Have the time limit on editing a post been changed?

[#1]

There are no perfect solutions here. It’s one thing for a quoted post to carry the typos, but it’s quite another to correct the source. I’m sure in our shared history you’ve flagged a mistype in a post of mine allowing me the opportunity to correct in context.

I suggest that is far better than needing to / require repost further down the topic.

[#2]

Darn it!!

Post 57 should read...

I suggest that posts 40 and 45 illustrate well the consequential issue.

(5 was missed / not typed). No this one was not deliberate to illustrate the issue we now face!!

[#3]

@JonoH Ah! Well that is a pity.

As it was the Mods decision to reduce the time limit then rather than asking the Forum what their thoughts are, let the Mods make the decision on the time limit as its for their benefit and the easier their life is the better for them and us.

[#4]

@Anonymous wrote and did not edit within 20 mins:

When a post is submitted you are free to edit up until the first reply is posted, as the reply will be based on the OP. At this point the post becomes locked, so a quote / update is needed. The reply itself can also be edited until it is replied to with the logic chaining all the way down thread hierarchy?

That sounds like a good idea. Maybe doing this and restoring the 24-48hr edit time would suit all? (I'm happy when others spot my mistakes, then alert me to it, at least I know someone read it!!)

But there's still a slight chance there could be an issue with this, though not related to the edit debate which started this topic, which could happen.

I've had issues whereby during my reply the post I'm replying to is either edited, or moved by the mods to the correct forum location. This then either makes my reply incorrect, but more annoyingly during the latter my post does not post at all and I see an error message.

Also, it's in the forum rules, though never read them if I'm honest, if we quote the previous reply in full, it (the quote) is removed. But if the previous quote was left in on my reply, editing their reply makes it pointless.

(still don't get why someone would start a topic and then delete it)

[#5]

---

@JonoH wrote:

it would be helpful for me if you could answer the following

---

Of course I can answer.

But following plusnet guidelines the answer will be hidden away. You can view this answer by Clicking Here

[#6]

No change on the ridiculously short twenty minute limit.

So that's a big thumbs down and an even larger minus on customer satisfaction.

[#7]

I've tried to engage in discussions about what the community would like, I've specifically asked questions to help me understand why the changes need to be reverted. For your reference, they're here

@JonoH wrote:

Thanks for your feedback @billnotben could you help me understand the rationale because as always I'm open to change the decision if I'm wrong. it would be helpful for me if you could answer the following.

• What is (in your opinion) the right amount of time that a customer should be able to go back and edit a post?
• What do we do about maintaining the integrity of the thread if the (sometimes pages) of replies now all appear to make no sense or are off topic?
• What does an edit achieve, that can't be rectified by a reply with a quote and an explanation or clarification of the point you meant?

Your response was to link me to the text that was unhelpful and didn't answer any of the questions asked. I'm always happy to review any and every decision, but it needs to come from an understanding of the issues at hand and reasoned discussion. 

[#8]

---

@JonoH wrote:

Your response was to link me to the text that was unhelpful and didn't answer any of the questions asked.

---

I'd guess that this was a subtle(?) hint that the current prevalent practice of placing most user responses inside Tickets not visible to other Forum users is not finding favour.

Lack of information is inhibiting the Community from helping other users in the friendly cooperative spirit that it used to be.

[#9]

---

@MauriceC wrote:

---

---

I'd guess that this was a subtle(?) hint that the current prevalent practice of placing most user responses inside Tickets not visible to other Forum users is not finding favour.

I'm sure it was, and I'd be happy to have that conversation in the appropriate thread, I actually agree with @billnotben on that point, however, the response actually added to this thread added no value to the current discussion.

[#10]

Maurice's comments are spot on. I understand that certain details are private and thus should remain just that. But taking those with billing issues, most staff replies take this the 'hidden' zone, whereby we can't help nor do we see the outcome. Future readers then need to rinse and repeat as they don't know what happens. Anyway, this is for another area:)

• What is (in your opinion) the right amount of time that a customer should be able to go back and edit a post?

In honesty, I don't know.

• What do we do about maintaining the integrity of the thread if the (sometimes pages) of replies now all appear to make no sense or are off topic?

This change appears to have come about due a minority of users. These users should have been warned by the forum admin (not really the job of the volunteers) and thus nothing needed to be changed. Or if user X is known to start then delete a topic, why do others reply - that's the bit I don't get? Or read back to my previous replies on this thread.

• What does an edit achieve, that can't be rectified by a reply with a quote and an explanation or clarification of the point you meant?

It already affects me. It now takes me way longer than my normal to compile a post as I'm more conscious I can't edit it if I've made a mistake. I've also mentioned other reasons further back too (if I make a mistake on page 1, which I spot (or am alerted to it) on page 2, then future readers will more than likely start to read the topic at page 1)

Anyway, I've had to adjust how I post. I'm sure in time I'll get used to it (or give up) - it can only be one or the other

[#11]

Folks, can we please keep this thread on topic - hiding responses in tickets has other threads both public and within the SU area.

This is about the very short 20 minute edit window on all posts.

There have been numerous answers to Jono’s questions, however there seems to be a latent belief that this is not really an issue. Somewhere within the organisation there seems to be a sentiment of “What’s the problem with quoting the post you want to edit / correct / clarify further down (and out of context in) the thread?”. Words in () is my addition.

