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.
You can already do that using the “Reply” function.
Now, by hitting “Reply” I can append this text here, to my previous post. 
waits a minute to allow for Flood Control La-la-la-la-la-la-la-la-la presses Submit
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 
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.
*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.
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
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
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 or fractured coding* but the nasty-tricks editing happened 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?
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.
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.”
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 !!!
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
Maybe I should write to Jerry.
What’s his Member Name?
( Watch. It’ll be “Jerry” )
jdavis, I believe.
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
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 }