Why can't we edit OUR posts?

[Jinx]

Some boards do allow this, and can indicate when the post was edited. So, why not allow a member in good standing with SD edit his/her post?

[twickster]

Mods -- amongst the 63 kajillion stickies at the top of this forum, could you add one entitled "why the SDMB doesn't allow editing"?

Jinx -- short answer, to keep people honest. If editing were allowed, someone could say something in a post, have people respond to it, and then go back and change the post, in order to claim "that's not what I said."

If you want another look at the real version of the post before you commit, use the "preview" button.

[What Exit?]

Mods -- amongst the 63 kajillion stickies at the top of this forum, could you add one entitled "why the SDMB doesn't allow editing"?

Jinx -- short answer, to keep people honest. If editing were allowed, someone could say something in a post, have people respond to it, and then go back and change the post, in order to claim "that's not what I said."

If you want another look at the real version of the post before you commit, use the "preview" button.
On the other hand, many of us have begged for a 5 or 10 minute grace period, where we could edit out posts.
Hit Preview, board locks up. Come back five minutes later and hit submit and then discover the horrible mistakes made in typing. I do not expect we will ever get the editing ability, but it would be wonderful.

Jim

[TubaDiva]

With the disputational nature of this community abuse is most likely. Might as well ask why you can't post graphics; we used to allow that as well. Used to allow html. All lost due to abuse -- by minority, to be sure, but abuse nonetheless.

We have our hands full handling what comes in the course of everyday posting, we're not comfortable with the idea of opening the door to tons more work cleaning up behind the fistfights all these things would bring. Sorry.

[wolf_meister]

This is one SDMB policy with which I'm in complete agreement.
For one thing, the board is slow enough as it is. I can't possibly imagine the board speeding up because of a new post-editing feature.

Another reason is that the "permanence" of a posting forces you to express yourself precisely and clearly. I think postings would become poorly-worded, knowing that you could just go back and edit them.

One bad thing about "permanent postings" is that those nasty tpyos stay out on the 'Net for eternity. :D

[Chronos]

On the other hand, many of us have begged for a 5 or 10 minute grace period, where we could edit out posts.With the level of activity this board gets, no grace period would be short enough. I've even seen it happen that one of my posts got replied to before I even returned to the thread upon making it. We would need a negative grace period to deal with that.

[C K Dexter Haven]

We would need a negative grace period to deal with that.And, actually, Chronos, we have just that. The grace period varies, but is generally several minutes before you hit the SUBMIT button.

[hawksgirl]

Another reason is that the "permanence" of a posting forces you to express yourself precisely and clearly. I think postings would become poorly-worded, knowing that you could just go back and edit them.
Sidenote: I remember reading that this was pretty much the exact argument of educators when they started making pencils with erasers attached. They thought it would make students lazy.
I just wanted to share.

Now: carry on.

[samclem]

Sidenote: I remember reading that this was pretty much the exact argument of educators when they started making pencils with erasers attached. They thought it would make students lazy.


One assumes that there were erasers of some form before they were attached to the pencils. Were they against those also? I may be making a bad assumption.

[hawksgirl]

They had them seperately, but thought that putting them together was just a little too easy. No, I don't have a cite and I guess I ought to know better than posting cite-less by now.

[hawksgirl]

You know what? I can't actually find a cite now that I've looked, so I take it back.

Please ignore my hi-jack and continue with the OP.

[Sailboat]

It's not totally analagous, but some sources I've read, and Wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute), have said governments at first hesitated to issue parahutes to fighter pilots in World War I for fear it would encourage cowardice or desertion.

Sailboat

[Martini Enfield]

It's not totally analagous, but some sources I've read, and Wikipedia here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parachute), have said governments at first hesitated to issue parahutes to fighter pilots in World War I for fear it would encourage cowardice or desertion.


The RFC (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Flying_Corps) (forerunner of the RAF refused to issue parachutes to aircraft pilots during WWI because, well, aeroplanes were expensive and there was indeed a concern that pilots may very well bail out instead of fighting the enemy.

As odd as this sounds now, there was a reason for this concern, and it sort of makes sense when you take it in context.

