Limit to period where a post can be edited

[#1]

No
It was hidden deliberately so that posters would not be influenced.
The alternative of only letting persons who had already voted see it was also ruled out as there were certain to be some posters who would blab about the state of the poll

[#2]

To clarify there is no way that the moderators can alter the result, nor do we have any idea who voted for which option.

[#3]

I fully agree with the mod's action in keeping the poll a secret.  I would also suggest that when the decision is made you simply announce the winner and not release the voting.

[#4]

Once the poll is finished then the details will be available for anyone to see - at least that is the intention at present and unless we do some rapid removing of the poll from the visible boards there is no way of hiding the result and I had/have no intention of doing that
I will also attempt to summarise the results including the Others votes as far as they were identified in the posts

[#5]

I actually voted for ten hours but I'm used to 15 minutes on other forums. Seems sufficient time to me.

[#6]

Now the poll has closed you can see that the overwhelming majority favoured a limit of some sort.
The others can basically be summarised as either a shorter limit than in the options or a block on editing after a reply has been made. This last option isn't supported by the forum software as far as I can tell.
It should be noted that since the limit of 10 hours was introduced we have only had requests for an edit  from two posters. One from a member of staff who wanted an error in a quoted price correcting and the other directly or indirectly requesting that a minor typing error be corrected.
In accordance with the result of this poll I have changed the limit to 1 day
As I posted earlier in this thread requests for a correction after this time may be made to the moderators either by PM or by using the report the post option for the post before or after  the post requiring correction. Corrections will only be made where there is a factual error or a spelling/grammar error where such an error makes the intended meaning unclear

[#7]

Sounds fair enough to me

[#8]

Thank you for arranging the poll and for posting the result.  Hopefully this will be accepted by all concerned.

[#9]

I only edit my posts to fix typos or clarify certain points anyway, mainly fixing typos because I type o fast that my normally perfect spelling and grammar sometimes suffers.

[#10]

You now have just under 24 hours to add a "s" to the above post 

[#11]

I concur with artmo and would like to thank the mods for allowing and acting upon a vote. Many forums would have just said "Tough, that's the way it is".
I personally would rather have no limit (for myself), but having seen the effects of that before by others, I was one of the 1 day voters.

[#12]

I'm too late to vote, unfortunately – or perhaps not, since I can see arguments both ways, for and against editing.
I frequent Usenet, where it is in principle possible to delete postings, but in practice it seems most news servers will not honour such requests; and anyway one can't edit them after sending. Any changes or corrections have to go in a second message, where they have less force and can look clumsy. The effect of this, I find, is to make me think longer before clicking on 'Send' – not a bad thing.
And it does curb some possible abuses, even if it results in the loss of much esprit d'escalier.   
Perhaps the best compromise would be to let people add to postings, but not change or delete what they have already said – not an option on offer here, chez PN.

[#13]

Cancellation of posts was never a problem for usenet.

[#14]

I've only just stumbled across this and would have voted for no limit. Like a number of other posters on here, one often makes fairly complex technical responses and even though I preview my posts, sometimes an error is made which isn't spotted for maybe a few days after. The most common one I seem to make is occasionally leaving a "not" out of a sentence which of course will significantly alter the meaning.
If it weren't for this -

Quote from: Oldjim

Quote from: Mav But what about being able to make a change through a mod after that time if it really seems necessary to do so? That wouldn't be a problem but we wouldn't make minor changes such as spelling or grammar unless it really made the intent of the post unclear

then I'd certainly be moaning about the introduction of this rule. Was OJ's reason for it's introduction really that big a problem - my view would likely be that the majority of such posts/threads probably would be of no loss to the forum if completely removed.
I'd have thought the mods already have enough to do without having to deal with requests for edits to posts, however infrequent. And what a tedious irritating procedure for the poster 

[#15]

Having watched members throw their toys out of the pram previously, go back through and edit or blank out all their old posts (sometimes with quite rude comments) and then do a runner, I can see the advantages of having this limit.