Ship of Fools: So why is the period to edit a message so short?

Thread: So why is the period to edit a message so short? Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=023616

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

I don't get why you only have apparently 30 seconds to a minute to go back and edit a message once you've posted it. What's the point of that?

There have been several times where I make an embarrassing grammatical error or I go back and reread a post I've responded to and realize that I've misunderstood the point, but by the time I realize my error, it is impossible to change my message or to retract it.

Maybe you guys don't want to generally allow people to retract their words, but would it hurt to have a five-minute rule or something?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

First of all, it's two minutes; secondly there is the Preview post button,

Why it is only two minutes is historical.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

Is it that time of year again?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
First of all, it's two minutes; secondly there is the Preview post button,

Why it is only two minutes is historical.

Oh, well, two minutes...

At any rate, it's discriminatory to those of us with itchy posting fingers and I for one do not approve. [Two face]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

It used to be longer until somebody abused it. That's why we reduced it to 2 minutes. As PeteC said, Preview Post is always your friend!

Spike
SoF Admin

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

I want to know why the two minutes that flood protection prevents me posting in is much longer than the two minutes in which I can correct my latest post.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

It's not. It just seems that way. Way back in the dark ages, WW and I kept getting flood control messages when we were both on the Ship. We both got very adept at counting to 120 to mark the time.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

There's an edit window?

Posted by Tortuf (# 3784) on :

No no. Not to worry. There's a good boy.

Posted by lily pad (# 11456) on :

Check Oblivion for one of many old threads on this topic.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Because you should see what happens when there isn't a limit on deleting or changing posts, having just watched it happen somewhere else.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Check Oblivion for one of many old threads on this topic.

But that was 2008, and surely we live in a much more civilized time. [Cool]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Because you should see what happens when there isn't a limit on deleting or changing posts, having just watched it happen somewhere else.

Yes. I am on the same 'somewhere else' and I had to try to deduce what someone had said from the following posts on a particular thread - it was chaos.

Mind you, I do like the unlimited edit time there - it makes life a lot easier when you can add stuff and it's not usually abused.

But this is a discussion board - so if people could go back and edit willy-nilly discussion would be useless.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Is it that time of year again?

This kind of comment annoys me. I am new to a board elsewhere and don't want to ask questions in case I get this kind of [Snore]

reaction. It can be hard to find old threads - especially here!

Why don't you just scroll on by if you don't want to be helpful to newbies?

Posted by ken (# 2460) on :

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
But that was 2008, and surely we live in a much more civilized time.

oh what delightful optimism....

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!

This is very true - is there a name for this fenomenom?

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!

I'm not convinced that the boards don't have some subroutine that adds typos after I hit 'Submit'.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

I am convinced the Ship software contains malicious software which invisibly inserts typos into my text whilst I am correcting a typo. Only explanation.

ETA: And delays responses to create embarrassing x-posts.

[ 20. June 2012, 17:15: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!
This is very true - is there a name for this fenomenom?

It's a Law of Publishing. Even before Gutenberg, clerks copied manuscripts and made errors that weren't spotted by proof-readers. No two Domesday books are identical (lots of dead clerks though).

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by Drifting Star:
Is it that time of year again?
This kind of comment annoys me. I am new to a board elsewhere and don't want to ask questions in case I get this kind of reaction. It can be hard to find old threads - especially here!

Why don't you just scroll on by if you don't want to be helpful to newbies?

You want me to stop posting in a way that is quite usual on the Ship because you're afraid other people might do so on another board? [Confused]

A reply had already been posted by a host, or I would have said more. Equally, if a simple question about the reason for the limit had been posted rather than a complaint, I would have answered it simply (had nobody else done so first).

If you're so worried about responses on this other board why don't you PM an admin or host and ask them? I'm still not sure why that's my problem though.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Check Oblivion for one of many old threads on this topic.
But that was 2008, and surely we live in a much more civilized time.

There are many thousands of shipmates. It only takes one to mess things up.

Moo

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Drifting Star - I am saying that [Snore]

reactions to reasonable questions are off putting for newbies. My comment about the other board was an illustration of how it feels to be a newbie - that's all.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

I kind of suspect that any newbie who is put off by [Snore]

responses may be too delicate to travel these waters in this Ship... it might serve as a good way for folks to self-select out of the discussion boards.

