Should users be able to edit their own posts?

[MikeOQuinn]

While I am, in general, all for allowing the editing of posts, I agree that there can arise problems when peoples' dumbass flares up.


The compromise proposed by some here is just: only posts that have have received no replies may be edited. This poses a problem, however, in that there is a timeout counter applied after a post is made which blocks any further posts being made until it has run down. Furthermore, from what I can tell (and I may be wrong, feel free to zing me if so), this timer resets if you try to submit a new post before it's run down.


For now, this isn't a large issue, as the most registered users online at one time so far has been 12. As we continue to grow, though, the probability that the post will be read and replied to before I can edit and repost grows, especially if I have to wait 10-30 seconds before I can post again (not certain how long the timer is. I can't imagine it being 30 seconds, but I can imagine it being a 10-second timer that refreshes if you violate it).


So, in short, the compromise offered is wonderful. It allows for the correction of grammatical and spelling errors, even the correction of words and ideas gone awry as they left the brain via the fingers. It also maintains the linear, conversational thoughtline that TSJ and others would like to see.

 

[AvataDabley]

Well, I "like" to be able to edit my posts, but I also like discussion in which you can point back at stupid comments made earlier by the other person.


Could you make it such that you can only add things? Or make the edited part stand out somehow (the red text suggestion). That'd be great

 

[Flagg]

This poses a problem, however, in that there is a timeout counter applied after a post is made which blocks any further posts being made until it has run down.

It's 15 seconds (the default) at the moment. I can lower it or remove it entirely, so that's not really a major hurdle.


It does seem like people are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing full editing controls on the poll, but it also seems like some people have changed their mind since voting, or misunderstood. I'm going to reset the poll and let people re-cast their votes.


-S

 

[MikeOQuinn]

It does seem like people are overwhelmingly in favor of allowing full editing controls on the poll, but it also seems like some people have changed their mind since voting, or misunderstood. I'm going to reset the poll and let people re-cast their votes.

Since he quoted me (thought I'd done it quickly enough)...


I had asked if we'd have 3 options for this new poll, the addtional one being 'No Editing', since there were a few who just didn't want it at all.


[Edit: Saw the poll and edited my yap shut, then came back and tried to stave off frustration later.]

 

[Flagg]

No editing

I don't think anyone's really in favor of this, so I'll leave it out. Everyone seems to tend toward one of the other options.


-S

 

[ashenphoenix]

At the end of the day, I'm considering us all to be reasonable, amiable and friendly posters here.

Um, I think the Forest Witches may have you.


Are you sure you're talking about EC here?

 

[Relic]

The fact remains that, for the most part, everyday users are going to do stupid things like change the entirety of their post after the fact. Anyone who did would most likely be caught, and called on it.  And, if I recall correctly, being "Called on it" in the Ec is never a particularly pleasant process.
On the other hand, I'm quite compulsive about typographic and gramatical errors.  If I use the wrong word (such as when said, mistakenly, that the Elemental Dragons are Gaia's first circle souls rather than her third) I like to be able to correct it when someone brings it to my attention.


Furthermore, if users can edit their posts after the fact, we can have constantly updated lists of, for example, links.  Instead of having to scroll through eight pages of a combination of intelligent discussion and people calling each other dick-horses, all the links, or charms, or whetever the thing being listed that have eventuated from the discussion are cleanly available in one place.  Easy!

You summed it up nicely.


Support living documents! Edit away!


Seriously, the "danger" that someone edits something to avoid being caught saying something stupid is only valid in threads no one wants to read anyway. Let's have editing.


Edit: Oh, and furthermore you have to consider the signal you are sending (no, seriously!) ... do we want a forum that polices its posters, expecting them to be manipulative arsetards right off the bat --- or do we want a forum where we at least pretend to trust each other, encourage clean posting habits, and know how to quote the important parts?


Several of you name situations you don't like, such as people cheating out of an argument.


