Ship of Fools: Editing

Thread: Editing 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=027575

Posted by Ad Orientem (# 17574) on :

Why is the editing time so short? At the moment it's about all of three seconds, or so it seems. Is it possible to make it longer? It would be cool, especially for those of us who usually notice typos only once we've pressed the reply button.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

The time starts when your command to post is received by the board software. there will often be traffic jams in between.

Generally, the editing time is long enough for me to see a typo or other mistake, click edit, fix it, wait for the post to redisplay; see yet another mistake, click edit again, fix it and still make the deadline.
Sometimes, though, the delay between my computer and the SOF server makes this less likely to occur.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

The editing time is set at 2 minutes I believe.

As a person who tends not to see typos until later, and who also tends to want additional thoughts/expand on previous ones (and who can get away with some of this stuff in Hell because I've got extra editoiral powers as a host [Snigger]

), I feel your pain.

However...

I now think there are good reasons for keeping it pretty short. One reason is the speed at which the Ship moves, particularly somewhere like Purgatory. Things can get very messy if someone can go back and change a post after someone else has replied.

A couple of encounters on other boards have demonstrated what can happen. I've had a bizarre multi-person conversation where someone decided to delete their posts. They announced they had done this. Then they deleted the announcement... after at least 3 people had commented on the announcement and criticised it in some way, thus preserving copies of the announcement. There were bits of dangling conversation left everywhere.

Also, when it comes to things like typos, use preview post. Seriously, it can help considerably. It's not exactly the same layout as a completed post, but it's much closer to it and it will help you spot things.

It also gives you a chance to refine your thoughts and check how they read. Which is how I used it right now.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

Is it Spring already? When Shipmates thoughts turn to minutiae.

This is a decades-old issue, and the Adminisphere has confirmed for ourselves repeatedly that the 120-second interval works best for us. Fundamentally, the meta-message from it all is "Post in haste, repent at your leisure."

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I've always found other forums, which allow long-term editing, not to be problematic. It's pretty rare to find people 'cheating'.

Still, when in Rome, smile at all the pretty girls.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

inb4 some whiney 1/4 wit: it was a JOKE!

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Even with a 2 minute edit window I have found myself recently replying to a post that had vanished by the time I'd hit "Add Reply" (and, no, it wasn't an essay length reply I'd written), or find I've replied to something only to later see an "ETA: ...." comment at the bottom that made my reply superfluous.

I'm not sure there's any need for anyone to have to edit their posts. If you're having a chat over a few beers in the pub and say something stupid you don't get the chance to back up and correct it. You just say "sorry, that was a bit dumb, what I meant was ..." and carry on. There's no reason why you can't do the same here.

Posted by passer (# 13329) on :

quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
...and who can get away with some of this stuff in Hell because I've got extra editoiral powers as a host

Love it - that's hilairous!

Posted by TheAlethiophile (# 16870) on :

quote:
Originally posted by My Imaginary Friend:
I wonder if anyone has made up a quote and pretended another user has written and then deleted it. Would the hosts be able to determine a fabricated post or recover an original?

I'm sure that has never happened! [Devil]

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

I'm going to answer "yes" to the determine if there was a deleted post, and "no" to being able to recover the original.

Posted by Barefoot Friar (# 13100) on :

I was under the impression the window had been extended to three minutes following the last H&A days. But it doesn't matter; I'm a member of a couple forums with zero editing ability and I get along just fine.

Preview post is your friend. Seriously.

Also, try writing your deep thoughts in a word processor (or even just the notebook/gedit/whatever) and then copy/paste the finished product. That gives you a better chance of spotting errors.

And try reading it once more before hitting "Add reply".

And then don't worry about it. If you spot something big, then you've got two (or three?) minutes to fix it, and if not the world won't end. Self-righteous prick's who mention it are too uptight anyway.

Edit #1
Edit #2
Edit #3 (and I have a slow computer and even slower internet connection)

[ 07. May 2014, 12:01: Message edited by: Barefoot Friar ]

Posted by Spike (# 36) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:
I'm a member of a couple forums with zero editing ability and I get along just fine.

Once upon a time, editing wasn't allowed here either.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Barefoot Friar:

Preview post is your friend. Seriously.

Your friend, maybe, but the bitch doesn't like me.
Misspells, and even changes, words after I click post.

Posted by monkeylizard (# 952) on :

Preview Post is you're freind.

Posted by Trin (# 12100) on :

The short edit window was always a small part of the bite of this place compared with more boring forums.

