Deciding on an Edit Time Limit

[Jack]

Hey everyone,

We have had multiple members ask about the time limit on editing posts. Though some of you may want to remove the time limit altogether, we have decided to keep a time limit on editing for many reasons. The length of that limit is what we need to decide now, so please vote!

Edit 5/2/18:
The poll has run for over a week and the results are as follows...

After averaging out all of the votes based on minutes (and using 121minutes for 'more than 2 hours'), the amount of time requested is about 80 minutes. Since I understand that 121minutes is merely a place holder for unlimited or unnecessarily long edit limits, I believe inflating the 80 minutes to 120 minutes is more than fair.

Edit 2: New Poll

I will make a new poll for two final choices- 1 hour or 2 hours- in the thread above.

 

[rgmichel]

I prefer a 24hr option. I do not sit watching these discussion groups for any of these times in the poll. I am more likely to come back 24 hrs later to discover I need an edit for whatever reason.

 

[Triangles]

As an administrator of another forum myself I think putting a time limit on edits is silly. I chose more than two hours because I often notice a mis-spelling or grammar error in my OP when reading a response a day or week later. And then I simply correct that so the grammar nazi's who read my post don't come after me. I certainly don't want to pester a mod to correct my grammer/spelling and if I were a mod here I wouldn't want to be bothered. If you're going to put a time limit to edit a post it might as well be 5 minutes because no one is going to re-read and notice errors in their post more than a few minutes after they post it. They won't notice until a day or more later, the next time they log in.

 

[rgmichel]

I agree with "Triangles". There are lots of reasons to do edits in the 24 hr to a week or two time frame. To cast things in stone is to annoy contributors and to make them less likely to contribute.

 

[Feed The Trees]

endless, no limit. don't you have a history for admins that need to see something inflammatory that was later changed?

 

[Jack]

don't you have a history for admins that need to see something inflammatory that was later changed?

That's not the point, not even close, and no we do not. We would actually encourage users to change their inflammatory posts...

To cast things in stone is to annoy contributors and to make them less likely to contribute.

Please provide evidence of a contributor that is so worried about editing their contribution in the future that they forget to proofread it within a few hours of posting it. Nothing is cast in stone, it's not that black and white. It's more like reheating food, you simply have to take an additional step to get it to where you want.

We appreciate the input, however the point of the poll is to make a decision based on the interests of the community, not specific use-case scenarios of individual users. Therefore, the time limit should not be looked at from the perspective of "This is how I use this feature" but rather "This feature allows this to happen". The time limit is not for you, it is for everyone else. If you'd like to voice your opinions further, please do so in the thread linked above, that way you better understand all of the discussion that has already transpired.

 

[rgmichel]

QED

 

[terminaltrip421]

if it isn't limitless then I think it's inconsequential. if I'm editing for a lack of thorough proof-reading reasons then I'd be doing it immediately after posting in my 2nd + re-read. any other reason would be to add information and that sort of thing wouldn't have an expiration date.

 

[NeilBlanchard]

We can always edit our posts, after the fact. The issue for me is typing a long response, and then losing it all if I don't get it done in time.

As long as we know what it is (or if we could get a notice a bit before it happens?), then we can post what we have, and then edit / continue until we are done.

 

[rgmichel]

This discussion has diminished my interest in this site. What is the incentive for participating in a site, if we have administrators that want to control things the way they see fit? Even to the extent of rigging their questionnaires to preclude answers that don't fit their view of of the way a site should work. We put things on here that are publicly available, to the benefit of those running the site, and are expected to obey steadily increasing numbers of rules, to what end?

 

[WadeTyhon]

Personally, I think being able to edit is good within reason. But not indefinitely. I think a few hours... (maybe 12 hours max) is more than enough time to correct a mistake or spelling errors.

If there is more context that needs to be given that you think of a day or two later, just add a new post. People following the thread will then know that new content has been added.

 

[Feed The Trees]

I dunno, being able to go back and add text to something like the first post can be very useful as new information comes up or you want to add to it. I don't see any harm in perma edit.

 

[Jack]

I dunno, being able to go back and add text to something like the first post can be very useful as new information comes up or you want to add to it. I don't see any harm in perma edit.

This not an issue of what can or cannot be useful. If something can be used, then there are ways in which it is useful. Also, your inability to see harm does not remove the truth of the matter. "Perma edit" harms the integrity of the forum. There is no harm in having an edit limit, beyond that of bruised egos. If your intention for editing is to help others, then asking a moderator to edit the post is more than worth it. If you are worried about typos or other perceived personal effects, then take your time when posting. Otherwise, live in constant fear that other users may think very poorly of you!!!!!