Tell me: How often does this happen? How often does it happen in a mature forum? If it happened to you in this forum, is it likely you really wanted to continue posting in that thread anyway?


With regards to people referring to information that later disappears, again: this problem is really rare, and rarer still with proper quotation. Even even rarer with Google's cache.


All the arguments I see for NOT allowing infinite editing are arguments concerning a fear of childish behaviour, or arguments concerning minor conveniences.


The arguments FOR unlimited editing are that you are able to clarify, correct mistakes, and - this is important - maintain living documents, e.g. lists of charms, suggestions, FAQs, all kinds of resources.


Wiki is a prime example of repeated editing being a Good Thing. If you haven't already, take a look at it, and convert.


Strict, untrusting, police forum: No thanks.


Free, trusting, practical medium: YES SIR!


:-)


Thank you for your time.


P.S.: This update was brought to you by the edit feature. ;-)

 

[Flagg]

It looks like the people (who give a shit) have spoken! Posts should not be editable once they have been replied to.


However, am not going to implement this code unless or until the issue becomes a problem.


In other words: You're all free to edit your posts at any time, but once someone uses the feature illegitimately, they will ruin it for everyone else, and I will put the php smackdown on your asses.


-S

 

[MikeOQuinn]

It looks like the people (who give a shit) have spoken! Posts should not be editable once they have been replied to.
However, am not going to implement this code unless or until the issue becomes a problem.


In other words: You're all free to edit your posts at any time, but once someone uses the feature illegitimately, they will ruin it for everyone else, and I will put the php smackdown on your asses.


-S

All hail Stillborn the Wise!


All hail Stillborn the Fair!


All hail Stillborn the Mod-from-whence-cometh-the-smackdown!

 

[Flagg]

All hail Stillborn the Wise!
All hail Stillborn the Fair!


All hail Stillborn the Mod-from-whence-cometh-the-smackdown!

Sycophancy will get you nowhere.


-S

 

[Maryuoh]

The worst case scenario, which isn't actually particularly bad, is that someone will 'cheat' out of an argument, correct? Even if that's so, I think it's fair to say that someone should be able to retract a poorly thought-out, or misdirected statement if they want to. They should acknowledge that they're retracting it, but it doesn't really hurt anyone for them to do so. If another person was involved, that's probably a sign that they just won anyway. Even failing that, you can just point out that the other person had said something and then edited it out secretively, which generally just makes them look bad. I'm for the being able to edit whenver. Response time varies a lot and would be somewhat arbitrary anyway. If anything, a time limit of, say, a day or two would be better.

 

[Valheru]

All hail Stillborn the Wise!
All hail Stillborn the Fair!


All hail Stillborn the Mod-from-whence-cometh-the-smackdown!

Sycophancy will get you nowhere.


-S

How about cutsey smiles? ^.^

 

[Flagg]

How about cutsey smiles? ^.^

Those won't get you nowhere, but I won't say where they will get you.


-S

 

[Persell]

The worst case scenario, which isn't actually particularly bad, is that someone will 'cheat' out of an argument, correct? Even if that's so, I think it's fair to say that someone should be able to retract a poorly thought-out, or misdirected statement if they want to.

Why? You can't just erase statements in the real world, why should you be able to do it here?

They should acknowledge that they're retracting it, but it doesn't really hurt anyone for them to do so.

It hurts the narrative flow of the forum, and it hurts me.

 

[Joseph]

Why? You can't just erase statements in the real world, why should you be able to do it here?

Sure you can, namely by stabbing anyone who happened to have heard those statements to death.  With bullets.


Mind you, if my edit button instantly executed anyone who had seen the original post, I would withdraw my objection to it existing, although I wouldn't trust it in the hands of others.  Only my comments are important enough to end lives over.

 

[Athrun the Bear]

You know, I really hate it when bullets stab me.  They're so inconsiderate; don't even bother to ask if it's a good time or if they should come back later.  Those blunt suckers HURT, too.


