Feedback > Feedback

Request for limiting the modification of posts

(1/4) > >>

Wed:
This is taken from another subforum. I feel it's important to raise the issue, and that's why I submit my input here.


--- Quote from: knot4u on January 03, 2011, 02:11:47 AM ---Moderators, I recommend you make posts un-editable after awhile (e.g., 6 hours).

It appears that somebody went back in time and deleted a multitude of posts.  Now, many other reply posts don't make much sense.  Here's one of many examples:
http://igkt.net/sm/index.php?topic=1889.msg14618#msg14618
To what am I replying there?  I wish I knew.  I do know I spent a fair amount of time on that post.  The unrestricted editing makes me want to spend little time thinking through my posts.  Yes, there's the quote function, but many times I'm responding to several different posts at once.
--- End quote ---

I'm reading through all posts ever written. I am in Chit Chat, started at page 48, and have reached 30. That is about late 2006. Only very few links are functioning ok. The few working images that aren't uploaded to the forum, are easily counted. In short, nothing old gets adjusted.

For a thread to make sense, posts need to be in place. Deleting them could prove disastrous to the content as a whole. Six hours may be a good time limit. But some people come to their senses after a good nights sleep. So I suggest as much as 24 hours before a post is frozen. Corrections should be amended in a new post.

Personally, I post only when I have something to ask, answer or convey. Ever since 1996 with my introduction to the internet, I have been aware of the fact that I have to assume responsibility for ALL (all as in everything) the traces I leave behind. Nothing strange in that. It's common sense. I preview my posts a few times before hitting post. And that's not just to catch spelling errors, but to adjust wording, phrasing and often to remove unnecessary parts. At times I have come to the conclusion that it was best to scrap the post altogether before sending it off.

A lot of mess and noise would be avoided if more people thought twice before posting. And the average quality of the forum would be elevated a bit.

Edit: See, I had to modify the wording of the Subject ...

roo:
I'm against this proposal.  Even without deleting posts, many threads are already incoherent.   :D

More seriously though, real or perceived abuse does not negate legitimate use.  There are many legitimate reasons to edit a post months or years later.

For example:

1.  To fix dead links.
2.  To correct mistakes that may make a sentence unreadable.
3.  To correct statements of facts, especially where safety is concerned.  Posting an update pages later is not very effective.
4.  To delete posts because you no longer want to have an association with the website (e.g. if the forum decided to go "adult", as has been suggested in the past).

I reject the idea that certain members will catch errors.  I've seen many regular members make serious errors themselves (they are human after all), and I doubt many of them would accept the job of becoming unpaid fact checkers for every statement made on this forum.  There aren't enough hours in the day.

If you're afraid of someone sabotaging a thread, maybe you should make more extensive use of the quote function.  That's what it's there for.  The quote function can be abused too, by the way, but that does not negate its proper use.

Abuse should be addressed by disciplinary action, not by tying the hands of responsible members.

Dan_Lehman:
As with many things, it's a question of balance.

How much disturbance to one's regular routine is desirable or even tolerable
in order to prevent <...?...> ?!  How much does one want the threads of
this resource to be in some sort of flux ?  There come a series of not
so easily decided trade-offs to various aspects of this.

In the photography forum(s) DPReivew.com, a post is editable for only 15min.,
then frozen, completely, I think (i.e., not only no-edit, but no-delete).

In rockclimbing.com, there is copious (lazy) use of QUOTE to the very
annoying point of having a scroll-&-more of screen to get down to the
one often gratuitous, immature latest-reply-to-reply-to-reply... in some
ego-laden peeing contest --it is really incredible (also seen at times, alas,
in DPReview, even w/tech-savvy people who should have no time for it!).

And then there is a question of TECHNICAL capability for the forum:
what can easily be done, what ... not-so-easily (irrespective of desire).

1. dead URLinks :  well, this should be expected; is it worth the trouble
of an (if so deemed) always-editable system to allow for correction by
other than a new post to update?  (I suspect that the readers of old
posts are few; in other forums, there is the continual complaint by
users for newbies to "use the Search" function vice asking an old
question anew --it is usually re-hashed vs re-searched, though.)

Could such occasional updates be done to an otherwise-frozen
post by moderator special access?  (Any interested party(ies) could
send notice of needed updates (not merely NA URLs but replacement
ones, that is --no big point to bother if nothing can be done) and
moderators could weekly/whenever effect the edits --this is not big
work, I should think, in kind or volume.

2. "to correct mistakes that make a sentence unreadable"
???  Huh?!  Why it would take possibly YEARS for this to be done
stretches the imagination.  By that time, if no one's cared ..., why care?

3. "to correct statement of facts"
... in light of new information, perhaps.  Well, maybe this too could
come by way of moderator special access, if that is a capability that
fits the system, and so on.  (Let's consider how often we've needed
this so far, as a measure of workload --very little, I think.)

4. "... you no longer want to have an association ..."   bunk.
You were here, for what it's worth.  That you might regret that,
well, too bad.  Again, this seems like hardly something to wag
the dog over.  And "you" is often a "you"-ser name w/o clear
ID beyond that --an option, at least.

