Aug 19, 2010, 12:23 AM
Post #1 of 181
(15066 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
This thread and poll is for the purpose of discussing whether posts should be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after. I have been told that the evolution of this conversation may have an influence on how seriously a change will be considered by the sites admin. and what shape that change may take. That being the case, things would be best served by staying on track and not bringing recent events in to this thread.
I personally feel that the OP should have the ability to edit or delete their posts for a period 10 days after they are made, beyond that time posts become a permanent part of the archive and can only be altered or removed by a mod.
My argument for why editability needs to be limited has already been made clear so I will not crowd the thread with it right now. At this point I am just curious to hear what everyone else thinks. It doesn’t matter if you've been a member for 2 weeks or 8 years, please speak up, or at least vote.
Aug 19, 2010, 12:34 AM
Post #2 of 181
(15059 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
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.
Aug 19, 2010, 12:46 AM
Post #3 of 181
(15051 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
Re: [curt] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
curt wrote:
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.
Aug 19, 2010, 1:27 AM
Post #4 of 181
(15038 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 19, 2003
Posts: 9679
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
notapplicable wrote:
curt wrote:
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.
This is my opinion as a member of this community and not as a moderator of this site.
I personally have always felt that if you don't want it read, then don't put it on the internet. The model I refer to is this, don't post something online that you don't want an employer (current or future) to read. Don't post something online that you would feel uncomfortable with your most conservative family members seeing or reading and you should be fine. And lastly, treat people with the same respect you would treat them with in person. That should remove almost all instances of the need to edit.
Aug 19, 2010, 5:20 AM
Post #5 of 181
(14989 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2002
Posts: 13105
Re: [climbs4fun] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
/\/\/\/\/\ Wot she said. I totally agree with that sentiment.
News item on the radio today says that google is suggesting that some people may have to change their identity to get away from some of the content they have uploaded on to the intartubes.
It irks me no end that users will come to us after the fact and ask us to wholesale delete their stuff. They invariably have been a twat and they aren't brave enough to stand behind what they have written. Think of the online world as you would publish a book and for that book then to be lodged in the library of congress. It's there for all time.
Wake up, get a clue and think before you hit the enter button. Same goes for users wanting to change their online username because they changed job or left University and they then think that what they have written will haunt them in their pursuit of a decent job. Might have been a good idea to think about that before you hit the enter button.
Aug 19, 2010, 6:44 AM
Post #6 of 181
(14979 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
Re: [philbox] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(2 ratings)
Can't Post
Kel and Phil,
That's fine advice, but it's pretty clear that the main reason for considering a change to the editing rule would be to prevent another Aricgate type of event from happening again.
Aug 19, 2010, 1:05 PM
Post #10 of 181
(14901 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2003
Posts: 10000
Re: [iron106] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(8 ratings)
Can't Post
Leave the system alone. Let the community outcry serve as the guideline.
We're not building a complete repository of climbing information here, if we were, at some point you'd have to shut down the ability to post and only allow people to read.
This site is dynamic and will always be so. These people who bitch about posters not doing a search don't have a fukking clue. I want to hear from the people in the moment, not some dickwad from 6 years ago.
The crap you wrote 3 months ago might have some value, but if it's gone big fukking deal, I want to hear what people who are doing it right now think.
Aug 19, 2010, 1:22 PM
Post #11 of 181
(14885 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
Re: [rrrADAM] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
rrrADAM wrote:
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.
This is what I prefer, too. In climbing, we are ultimately and immediately responsible for our decisions; it compels us to consider consequences before acting. I'd like forum posting to be similar, allowing for corrections of grammar, spelling, etc. This would, of course, preclude mods from asking users to self edit. Would the result be more active moderation? Probably. I'm okay with that.
Though I know it isn't feasible, I also wish all usernames were the poster's actual name (allowing for the use of an initial either for the first or last name, but not both).
Aug 19, 2010, 2:07 PM
Post #14 of 181
(14836 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 30, 2006
Posts: 191
Re: [summerprophet] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(1 rating)
Can't Post
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.
Aug 19, 2010, 2:24 PM
Post #17 of 181
(14810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
Re: [summerprophet] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
summerprophet wrote:
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 suspect you're 100% correct, but to me, that makes the response all the more pertinent. I don't think this is an irrational response to recent events. Also, I view a limit on editing as a way to hold people responsible for what they write. It's a different issue entirely. Nevertheless...
Aug 19, 2010, 2:51 PM
Post #19 of 181
(14779 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 19, 2002
Posts: 4602
Re: [photoguy190] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
photoguy190 wrote:
I think changing the edit button will change the way people post
That's the whole point.
I vote for limited editing. It's not perfect and won't please everyone one, but 2 possible benefits are would be preserving important content and holding people responsible for their content. I think those are pretty good reasons.
Aug 19, 2010, 3:00 PM
Post #22 of 181
(14758 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120
Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(0 ratings)
Can't Post
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.
Aug 19, 2010, 3:16 PM
Post #24 of 181
(14745 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2002
Posts: 18275
Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
[In reply to]
Report this Post
Average:
(3 ratings)
Can't Post
dingus wrote:
The poster OWNS HER POST. Its her intellectual material and until you start paying her for copyrights, its REMAINS HER PROPERTY...
Dingus,
I realize that this is one of your "hot button" issues, but your absolutist view of the above is both factually and legally incorrect--as has been pointed out several times now.
Curt
(This post was edited by curt on Aug 19, 2010, 3:17 PM)
67 /
43%
1