I like being able to edit my posts, but I don't suppose I'd really mind if that priviledge was taken away from me.  I almost never do so...at least not after I hit the "Submit" button.

 

[Relic]

Why? You can't just erase statements in the real world, why should you be able to do it here?

Of course I can! I just posted a statement on my website.


...


And now I've erased it.


Now, silly stunts aside I don't really understand why this argument would be relevant, even if it was correct. What we have here is not a big square filled with people that take turns yelling out something so everyone else can hear it. We have a text-based, electronic forum. Text is editable. I'd like to think that the purpose of a forum like this is to discuss ideas and collect knowledge. If someone decides that their input is no longer relevant or desirable for them to have here, let them remove it. Why not?


If you haven't already, please read my post earlier in this thread (page 3, post 2) and let me know what you agree and disagree with because I think the points of allowing editing are much stronger than the points of disallowing it, both in terms of editorial benefit as well as social benefit, and so far no one has argued against it.


Edited for clarity.

 

[Joseph]

What we have here is not a big square filled with people that take turns yelling out something so everyone else can hear it.

Thank goodness for that, yelling hurts my throat.

We have a text-based, electronic forum. Text is editable. I'd like to think that the purpose of a forum like this is to discuss ideas and collect knowledge. If someone decides that their input is no longer relevant or desirable for them to have here, let them remove it. Why not?

I think there's something to be said for preservation of all commentary, good or bad, and the accountability that comes with it.  


When you recognize what you are going to post is going to remain, regardless of what you do, you put more thought into it.  We did not have post editting on EC and cannot think of too many situations in which it would have helped anything substantially.  On the other hand, look at forums like WW where you CAN edit, and people use it constantly.  It encourages you to put out less polished posts, because you know you can change it later if you like.

 

[Persell]

Why? You can't just erase statements in the real world, why should you be able to do it here?

Of course I can! I just posted a statement on my website.


...


And now I've erased it.

You think your website counts as "the real world"?

Now, silly stunts aside I don't really understand why this argument would be relevant, even if it was correct. What we have here is not a big square filled with people that take turns yelling out something so everyone else can hear it. We have a text-based, electronic forum. Text is editable. I'd like to think that the purpose of a forum like this is to discuss ideas and collect knowledge. If someone decides that their input is no longer relevant or desirable for them to have here, let them remove it. Why not?

Because OTHER PEOPLE might NOT think their input is no longer relevant or desirable. Once you post something in an online forum, it belongs to the masses. You should not be able to edit, delete, or amend it at your own capricious whims.

 

[Persell]

Seriously, the "danger" that someone edits something to avoid being caught saying something stupid is only valid in threads no one wants to read anyway. Let's have editing.

Agreed. Good thing that's not my primary reason for objecting to editing.

Edit: Oh, and furthermore you have to consider the signal you are sending (no, seriously!) ... do we want a forum that polices its posters, expecting them to be manipulative arsetards right off the bat --- or do we want a forum where we at least pretend to trust each other, encourage clean posting habits, and know how to quote the important parts?

I don't want a forum where we can PRETEND to do anything. I want a forum where we CAN trust each other because we know we'll be held accountable for what we say. I want a forum with a record. This is a PUBLIC setting, and there ought to be a PUBLIC record of everything that's done here. The only people who would demand otherwise are people who ANTICIPATE doing things they'll regret. There's no need for an edit function unless you PLAN on saying things you'll want to disappear later. And frankly, I don't want those sorts of people on my forum anyway. Not allowing people to edit their posts forces them to take responsibility for the things they say.

Several of you name situations you don't like, such as people cheating out of an argument.


Tell me: How often does this happen?

I don't know because I don't use edited forums. And I won't use this one if editing posts after they have been replied to starts happening.

How often does it happen in a mature forum? If it happened to you in this forum, is it likely you really wanted to continue posting in that thread anyway?

If it did happen to me in this forum, I'd stop posting until I was assured that it would not happen again.

With regards to people referring to information that later disappears, again: this problem is really rare, and rarer still with proper quotation.

