Have the time limit on editing a post been changed?

[#1]

Thanks for replying @Townman 

For clarity there is no restriction on the time it takes you to type your post initially. The 20 minute clock starts as soon as you press post.

Yes, but I have had instances where upon taking great care and effort, my initial post can give an error message and thus not post. It's not often, but can and does happen. Take now for example, I'm waiting a while for various TLS handshakes to complete before the forum page(s) load fully.

I also, upon completing a reply, hit post to get an error message, where the URL ends in form.form.form. - this can happen when a mod moves the reply post I'm replying to to another section, or when they are 'inside' the post (possibly removing PII). Again not often but does happen - I just ain't quick enough to post!!

I have had instances whereby I click reply, start typing and then the reply window loads with the first part missing from my reply. This might be my connection, or the wrong DNS, or a glitch with waiting on non forum TLS handshakes. This handshake oddity has been reported, several times, and nothing came of it. I've since given up reporting this, but the proof is on the forums.

If you then go get a brew, come back and re-read your post and decide you need to EDIT some point you only have 20 minutes to edit AND click post.

Exactly!! But I can see both arguments. One being we're now restricted and others deleting the full content of their post, thus trashing that thread. I do believe i offered a possible workaround, that being we, as in the author of that post, could tick a 'new' option from the drop down menu, to have that reply hidden from public, for a mod to then make the necessary 'adjustments' - just an idea to overcome this new 'issue'?

This seems a heavyweight solution to addressing the occasional total redaction of a post ... one might suggest that if someone reflects better on a point they posted (possibly in haste mistakenly got the wrong end of the discussion - I know I’ve down it) then there ought not to be such a short opportunity for repentance!

Well, how's about a thumbs down option, the post hits x downs and the post is hidden/moved/deleted? We already have a thumbs up!

And get your valid points too:)

edit a typo

edit another typo, but got THIS?

So is editing a post more than once becoming an issue too?

[#2]

@DS

Those suggests whilst having merit would require significant development effort which at the moment would be better utilised elsewhere.

There has been clear debate of the unhelpful impact of the ‘fix’ to what seems like less of a problem impacting far fewer users. This change impacts all users wanting to apply ‘proof reading’ corrections after 20 minutes.

@JonoH can this decision be reviewed please ... or will the mods now be accepting requests to apply corrections to uneditable posts?

[#3]

@Townman 

As this new 'time limit' has caused an issue, they were merely alternatives to overcome this new issue. I totally agree those suggestions would need a great deal of preparation, way more than resetting the edit function either to where it was or to a more suitable time limit.

The fact remains for me though, I could need more time once the edit option has been selected. I therefore will more than likely either take way too long creating my initial post, or post less (so less to edit) or leave my mistakes in and make a new post correcting my mistakes. If I don't get on with this new limit and find myself getting more frustrated then before (ie forum glitches) then I'll more than likely quit posting.

As the saying goes, if it ain't broke don't fix it - or if it's broken then fix it - depends on how you look at it.

Creating posts that, for numerous reasons, don't post is more of an issue to me. I get to the point of why bother?

There has been clear debate of the unhelpful impact of the ‘fix’ to what seems like less of a problem impacting far fewer users. This change impacts all users wanting to apply ‘proof reading’ corrections after 20 minutes.

Totally agree. However, let's say there's a compromise on the time limit, then should x users continue to ruin the forums, then surely a quiet word telling them to stop this or face having posting privileges restricted or indeed removed could give a far better outcome?

I don't disagree with you:)

[#4]

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't the poster simply add their changes in a reply, using the quotation function to select the piece of text they're wishing to amend?

[#5]

Isn't that a bit like treating the symptoms and not the cause @JonoH?

[#6]

Playing devil's advocate, couldn't the poster simply add their changes in a reply, using the quotation function to select the piece of text they're wishing to amend?

Or a link back to the post?

[#7]

---

@Anonymous wrote:

Isn't that a bit like treating the symptoms and not the cause @JonoH?

---

We could ban everyone, that'd fix the cause

[#8]

Is the redaction of posts making some topics unreadable...

1. Of a significant volume - are there metrics on this please - numbers per week / month?
2. Spread across a wide range of boards?
3. Spread across a significant number of users?
4. Have reoccurring causes as to why individuals are making wholesale redactions?

In respect of the last point, if someone has made an inflammatory or ill informed post and consequential to receiving robust responses, is not redaction a reasonable response?

As @Anonymous suggests this all seems to be treating symptoms not the cause - and remedy has marked side effects for the whole body of users.

[#9]

Some points from me, these are genuine questions

• What's the length of time that we should allow an edit? what's the consensus? 
• Why, instead of allowing the editing of old posts can users simply not reply, quote, and state their intended position, maintaining the integrity of the responses below it?
• What added time does a new response cause that would have been saved by an edit? is that worth even the possibility of losing the integrity of a thread?

[#10]

@JonoH 

Great move - good questions - thank you!

The middle question somewhat points to the reason for editing an existing post.

