Forums: Rockclimbing.com: Suggestions & Feedback:
Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
RSS FeedRSS Feeds for Suggestions & Feedback

Premier Sponsor:

 
First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Poll: Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after?
No change should be made.  Users should be able to edit their posts for as long as they are members. 67 / 43%
Posts should never be editable.  Once they are made, they are permanent. 7 / 5%
Posts should only be editable for up to 1 year after they are made. 3 / 2%
Posts should only be editable for up to 1 month after they are made.  7 / 5%
Posts should only be editable for up to 2 weeks after they are made. 7 / 5%
Posts should only be editable for up to 1 week after they are made. 25 / 16%
Posts should only be editable for up to 3 days after they are made. 39 / 25%
155 total votes
 

notapplicable


Aug 20, 2010, 9:08 AM
Post #101 of 181 (4747 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771

Re: [sidepull] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

sidepull wrote:
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).

The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.

Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.

I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.

Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed


(This post was edited by notapplicable on Aug 20, 2010, 9:09 AM)


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 9:14 AM
Post #102 of 181 (4736 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [j_ung] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

j_ung wrote:
boymeetsrock wrote:
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.

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.

Or it could just make an exception for officially recognized FAQs (not that it actually has any, as you know).

Jay


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 9:40 AM
Post #103 of 181 (4718 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay


edge


Aug 20, 2010, 9:54 AM
Post #104 of 181 (4710 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120

Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

Like editing for typos?


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 9:56 AM
Post #105 of 181 (4706 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.

Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.

DMT


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 9:57 AM
Post #106 of 181 (4702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
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).

The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.

Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.

I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.

Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed

He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.

DMT


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 9:57 AM
Post #107 of 181 (4702 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

edge wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there their existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

Like editing for typos?

Fixt, hopefully.


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 10:00 AM
Post #108 of 181 (4695 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
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).

The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.

Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.

I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.

Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed

He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.

DMT

I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.

Jay


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 20, 2010, 10:09 AM
Post #109 of 181 (4685 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [dingus] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.

Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.

DMT

One could make a helluva reality TV show. Put Dingus on a deserted island in a 'hatch' with the internet - a la Lost. You could run a couple of seasons at least, playing mindgames with him with the promise of a 'delete all' button. 108 minutes is up Dingus, type in the code.


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 10:12 AM
Post #110 of 181 (4682 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
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).

The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.

Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.

I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.

Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed

He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.

DMT

I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.

Jay

Poll choices? Lol.

DMT


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 20, 2010, 10:30 AM
Post #111 of 181 (4671 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [Shroom] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

I wanted to go back and edit / delete the "content" from this post. It is like an "easter egg" in the thread for someone to find.

Which reminds me.

If someone edits/deletes a post, and someone has a quote of it, is it fair game to go back and cheezetit the hell out of their quote?


(This post was edited by Toast_in_the_Machine on Aug 23, 2010, 1:09 PM)


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 20, 2010, 10:33 AM
Post #112 of 181 (4666 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
dingus wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
sidepull wrote:
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).

The true "genesis" of this poll actually goes back much farther than recent events and is only following them so closely because if I had tried to raise the issue at some random point in the past, it would not have generated sitewide attention. In short, this discussion is simply capitalizing on recent events and does not directly stem from them.

Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example. That has nothing at all to do with the mods or their role on here. The mods are unlikely to be the catalyst for the next tempertantrum that results in post deleting either.

I don't know if votes can be changed or not but you might want to reconsider the issue on it's own merits and not as it relates to this one incident.

Editeded to add - Nope, just looked and votes cannot be changed

He edited his post for christsakes! LAUGHABLE.

DMT

I think you're laughing alone on that one, given the poll choices.

Jay

You can count me as another one laughing. I'm also still giggling like a school girl that so many people posted so many empty messages complaining of the lack of content.


Arrogant_Bastard


Aug 20, 2010, 10:34 AM
Post #113 of 181 (4664 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Oct 30, 2007
Posts: 19994

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

To any of the mods that lack understanding of ironic humor (most of them), now would be the perfect time to edit TitM's post.


dingus


Aug 20, 2010, 10:34 AM
Post #114 of 181 (4663 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398

Re: [Arrogant_Bastard] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Arrogant_Bastard wrote:
dingus wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

I deleted the 'must not leaves' a very very long time ago and have resisted posting anything I might want back, ever since. I have left a few standing because some folks I liked expressed appreciation of them.

Its not a threat - give me a 'delete all' button and I will click it. Fact.

DMT

One could make a helluva reality TV show. Put Dingus on a deserted island in a 'hatch' with the internet - a la Lost. You could run a couple of seasons at least, playing mindgames with him with the promise of a 'delete all' button. 108 minutes is up Dingus, type in the code.