Quotations can be fabricated. I want a record of what was said AND BY WHOM. Quotations are not trustworthy in this regard, as anyone can go back and edit in quotations that people haven't even said after the fact.

Even even rarer with Google's cache.

And that's just too much effort to get at a public record. This is the problem with the Freedom of Information Act - the government acknowledged it's duty to make the information AVAILABLE, but makes no effort to make it EASY TO ACQUIRE.

All the arguments I see for NOT allowing infinite editing are arguments concerning a fear of childish behaviour, or arguments concerning minor conveniences.

And? I see NO argument for ALLOWING infinite editing. Not one. I admit that my concerns are petty. The concerns of my opponents are non-existent. Their arguments all amount to "I want to be able to edit indefinitely, but I'd never do so when it matters."

The arguments FOR unlimited editing are that you are able to clarify, correct mistakes,

You can do this without editing. You won't een have to do it if you fucking pay attention to what you fucking type. What people want is not to clarify and correct msitakes, but to NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their mistakes. They want to make their mistakes VANISH rather than own up to them. People make mistakes, and mistakes made in a public forum ought to remain public.

and - this is important - maintain living documents, e.g. lists of charms, suggestions, FAQs, all kinds of resources.

So allow editing in the submissions section. Allow CERTAIN DOCUMENTS of CERTAIN TYPES to be edited. I have no problem with that.

 

[Relic]

I think there's something to be said for preservation of all commentary, good or bad, and the accountability that comes with it.  
When you recognize what you are going to post is going to remain, regardless of what you do, you put more thought into it.

Agreed, a lot of people think like that. On the flip side: if putting a lot of thought into the post is important - and this is not done when it is initially posted - with editing we'll be able to refine it. Granted, the vast majority of posts will not receive this kind of special care but then again this majority is probably not the collection of posts we would want refined and well thought out in the first place. I'd prefer a mix of raw communication with pure gems in the middle over a collection of above-average posts. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but I imagine you catch the meaning.


Of course, my dream come true would be a forum where everyone would actually re-read their posts before submitting, even if it's just a small one. I do that, and I still find myself editing every now and then.

We did not have post editting on EC and cannot think of too many situations in which it would have helped anything substantially.

You are probably right in the assessment that post editing would not have helped anything substantially on the old board. But then, the feature wasn't there so the posts that utilized it weren't there for you to see either. In particular, forums with editing often have threads where data is gathered and posted in the top. This saves a lot of sifting through chit-chat for people seeking the data later on, and I think this forum is the kind of forum that could benefit from that.


Also, when people make an error, I would much rather have the original post edited than another post with a correction in it. YMMV.

On the other hand, look at forums like WW where you CAN edit, and people use it constantly.  It encourages you to put out less polished posts, because you know you can change it later if you like.

Then again, I don't think of the WW forums as a place I'd like to stay for very long. I don't think the posts are less polished because of the editing feature alone. I think a large number of the posts are less polished because the WW forums are for a large part inhabited by people who shouldn't be allowed to post in the first place.


I like to think that this forum can administrate the feature better, contrary to popular belief. ;-)

 

[Flagg]

In particular, forums with editing often have threads where data is gathered and posted in the top. This saves a lot of sifting through chit-chat for people seeking the data later on, and I think this forum is the kind of forum that could benefit from that.

As a point of note, moderators would still be able to edit posts with impunity, so this could still be accomplished if the ban were to be implemented.


I'd almost rather leave this in the hands of moderators -- keeps things more centrally organized. I'm sure you can appreciate that, as a programmer.


-S

 

[Persell]

I think there's something to be said for preservation of all commentary, good or bad, and the accountability that comes with it.  
When you recognize what you are going to post is going to remain, regardless of what you do, you put more thought into it.

Agreed, a lot of people think like that. On the flip side: if putting a lot of thought into the post is important - and this is not done when it is initially posted - with editing we'll be able to refine it.

