How to edit or delete post?

[Bat21]

No, t'was a genuine question.

If someone makes a post, an hour to correct any mistakes is more than enough time.

Allowing unlimited editing time can cause a lot of confusion. If folk feel the need to 'add' something new to their post/thread, then why not simply reply to the thread. By doing so, it will 'bounce' the subject to the top of the 'New Posts' or 'Activity Stream' and folk will be aware. If they simply change their original post no one is going to be aware of it.

Also, if someone posts something here late one evening while under the influence, and wakes up in the morning and in the cold light of day thinks "oh I wish I hadn't said that", why should he be able to remove/amend/edit it?

 

[Chris]

Hmm, well I can't argue with any of that Paul, other than to say strike me down if I am wrong, but didn't we have a right old ding dong about this in the past where you argued exactly the opposite? It matters little as we agree now but there are others who feel that they should be able to edit forever and as adults we can all be trusted. Right.

I think that a no edit policy is wrong. Sometimes it's as simple as hitting submit before you have attached a pic for example. We all cock up occasionally. But infinite edit, I don't think is necessary. I wonder if it's possible to have a 'retract comment' button that effectively blanks, blocks or locks something and alerts a mod

Apols if it wasn't you. If it wasn't I shall come back and edit this post. In a couple of days.

Chris

 

[Bat21]

Hmm, well I can't argue with any of that Paul, other than to say strike me down if I am wrong, but didn't we have a right old ding dong about this in the past where you argued exactly the opposite? ....

The other place had a 'no edit' policy and that is what I had a ding dong about. I will be the first to admit that I suffer from some form of dyslexia and I don't notice errors until I hit the 'Submit' button. It was so annoying as it made me look a prize plumb not being able to put right a simple spelling/grammar error

1 hour max is more than enough time.

Apols if it wasn't you. If it wasn't I shall come back and edit this post. In a couple of days.

Chris

My point exactly

 

[Graham]

I would like to see a life time edit facility.
I would possibly like to edit my post tomorrow,
or edit it next week, or next month.
Crispin has told us he has a back-up of the posts.
So any thing malicious could be corrected with a back up restoration , after the offending member was "locked out " of the posts.

Simple,,, I think, and would give a feel of responsibility to the longer term members.

Sure, some members may get a bit of a gripe on, and start deleting all their posts, but they could be restored, once the offending member was locked out or banned from posting.

Gra.

 

[Bat21]

Why would anyone (other than Cris or the Mods) want the ability to edit their posts after a reasonable time period (1 hour Max)?

I would like to see a life time edit facility.

But why would you want to change something you have said other than to edit spelling/grammar mistakes?.... it seems a very odd request to me.

 

[Graham]

But why would you want to change something you have said other than to edit spelling/grammar mistakes?.... it seems a very odd request to me.

.
Does it worry you?


Perhaps I had bought an accessory for the Land Cruiser, and at the time, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.
But now, 6 months down the line, I think it's a pile of junk.

Gra.

 

[Charlie]

Add a reply to the post....

 

[Bat21]

.
Does it worry you?

Perhaps I had bought an accessory for the Land Cruiser, and at the time, I thought it was the best thing since sliced bread.
But now, 6 months down the line, I think it's a pile of junk.

Gra.

Yes it does concern me.

Given your scenario above, you should simply reply to your original post saying why your opinion had changed, not remove what you originally said.

You don't have the option to 'change' something you said in the real world, so why have the ability to do it here.

 

[Chris]

Charlie is right on this particular issue. I would not edit a post, no one would find it. Posting a new response would mean that it would pop up. But look, lads, the argument has been had and done. There will be edit. End of story. There's no point dragging it back up again. I am against it personally, I think an hour is sufficient, but amongst those who expressed a preference, the majority wanted that feature.

We don't want to be accused of running a dictatorship here.

Citizen Chris

 

[Bat21]

....There will be edit. End of story.....

We don't want to be accused of running a dictatorship here.

Erm....

 

[Graham]

I think any one with less than 1000 posts should just have very basic editing rights.

Gra.

 

[Bat21]

I think any one with less than 1000 posts should just have very basic editing rights.

If you're going to make suggestions/statements, could you give your reasons? Are you saying those with less than 1,000 can not be trusted?

 

[Roger Fairclough]

No, t'was a genuine question.

If someone makes a post, an hour to correct any mistakes is more than enough time.

Allowing unlimited editing time can cause a lot of confusion. If folk feel the need to 'add' something new to their post/thread, then why not simply reply to the thread. By doing so, it will 'bounce' the subject to the top of the 'New Posts' or 'Activity Stream' and folk will be aware. If they simply change their original post no one is going to be aware of it.

Also, if someone posts something here late one evening while under the influence, and wakes up in the morning and in the cold light of day thinks "oh I wish I hadn't said that", why should he be able to remove/amend/edit it?

I agree.

Roger

 

[ignat]

.....