Both sides during WWI made extensive use of observation ballons, which, being massive and full of hydrogen, tended to catch fire when hit with incendiary bullets.
Therefore, the balloon crews WERE issued with Parachutes (and had been since well before the War), and were under instructions to bail out as soon as an enemy plane was sighted- observation balloons were cheap, after all. The balloon was then winched down by the ground crew, and if the enemy fighter destroyed it before they could get it down the ground, that was just how it went.

Of course, if the pilots of the RFC's aircraft took this attitude (went the conventional wisdom at the time), then they'd have pilots bailing out left, right, and centre rather than engaging the enemy, and that just wouldn't do, so let's not give them a parachute, just as a little extra incentive to, shall we say, give a good account of themselves.

What this actually led to (as we now know) was the loss of thousands of pilots (who would have survived if they could have bailed out), and as a result one of the vital pre-flight checks for any pilot during WWI was to ensure their service pistol was loaded and in working order- ostensibly so they could defend themselves if forced down behind enemy lines, but in reality so they had the option of shooting themselves instead of burning to death or being trapped in their plane as it spiralled out of control towards the ground, having been shot down or suffered a catastrophic mechanical failure.

In 1918, the Luftwaffe began issuing parachutes in limited numbers- Ernst Udet (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_Udet) was saved by his parachute after being shot down in 1918, much to the surprise of the French pilot who shot him down and saw him jumping from his plane.

Anyway, where was I? Oh, yes, that's right, I came in here to say I think that allowing a 1 minute grace period to edit a post would be a most welcome addition, but I can also see why it's not enabled from a hardware capability point of view.

[Kat]

They had them seperately, but thought that putting them together was just a little too easy.

It's only easy until you wear out that tiny little eraser. Then you have to go find one of the un-attached ones.

[Arnold Winkelried]

Mods -- amongst the 63 kajillion stickies at the top of this forum, could you add one entitled "why the SDMB doesn't allow editing"?It's already in a sticky:
FAQ - technical issues - please read this BEFORE posting a question (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=103503)

I suppose it could be made into a separate sticky all by itself, but then, you may have noticed that we have people complaining that there are Too many stickies (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=383765).

[twickster]

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." (Oscar Wilde)

[aldiboronti]

Yes, the lack of an edit function can be troublesome.

It means that I have to think carefully before submitting a post, read it over and check for typos, weigh my words well, conscious that they will be indelible once posted.

Troublesome, but not necessarily a bad thing, if one thinks about it.

[aldiboronti]

And if there had been a typo in my post above I would have been in real trouble.

Whew!

[Chez Guevara]

"Consistency is the last refuge of the unimaginative." (Oscar Wilde)
There is nothing in the world so unbecoming to a woman as a Nonconformist conscience. (Oscar Wilde).

[Biggirl]

We would need a negative grace period to deal with that.

Well Chronos, you're just the guy to start working on that.

[Absolute]

What I think would be nice would be the ability to only append text to your posts, without being able to edit what was already posted.

This would allow you to clarify your position, correct your typos, add another paragraph, or whatever, without leaving the system vulnerable to abuse.

[Kat]

You can already do that using the "Reply" function.

[Kat]

Now, by hitting "Reply" I can append this text here, to my previous post. :D

*waits a minute to allow for Flood Control* La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la *presses Submit*

[Jinx]

I suppose I can appreciate the reasons against editing. But, I really like the grace period suggestion. Still, I suppose we'll simply have to live with typing under the speed limit, drink lots more coffee, and preview, preview, preview...

Would you consider adding a Spell Checker?

...sigh :(
- Jinx

[TubaDiva]

There is not one built in to the current install of vBulletin. We do not wander far from the vanilla version of vB, it's not prudent management, every step from the pure program potentially destabilizes the system. Also all "hacks" get wiped out in any upgrade and then you have it all to all over again.

You might look at this program: http://www.iespell.com/. This allows you to spell check through IE.

[DrDeth]

Jinx -- short answer, to keep people honest. If editing were allowed, someone could say something in a post, have people respond to it, and then go back and change the post, in order to claim "that's not what I said.".

So what? I mean that really. If you do edit your post (at least on the boards I have been that allow editing- which is just about every other board) it shows you edited at such & such a time, and often your reason for editing.

Then again, if it is really really important to you to have the exact wording of a post you are replying to, you can always QUOTE that part of the above post in your post, just like I did here.