 

[Feed The Trees]

This not an issue of what can or cannot be useful. If something can be used, then there are ways in which it is useful. Also, your inability to see harm does not remove the truth of the matter. "Perma edit" harms the integrity of the forum. There is no harm in having an edit limit, beyond that of bruised egos. If your intention for editing is to help others, then asking a moderator to edit the post is more than worth it. If you are worried about typos or other perceived personal effects, then take your time when posting. Otherwise, live in constant fear that other users may think very poorly of you!!!!!

Your insistence on harm does not provide truth to the matter, neither do links in which you profess such harm as truth. I dont at all agree that it harms the integrity of the forum, but it's your totalitarian world to run, we're just here to bump your advertising sales. So, something to consider in attracting users. Perhaps. Maybe? No? ok.

Are there actually people here who care about personal attacks? Why would there be any users who pay any mind to what others on an anonymous forum think of them or their ideas? That isn't the point of edit at all.

 

[Pushmi-Pullyu]

...no one is going to re-read and notice errors in their post more than a few minutes after they post it.

I do that. Frequently. And I know from some comments (perhaps some private messages, I don't recall) that I'm not the only one.

In fact, the original time limit for editing here was ~15 minutes, and I asked Domenick to increase that because I was so frequently noticing errors in posts I had made just a short time before, and was unable to edit them. I'm glad that Domenick was able to get that extended; I think the limit currently is ~30 minutes.

If the administrators think it's appropriate to extend the time limit, then I would support extending that to an hour or so, but beyond that I think it would create more problems than it would solve. Perhaps, gentle reader, you would never go back days or weeks later and edit a post to remove an embarrassing error, or remove an angry rant after you cooled down and thought better of it, but others do that. I've seen that happen on other forums which allowed unlimited editing.

When someone quotes the original post in a response, but the original post has been edited so that it reads differently, that makes it very confusing to read a thread. It also leads to arguments over who originally said what, and accusations of dishonesty in what's edited or what's quoted. Don't try to tell me that doesn't ever happen, because I've seen it happen.

If Jack and Domenick and/or any other administrators here think a time limit is appropriate, then I certainly hope they will stick to their guns and keep that. There is a good reason for a time limit to editing, even if some individuals here think there's not.
-

 

[Feed The Trees]

I do that. Frequently. And I know from some comments (perhaps some private messages, I don't recall) that I'm not the only one.

In fact, the original time limit for editing here was ~15 minutes, and I asked Domenick to increase that because I was so frequently noticing errors in posts I had made just a short time before, and was unable to edit them.
-

You simply need to try harder .

 

[Jack]

Your insistence on harm does not provide truth to the matter

My "insistence" comes from truth, otherwise there would be nothing to insist. The initial truth comes from 20+ years of insight across multiple forums. The most recent truth lies within the posts of this thread and those related. Just because you cannot see the truth, does not make it false. You are free to disagree, but the truth remains. And I know you cannot honestly believe that we are all that concerned with advertising sales- surely you understand that this forum has far fewer ads than most. But while we are at it, go ahead and ask Tesla Motors Club if their edit limit prevented them from attracting users...

Also, you keep misusing the term Totalitarian. You have no rights to this community, and this community owes nothing to you. You agree to the terms and rules of the community by your own choice and are free to leave whenever you want. By your definition, we shouldn't even require people to register!!! The fact of the matter is that you are projecting your own totalitarianism, trying to take control of that which is not yours, forcing all who disagree to submit to your opinion. We appreciate your personal thoughts, but a decision has been made by a group of people in the interest of the community. Luckily, you are not forced to accept it- you are free to leave.

 

[Jack]

UPDATE
I edited the original post, but I understand that not everyone will go back up and read it. Please vote again above on the final poll.

in order to remain as transparent as possible, I will reset the poll to two final choices- 1 hour or 2 hours.

 

[Feed The Trees]

Nobody is trying to take control of something which is not theirs. That you think that is happening is paranoia. Believe me, nobody is trying to overthrow your EV forum kingdom.

You are quite, how do I say this nicely... quite abrasive and confrontational for the admin of an EV forum. It's an odd juxtaposition.

 

[Jack]

Nobody is trying to take control of something which is not theirs.

It's one thing to be ignorant of others, but to be ignorant of yourself is quite unfortunate. You are taking a totalitarian approach while falsely accusing the community of totalitarianism. You are projecting your personal paranoia and fear onto others without any basis. And you misused paranoia, too. I do not fear persecution, nor do I believe you could do anything to actually harm me or the community. You are the one introducing extremely wild and incorrect analogies, not me.

quite abrasive and confrontational for the admin of an EV forum.

I wasn't aware that and admin of an EV forum was supposed to behave in a certain way. Whatever stereotype/concept/expectation you have of me and those pertaining to EV forums is not only unfounded but it is consequently flawed and will only lead you to further disappointment.