Posted by Garasu (# 17152) on :

quote:
I kind of suspect that any newbie who is put off by [Snore] responses may be too delicate to travel these waters in this Ship... it might serve as a good way for folks to self-select out of the discussion boards.

Any suggestions for where the rest of us can hang out?

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Other than the Ship? Maybe this one.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Check Oblivion for one of many old threads on this topic.
But that was 2008, and surely we live in a much more civilized time.
There are many thousands of shipmates. It only takes one to mess things up.

Moo

I'm Spartacus.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!
This is very true - is there a name for this fenomenom?
It's a Law of Publishing. Even before Gutenberg, clerks copied manuscripts and made errors that weren't spotted by proof-readers. No two Domesday books are identical (lots of dead clerks though).

Blame it on Titivillus, patron demon of typos. [Devil]

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I kind of suspect that any newbie who is put off by responses may be too delicate to travel these waters in this Ship... it might serve as a good way for folks to self-select out of the discussion boards.

Big girl/boy panties ahoy!

I also think that the [Snore]

response is a pretty mild one to people who ask snarky/aggressive/whiny questions.

Posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege (# 10651) on :

Exactly. I mean, what if such a delicate flower accidentally wanders into the lower bowels of the Ship?! [Help]

Posted by Latchkey Kid (# 12444) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:

quote:
Originally posted by ken:

quote:
Originally posted by PeteC:
... there is the Preview post button,

I'm sure I'm not the only person who finds that typos are invisible until I see them in the final published form!
This is very true - is there a name for this fenomenom?

In another review environment we used to call it the Robert Burns syndrome. Viz "O wad the gift the Giftie gie us ... etc."

Posted by Amazing Grace (# 95) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Exactly. I mean, what if such a delicate flower accidentally wanders into the lower bowels of the Ship?!

"I thought this was a Christian website!" *whine* *pout* *stomp*

Posted by birdie (# 2173) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:

quote:
Originally posted by lily pad:
Check Oblivion for one of many old threads on this topic.
But that was 2008, and surely we live in a much more civilized time.
There are many thousands of shipmates. It only takes one to mess things up.

Moo
I'm Spartacus.

Yes, you are.

Posted by Robert Armin (# 182) on :

In THE GOOD OLD DAYS there was no edit time at all. Kids today, they just don't know how lucky they are.....

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

Yeah, if you look at some of the really old Limbo threads, you'll see all kinds of typo craziness.

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I kind of suspect that any newbie who is put off by responses may be too delicate to travel these waters in this Ship... it might serve as a good way for folks to self-select out of the discussion boards.

In real life, if you were addressed by a stranger asking an innocent question about your town, one you had been stopped and asked about 50 times already, would you roll your eyes and say "BORING!"?

It's the equivalent here. We were all new once, every new person has the right to ask questions you've heard before, they should also be answered politely. They can't be expected to have read every thread in Oblivion and Limbo before posting a perfectly innocent, if unoriginal question. If you don't want to answer them, don't do so, but no need to make them feel like a fool with a sarcastic response. It doesn't make any new person feel at ease, or like you any better.

In fact, anyone who openly admits to being bored with seeing the same questions come up again and again should probably consider whether they should "self-select out of the discussion boards".

Posted by LeRoc (# 3216) on :

quote:
Robert Armin: In THE GOOD OLD DAYS there was no edit time at all. Kids today, they just don't know how lucky they are.....

My internet connection here is so slow that it usually takes more than 2 minutes even to load a page, so I can forget about editing.

I make quite a lot of spelling mistakes, but if I think people can understand what I wrote, I usually don't bother.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

This is true. We were all new on deck once.

Posted by Mary LA (# 17040) on :

Some of us might be delicate wilting newbie flowers on SoF, but if we've been around any other large forum (writers, political, neo-pagan, recovery, survivors, the Definitive Recipe for Cassoulet, etc) the tendency to retrospectively self-censor or rewrite posts is maddening. I'd rather have to stand by what I wrote, no matter how embarrassing.

I once logged onto a writers forum early on Sunday morning to find that one sozzled poster had made 115 posts on why David Foster Wallace sucked. He had woken hungover and repentant at 4am and hastily erased every single one. Unfortunately another poster and fan of DFW had copied the thread and reposted all 115 calumnies.