Next- ofttimes someone types something that when read in one way is not all all what he meant to say. After being called on it, the OP will says "Well, that's not what I meant at all, you misread it. What I meant to say was this "Xxxxxxxxx"". However, some 12yo's here on this board will just plain not let it go, they will constantly harp back to the OP's original words, over and over and over. :rolleyes: Perhaps, some letting go is best.

Finally, editing is seen by the Staff here as "the end of civilization as we know it". I can tell you that on boards that do allow editing- it is 99% to correct typos and for clarification. The other 1% of the time it is for "Well, that's not what I meant at all, you misread it. What I meant to say was this "Xxxxxxxxx"". Never have I seen it used as "That's not what I said, you're misquoting me" after really saying that but editing it out. The reason for that is obvious- there's a record of the original post and if a Poster made such a complaint and was lying, the Staff could easily show him wrong*. Thus- it just plain doesn't happen- well, I have never seen it happen in the dozen + MB I post on that allow Editing. Yeah over on one board, on rare occasion, some dude will (rarely) edit out his entire post and leave in a snit- but never have I really seen them post "you're misquoting me, that not what I said"- when that was what they said but they edited that. Sure, I know Tuba and the other vets here claim that once upon a time it was allowed and it turned out bad. Well, that was very very long ago, and "that was then, this is now". I doubt if as many as 1/10 of 1% of our current posters were around here then, and I really doubt if any of the troublemakers are still around. So, we are going to punish this current crop of paid subscribers for something that happened long before any of us were around? Oddly, other MB's are not plagued with that problem, and have been allowing editing since at least as long as the SDMB has been not allowing editing.

*Yes, I know this would be "extra work" for the Staff. But how often does a poster here use the "quote function" to maliciously (and with an intent to convince dudes it's the original words) change the OP's post? Rarely, as it's a bannable offense. Doing the "extra work" involved in telling dudes "yes, the QUOTE is the original wording, the OP is lying, he edited his post" is = to the "extra work" involved in telling posters that they have "used the quote function to maliciously (and with an intent to convince dudes it's the original words) change the OP's post." In other words- just about no extra work.

[Shalmanese]

So what? I mean that really. If you do edit your post (at least on the boards I have been that allow editing- which is just about every other board) it shows you edited at such & such a time, and often your reason for editing.

Then again, if it is really really important to you to have the exact wording of a post you are replying to, you can always QUOTE that part of the above post in your post, just like I did here.

Next- ofttimes someone types something that when read in one way is not all all what he meant to say. After being called on it, the OP will says "Well, that's not what I meant at all, you misread it. What I meant to say was this "Xxxxxxxxx"". However, some 12yo's here on this board will just plain not let it go, they will constantly harp back to the OP's original words, over and over and over. :rolleyes: Perhaps, some letting go is best.

Finally, editing is seen by the Staff here as "the end of civilization as we know it". I can tell you that on boards that do allow editing- it is 99% to correct typos and for clarification. The other 1% of the time it is for "Well, that's not what I meant at all, you misread it. What I meant to say was this "Xxxxxxxxx"". Never have I seen it used as "That's not what I said, you're misquoting me" after really saying that but editing it out. The reason for that is obvious- there's a record of the original post and if a Poster made such a complaint and was lying, the Staff could easily show him wrong*. Thus- it just plain doesn't happen- well, I have never seen it happen in the dozen + MB I post on that allow Editing. Yeah over on one board, on rare occasion, some dude will (rarely) edit out his entire post and leave in a snit- but never have I really seen them post "you're misquoting me, that not what I said"- when that was what they said but they edited that. Sure, I know Tuba and the other vets here claim that once upon a time it was allowed and it turned out bad. Well, that was very very long ago, and "that was then, this is now". I doubt if as many as 1/10 of 1% of our current posters were around here then, and I really doubt if any of the troublemakers are still around. So, we are going to punish this current crop of paid subscribers for something that happened long before any of us were around? Oddly, other MB's are not plagued with that problem, and have been allowing editing since at least as long as the SDMB has been not allowing editing.

*Yes, I know this would be "extra work" for the Staff. But how often does a poster here use the "quote function" to maliciously (and with an intent to convince dudes it's the original words) change the OP's post? Rarely, as it's a bannable offense. Doing the "extra work" involved in telling dudes "yes, the QUOTE is the original wording, the OP is lying, he edited his post" is = to the "extra work" involved in telling posters that they have "used the quote function to maliciously (and with an intent to convince dudes it's the original words) change the OP's post." In other words- just about no extra work.

