Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.

Curt

The reason I would suggest a slightly longer time frame is due to the fact that sometimes a person may have cause to edit a post after another user raises an objection to some portion of it and not everyone signs on daily. 1-2 weeks allows time for an issue to be raised and corrected without mod intervention.

Although people do usually get called on something questionable pretty quick, so maybe that is not necessary.

On another site that I go, posts are editable only for the first hour.

You cannot unring a bell, but at least with an hour you can tune it if need be.

Only because the of the current politics going on at the moment.

I suspect you would have recieved a completely different response two weeks ago.

Only because the of the current politics going on at the moment.

I suspect you would have recieved a completely different response two weeks ago.

I think changing the edit button will change the way people post

The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY...

Editing is weke.

Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.

Curt

Editing is weke.

Editing is weke, but deleting is useful.

The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.

if users own/retain copyright on the intellectual content of their posts, as per the current terms of use, they should have the ability to edit and delete them indefinitely.

to do otherwise would require that the terms of use be changed.

Curious... Can this logic be extended to:

Climber cleans and bolts a route at a public crag, then has a falling out with the locals and wants to chop the bolts and have guide books edited to remove the route.

Tell you what I'll go and rap bolt a few spots on the BY and we'll find out what the community thinks about ownership of a route.

Or maybe lets pull some bolts off of the compressor route.

Ummm... That's more analagous to a TROLL dropping turds in the forums then complaining when his posts are edited or removed.

Not quite the point I was making...

Did I REALLY need to say "sport crag"? I would think that it would be readily apparent in the analogy I gave.

You are misinterpreting the existing TOS. While RC.com provides some functionality for a user to edit or delete his/her posts, there is absolutely no guarantee made currently that a user will be able to erase all traces of his previously posted content.

Curt

By publishing or submitting any content including, articles, stories, postings and photographs to any part of Rockclimbing.com you give permission that such content may be used at the sole discretion of Rockclimbing.com anywhere else on the site, for any purpose, in its original or edited form, at any time in the future. Content will not be sold without permission of the original author or owner.

The answer to your analogy proves my point, that the community will decide. That's how all bolting wars end. But the default state is that the route is "owned" by the developer and you can't go and change it without their consent and even then sometimes the shit scatters.

Anywhoo, were getting a little far from the source here.

(This post was edited by rrrADAM on...)

hey, asshat, i own my intellectual property rights to telling you to suck an egg.

Just like opening your mouth, think before you do and you'll not have to take much back. Editing for a day or so to fix obvious mistakes or add clarity is enough. It's not like you can't clarify a point later if someone calls you out. This is a privately owned website, if you don't want them possessing your priceless contributions to human knowledge don't post here. Start your own website and do it your way, or live with the rules here. They provide a free place to post your thoughts and burn time, what more can you ask?

Oh, I think we should have the full capability to edit for as long as we want.

especially when somebody posts information about somebody else that they may be persuaded to edit out in the future.

One thing...

Some keep stating a reason to allow editing is in case soemone realizes that they posted something that was wrong... If someone has already replied after the [wrong] post/reply, the best thing to do is quote yourself (wrong stuff), then address/correct it in a later post.

That doesn't help if you're trying to get a PTFTW.

That doesn't help if you're trying to get a PTFTW.

Ha! Totally forgot about the BET crew when I created the poll.

I guess we can now account for at least half of the "edit for ever" votes.

We're not a "crew", we're jerks. BET Jerks, try to get it right keep up.

This discussion is all well and good, but does nothing to address the issue of subsequent posters quoting other people's posts, thus preserving the original content.

If deletion of posts became commonplace, then I suspect we would see a rise in the number of users quoting just as a precautionary measure. This happens to some degree already, particularly of late.

Clearly, there are issues with the current model. I now feel that posts should be editable for 48 to 72 hours to allow the poster to correct errors, add content, delete his post etc. That should be ample time for those purposes. After that, the post should be considered part of the RC.com archive.

Curt

We're not a "crew", we're jerks. BET Jerks, try to get it right.

Exactly WTF would such a policy fix? How often can we really expect a user that posts a ton of content to suddenly delete it all? Once in a decade? RC.com doesn't even HAVE a user that posts a ton of content!

Perhaps it is the responsibility of people relying on context that would be provided by an erased post to, well, PROVIDE that context by QUOTING the person(s) to whom they're responding in the first place!

Good point. And yet, I'm still officially changing my position on this whole deal.

I think an exemption for Scummunity is a good idea. I would be in favor of editability remaining unchanged in campground and the soapbox.

Absolutely no editing. Posts quality will increase. A side benefit will be the end of the stupid quoting and re-quoting of the original posts or thread answers.

Users need to think twice before hitting the reply or post button.

Delete the campground, soap box etc. Moderate agressively to delete any non-climbing posts.

...Let us say it was curt that decided to blow away all of his posts, would the site miss his 2002 recommendation of a sealy posturpedic for a bouldering pad? No.

Quoted, just because.

But exactly the point. Let us say it was curt that decided to blow away all of his posts, would the site miss his 2002 recommendation of a sealy posturpedic for a bouldering pad? No.