This kind of thing can get very tiring.

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

That's why God himself proclaimed the 11th commandment as 'Never post while drunk'. Unfortunately, by then, Moses had run out of space on his tablets.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

I am a member of a board that has unlimited editing, but the times and dates of all edits are spelled out and you can be sure if you try and lie about what you said prior to editing that someone, somewhere has a copy and paste or even png file of the original post. They've had unlimited editing for several years now and it seems to work for them. I like that board and SoF for different reasons, but both are run quite well by the PTB. The 2 minute edit is irritating at times, but it's not a big deal when considering the quality of discussions here.

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Arial:

quote:
In real life, if you were addressed by a stranger asking an innocent question about your town, one you had been stopped and asked about 50 times already, would you roll your eyes and say "BORING!"?

Exactly. Besides, ignorant is not the same as stupid or even lazy. Sometimes the answer isn't as easy to find as it looks from the POV of an old hand.

I like the cheeky tone around here, but sometimes people take it as a Ship mandate. Now, that is [Snore]

. It's the mix of intelligence, straight-talk, kindness, and snarkiness that makes the Ship the Ship. Being kindly occasionally is not counter to our ethos.

As to this:

quote:
Lynn MagdalenCollege:
Exactly. I mean, what if such a delicate flower accidentally wanders into the lower bowels of the Ship?!

If they didn't read the FAQs and the board descriptions, on their heads be it. And may Marvin have mercy (coughfatchancecough) on their souls.

But I'm with Arial, no need to be snarky about a reasonable question in the Styx or on any board but Hell. Sometimes I think the Styx is turning into Hell Lite. Sometimes that's fun; sometimes not so much.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:

quote:
Originally posted by Lynn MagdalenCollege:
I kind of suspect that any newbie who is put off by responses may be too delicate to travel these waters in this Ship... it might serve as a good way for folks to self-select out of the discussion boards.
In real life, if you were addressed by a stranger asking an innocent question about your town, one you had been stopped and asked about 50 times already, would you roll your eyes and say "BORING!"?

Exactly - there is a huge difference between unrestful, argumentative, rigorous (insert whatever else you want to call the Ship) and plain rude.

I promise you I am in no way delicate, Lynn MagdalenCollege - but to be so unpleasant to someone who is new onboard isn't the culture here - is it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Ariel:
In fact, anyone who openly admits to being bored with seeing the same questions come up again and again should probably consider whether they should "self-select out of the discussion boards".

This should be on the header of every forum on the net. And branded on the foreheads of those who can not bother to understand.
Along with "It isn't all about me"

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
This is true. We were all new on deck once.

Crosspost: this was in reference to people sniffing at newbies who ask a question, and considering the attitude people can get from folk for doing so, I definitely don't see it as the act of a delicate flower. So, it's not really about protecting people's delicate feelings. To me it's more "if we really dislike accusations of cliquishness (as has been expressed in the past), is responding to people that way really gonna help our case?"

Because, Lord know people's delicate feelings get all in an uproar if people use the word "clique," right?

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lyda*Rose:

I like the cheeky tone around here, but sometimes people take it as a Ship mandate. Now, that is . It's the mix of intelligence, straight-talk, kindness, and snarkiness that makes the Ship the Ship. Being kindly occasionally is not counter to our ethos.

Also, fuck yeah, Lyda. Well said and Boo-fuckin' yah.

[ 22. June 2012, 18:53: Message edited by: Kelly Alves ]

Posted by Chorister (# 473) on :

You forgot the 'with brass knobs on'.

Posted by Mockingale (# 16599) on :

If I wanted saccharine niceness, I'd have gone to some other Christian forum with less attitude. The snarkiness keeps this site interesting.

I still think the two-minute limit is asinine, but I accept that higher powers have deemed it thus, so wtf ever. [Paranoid]

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

The snarkiness is indeed what makes the ship the ship, but it's only fair play to allow people point out rudeness if they see it. The Ship is also not about protecting people from the consequences of the statements they make.

I just hate arguments that devolve down to "Don't be so sensitive", because it just feels like a way for people to protect themselves from honest feedback. I just expect a better answer that that. But maybe that's a subject for Purg.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Mockingale:
If I wanted saccharine niceness, I'd have gone to some other Christian forum with less attitude. The snarkiness keeps this site interesting.