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

I see the edit window as like a velvet mousetrap, har har har; yes, it bites, but it's smooth and you never want to leave.

Posted by Schroedinger's cat (# 64) on :

The edit window is really there to say "you could have edited but didn't. So you must stand by what it posted. HA!"

IIRC, it was set as it is so that you could correct something that you noticed just as it posted, or after you read the posted entry, and you had screwed up the coding.

And shipmates are very tolerant if you say "Sorry, I mean to explain that ..." or whatever. It is not needed longer because the community accepts later clarifications.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

You can always choose edit, copy your text, delete the post and then have all the time in the world to consider what you should have written.

Posted by listener (# 15770) on :

I sometimes do a draft of a post that's likely to be a typing challenge in Word, then copy and paste if I think I've finally got it right.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alan Cresswell:
I'm going to answer "yes" to the determine if there was a deleted post, ....

I'm guessing that there is a gap in the post numbers when a post is deleted.

Posted by Moo (# 107) on :

If someone makes a post and deletes it, the thread is bumped as it would be if the post had not been deleted.

Moo

Posted by Ariston (# 10894) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Moo:
If someone makes a post and deletes it, the thread is bumped as it would be if the post had not been deleted.

Moo

Your post count increases as if you did not delete the posts as well, it seems.

—Ariston, artificial inflator of post counts

[ 09. May 2014, 03:14: Message edited by: Ariston ]

Posted by Autenrieth Road (# 10509) on :

There is no gap in the post numbering, even after deleting a post (as this post shows). Unless perhaps it matters if oneself is the next poster (as here) vs. someone else? I'll delete another post after this one (which I posted after a deleted post), and then someone else can test that question.

[ 09. May 2014, 12:45: Message edited by: Autenrieth Road ]

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

Gap-filling post so that enquiring minds can find out. [Biased]

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

Is this a post, which I see before me?
Come, let me preview -
I have it, yet have it not;
Are you not, beloved post, sensible
To feeling as to sight? Or are you but
a post of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the alcohol-enfeebled mind?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

The users post count (shown bottom left below each post) includes deleted posts. The displayed number won't increment immediately across all boards, so if you hunt out an earlier post then you can determine if that person has deleted a post. eg: Currently AR's post count (a few posts up) is 8519. Her post count on SOF RPG earlier currently shows 8516. Therefore, two posts are unaccounted for (ie: deleted).

The post number for each post on a thread increments. If you delete the last post on a thread the counter will just reuse that number. If, however, you delete a post where there are additional posts afterwards there will be a gap in the post number (as a challenge, where in the UBB practice thread have I deleted one of my own test posts?). I suspect that would be an usual occurance in normal circumstances, as it requires someone to actually post on the thread within the 2 minute window before the older post is deleted.

Posted by Drifting Star (# 12799) on :

Just the distraction I needed on a Friday afternoon [Hot and Hormonal]

- is it the one after this one?

Posted by Alan Cresswell (# 31) on :

Obviously a challenge that was too easy. Where's the fun in that?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Is this a post, which I see before me?
Come, let me preview -
I have it, yet have it not;
Are you not, beloved post, sensible
To feeling as to sight? Or are you but
a post of the mind, a false creation,
Proceeding from the alcohol-enfeebled mind?

Posted by Clint Boggis (# 633) on :

I've said it before - the very short editing time is a big irritant for those of us with slow or troublesome internet. It's one reason I spend more time elsewhere these days. In most respects the mods on my usual one are very much poorer than hosts here but at least they don't control us down to the minute, just because they can.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

A) The moderators have nothing to do with the editing time. It's all the Admins' fault.

B) It has nothing to do with control, and lots to do with accountability.

C) If you post garbage that needs lots of post-editing, that's valuable meta-information about you.

Posted by Huia (# 3473) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
In most respects the mods on my usual one are very much poorer than hosts here but at least they don't control us down to the minute, just because they can.

I think your comment regarding the time allowed for editing and control by the hosts "just because they can" is not only inaccurate but also unfair.

Inaccurate for the confusion of host having that power.

And unfair because the editing time was originally longer, then a shipmate took advantage of it to change a post thereby making a farce of those replying. That was when it was cut to 2 minutes. It was not a grab for control by the powers that be (they have more entertaining ways of doing that - stick around for a Host's and Admin's Day. [Big Grin]

Huia

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Huia:
And unfair because the editing time was originally longer

As has been pointed out before, it was originally nothing. The fact that y'all can edit at all is due to a relaxing of the policy.