This is a one off event No need to change the rules now. It won't bring the content back and won't encourage more to appear.

Removing the content of a post can make an entire thread meaningless or confusing and allowing a single user the ability to make other peoples posts obfuscated does not seem fair.

Dave

What? That may have been one of my better posts.

Curt

Not nearly as good as this one:
http://www.rockclimbing.com/...i?post=240785#240785

Please don't delete that one.

I find it terribly ironic that moderators, of all people, would argue that posts can't be edited.

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.

You have no business telling her what she can and cannot do with her post, including editing.

(but you have no problem editing the posts of others, do ya)

DMT

Actually Dingus, mods no longer have the ability to edit a post. Haven't been able to for a couple of years. I think it's a good thing. The only thing we can do is delete the post entirely (not a really good option and is never used), recycle it, and now hide it. But NEVER can we edit it. It's not even possible.

Maybe allow the user to mark it as invalid but then just show an extra message at the beginning like this:

[drector marked this post as invalid on Aug-18-2010]

But show all of the content. "Invalid" seems to be a reasonable way to describe a post that a user no longer wishes to be viewed as truth, fact, or their current opinion. Things change and a person should at least be able to indicate that they changes their mind after-the-fact.

Maybe show the whole invalid post in strikeout text in the case of it being marked invalid.

Removing the content of a post can make an entire thread meaningless or confusing and allowing a single user the ability to make other peoples posts obfuscated does not seem fair.

Dave

Agreed. There should be some way to rescind a post, but it should not involve deleting it.

They told you that? And you believed them?

I think it should be left the same, I think it promotes better discussion. We have many companies that might need the ability to edit something years down the road for copyright or legal reasons. There has also been lots of prototype discussions on RC.com I wouldn't post here if i thought about selling something and couldn't delete them later. I loved the lab stuff that was semi lost but really we are not that bad off with out it. I think changing the edit button will change the way people post and make the site fall even more.

Kiss mah ass! It's twoo!

Careful, Curt's old, if you cup his balls any harder they might bruise.

I would think that 1 day would be plenty of time to iron any bumps out. After that, to bad, you had your chance.

Regardless of what the site chooses which route they'll go with this idea, you can always quote and save what someone else decides to change.

Careful, Curt's old, if you cup his balls any harder they might bruise.

No way, they're as tough as my liver.

Curt

I've seen your liquor stash.

Your liver should be disintegrating by now.

Damn, I should of edited that.

I guess I don't understand this crazy hard on to demand things be available online in perpetuity.

It's a forum post. Made by someone you don't know.

Where is the value in this? The value comes from knowing the user. Here, it's by online reputation. Aric developed a reputation after a while as a guy who knew something about engineering and gear testing. The only reason his posts have any value is because you have seen his whole body of work.

By preserving his entire body of work, you are forcing him against his will to remain on here. That's lame. Any one of his posts on its own has no value. They only have value when taken as a whole.

What will a post like Carabiner and quickdraw FAQ wind up looking like without an edit function.

This is a heavily edited yet great post. If we had to read through all the rough drafts and corrections just to get to the final version, we probably would stop reading at post 3.

One of the "best" editing jobs I ever recall seeing here happened several years ago. The OP asked for stories about climbing gear that was irretrievably stuck and what was done to try and remove the gear before giving up.

After about three pages of serious replies, involving nut tools, hanging on ropes, lowering back down, etc., the OP edited the title of the thread to "Things You've Had Stuck In Your Anus." Obviously, this led to a substantial change in context and I think the thread was eventually nuked.

And no, I was not the OP.

Curt

What will a post like Carabiner and quickdraw FAQ wind up looking like without an edit function.

This is a heavily edited yet great post. If we had to read through all the rough drafts and corrections just to get to the final version, we probably would stop reading at post 3.

I find it terribly ironic that moderators, of all people, would argue that posts can't be edited.

Hypocrites, the lot of you.

The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY.

You have no business telling her what she can and cannot do with her post, including editing.

(but you have no problem editing the posts of others, do ya)

DMT

IDK if there is one master list or not.

Our founding fathers genius was to make it so that we could amend the rules when needed.

Editing is weke, but deleting is useful.

RC.com doesn't even HAVE a user that posts a ton of content!

I'm sorry if someone else has made the point I'm about to make, I already had to slog through three other threads just to understand the genesis behind all of this blather. So here's my opinion (and if it reinforces, reiterates, or repeats that of other's, then good):

This poll (and it's front page endorsement from the mod's) misses the crux of the issue: the role of the mod's and the ability to apologize.

Had a mod focused more on serving the members of RC.com and simply just apologized all of this would have stopped. Sure, other members of RC.com could have backed off too, that would have been civil, but that isn't their role. In contrast, mod's are given power to serve the needs of the RC.com community, not to serve their needs. If a mod oversteps his or her bounds and gets called on it, they should just apologize and let it go.

Put more simply: I voted for "no change" in the poll. If it had listed an option for "help mod's understand their role better" I would have checked that box instead.

Best of luck to everyone. Hopefully there is some sort of collective learning and catharsis that comes from this (though I doubt it).

Good point. The site can solve the problem by transferring the FAQ content into an article, then using the thread just to house a link to it.