5. "maybe you should make extensive use of the Quote function.
That's what it's there for"
NO, it's there for some normal reasonable use, not for guarding
against the wholesale "0"ing of prior posts (or extensive editing)!
(There was a time when one could carry things on an airplane
no longer allowed --for millions, on account of a feared few :
how much dog-wagging by the tail do we care to have, here?)

6. "Abuse should be addressed ... not by tying the hands"
Yes, and a matter of balance.  But I don't think that having
a rule/policy that posts to the forum belong to the forum
and are non-removable except by moderators and special
cases is an unreasonable condition. Spelling is something
I find checked during composition, red-underlined if got
wrongg [<-oops] ; dang, pay attention to that, then.

7. But why are we discussing this?
Because of ONE person's extraordinary actions (which behavior
possibly? could have been avoided if some quicker action had
been given the exasperating circumstance(s) --maybe, maybe not).
And how much of the dog should wag on this tail?

.:.  maybe just move towards Roo's long-ago suggestion
to have some Rules of Order?  (expected to be commonsense
and not super-strictly applied)  --and go on and see how that
works.
Maybe a freeze on some monthly basis : in Nov, freeze all prior
to Oct, say?  --leaves at that time Oct yet editable.
And beyond that, perhaps by request & moderator effecting?
(where "no" is a possible moderator answer).

 - - - - - SORT OF TANGENTIAL ISSSUE :

8. " I am in Chit Chat, started at page 48, and have reached 30. "

I privately asked about doing something like this:
as ChitChat was the SOLE active forum some years ago,
prior to Practical & Decorative knotting forums taking life,
there are within it a great many old posts that would have
more meaningful existence (IMO) if MOVED to their appropriate
new forums, which would enrich those forums in the process,
and help users browsing topics of interest.


--dl*
====


ps:  Thanks to Wed for re-positioning this topic to Feedback.

roo:

--- Quote from: knot4u on January 03, 2011, 11:32:33 PM ---With unrestricted deleting/editing, you expose your forum to that type of vandalism.   It's like leaving your house unlocked at all times.

--- End quote ---
We've had unrestricted editing for many, many years.  It has allowed me to update URL's for scores of posts and keep them usable.  Requesting special access would have made the task not worth it.

Frankly, I'm not attached to any of the content of xarax's posts.  Do you have any other examples?  If not, I'm seeing this proposal as a huge negative.

roo:

--- Quote from: Dan_Lehman on January 03, 2011, 09:16:21 PM ---
1. dead URLinks :  well, this should be expected; is it worth the trouble
of an (if so deemed) always-editable system to allow for correction by
other than a new post to update?  (I suspect that the readers of old
posts are few; in other forums, there is the continual complaint by
users for newbies to "use the Search" function vice asking an old
question anew --it is usually re-hashed vs re-searched, though.)

Could such occasional updates be done to an otherwise-frozen
post by moderator special access?  (Any interested party(ies) could
send notice of needed updates (not merely NA URLs but replacement
ones, that is --no big point to bother if nothing can be done) and
moderators could weekly/whenever effect the edits --this is not big
work, I should think, in kind or volume.

--- End quote ---
I've updated scores of URL's on years-old posts.  Moderator access requests would have made the task horrible.  I've looked at user activity, and people are regularly looking at very old threads.  I do it myself.  We've had no problems with editing, except for xarax.  It's not a big deal.



--- Quote ---2. "to correct mistakes that make a sentence unreadable"
???  Huh?!  Why it would take possibly YEARS for this to be done
stretches the imagination.  By that time, if no one's cared ..., why care?
--- End quote ---
People rarely bring up the fact that a sentence or post is unreadable.  Only rarely do people bring up their annoyance at the ridiculous non-standard, nonsensical abbreviation used around here, for example, my fellow SPartans.  Regardless of feedback, unreadability is reason enough to fix a post, regardless of when you re-read it.

Besides, when I visit an old thread, I sometimes catch mistypings and they are easily fixed.  I don't delete the whole thing or reduce the whole post to a zero.


--- Quote ---3. "to correct statement of facts"
... in light of new information, perhaps.  Well, maybe this too could
come by way of moderator special access, if that is a capability that
fits the system, and so on. 
--- End quote ---
Special access requests again?  For what?  Just because of xarax?  Talk about letting the terrorists terrorist win. :D


--- Quote ---4. "... you no longer want to have an association ..."   bunk.
You were here, for what it's worth.  That you might regret that,
well, too bad. 
--- End quote ---
We're supposed to have a crystal ball to see what kind of calamities might befall the forum in the future?  It's a common courtesy to allow people to have ownership of their posts.  If people are reasonable, and the forum doesn't become disreputable, there's nothing to fear.  Freedom of association and disassociation isn't something to poo-poo away.


--- Quote ---5. "maybe you should make extensive use of the Quote function.
That's what it's there for"
NO, it's there for some normal reasonable use, not for guarding
against the wholesale "0"ing of prior posts (or extensive editing)!

--- End quote ---
Keeping things in context is indeed what the quote function is for.   If you have a little context, the thread is still readable even if someone deletes a post (which you seem to admit isn't a big problem, as this is all about xarax).

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version