Surely there is a difference between saccharine niceness and politeness?

Posted by Smudgie (# 2716) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Kelly Alves:
The snarkiness is indeed what makes the ship the ship, but it's only fair play to allow people point out rudeness if they see it. The Ship is also not about protecting people from the consequences of the statements they make.

I just hate arguments that devolve down to "Don't be so sensitive", because it just feels like a way for people to protect themselves from honest feedback. I just expect a better answer that that. But maybe that's a subject for Purg.

"Don't be so sensitive" is a great "shut'em up" line. Trouble is, the implicit follow on: "Try being insensitive instead, like I am".

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Smudgie:
"Don't be so sensitive" is a great "shut'em up" line.

Yup, and I freakin' hate shut up lines. Kills discussion.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

That "don't be so sensitive" also shifts the blame from the person who has been offensive on to the offended, leaving them not responsible for their actions, but the person their actions have affected.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

I wonder if showing emotion and/or caring is seen as 'sensitive' and rather 'feminine'? So when someone says 'stop being so sensitive' - they are trying to shame you by calling on weakness - a bit of back door misogyny?

<typo - which brings us back to the OP [Biased]

>

[ 23. June 2012, 07:44: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

This tangent was my fault and getting way off topic - so I have started a discussion in Purgatory.

[Smile]

Posted by Izdaari (# 12432) on :

I'm not asking why. Having been an admin elsewhere, I know why only too well.

I'm just complaining, since I'm one of those who doesn't notice my typos, misspellings, grammatical errors and convoluted sentence structures until after they're actually posted. And even if I do notice them immediately, two minutes is hardly enough time to fix them.

Kvetch, kvetch, kvetch! [Two face]

[ 02. August 2012, 05:47: Message edited by: Izdaari ]

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

I know how hard it can be to spot them in the plaintext "Post reply" window, but I generally find preview post works wonders.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
I know how hard it can be to spot them in the plaintext "Post reply" window, but I generally find preview post works wonders.

But not always, I think you will agree.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

bunny tears, best tears

Posted by The Rogue (# 2275) on :

I generally spell and grammar correctly but I am never bothered if, despite my best efforts, a mistake slips through. A typo does not generally inhibit the discussion.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I refuse to point out that grammar isn't a verb.

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

passer, passer! [Disappointed]

This is the age of tweet and the internet.

Verbs are nouns and nouns are verbs. Adverbs barely exist. Adjectives stand alone.

Grammar and spelling are not as we knew it.

Move into the 21st century, dude!

Kicking and screaming if you must, but move.

eta: As for me and my house, I'll stay behind to man the barricades.

[ 02. August 2012, 13:32: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by JFH (# 14794) on :

*Grammaring

Posted by PeteC (# 10422) on :

Curse you, JHF [Paranoid]

[ 02. August 2012, 15:03: Message edited by: PeteC ]

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

I'm sorry, Pete. I tried to let it pass, but it was the voices, incessantly whispering in my ear, barely audible, but nagging... nagging, sounding like my old English master hissing "passer - this is a Grammar School, not a street corner. Come to my desk". They didn't do prisoners, those Christian Brothers.

That it should come to this, a time when 1337 and txtspk have evolved, and the nearest most students could get to defining conjugation would be a guess about marital rights, which they'd probably write as rites.

I envy you your refuge behind the barricades (cue Spandau Ballet). Perhaps I'll join you, and we can take the air, in a tobacco trance..

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Courtesy of the Olympics, we now have medalling. The Beeb should know better.

[ 02. August 2012, 17:34: Message edited by: QLib ]

Posted by Darllenwr (# 14520) on :

Strangely enough, this is not a new coining, as the word 'medallist' and therefore 'medalling' were used by the Royal Mint to describe a skilled workman (and his activities) in the Medal Room of the Mint. I worked there briefly in the early 1980's. As I am sure you will be aware, the Royal Mint makes all the forces and other Medals presented by the Crown in this country.

Posted by QLib (# 43) on :

Yes, but....
medalling as in making a medal is one thing; medalling as in winning medals is another.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

OK, that's enough. This thread is about editing time for posts. To continue dialoguing about grammar, please do so in Heaven

Spike
Styx Host

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

I would be vaguely interested--if anyone remembers-- in knowing how 2 minutes came to be the magic number between order and chaos. I certainly remember one shipmate who could cause plenty of trouble with the 2-minute window (he's no longer here. Imagine...).

