Why The Ten Minute Limit On Editing Posts?
Hey, I can make a mistake just like everyone else. Now, I have only 10 minutes to correct it. Why?
I hope this forum has not become so confrontational that it wants to provide "evidence" of what someone originally posted so he cannot back off later. This forum is supposed to be about helping and informing each other-not refereeing flame wars! 😀 😀
Hey, I can make a mistake just like everyone else. Now, I have only 10 minutes to correct it. Why?
I hope this forum has not become so confrontational that it wants to provide "evidence" of what someone originally posted so he cannot back off later. This forum is supposed to be about helping and informing each other-not refereeing flame wars! 😀 😀
Hi KW,
The edit timeout is a way of locking in people's messages so when someone replies, they know what they are replying to.
If down the line someone decides to radically change what they have said, people who have spent their energy replying to what they saw in the first place are going to feel a bit upset, or indeed their posts won't make sense when people read the thread as it sits.
It's not at all about providing evidence. There isn't going to be any more flame wars, remember 🙂
10 minutes was chosen as an abitrary figure, it should be set to whatever you think is reasonable.
What do you think it should be set to, everyone?
I'll let this thread sit for a week and see what the concensus is.
The edit timeout is a way of locking in people's messages so when someone replies, they know what they are replying to.
If down the line someone decides to radically change what they have said, people who have spent their energy replying to what they saw in the first place are going to feel a bit upset, or indeed their posts won't make sense when people read the thread as it sits.
It's not at all about providing evidence. There isn't going to be any more flame wars, remember 🙂
10 minutes was chosen as an abitrary figure, it should be set to whatever you think is reasonable.
What do you think it should be set to, everyone?
I'll let this thread sit for a week and see what the concensus is.
10 minutes is okay by me, although I can see where it could be too short for others. Say 10 as a minimum.
As long as we cant delete the post, I personally feel 30mins would be better as it usually takes me longer than 10mins to pick up mistakes etc....
10 mins is fine. A change of mind, or a correction, can always be indicated in a subsequent post.
I agree with audiofreak. 30 minutes seems a good time.
I find it hard to write up a post on line anyway so I do it in notepad. Paste it into the post reply section and its done.
I find it hard to write up a post on line anyway so I do it in notepad. Paste it into the post reply section and its done.
I agree. 30 minutes gives me enough time to run an errand, come back to check the forums, and recognize a whoopsie.
By the way Jason, love the new banner design 😉
By the way Jason, love the new banner design 😉
Richard
In which case you have time to review that which you have written before it is posted, so you should not need additional time afterwards.
Geoff
In which case you have time to review that which you have written before it is posted, so you should not need additional time afterwards.
Geoff
I'm probably about the only person around here who writes posts that take as long as ten minutes to read...
Give everybody else ten and give me fifteen.
<i>Ahem.</i>
Ten's fine by me. If I'm so stupid I can't get something straight by then, I'll stick in another post that says This Is What I Really Meant To Say, and go sailing off on another novelette. Any excuse will do.
Grey
Give everybody else ten and give me fifteen.
<i>Ahem.</i>
Ten's fine by me. If I'm so stupid I can't get something straight by then, I'll stick in another post that says This Is What I Really Meant To Say, and go sailing off on another novelette. Any excuse will do.
Grey
I personally reckon half an hour is ok. I frequently spend the next 15 minutes after a posts re-editing, because I have admin rights it never annoys me (ignorance is bliss). I would rather see well rounded posts if that means occaisionally someone changes something so much that the replies don't make sense...
The main thing was to stop post deletion, anyway.
If there are extra final edits to be made then I am going to cop them anyway as email requests so it's in my self-interests to let people be satisfied with their posts.
The main thing was to stop post deletion, anyway.
If there are extra final edits to be made then I am going to cop them anyway as email requests so it's in my self-interests to let people be satisfied with their posts.