• To make corrections to typo, spelling, grammar (arising from whatever cause) errors to make the post more readable and to avoid the grammar police stepping in for using the wrong form of something which might not have been noticed when initially typing (your / you're, their / there / they're, etc) [Hot Editing]
• To completely change the content / sense [Cold Editing]
• To (proficiently) update a previous response (as often seen from @Gandalf ) [Transparent Editing]

There can be no justification for the middle one, it is not helpful and undermines the integrity of the thread, whereas the other two tidily enhance the quality of the thread.  To deliver the first and last by quoting and reposting just seems so counter intuitive and would place the modified posts in the wrong place … leading to an understandable "what's the point" whilst drawing attention to the corrected errors.  For me that just does not make sense.

The change seems to inhibit the good frequent reasons to edit in situ, in order to obstruct one (occasional?) bad reason for editing.

How long - well it used to be 24 hours IIRC - I have encountered occasions where a key "not" has been omitted and a mod or another has alerted me to that and a prompt edit (within the 24 hours) changes nonsense into something more helpful.

I suggest that 20 minutes is unreasonably short, but in the absence of metrics, I cannot assert that it is too short.  We do not know the nature of this issue which this change is seeking to fix.  We do not know how often it happens, how consistently it happens and within what time frame of the original post it tends to happen.  If you want a figure, then I'd suggest not less than 12 hours.

How about introducing an new forum rule, which states that posts should not be "wholesale" edited so as to cause the rest of the thread to lose its integrity - offenders will be subject to moderator remedies.  That way the few individuals causing the issues can be dealt with appropriately whilst the majority of posters are left with sometime to cover up (correct) their embarrsingly poor spellying etc.!!  

[#11]

One can have cake and eat it. Once a time scale has been decided on it might be an idea to add the following, or similar text to the editor. There is ample room between the file browse button and the Cancel / Post buttons to hold / hilight it.

“You will be able to edit this post up to X time after you post, after that please quote, correct and post.”

Another useful feature would be the ability to see the time remaining when editing, so you know you have X time left to complete, before the time expires.

[#12]

---

@Townman wrote:

How about introducing an new forum rule, which states that posts should not be "wholesale" edited so as to cause the rest of the thread to lose its integrity - offenders will be subject to moderator remedies.  That way the few individuals causing the issues can be dealt with appropriately whilst the majority of posters are left with sometime to cover up (correct) their embarrsingly poor spellying etc.!!  

---

That has to be the funniest comment I've read today. Most seasoned users of the forums struggle to follow the forum rules as they stand.

Also once the post has been trashed any punishment is closing the door after the horse has bolted.

[#13]

To answer @JonoH's question as regards duration, my 10p is that it should be around the 2 hour mark. Also, I am assuming that when an edit is posted the 'edit' clock isn't reset, otherwise it can defeat the purpose of locking the post if the duration is too long.

[#14]

---

@Townman wrote:

Is the redaction of posts making some topics unreadable...

1. Of a significant volume - are there metrics on this please - numbers per week / month

I am assuming the above comment was said in jest

As stated, we have observed numerous cases of an OP (there are other posts, too) having it's text removed leaving the word 'Deleted' or similar. This does present problems of how to keep the thread's integrity which, in all honesty, is nigh on impossible. 

There have been times that PMs have been received from disgruntled members who took their time and energy in giving well thought-out responses only to see their post(s) disappear. As previously stated, some of these wholesale edits have happened soon after 20 minutes of posting. Hence the edit limit being heavily reduced.

There are ways around this limitation ranging from creating the post in another editor then proof-reading before copy/pasting and posting to adding a further post referencing the original.

Personally I think too much time is being wasted discussing this when there are more pressing issues that need to be addressed.

[#15]

---

@Townman wrote:

How about introducing an new forum rule, which states that posts should not be "wholesale" edited so as to cause the rest of the thread to lose its integrity - offenders will be subject to moderator remedies.  That way the few individuals causing the issues can be dealt with appropriately whilst the majority of posters are left with sometime to cover up (correct) their embarrsingly poor spellying etc.!!  

Ooops - that should read

… introducing a new ...

and

… embarrassingly poor spelling ...

Is it honestly thought that this is the right way to move forward? 

@dvorak pleased that this brightened your day Adie!  I do not know what the answer is here, but making it hard for everyone for the sake of managing a few miscreants does seem OTT.  What will be the answer when the same happens within 10 minutes of the initial post, or within 2 minutes?  Reduce the permitted edit time even further?  It can be argued fairly that  any punishment for any wrong doing is closing the stable door after the horse has bolted.

I somewhat agree with @Mav too much time has been spent discussing this AFTER the event - may be the discussion ought to have been had before making the change?  Previously such changes would have been discussed with the SU group.  No, the question on metrics was not asked in jest - give the draconian impact of the change on the majority of reasonable users, I think it is very fair to ask if there is a real measure of the size of the impact.  All too often around here we see REAL issues not being addressed because there are NO METRICS on the size of the issue.  How often do we hear "There are not enough users impacted to warrant …. action" when for anyone with eyes to see and ears to listen it is quite obvious that for those impacted it is a serious service impacting issue?

May be it is time to just give up caring or having any views here, for nothing raised seems to get listened to.  Just tell us the way things are going to be and we'll just learn to suck it up like sweet little buttercups!