You can "refine" it with a second post. What editing allows you to do is erase your mistakes. Unlimited posting allows you acknowledge them and correct them.

Granted, the vast majority of posts will not receive this kind of special care but then again this majority is probably not the collection of posts we would want refined and well thought out in the first place. I'd prefer a mix of raw communication with pure gems in the middle over a collection of above-average posts. Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration but I imagine you catch the meaning.

Well then the people who want pure gems had best get them right the first time.

You are probably right in the assessment that post editing would not have helped anything substantially on the old board. But then, the feature wasn't there so the posts that utilized it weren't there for you to see either. In particular, forums with editing often have threads where data is gathered and posted in the top. This saves a lot of sifting through chit-chat for people seeking the data later on, and I think this forum is the kind of forum that could benefit from that.

So make a section dedicated to that. Submissions currently have their own section of this forum - you can edit all you want down there, as far as I'm concerned . . . just like you could edit submision on the EC.

Also, when people make an error, I would much rather have the original post edited than another post with a correction in it. YMMV.

And I'd much rather hold them responsible for their error by making it public record. I'm willing to tolerate longer threads if it gives us accountability.

Then again, I don't think of the WW forums as a place I'd like to stay for very long. I don't think the posts are less polished because of the editing feature alone. I think a large number of the posts are less polished because the WW forums are for a large part inhabited by people who shouldn't be allowed to post in the first place.

EVERYONE should be allowed to post. The internet is for the sharing of information and ideas, and no one should be denied that. People SHOULD, however, be held accountable for the information and ideas they choose to share. Unlimited editing removes that accountability.

I like to think that this forum can administrate the feature better, contrary to popular belief. ;-)

I like to think they won't administrate at all, and will only eliminate those posters who AREN'T sharing information or ideas (e.g. flooders).

 

[Relic]

You think your website counts as "the real world"?

It certainly does. But if you want, I can write a statement on a piece of paper and put it on the bulletin board over on the wall. Then, I'll take it down and burn that piece of paper.


Look, where it happens is not the point. It is all in the real world. The point is what is desired from the medium. You clearly desire a medium where everything, once said, is kept forever. I desire a medium where irrelevancies and errors can be weeded out.

Because OTHER PEOPLE might NOT think their
input is no longer relevant or desirable.

Precisely. And if they don't think it's relevant anymore, chances are you won't think so either. What are the odds of you losing something you really needed because of such an incidence? Lower than the odds of EC shutting down?


(And you don't have to shout. I can read you clearly enough, thank you).

Once you post something in an online forum, it belongs to the masses. You should not be able to edit, delete, or amend it at your own capricious whims.

That is your religion, mine is different, and I doubt either of will convert. :-) ... but just to take a stab at it: what if someone posted, say, personal information by mistake and wanted it removed ASAP? Shouldn't they be allowed? I realize this is rarely a problem, I just have to rebel a bit against your blankent statement of information belonging to the masses.

Seriously, the "danger" that someone edits something to avoid being caught saying something stupid is only valid in threads no one wants to read anyway. Let's have editing.

Agreed. Good thing that's not my primary reason for objecting to editing.

Now, if I understand you correctly, you start out by saying that your primary concern is not that people edit things for dishonest reasons, yet more or less every point you have after that is about dishonest behaviour. If I understand you correctly I'd like to know what your primary concern is then, and if I have misunderstood your intention, please correct me. Anyway, I'll take a stab at it.

I don't want a forum where we can PRETEND to do anything. I want a forum where we CAN trust each other because we know we'll be held accountable for what we say.

I understand your concern but I simply do not share your anticipation of this being a problem. I can't see what kind of dishonesty could be committed on this forum that would have any impact worth mentioning.

I want a forum with a record. This is a PUBLIC setting, and there ought to be a PUBLIC record of everything that's done here. The only people who would demand otherwise are people who ANTICIPATE doing things they'll regret.