I like it!

But not down in a hatch please.

Put me with Kate, in a hut, on the beach. I'll press that fucking button, you'll see me here no more!

DMT


edge


Aug 20, 2010, 11:02 AM
Post #115 of 181 (4644 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 14, 2003
Posts: 9120

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.

Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.


(See, like down there at the bottom...)
V
V
V
V


(This post was edited by edge on Aug 20, 2010, 11:04 AM)


climbs4fun
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 11:52 AM
Post #116 of 181 (4625 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9679

Re: [jt512] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

You've been reading/lurking in the BET too long.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 11:54 AM
Post #117 of 181 (4623 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9679

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

It's not EVER supposed to happen.


climbs4fun
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 11:56 AM
Post #118 of 181 (4620 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Mar 18, 2003
Posts: 9679

Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.

Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.


(See, like down there at the bottom...)
V
V
V
V

Should just quote it instead and fix it there. That precedent should never be set. Even with permission from the user. Just sayin'


meanMrKetchup


Aug 20, 2010, 11:58 AM
Post #119 of 181 (4615 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Feb 9, 2010
Posts: 7

Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

Users should be allowed to edit, but you should show the previous versions (would require some serious retooling of the forum's architecture).

If a user wants to delete a post, you should delete identifying information relating the post back to them, including the signature, in the current post, and in the revisions, but leave the post to keep the context of the discussion.


jt512


Aug 20, 2010, 12:20 PM
Post #120 of 181 (4596 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 11, 2001
Posts: 21904

Re: [climbs4fun] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
jt512 wrote:
notapplicable wrote:
Take the longstanding threat by Dingus to delete his posts for example.

That suggests another question: If editing is to be limited in the future, should there be a period between the time the rule change is announced and the time it goes into effect to allow users to delete or edit there existing posts, since they were made with the understanding that they could later be changed.

Jay

You've been reading/lurking in the BET too long.

Shhh. That's supposed to be a sekret.

Jay


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 20, 2010, 12:36 PM
Post #121 of 181 (4607 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [climbs4fun] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

climbs4fun wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

It's not EVER supposed to happen.

But it does happen. Nothing to be ashamed of. Its OK to acknowledge the power.


Toast_in_the_Machine


Aug 20, 2010, 12:39 PM
Post #122 of 181 (4604 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Sep 11, 2008
Posts: 5206

Re: [edge] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.

Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.


(See, like down there at the bottom...)
V
V
V
V

But that edit tag would remain only until (or if) the OP re-edits.

As I said, very, very rarely. But it does exist.


shu2kill


Aug 20, 2010, 1:37 PM
Post #123 of 181 (4579 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Apr 8, 2008
Posts: 352

Re: [notapplicable] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (1 rating)  
Can't Post

i voted for up to 3 days, but i would have preferred a "within 1 hour option". this allows for grammar, spelling, and coherence mistakes being corrected. whats the point on editing a post i wrote 5 months ago??

what has been said, cannot be unsaid....


majid_sabet


Aug 20, 2010, 1:46 PM
Post #124 of 181 (4571 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Dec 12, 2002
Posts: 8390

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (2 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

That young Aussi mod will do anything and I am sure he could


blondgecko
Moderator

Aug 20, 2010, 1:58 PM
Post #125 of 181 (4554 views)
Shortcut

Registered: Jul 2, 2004
Posts: 7666

Re: [Toast_in_the_Machine] Should posts be editable after they are made and if so, for how long after? [In reply to]
Report this Post
Average: avg_1 avg_2 avg_3 avg_4 avg_5 (0 ratings)  
Can't Post

Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
edge wrote:
Toast_in_the_Machine wrote:
Shroom wrote:
Can they really edit user's posts?

Can they? Yes.

Do they? Very, very, rarely

I have done it exactly once in 6 years, to make a link "clicky" in the original post. The link was extremely relevant at the time, and the OP was asking for it to be hot linked in his post. I confirmed that he was OK with that by PM, and got a thank you for doing it.

Anytime someone edits a post, it is noted at the bottom of the post. 99.9999% of the time it is the OP, but if a mod edits it, then the mod's name appears and there is no way to deny who made the edit.


(See, like down there at the bottom...)
V
V
V
V

But that edit tag would remain only until (or if) the OP re-edits.

Even then, the information is not gone. You'll notice that the "edited" in "this post was edited by..." is a link. It takes you to a list of times, dates and users responsible for every edit to that post.

First page Previous page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Next page Last page  View All

Forums : Rockclimbing.com : Suggestions & Feedback

 


Search for (options)

Log In:

Username:
Password: Remember me:

Go Register
Go Lost Password?



Follow us on Twiter Become a Fan on Facebook