "poor breeding" thread was deleted. Y'all now have an hour after you post to proofread or come up with second thoughts, and after that (assuming it's working right) you're not supposed to be able to edit. I kinda hated to do it, because I'm a compulsive editor myself -- always finding some mistake or poor word choice after I've posted -- but I don't think it's right that someone can get mad and delete a thread that lots of people have put in a lot of effort to build.

 

If you disagree, let me know, and I'll reconsider.

[Dixie_Girl]

I think an hour is plenty of time! I try to proof read before posting using the preview post button, but sometimes when it shows up on the board it looks different! Also, the first time I tried to edit, I wiped out the whole thread! Luckily no one had responded yet.

 

And yeah, some people could get a little bur under their saddle and wipe out everything!

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

This is a feature on another board I'm on and after I first ran into it (similiarly to Julie's experience), I thoght about it and decided I liked the idea. Right around this time of year it seems like things get very hot, but also some of the best posts are elicited through that hot debate. How many times has a thread full of constructive debate been wiped out in mid-discussion in this manner?

 

I usually save and print out some of the choice posts for future reference - I have several of Eileen's, for instance. My printer is not working however and I was getting ready to print the thread out at Mom's when POOF. I was SO mad.

 

Another thoughtful change, Eileen. Thank you.

[IronHorse]

Eileen,

Thank you for implimenting this paticular function, I can't help but think it will proof out over time to be a positive tweak.

It will most likely cause many of us to put abit more effort into our post and not make to hasty of a response.

[karrie]

I did wonder why I couldn't correct a "or" and make it into the "of" it was supposed to be. Course, I just figured I'd never come back to correct before.

[Sue R]

Thanks, Eileen! Several times, there have been heated discussions with some awfully good posts that people have spent time and effort contributing, and I have regretted not being able to reread them and learn from them. Since most posts are an attempt to explain or teach, it is a real shame when people's efforts are wiped out.

 

I wonder if someone were to rightfully regret a particular post (not thread), if they could contact you and request it be removed? I know that sometimes it takes me some time to realize that I wrote a post that I'm not happy with later.

 

Maybe this feature, though, will be beneficial by causing people to think more and be conservative when they compose a post. I must have re-written one post about ten times yesterday before I finally chanced posting my thoughts. It gave me an opportunity to vent as I typed, but only finally post what I felt reasonably comfortable with. I don't do well with conflict and confrontation!

[Pipedream Farm]

Eileen,

 

You mean I'll have to be content with the wording in my posts within an hour; oooooh the pressure.

 

Mark

[Sue R]

Mark and Julie - There's a big difference between minor "cosmetic" editing that the two of you might feel the need for, and the total "what was I thinking, how could I have written that, I am such an idiot" editing that I might need! Talk about pressure!!!

[Zoe]

I think it is fine - if you want to "edit", you can always re-post, right ? That is part of debate.

[blackacre]

I disagree. My post, my right to delete or edit. Nothing wrong with reconsidering a post and eliminating its reverberations through history.

The real problem seems to be the feature that deletes the whole thread if the first post is deleted. So, how about you use a rifle and put the shotgun away? If one is to hand of course.

A

[Eileen Stein]

>

 

Absolutely. I can't imagine a situation where I wouldn't remove someone's post on request, unless it were the OP and I would therefore be removing the whole thread. Even then I would try to use good judgment.

 

>

 

Nope, no rifle available. The power to edit gives the OP the power to delete the thread.

[Sue R]

Even then I would try to use good judgment.

Since that's what I'd expect of you, it looks like all the bases are covered as best they can be.

 

Now, couldn't you just remove the text from the OP, and that would leave the thread, but it would sure make it hard to follow what was being discussed in many cases.

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

The other forum I'm on has extremely strict rules so a lot of times the moderators use their powers to simply delete stuff. The edited post will remain with a note in red letters, noting that content had been deleted and why.

 

If nothing else, many times it's helpful to remind other members where the boundaries are.

[laurie etc]

What if instead of deleting the thread, the OP could quote themselves (replay the original post) in the thread, and tehn edit the original post by adding something like:

 

EDITED TO SAY: On reconsideration, I would like to withdraw my comments on <:::::::::::>. or clarify... or please disregard <:::::::>.

[Eileen Stein]

I should have mentioned that I could set the time limit for editing to something different than one hour. Would two hours or three hours be better, or would it not make any difference?

[Rebecca, Irena Farm]

I think it would just confuse things. One hour should be plenty.

 

The other forum I was talking about has an auto-preview feature I really like - because it forces me to take a look at something BEFORE posting. You have the option of shutting it off if it annoys you, but I find it helps a lot both for my "oops, switched letters/words again!" moments, as well as my "Holey moley, what was I thinking" moments.

 

I try to imagine this as a conversation rather than an e-mail type format. Dialog is practically instant, so etiquette should mirror what it would be if we were all speaking face to face under a handler's tent at a trial. I don't say something if I can't say it nicely (the FIRST time), I apologize if something offensive slips out, and I don't let my dog pee on my neighbor's chair.

[Allie Oop]

I humbly request a couple of hours to edit, only because although I try to compose thoughtfully and spell correctly, I find that sometimes I make embarrassing typos that I would prefer to correct. I try to do another quick proof once I post, but sometimes don't get back until much later.

 

Eileen, this Board is very superior to a lot of others with respect to ease of making posts, and actually having threads monitored by a moderator. You do a very commendable, although often a bit difficult, job. I couldn't do it.

[Eileen Stein]

I've changed it to two hours. Let's see how it goes.

[prosperia]

I think it sounds like a good idea.

I have deleted an entire thread before, but it was a collective decision between some of the other posters and myself. I think that as long as we can make a request that a thread be removed if it ends up completely nasty, it should work well. Maybe you (Eileen) could have someone stand in for you as moderator, if you are going to be away for a while.

[Eileen Stein]

I'll do that. I have a hunch I know the instance you're referring to. The only reason I hadn't designated someone on that occasion was that I thought I'd be able to keep tabs myself. But when I got to Sturgis (last year's finals), I found the public library I'd used in the past was shut down, so I had no internet access. From what I've heard, y'all made a wise decision in deleting that particular thread, and I thank you.