It is a rare person who doesn't anticipate that he'll do regrettable things sooner or later. Especially online. ;-)

There's no need for an edit function unless you PLAN on saying things you'll want to disappear later. And frankly, I don't want those sorts of people on my forum anyway. Not allowing people to edit their posts forces them to take responsibility for the things they say.

That is not true, but I expect you're overstating a bit to emphasize the point. I submit myself as an example of a person who does not plan to but certainly expects to make and correct mistakes in posts further down the road. I also imagine I'd like to update old posts with fresh information where applicable.

With regards to people referring to information that later disappears, again: this problem is really rare, and rarer still with proper quotation.

Quotations can be fabricated. I want a record of what was said AND BY WHOM. Quotations are not trustworthy in this regard, as anyone can go back and edit in quotations that people haven't even said after the fact.

OK. Can we just agree that the situation where person A posts something, person B quotes it, person A removes the original, and person B then edits his quotation ... is deeply, seriously contrived and irrelevant, on grounds of it not happening in the real world? And if it does, I guarantee you that the information involved was nothing you'd care about anyway.

Even even rarer with Google's cache.

And that's just too much effort to get at a public record.

If it's important to you (and otherwise what would be the point of wanting it stored?), Googling it is hardly too much effort.

All the arguments I see for NOT allowing infinite editing are arguments concerning a fear of childish behaviour, or arguments concerning minor conveniences.

And? I see NO argument for ALLOWING infinite editing. Not one. I admit that my concerns are petty. The concerns of my opponents are non-existent. Their arguments all amount to "I want to be able to edit indefinitely, but I'd never do so when it matters."

Arguments for allowing it have been posted. Your summary of them is incorrect, therefore your conclusion that the concerns are non-existent is wrong.

The arguments FOR unlimited editing are that you are able to clarify, correct mistakes,

You can do this without editing. You won't een have to do it if you fucking pay attention to what you fucking type. What people want is not to clarify and correct msitakes, but to NOT BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE for their mistakes. They want to make their mistakes VANISH rather than own up to them. People make mistakes, and mistakes made in a public forum ought to remain public.

I don't share your distrusting view of other people, and I believe the history of countless forums out there supports me. But you wouldn't know, since you don't visit forums where editing is allowed after replies have been made (except this one).


Also, making posts non-editable doesn't make people accountable for anything. It makes assumed identities accountable which is hardly as useful. I assume what you want is a way of gauging whether a persona on this forum can generally be trusted. I postulate that you do not need to sift through documentation in order to make this evaluation. If someone behaves in a dishonest manner it will take about two nano-seconds for the rest of the community to recognize this for what it is - edited posts or not - and dispense with the problem. No accountability required.


You are correct in stating that editing is not necessary in order to correct mistakes. But it is tidier, saves space and bandwidth, and it saves the time of other readers to read up on a subject if mistakes have been removed and clarifications made. I find it very annoying to read half way through a thread and discover that the first half became irrelevant as things were cleared up later on. This is the kind of annoyance I would like to be without - and I think most information seekers would.

and - this is important - maintain living documents, e.g. lists of charms, suggestions, FAQs, all kinds of resources.

So allow editing in the submissions section. Allow CERTAIN DOCUMENTS of CERTAIN TYPES to be edited. I have no problem with that.

This is a good idea, and it would solve half of my problem, however I bet there would be others who wouldn't like that. It seems there are two kinds of concerns with disappearing information:


1) Resources disappearing.


2) Dishonesty in discussion.


Your suggestion would solve the first at the costs mentioned earlier. Obviously you and I have different priorities. :-)

 

[Relic]

As a point of note, moderators would still be able to edit posts with impunity, so this could still be accomplished if the ban were to be implemented.
I'd almost rather leave this in the hands of moderators -- keeps things more centrally organized. I'm sure you can appreciate that, as a programmer.

I certainly can. However, when a task of this kind is put on a moderator (who is working for free) the speed of update tends to fall drastically over time. I'm not saying it would be the case here but there is that to consider, as well as the fact that the original poster might be a better choice for editor of a given subject.