Forum Feedback of unlimited edits

[greenhorn]

One hour would be considered more than enough to correct any typo

If you suddenly realise that you made a major factual booboo a long time after you'd posted, then you have to pay for your haste :tongue:

In case of any flame war/heated technical argument: If you posted without checking the facts online just so your post appears on the top of the heap; then you frantically google, and want to correct your earlier post - I don't think thats how tech forums are supposed to work :no:

Not just tech forums , Thats how the real world works. One you've said something, You've said it already. no going back.

I bet many of our politicians wish they could go back and edit what they had said previously :lol:

and we're thankful that they cant

 

[blr_p]

One can edit the post within an hour and change one's statement and the whole purpose of limiting edits to 1 hour itself is defeated.

Nicely spotted :hap2:

Now they will say that even an hour is too much :rofl:

And you're right the emphasis has been mostly on flame wars, which one would think is the exception, and seems like its being made the rule or am i mistaken

What this discussion has shown 4 pages in is that this is more grey an area than it appears.

Yes, it makes sense in certain cases to time out edits and yet again at times the opposite is appropriate as well.

 

[stalker]

^^can i bother you with telling me what my posts on the previous page/s are trying to say?

 

[stalker]

double ...

 

[BIKeINSTEIN]

A wise man once said-

"Look before you Leap; Think before you Speak."

I guess this applies everywhere and if careful, one won't even need to edit posts.

But to err is human and an hour to fix an error is a lifetime in today's times.

Atleast one is getting a decent enough time to correct oneself.

In real life, how do you take back the words you just blurted out- you might forget it but others don't.

And with F00lio, the spammer- no chance.
"You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in the court of F00lio"- old circus saying. :lol:

And one irresponsible action or error can make the difference between life and death, other issues seem trivial in font of that.

1 hour is enough imho.

 

[sydras]

A wise man once said-

In real life, how do you take back the words you just blurted out- you might forget it but others don't.

It goes like this. "What I meant to say was" or "I'm sorry but this is what I wanted to say". One always has the chance to correct oneself. If one did not do so, we would never learn.

If we did not have to edit or correct our mistakes, there would be no need of erasers or the backspace button.

Before writing a novel, writers go through multiple draft copies on the subject.

Edison did not invent the light bulb in one go. He corrected the process until he found a solution.

The ultimate result of unlimited edits in a technical forum would be clearer and more accurate information be it a simple spelling correction, a rate change or a factual correction.

1 hour is an arbitrarily decided number and I just cannot buy the argument that it should be enough for all as there are people who have indicated otherwise.

 

[zhopudey]

It goes like this. "What I meant to say was" or "I'm sorry but this is what I wanted to say".

That's what I'm saying you should do here in the forums as well In a new post,of course.

1 hour is an arbitrarily decided number and I just cannot buy the argument that it should be enough for all as there are people who have indicated otherwise.

Lets start from the begining hyeah: What I think is - the edit function is mostly needed to correct spelling errors. At least thats what I use it for 99% of the time. Usually, I notice the error right after hitting the post button If not, then I catch the error while re-reading my post. ( I am egoistic that way I want maximum number of people to read whatever I've posted, and hence keep opening the threads even when there are no new replies :rofl.

Regarding any technical/factual errors, and readers getting misled by the same: Perhaps a mod can start a poll asking how many people open a multi page thread, but rush off to the market after just reading the 1st post? What I'm trying to say is, even in case of any factual error, no unsuspecting newbie is at real risk, because -
a) It is highly likely that some other member would notice the error and post about it
b) You can make a new post about it yourselves, and any person seeking advice is most likely to read the last posts in the thread rather than earlier ones.
c) If no-one else has corrected your mistake, you can always ask a mod to make the necessary corrections

So, as the wise confucius had said - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 1hr limit works just fine :hap2:

 

[sydras]

That's what I'm saying you should do here in the forums as well In a new post,of course.

It may satisfy you to make corrections in a new post but it does not mean that all are content with this approach. It depends on the subject being discussed. I don't disagree with this approach. However, I've seen on occasions that it makes so much sense to edit the same post rather than create a new post with the correction.(take spelling mistakes for example.)

Lets start from the begining hyeah: What I think is - the edit function is mostly needed to correct spelling errors. At least thats what I use it for 99% of the time. Usually, I notice the error right after hitting the post button If not, then I catch the error while re-reading my post. ( I am egoistic that way I want maximum number of people to read whatever I've posted, and hence keep opening the threads even when there are no new replies :rofl.

Well, what I can say here is that just as you are egoistic(I did not say it, you did ) or rather care about errors in spelling, I am particular about facts, numbers and also spelling. But I don't catch all the errors in one go or in one hour. Call me too lazy to read my post or just plain careless, but even I would like to make a correction when I have the time and I notice an error.

Regarding any technical/factual errors, and readers getting misled by the same: Perhaps a mod can start a poll asking how many people open a multi page thread, but rush off to the market after just reading the 1st post? What I'm trying to say is, even in case of any factual error, no unsuspecting newbie is at real risk, because -

a) It is highly likely that some other member would notice the error and post about it

b) You can make a new post about it yourselves, and any person seeking advice is most likely to read the last posts in the thread rather than earlier ones.

c) If no-one else has corrected your mistake, you can always ask a mod to make the necessary corrections

To an extent in market cases, I agree with your approach. It makes sense to highlight an error.

But take a situation in other threads where a post originator suggests a wrong low price on an item but is too lazy to post a retraction/correction afterwards as he feels that the thread has diverted or maybe he does not want to look bad. In such a case,a newbie goes to the store to enquire about the item only to find that the price is not right. Though he was not conned, he still had to make the trip for nothing. If this thread was not looked at by others based on the subject or nobody else bothered about it, the matter remains between the newbie and the originator and now, the newbie has lost confidence in TE.

Your situation(someone makes a correction) is possible but I feel so is mine(error might be ignored).

So, as the wise confucius had said - If it ain't broke, don't fix it. The 1hr limit works just fine :hap2:

What I'm saying is that a lot of situations are possible that demand flexibility in posting. Depriving members of the edit facility may(and I mean may) lead to situations that could've been avoided. But also, it has something to do with member freedom and just making life easier for members. Multiple forums have the edit facility enabled. I feel it's time to focus on the "tech" in TE and adopt a more democratic rather than a restrictive approach.