Obviously the point is not that I expect it to be different. The point is that the software permits it and since Food Talk Central has a more desirable setting for me, I’m going to choose to post there instead.
Cheers
Okay – but it doesn’t make HO a bad site, and it doesn’t make the listowners/moderators bad people.
That’s why choices exist.
6 Likes
Of course not. It doesn’t make it a bad site or even worse for that matter.
It is actual nice that a site holds its contributors to a certain level of accountability and expectation. I actually like it. Yes, choices are nice. For now, HungryOnion has more of a setting and atmosphere I prefer.
4 Likes
Have fun.
2 Likes
exactly – but there has been some suggestion that it is…rather than just different. At the moment, I post on both – my “unread” tab varies between the two as to which has the most activity.
I will keep this quick on this topic of “limited time for post editing”.
I cannot speak for Sampson Shen’s intentions because I really don’t know how he came to his decision. However, I have my interpretation of the “limited time edition”, and I hope to share my viewpoint.
Remember the Survey post I did early?
What would that post have been if none of you spent the time to contribute? It would have been useless. Conversely, what would it have been if I now deleted all of my entries there? This would weaken the thread and also made some of your posts out of place. Each of our posts is part of something larger than itself. Our responsibility is also larger than just “me”. By having a sensible time window for editing, I think it will help us to keep our conversation true and build a stronger community.
Yes, we own our words. No one can ever take that away. However, we also own up to our words too.
This is not about losing our right. It is more about each of us being a little bit more responsible toward each others – holding us a little bit more accountable.
Just my two cents.
5 Likes
Minimum 1 hour edit window, maximum 2 hour edit window.
Had no idea that we could see “edit history” here. I occasionally check the edit history on Facebook, but probably wouldn’t do it here, so I’m good with disabling the edit history.
1 Like
Agree. Disable the ability to view edit history at the very least. Leave it for the staff to view, if necessary (an available setting). I’d suggest there’s nothing wrong with indefinite edits either.
I personally like the 1 hour (minimum) to 2 hour (maximum) editing window. I can understand that some people may want it a little longer (a few hours) because they are running around a lot. Regarding “Edit history”, I don’t mind it either way.
I think Sampson can keep a 1-2 hour editing window (without showing history) and then further allow people to edit up to a few hours (but twith edited history recorded). I am not actually promoting this specific scheme, but rather pointing out a possibility.
Remember on Chowhound? Me and other people often quote people when I responded, like:
“Minimum 1 hour edit window, maximum 2 hour edit window.”
I personally like the 1 hour (minimum) to 2 hour (maximum) editing window. I can understand that some people may want it a little longer (a few hours) because they are running away
“Had no idea that we could see “edit history” here.”
Me neither
“I’m good with disabling the edit history.”
I don’t mind either way
There are two reasons for that. First, it help to reference back to a specific passage from a long post. Yours isn’t long of course. Second, it is to hold the person responsible for what was written.
To all, so the truth is that your statements will be recorded by this interface software and/or by some people who responded to you (like me). So would I think the argument on idea that “I can edit and delete my words whenever I likd” can come to a problem. Would you say that you own those words on other people’s posts and therefore you can also edit/delete those words? The advantage of a short editing time or keeping some editing history is that it give each poster one less reason from quoting each other all the time and therefore keeping the thread shorter. I noticed that I quote people a little less now over here (which I didn’t even think about it until now).
We’ll settle on 1 hour edit window after submission with edit history available to staff. I think that provides the best balance between flexibility for people to proofread and edit their posts, and holding people accountable for their posts. Further edits will have to be appended to the original post via a new reply.
Thanks all for your feedback.
9 Likes
I think 1 day was preferable, but whatever.
The best way I’ve seen this handled is on another forum I frequent, where (and this handles the problems created by refusing to properly thread conversations) when you “reply to” someone, the software puts a link - a LINK, not the actual text - in the new posting, which then displays the CURRENT CONTENTS of the post being replied to. It has a link for showing “more” if the replied-to post is more than a few lines long.
I don’t know if this software can handle something like that, but really - if someone changes a post so as to remove their original troll-ish comment - that is a small small thing IMO. I’ve had it happen to me from time to time, but honestly not that often. When I notice it, I merely edit my reply to show that. Which I of course will not be able to do on a forum that doesn’t have indefinite edits. And yes, I do prefer indefinite edits, but at least give me a day to catch my own mistakes, LOL!
sorry, i know this is an old conversation but why not allow indefinite edits and if a bad actor changes their post, a forum user contacts a moderator, the moderator restores the post and bans the bad actor.
i believe on a frequency basis, people will edit their posts for clarity, spelling and grammar far, far more often than as an artifact of bad behavior.
1 Like
IMO If users want to edit a post for clarity, spelling and grammar they can get that done within the current window if they’re serious about proofreading. If it’s an instance where real information should be updated, it’s easy enough to add a new reply to an existing post.
Edits in a year-old topic are probably not going to be meaningful to the community as a whole, and while we don’t want to think that anyone here would go back and make a conversation useless by wiping out their post or changing it drastically or dropping in spammy elements, as the site grows that’s a legit possibility.
1 Like
There were apparently no complaints for seven years…
1 Like
how about a day to edit?
I’m not in charge so whatever the site owner decides is what works for me. I do think that if a person needs to curate their own content a month or 6 months or a year or more out that they should be blogging instead of posting on a discussion board.
3 Likes
Because you don’t need a day. Either proofread before you hit reply, or review your post right after it goes up and make any corrections that you need to.
I’m a participant in a number of contentious comment threads, and long editing windows create no end of problems. If people are allowed to move the goal posts once they get replies, the whole thing devolves into a hot mess.
7 Likes
Agreed. Piling dirty deletes and flip-flopping onto our volunteer moderators is too much to ask.
I’m the worst offender for editing posts, but I’m all but convinced that my auto correct is a cantankerous little b*stard who is out to convince the world that I am under the influence and illiterate…and if I can get it sorted in the edit window, pretty much anyone can.
You can always request a delete if your post becomes inaccurate at a later date.
2 Likes
thanks, but wondering how you know what I need? I proofread before and after posting, but still find spelling and grammar mistakes, that’s just the way my mind works (or doesn’t work). And I’m not sure why you think people will “move the goal posts”.
really, you know this because? you’ve tested with our forum cohort and know how many dirtly deletes we’d be piling on the moderators?