I don't like boards that have open-ended editing, but there have been a few times I would have wished to edit after the time to do so had elapsed. In about 95% of those cases, a 4-minute window would have allowed me to do so.

Edited because I really do know how to spell "and". Please keep to yourself anything else I may have missed.

[ 03. August 2012, 20:18: Message edited by: Organ Builder ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
I would be vaguely interested--if anyone remembers-- in knowing how 2 minutes came to be the magic number between order and chaos.

It's possible it came directly out of Erin's ass.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:
Please keep to yourself anything else I may have missed.

Apart from using those hideous double hyphens where one will do (for us Brits at least), you have not used spaces round the left-hand pair, but added one to the right of the right-hand pair.

Happy to help [Angel]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Organ Builder:

I don't like boards that have open-ended editing, but there have been a few times I would have wished to edit after the time to do so had elapsed. In about 95% of those cases, a 4-minute window would have allowed me to do so.

I'd LOVE a 4 minute window. There have been times I've jumped on something I didn't see even when pre-viewing post, got the edit done and been told "too bad, you're too late".

I've only seen one board that does open ended editing well and they've done it in such a way it's almost impossible for anyone to cause trouble. Since they have custom board programming I realize it'd be impossible for anyone who uses canned programming to do it in such a way.

[ 04. August 2012, 07:46: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I've only been around for less than a year.

I would appreciate a longer window of opportunity to edit, perhaps up to ten minutes, for a different reason than typos. It is this:

I read a long and interesting post to which I have a subtle and critical response. I spend up to ten minutes composing it. It is long and carefully argued. I post it.

In the meantime, six other post have been made making different points, or indeed my points only more succinctly.

By the time I've read through them all and decided my post now needs editing, the time limit is expired and I am left looking like a prolix wanker...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

There are two solutions to that:

1) put in a quick edit to say "I see several people got in before me" leaving the rest alone.

2) keep a copy of the thread in another tab/window (or, use the copy under the window you type your reply in) and refresh it to see additional comments posted while you've typed.

Or, a third option which is to simply not worry and post anyway.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

A slightly longer edit time would be a good idea, though, and I can't see would cause any problems.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

The ships policy seems to me to be that it usually to only plug holes once they start letting water in. It is true in the past we had a longer edit time, it is also true that in the past it was adequately demonstrated what abuse this could be put to. I will name no names as the abuses have since been repented of in ash cloth and ashes, and I fully believe they would not do it again.

However the ships community has a constant turn over of people. For every repentent old hand there are nearly always a dozen smart alecs newbies who think repeating the trick is a good idea (well actually that is wrong, they think they have invented it but want to see if it works, just as every generation thinks it invented sex).

Jengie

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

How could there be abuse if the period was extended to five minutes?

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

Has anybody seen the will to live? I'm sure I had it earlier. [Razz]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
How could there be abuse if the period was extended to five minutes?

Two points:

1.
Because if everybody followed the line of argument you use above, we would all be constantly re-editing our posts for content rather than typos, and mayhem would ensue.

2.
In actual fact, if you're crafty, the edit window time can be extended well beyond two minutes - in fact pretty much indefinitely. But if, as you argue, you start using that extra time to edit your post to deal with all the cross-posts, some of which will have been answering your unedited post, you are going to make a lot of people unhappy. And you'll probably get some shore leave rendering you unable to reply.

Think of posting like getting on public transport. You get a limited time in which to rush home and grab your toothbrush or whatever you left behind, but once the train has left the platform, the plane has left the gate, and the ship has left the berth, there's no turning back*.

==

*(Actually I was on a ferry once that did precisely that just after leaving port to let off some lorry that shouldn't have been on board, but we are not in Cherbourg here).

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Abuse? it was a fecking JOKE*!

AtB Pyx_e,

* In Hell.
** To which Erin quickly spotted the potential danger of more wicked persons than myself abusing it and in her wisdom (and out of her ass???? wtf???) put it to Two Minutes.
*** I was not banned for it and I have not and never will repent of it. IT WAS A JOKE. (pretty funny too).

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
IT WAS A JOKE. (pretty funny too).