Trust me, I've tried this line of reasoning half a dozen times. It's not going to work.

[Cartooniverse]

It's only easy until you wear out that tiny little eraser. Then you have to go find one of the un-attached ones.

You know, if I'd read this in the second grade, I would have avoided dozens and dozens of little channels that I dug through my school papers with the circular metal tube that held the now-dead and worn away eraser.

Are unattached erasers more fun at picnics ? ;)

Oh yes, the O.P. I really do try to Preview and catch typos. As for content rather than form, I freely admit that I run both ways. I either carefully craft each sentence to become a glimmering alabaster sculpture of literate expression, or I come unglued and write a blue streak which isn't altered at all during Preview.

Now, what would be really great but I cannot imagine how it could work, would be a downloadable Preview bit of software. In this fashion, we could do our Previewing and code-checking offline, so to speak, instead of churning the Board's servers every time we Preview. Once we had run the Preview on our respective computers to insure accurately constructed cite links, colors, font size and quote coding, we would either cut and paste it up into a Reply window, or use some kind of linking method to link that Preview into a Reply. Me, I'd be glad to cut and paste in if it meand the servers would not be running so hot.

While it is true that Preview is our friend, if there are 5,000 posts in a day, then there might well be 10,000 Post Constructs ( shall we say ) in a day composed by the vBulletin software using the SDMB servers to show us a Preview, then allow us to post up.

How very wonderful it would be- and what a strain it would take off of our servers- if we could compose posts using a downloadable vBulletin template.

Does this exist? COULD it exist? Imagine the lowered strain on the system.

Cartooniverse

[TubaDiva]

Some people compose their posts in an outside word processor.

This allows them to spell check and preview as they like . . . and then they paste the post into vB . . . and if the hamsters eat it, they still got it.

That might work for you.

[What Exit?]

Some people compose their posts in an outside word processor.

This allows them to spell check and preview as they like . . . and then they paste the post into vB . . . and if the hamsters eat it, they still got it.

That might work for you.
I do that for some of my posts and it works great, but I think he is looking for a code checker. Some thread mentioned there is a tool out there like that.

BTW: I can also vouch for IESPELL, it works greats and is bug free. Only for IE users however.

Jim

[AHunter3]

My girlfriend is active on a handful of sites that do not have the no-editing policy, and after seeing the shenanigans in those places, I'm glad for our policy.

• Newbie posts a question. Maven Wannabe jumps right in with lots of certainty and the wrong answer. Regular 1 does a correction and tells Newbie not to follow Maven Wannabe's instructions. Maven Wannabe disputes this at great length. Regular 2 backs up Regular 1 and provides extensive cites. Maven Wannabe edits posts, turning declarations of certainty into musings, omitting vehement disagreements, etc, then[ /i] posts a "why are the regs picking on me?" at the bottom of the thread. Four subsequent posts by other people who never saw the original versions appear in support of Maven Wannabe, asking "WFT, Regulars 1 and 2?" Accusations of post-editing are flung. Then more posts are edited.

• Temper Flammable has a major meltdown in a debate thread, hurling really abusive invective at other thread-participants. After a mixture of taunting replies and hurt replies, comes back and puts up an apology post. "Sorry I was having a bad day, forgive me for going off on you, you actually have some good points although I dispute your conclusions". Other thread-participants post things like "We all get hot-headed sometimes, you have some good points too". Then Temper Flammable goes back and edits the apology post, turning it into a smug "Your awareness of my correctness is obviously causing you to perceive me as angry. I'm not angry, I'm just emphatic and I'm emphatic because I'm right. Sorry if your close-mindedness makes that provocative for you." Now the subsequent acceptances of the apology look like acknowledgements that Temper was right.

• "Opal gets high" is changed to "Hi Opal"

Sure, most of the corrections were for typso or busted links (http://http://nowhere.com) or [i]fractured coding[/b] but the nasty-tricks editing happened [i]a lot. To the point that in any heavily argumentative thread it was unusual for it not to happen. And it still happens on boards that have a limited timeframe for editing posts (the hot-argument threads tend to fly fast and furious); and in at least some board software (not sure about vB) the time restriction is on how long you can still open an edit-post window, not how long you have before you click the "Submit" button after editing. So the trolls post, immediately reopen their post for editing and leave the window sitting there while they open the thread again in another window and see how people reply. Y'all want that here?