Like Remp, I check over my posts and I still see mistakes after I post them.
One thing I don't like is that as soon as you move away from the post screen, yoou lose the post. If I have two or three things to look up in the forum or on the web, I cannot memorize them all.
Yes, I can put it in Wordpad but that tends to be a bother.
I have gotten the math wrong and changed it before anyone else posted, happily.
I just don't see the need to "lock in" the post, simply because I don't see why anyone would want to RADICALLY change his post in the first place. The only reason I can see for that is if there is some kind of confrontation, the kind that isn't going to happen here.
It is not that big of a thing, but I had developed the method of posting something knowing that it needed one more quote, then editing it in a few minutes later. I vote for the honor system-leave it open indefinitely.
One thing I don't like is that as soon as you move away from the post screen, yoou lose the post. If I have two or three things to look up in the forum or on the web, I cannot memorize them all.
Yes, I can put it in Wordpad but that tends to be a bother.
I have gotten the math wrong and changed it before anyone else posted, happily.
I just don't see the need to "lock in" the post, simply because I don't see why anyone would want to RADICALLY change his post in the first place. The only reason I can see for that is if there is some kind of confrontation, the kind that isn't going to happen here.
It is not that big of a thing, but I had developed the method of posting something knowing that it needed one more quote, then editing it in a few minutes later. I vote for the honor system-leave it open indefinitely.
Well the votes are in.
No time limit - 1
10 minutes - 4
30 minutes - 4
I would like to err on the conservative side so 30 minutes it is.
Thank you to everyone who contributed.
I'll be posting a survey soon to get some further feedback about ways to <i>improve</i> the site.
No time limit - 1
10 minutes - 4
30 minutes - 4
I would like to err on the conservative side so 30 minutes it is.
Thank you to everyone who contributed.
I'll be posting a survey soon to get some further feedback about ways to <i>improve</i> the site.
I think it is a sad reflection of the overall interest in the future wellbeing of this forum that, out of 1338 members, only 9 (or 10 if you include Randy's post-result vote) were prepared to express an opinion.
Geoff
Geoff
30 mins will be fine for me. If some should post questions and dramatically change it, then limit that someone to 5 or 10 mins. If some keeps removing his post after everyone interested answer the posting, then that person might be limited to 0 sec. I think this way will be good to practice discipline. Those matured should have freedom they deserve so that threads will flow freely. Those inmatured or babes can have some sort of restrictions so that they might learn and practise self-control.
Freedom without maturity is devastating.
Just my opinion.
Freedom without maturity is devastating.
Just my opinion.
Geoff, i gotta say that i agree.... after being part of this forum for a while now i feel as tho i've become kinda part of the community and i like to have a say with wat goes on in here..... it's a little sad that more ppl dont really care enough to voice their opinion....
I don't think the negative view is quite so correct. I did not chime in since I really didn't have an opinion - the time limit of 10 vs. 30 was not such a big deal. Given that, a "me too" post would have been a waste of bandwidth.
Secondly, I really think the 90%(or more) rule of radio call in applies here too. The vast majority are gonna lurk until something really bugs them. Thats OK - they are self censoring until they have something worth saying or asking. Given that they are unlikely to make many posts, the time limit issue is just not one that affect them. However, many of the "majority" posters did comment - and their opinion counts a little more anyway (IMHO).
Secondly, I really think the 90%(or more) rule of radio call in applies here too. The vast majority are gonna lurk until something really bugs them. Thats OK - they are self censoring until they have something worth saying or asking. Given that they are unlikely to make many posts, the time limit issue is just not one that affect them. However, many of the "majority" posters did comment - and their opinion counts a little more anyway (IMHO).
I have been away for a few days. My view is to allow no more than 30 minutes. That may provide a good trade-off between the mis-poster's embarrassment and the number of potential posts immediately following which may become hard to follow.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
- Home
- General Interest
- Everything Else
- How long should the time limit be on editing posts?