I have heard tales of this. Did the thread survive as a testament to those troubled times?

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:

quote:
Originally posted by venbede:
How could there be abuse if the period was extended to five minutes?
Two points:

1.
Because if everybody followed the line of argument you use above, we would all be constantly re-editing our posts for content rather than typos, and mayhem would ensue.

A short time limit, but longer than 2, say 4 minutes or even 5 are pretty much too short to substantly change the content of ones posts. I've been on a site that had a 5 minute limit and it was still too short to do much other than change spelling errors or add a word or two for clarification.

On the site I'm on that has unlimited editing, each and every edited is documented with an edit time stamp and if someone is dumb enough to try to change their post meaning substantially after the fact or in any way cause conflict, they're shot down immediately when folks set the record straight either verbally, or with a screenshot and each edit time stamp puts another dent in their credibility. They have custom board programming so I don't know anyone else who can or want to do multiple edit time stamping or want to deal with unlimited editing. Like SoF, they also have great moderators.

Posted by Jengie Jon (# 273) on :

Deletion takes less time than correcting spelling mistakes and if the whole post is removed not time stamp.

Jengie

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

IQ tests are timed, too. Just saying.

Posted by Grits (# 4169) on :

Perhaps it was a not-so-subtle hint that we shouldn't be posting anything that takes longer than two minutes to edit. Would it were true.

Posted by Organ Builder (# 12478) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
It's possible it came directly out of Erin's ass.

I thought this might be a distinct possibility.

It's worked well enough in general for the five years+ that I've been here, so I'm not going to get too worked up about the adminosphere leaving it at two minutes. If they decided to give us just a bit more, though, I'd be happy.

I would bet, though, that it could go to 30 days and there would still be times someone wanted to add just one more tweak...

Posted by Balaam (# 4543) on :

Some people can do a lot in two minutes.

Showing in Hell at the moment:

quote:
Originally posted by mdijon:

quote:
Originally posted by Anselmina:
The trouble with that is you don't know if someone's going to beat you to the post below.
When that happens to me I click on edit post, then open another window and click quote on the post I was responding to, and copy and paste the UBB code in the edit window, delete the parts I'm not interested in, and then click edit.

I have very rarely run out of time doing that.

[ETA - like I did there]

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Hang on. Wires crossed.

I wasn't aware there was a time limit to the time during which I could edit a post. That's probably a good idea.

What I was concerned was that there is a time limit after I've posted in which I can choose to start editing.

For what it's worth, I'd prefer if that time was a bit longer.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

[Paranoid]

I think we've been talking about the latter option all the time.

There is no limit on the time spent composing your post.

(Think carefully about the next bit)

You have two minutes from when you click "add reply" on your original post to click the "edit" button on your post once posted. This is not the same as having two minutes from when you click "add reply" on your original post to when you click the "edit post" button on the edit.

Look carefully at my last post on the UBB practice thread and ponder the difference.

It may well be that mdijon has understood the subtleties of this difference.

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

Got you (I think).

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

An apropos of that, I got this error deleting a post in Hell just now

code:

Ouch! An error has occured: 
 I can't process time before the world began! at CGIPath/ubb_lib_time.cgi line 500.
Please inform the board administration of this error so that they can abuse the vendor. Thanks!

Sine Nomine got there too

Posted by venbede (# 16669) on :

I copied the quote into Word, edited it, added my long text and then did Post Reply, copied my Word text and viewed it first.

Then edited it to remove typo.

Sound a bit of a fiddle, but I wanted to take care.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

If you are making a long and complex post in, say, Purgatory, quoting multiple people and composing a difficult reply, in my view doing the whole thing in Word, manually adding UBB code as you go, is an excellent idea.

I do this all the time. The UBB practice thread is there to help you get the code right.

You can also edit your Word document to your heart's content until the moment you post (for instance, after checking back for more replies). Even if it's only to add something along the lines of "massive cross post, will get back to the other points later".

Alternatively, you can play at seeing how long after you open the edit window (using the "edit post" button, within the two-minute period) you can get away with actually posting your edit, but outside the UBB practice thread this is likely to be frowned on. Very likely. Is that any clearer?

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

If my server is running slowly, two minutes isn't long enough to edit, even if I hit the edit button the second it lands. I don't have spell check, I'm not a good speller, and I often don't see that something looks wrong until after the post lands. Even then I have to look it up to be sure.