[Inner Stickler]

I do that for some of my posts and it works great, but I think he is looking for a code checker. Some thread mentioned there is a tool out there like that.
Jim

I remember that. I think it was written by another Doper. (Mangetout, maybe?) It was called something like Buddy. My search-fu is weak and I can't find anything useful. I'd like to find it again.

[gotpasswords]

I'm all for non-repudiation. You hit Submit or Post Quick Reply, and your words are forever engraved.

I'm on some other message boards that do allow editing after a message is posted. (post-post editing?) and when there's a message posted at 8 AM, and a note at the bottom saying "edited by so-and-so at 11 AM" you really get to wondering what happened in the intervening three hours, and what they'd written originally.

It just gets my "spider senses" tingling and makes me think they're up to no good of some sort or another.

I would much rather have them be forced to make a new posting three hours later and say "I'm sorry - I misquoted Bob earlier" or "I was tired/drunk/having sex when I wrote that this morning, and have since realized I was incorrect."

[Cartooniverse]

Yes. I am looking for a code checker. Though TubaDiva's idea of simply typing out in MS Word or somesuch is a great one- I never do that. I always have composed in Reply.

If I had a code checker, I'd compose in Word, paste it into the checker, know it was good to go- and then post without Previewing, since I'd already previewed. I suspect, though we'd have to ask our IT Guru whose name just flew right the hell outa my head, if it really would ease up on traffic to have folks ( if they chose to ) Preview off-Boards using some kind of code checker, and a word processor.

Me, I'd take the extra say, 90 seconds. If we all took that extra 90 seconds, why we could really change things around here. Yeah . Yeah ! That's it ! Why, we'll have this down-in-the-dumps town turned around in no time. We'll have a TGI Friday's and a Dunkin' Donuts, a United Colors of Bennetton and an Internet Cafe !! All we have to do is put on a show. We can use Gramma's barn, and I think we have some old costumes up in her attic !!!

:p

[What Exit?]

Yes. I am looking for a code checker. Though TubaDiva's idea of simply typing out in MS Word or somesuch is a great one- I never do that. I always have composed in Reply.

If I had a code checker, I'd compose in Word, paste it into the checker, know it was good to go- and then post without Previewing, since I'd already previewed. I suspect, though we'd have to ask our IT Guru whose name just flew right the hell outa my head, if it really would ease up on traffic to have folks ( if they chose to ) Preview off-Boards using some kind of code checker, and a word processor.

Me, I'd take the extra say, 90 seconds. If we all took that extra 90 seconds, why we could really change things around here. Yeah . Yeah ! That's it ! Why, we'll have this down-in-the-dumps town turned around in no time. We'll have a TGI Friday's and a Dunkin' Donuts, a United Colors of Bennetton and an Internet Cafe !! All we have to do is put on a show. We can use Gramma's barn, and I think we have some old costumes up in her attic !!!

:p
Jerry is the Dopes SysAdmin IRC.
But as an IT guy, I can tell you that less preview would reduce the load on the servers. I just cannot tell you how much. From what I can see, a preview takes as almost as much processing power as submitting does.

Jim

[Cartooniverse]

Maybe I should write to Jerry.

What's his Member Name?

( Watch. It'll be "Jerry" )

[Inner Stickler]

jdavis, I believe.

[Fear Itself]

If I had a code checker, I'd compose in Word, paste it into the checker, know it was good to go- and then post without Previewing, since I'd already previewed. Wait; explain to me the difference between Preview and a Code Checker, besides the fact that one we already have, and one we don't.

[What Exit?]

Wait; explain to me the difference between Preview and a Code Checker, besides the fact that one we already have, and one we don't.
Preview relies on the Dopes Servers to process the Coding.
An offline checker puts the burden on your PC and therefore does not the Dopes server and possibly more importantly, will not be eaten if the Dope times out.

Jim

[What Exit?]

Preview relies on the Dope's Servers to process the Coding.
An offline checker puts the burden on your PC and therefore does not burden the Dope's server and possibly more importantly, will not be eaten if the Dope times out.

Jim {Damn, I need that 5 minute grace period :( }