# 10 minute edit window?

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103>\
**Category:** About This Message Board\
**Created:** [October 8, 2012, 5:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103 "2012-10-08T17:19:27Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 4\
**Page:** 5

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/a9a28c/32.png) [@pseudotriton\_ruber\_ruber](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/pseudotriton_ruber_ruber)\
**Post date:** [October 10, 2012, 11:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103/81 "2012-10-10T23:58:58Z")

</div>

> [@Measure\_for\_Measure](#):
>
> I won’t. Their concerns seemed pretty reasonable and non-hyperbolic.

This seems reasonable?

> [@](#):
>
> Even within one minute, we’d have people posting something and then retracting it… after two or three responses.

SO now that we have FIVE minutes, are we seeing much of the behavior that **Dex** so confidently predicted? We are not. This seems over-the-top hyperbole to me.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103/82 "2012-10-11T07:58:30Z")

</div>

I don’t know if **our** version of vBulletin has it, but I know some versions allow functions to check if any user has viewed the thread since the last post. So you could make the edit window infinite as long as nobody other than the poster of the message has viewed the thread since then, then once it has been viewed, kick in the 5-minute window.

Something Awful does this, they use a modified version of vBulletin, and they have unlimited editing, but if nobody has viewed the thread it doesn’t add that little vBulletin splat to the bottom telling everybody you edited. So I know it’s possible with vBulletin, but I don’t know how much effort it would take to implement.

ETA: We can probably do it with our version, we have 3.7.3, SA is only running a (again, modified) version of 2.2.9. Again, no idea how much effort it would require though.

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![TriPolar](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tripolar/32/3008_2.png) [@TriPolar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TriPolar)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 8:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103/83 "2012-10-11T08:05:22Z")

</div>

> [@John\_Mace](#):
>
> … well, learn from that and think before you post.

Man! That’s really going to cramp my style. ☹

---

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![Cheshire\_Human](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/5f8ce5/32.png) [@Cheshire\_Human](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cheshire_Human)\
**Post date:** [October 11, 2012, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103/84 "2012-10-11T15:44:54Z")

</div>

> [@Czarcasm](#):
>
> Is the standard now to go for it unless it’s going to be a _complete_ disaster?

Reminds me of an argument I heard between an inspector and a contractor when I worked in construction:

C: It’s good enough!  
I: Yeah, if your standard for ‘good enough’ is ‘it doesn’t immediately fail catastrophically’…

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/10-minute-edit-window/637103.md?page=4)