A minimum of ten minutes edit time sounds reasonable to me, one day would be better. Most of us are doing other things while using the message board, bosses or doorbells may strike at the very moment we're ready to hit "post reply," and we aren't back to see our mistake for hours.

Reducing the edit time to two minutes because Pyx-e once played a trick is the ultimate in punishing everyone because one person made a mistake. There may be some logic to this sort of thinking in the military where the whole platoon is punished because one guy messed up but that's because the drill instructor trusts that the rest of the guys will enforce their own punishment on the perpetrator.

Most of us aren't in a position to beat up Pyx_e.

Surely he's been punished enough anyway. We all have.

Actually this is sort of like the moderators deciding not to allow any new members because Joanne was a troll. I find it the one really dumb thing in the, otherwise, best forum on the internet.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

That would make typing your post in word as Eutychus just suggested a great idea if you are concerned about typos. Word will even flag the typos up for you often.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

It wasn't just Pyx_e - I've seen others playing that game too. There's always some arse prepared to push the boundaries

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
That would make typing your post in word as Eutychus just suggested a great idea if you are concerned about typos. Word will even flag the typos up for you often.

Right. I suppose I could write it out in long hand and take it to the local liberal arts college and have a grammar professor go over it for me and then come back and ask my husband where ever the hell he hid the Word program in this weeks midnight re-programing of our computer and then type it up and run various checks with my dictionary in hand. Copy it and find the Ship of Fools. See if Pete's closed the thread I was thinking of posting to, paste my reply, find out preview post isn't working for me because said refurbishment logged me out and lost my cookies. Log in and add my one line comment to the post that is now five pages ago.

Anything but change an irrational rule.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Doesn't Firefox have an inline spellchecker these days?

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Yes, both Chrome and Firefox have spellcheckers

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

Actually, Twilight, if you read my post-before-one carefully enough, you could almost do what you say under the existing conditions.

Granted perhaps not if your husband logged you out of SoF or switched the computer off, and I don't know what would happen if you tried to post an edit to a thread after it had been closed, but otherwise it's perfectly possible.

It would just make a lot of people cross if you were to change anything other than spelling, because they would have (hopefully) already started interacting with your post as originally posted. I think that's sort of the idea of a bulletin board.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Interesting question:
Is just 2 minutes of post-editing time virtually useless?

LET'S FIND OUT.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eutychus:
It would just make a lot of people cross if you were to change anything other than spelling, because they would have (hopefully) already started interacting with your post as originally posted. I think that's sort of the idea of a bulletin board.

Of course it would make a lot of people cross if content were changed. I don't think anyone who complains about the short edit window has that in mind. I've never wanted to change anything other than spelling or misplaced commas, etc.

I think the idea of a bulletin board is to discuss topics and not to work one's own agenda with long, brilliant essays. That's the very reason that I find your plan of taking each post to Word to be contrary to the mood of casual discussion.

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

On rare occasions I will change a sentence that doesn't make sense or add a sentence on the end to complete a thought, but the vast majority of times it's correct spelling or grammar. If I see stuff as the post is going public I have time to make corrections, but if I'm slow to see it by several seconds it's a game of beat the clock which I sometimes lose.

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

My evil plan is foiled. (Or is it?)

[ 11. August 2012, 16:12: Message edited by: Eutychus ]

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Twilight:
Of course it would make a lot of people cross if content were changed. I don't think anyone who complains about the short edit window has that in mind.

Reading the thread before posting is always a good idea, too...

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, both Chrome and Firefox have spellcheckers

And, even IE has a spell checker add-on.

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, both Chrome and Firefox have spellcheckers

Yes, my spelling is atrocious (I am dyslexic) and the Firefox spell checker is great - it doesn't let many through at all.

If I want to do a long, involved post (which is very rare for me tbh - writing is a struggle) I use Word by cutting and pasting - as outlined above.

Face it - the edit time isn't going to be changed. Think of it as a spiritual discipline [Biased]

Posted by Ariel (# 58) on :

Anyone know what happened to the Delete Post facility?

[ 12. August 2012, 09:12: Message edited by: Ariel ]

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Ariel, that's what Eutychus was hinting at

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Haha - how wrong could I be!