I suggest that some of the correction posts herein (some intentional some genuine mistakes) illustrates very well what the problem is with that as an approach.

A good deal of time has passed and there have been a lot of exchanges made, surely we now just need to be told if there is or is not an appetite to change this back to something thought (by the users) to be more appropriate please? This seems like a heavyweight solution to a problem which has not been quantified within this discussion. If this is now a matter of get used to it and live with it, then let’s just move on. If there’s a real will to revisit it, then can we please have it changed ASAP?

If there’s a will to change it, might it please be set to 12 hours, then let us review the subsequent dynamics. If it largely addresses the editing of typos etc issue and there’s no MARKED increase in post edits making nonsense out of threads then we are all winners.

If counted occurrences of post wipe out show a significant issue, then based on a real measure of the problem, then the edit duration could be reviewed and shortened.

[#12]

---

@Townman wrote:
If counted occurrences of post wipe out show a significant issue, then based on a real measure of the problem, then the edit duration could be reviewed and shortened.

---

What makes you believe that that is not what has already happened?

[#13]

Yes, sorry Townman. I did make a comment based on points raised by others, but did discuss the edit function too.

There have been numerous answers to Jono’s questions, however there seems to be a latent belief that this is not really an issue.

I thought I'd made my views known about this. But nothing was really picked up by those thoughts/comments.

I do not understand why others would want to either start a topic then want it deleting, nor do I understand why users post and then delete it all. Now I for one do subscribe to most of the topics I've posted in/on, so via the email I see the other posters replies before they edit them anyway. These (few) posters must surely realise that once others reply, we see the original, thus why then delete it. This, unless I'm mistaken, is why the edit function has been adjusted, but surely the reasons for changing this need rectifying first. As I've said, don't feed the animals.

Anyway, my thoughts are on this topic, I've nothing more to add:)

(though now I have to take much longer when compiling my posts)

[#14]

Sorry but I don't see much of a discussion. Just a unilateral decision.

Fair enough it's plusnets forum plusnets rules.

What was easy enough to edit will now end up the mods job to do the same.

Plusnet seems to have a growing reputation for not listening to customer concerns / suggestions.

Can't say I disagree with that.

[#15]

---

@Mav wrote:

---

@Townman wrote:
If counted occurrences of post wipe out show a significant issue, then based on a real measure of the problem, then the edit duration could be reviewed and shortened.

---

What makes you believe that that is not what has already happened?

---

Hi Mav,

I asked the question about metrics (percentage of posts and which boards) back in post #16 and again in post #38

In post #26 you reported...

The biggest issue we found was that many members started a thread which may or may not have had any replies then effectively deleting the post by editing it to something like 'Deleted'. This often happened within the first couple of hours since posting and, if I recall correctly, the quickest was just over 20 minutes which prompted the discussion between moderators and staff about reducing the edit time.

This is not the same as having a profile of occurrences, who are the culprits and the time window within which the edits occurred to inform the decision making.  This reads as "This has happened on an unspecified number of occasions, the shortest of which was OVER 20 minutes, so we decided to chose a duration shorter that the shortest single occurrence of the problem we seek to fix".

Never has Plusnet before sought to fix "issues" on the basis of such "common sense" based on a single occurrence - there has always been a requirement for objective metrics.

In post #44 you said...

@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.

...

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

Again a subjective, not an objective measure.

In post #56 @JonoH wrote...

Is there any measure on the prevalence of the problem this solution seeks to fix?

It's difficult to show, obviously there's no metric that can be automated to show how often an edit makes subsequent posts irrelevant.

To answer the question you posed, in the face of two reasonable requests for metrics on the prevalence of the issue this change seeks to fix, these three responses lead me to conclude that there are no metrics (real measures) of the "issue" or (as implied by your question) if there are indeed metrics that there is no desire to share them. All that appears to have happened is that some occurrences have been observed and an all embracing restriction shorter than the quickest transgression has been implemented.

Instead of objectively discussing the size of the problem and the impact of the 'solution' all that has come back (in the face of the views expressed by users) is the disposition that the change made is of not material consequence to users and the controllers of the service do not understand what the "fuss" is all about.

In post #24 @dvorak said

2) There is a 20 minute limit after you have clicked 'Post' to go back and edit it.
...
2 doesn't actually seem to be raising that many issues and I haven't seen a good solid argument for changing it back again.

If one accepts that statements (which I do not) then I have to suggest that equally a good solid argument for making the change has not been seen by users if only to create buy-in to the change.

Visibility of metrics would have helped informed the discussion.  The somewhat draconian solution now inhibits both more prevalent legitimate correction editing as well as the occasional inappropriate total redaction editing.  In short, reasonable usage of the service has been totally inhibited as a resolution to occasional unreasonable behaviour, with no visible quantification of the incidence of the claimed problem.

As you commented a while back in post #44 this discussion is seen by the mods as a waste of time.  Honest answers with objective mearures might have brought about wider support for the decision, but there has been nothing shared which informed the decision making process.  I have tried hard not to see that as being disrespectful of user's views, however the apparently deaf ears around here sadly lead me to believe that there is indeed no appeitie to listen and review the change.  If there is no intention of listening and reviewing the change, then please be honest and bold enough to say so. 

We users can then just suck it up and stop wasting each other's time … this change is here to stay, please just move along people for there is nothing to see here...