<edited after thirty minutes!>

erk!!

[ 12. August 2012, 08:10: Message edited by: Boogie ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, both Chrome and Firefox have spellcheckers
And, even IE has a spell checker add-on.

Spell checkers are wonderful, but they certainly aren't foolproof. Eye sea the point people are making and there write to point out spell check for the majority. Sadly, FF's dictionary leaves much to be desired. There are times I know I'm right and FF is wrong, but then I 2nd guess myself and use google as my verify.

1st Edit: I am not, however, going to edit my spelling of the above words just to check timing.

2nd edit: Happiness!

[ 12. August 2012, 08:10: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by Niteowl2 (# 15841) on :

I do see what Rook meant, though, by checking to see if the 2 minute edit is useless. I'd have thought a check of smaller edit time increase would have been a more valid check. The one site I'm on that has unlimited edit that works does so because every edit you make is time stamped and people there are ruthless if you try and change the content of your post for personal gain in a discussion. They hold each other accountable via jpgs of original posts. Graphics files are not allowed here for valid reasons. The other site has multiple mods who are not responsible to read every post as there is a reporting system in place that works well and there is always at least one mod on in real time. A porn post or spam posted by bot or an extremely inappropriate post by a member is usually gone within 5 minutes. SoF mods go above and beyond in checking every post and every link and removing graphics files makes that job within the realm of possibility and protects their poor eyes from sites no one should be forced to see.

Edit: Just so I can play, I'm not sure which is worse: having to read every post and check every link or having to answer every "report this post" alert and filter out the whiners or those with a grudge against another member.

[ 12. August 2012, 08:21: Message edited by: Niteowl2 ]

Posted by luvanddaisies (# 5761) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Interesting question:
Is just 2 minutes of post-editing time virtually useless?

LET'S FIND OUT.

Ah, a thing that weirded me out on the Name Change thread is explained.

FWIW, I don't like this unlimited edit thing at all, there'll be someone along in a minute to abuse it, and it's worked well enough in the past that those couple of people who've said they don't like it still post here, so it can't have been that bad. Five or ten minutes, maybe, if we're stretching a point - but the unlimited thing is inviting trouble at some point. It ain't broke, so why 'fix' it?

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by luvanddaisies:

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:
Interesting question:
Is just 2 minutes of post-editing time virtually useless?

LET'S FIND OUT.
Ah, a thing that weirded me out on the Name Change thread is explained.

FWIW, I don't like this unlimited edit thing at all, there'll be someone along in a minute to abuse it ....

I reckon that's what RooK is out to prove.

Posted by Patdys (# 9397) on :

Having just played with it, I would concur. ( sorry ) I tidied up my altered post, leaving one with an addendum, but it still disconcerting. My vote would be 10 minutes; long enough to fix glaring issues but not long enough to make subsequent posts bizarre.

Posted by Curiosity killed ... (# 11770) on :

Playing stunts with this particular loophole was one of the final death knells for Max - I did know he'd done it and did know how to use it, but I thought discretion was the best way forward, but now it's this public I guess something will have to be done.

Posted by Twilight (# 2832) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Yes, both Chrome and Firefox have spellcheckers
And, even IE has a spell checker add-on.

All those have been on this computer at one time or another but since I'm not the prime owner I don't feel free to load changes like that. Maybe I'm the only shipmate in this position but I would have guessed that some others either share a computer with others or use one at an office where the frills are set by someone else.

But, I agree, this probably isn't going to change so I'm just going to have to learn to spell. Somewhere my fifth grade teacher is laughing.

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

Perhaps this is a good time to remind Shipmates of Commandment 2

Posted by Tubbs (# 440) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Curiosity killed ...:
Playing stunts with this particular loophole was one of the final death knells for Max - I did know he'd done it and did know how to use it, but I thought discretion was the best way forward, but now it's this public I guess something will have to be done.

Less a knell and more of a peal. But just in case some feels the urge to run with that particular tangent, let me remind you that Erin's edict regarding discussions of Max has never actually been revoked.

The loophole has been fixed. (I checked). If Shipmates do notice something like that in future, you can always let a H&A know via PM or mention it in the Styx.

Tubbs

[ 12. August 2012, 13:44: Message edited by: Tubbs ]

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

We don't need two threads about this. And this one got annoying.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0