Commandment 2 is most pertinent to this discussion. What is post editing if not a form of "taking them back"?

Posted by quetzalcoatl (# 16740) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
I've said it before - the very short editing time is a big irritant for those of us with slow or troublesome internet. It's one reason I spend more time elsewhere these days. In most respects the mods on my usual one are very much poorer than hosts here but at least they don't control us down to the minute, just because they can.

Yes, most forums that I visit have an unlimited time for editing - I could go back and edit a post from two years ago. It doesn't seem to cause any trouble, as far as I can see.

I just assumed that the fierce edit time here is a result of Christian puritanism! It doesn't bother me all that much, as my usual problem is forgetting an extra paragraph, which I can stick in another post.

Posted by Pyx_e (# 57) on :

Pyx_e fills his cup with internet tears and inhales the heady aroma. AHHHHHH. MOAR PLEEZE.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pyx_e:
Pyx_e fills his cup with internet tears and inhales the heady aroma. AHHHHHH. MOAR PLEEZE.

Those with a specialty in one liners and Internet spelling don't really need an edit window, do they Pyx_e.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by quetzalcoatl:
Yes, most forums that I visit have an unlimited time for editing - I could go back and edit a post from two years ago. It doesn't seem to cause any trouble, as far as I can see.

Conversely, one forum I'm a member of allows unlimited editing, and it is frequently abused by at least one poster to remove any evidence of his previous comments when they turn out to be completely false, so that he can deny all knowledge of ever having said such a patently ridiculous thing. It's bloody frustrating, because unless someone else quoted him at the time there's absolutely no way of proving that he said it (and even then he's been known to claim that it was a made-up quotation).

On another forum I'm a member of, people often go back and "correct" their posts in light of what subsequent posts have said. Which just gets confusing as hell for anyone reading through the thread in one go and wondering why people are telling the OP they got it wrong when the OP clearly says the same thing they're saying.

Frankly, when the possibility of people doing that sort of shit is balanced against the possibility of people being able to fix posts that they buggered up because they didn't bother using Preview Post, I know which side of the fence I come down on.

Posted by seasick (# 48) on :

If we had a facebook-style feature that allowed posters to see the previous versions of edited posts then I guess it might be different. But we don't. So I agree completely with everything Marvin just said.

Posted by orfeo (# 13878) on :

Yeah, well I basically said the same thing 2 weeks ago. *sulk*

Posted by jbohn (# 8753) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Clint Boggis:
I've said it before - the very short editing time is a big irritant for those of us with slow or troublesome internet. It's one reason I spend more time elsewhere these days. In most respects the mods on my usual one are very much poorer than hosts here but at least they don't control us down to the minute, just because they can.

This isn't that difficult, really.

"Preview post" is your friend. Seriously. As is composing long posts in Word/OpenOffice/whatever application you like that includes a spellchecker.

If you post something incorrect/offensive/just plain stupid - own up to it and move on. We've all done it. Such is life.

Having folks delete/change their posts when the debate swings against their position is a big irritant to everyone, no matter their internet speed or reliability.

Posted by Gwai (# 11076) on :

If our software could magically change at my whimsy, the only thing I would change is to give it the capability to show everyone a preview of their post after they click post and before they actually posted. In other words, we'd basically have to click post twice. That's how it works on another forum I sometimes post on, and I think it really lowers the number of edited posts. People, including me, just don't preview their posts when they should. On the other hand, nothing in the world could make me stop wanting to change the wording of my posts/emails/etc. after they are gone. A longer editing time wouldn't solve that unless you all agreed to reread my posts every time I improved them so that you'd see the 'real' meaning. [Biased]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

Facebook allows endless edits - but also has your editing history available for each post.

I'm a member of a forum which does the same - and there are no problems at all.

I doubt if the old software here could cope with such histories 'tho.

No problem, I will continue previewing and still missing many glaring errors [Smile]

Posted by Boogie (# 13538) on :

quote:
Originally posted by RooK:

C) If you post garbage that needs lots of post-editing, that's valuable meta-information about you.

Yes - in my case it's that I'm dyslexic.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

Or multi-quoting, posting on an iPad, multitasking, rewriting...
Lots of reasons why even preview post doesn't always work. Or, rather, doesn't always achieve the intended result.
But these are our failings, not policy failings. No procedure is going to suit all people, all the time.
ISTM, the balance struck here is reasonable.

Posted by Sioni Sais (# 5713) on :

Anything that encourages care in posting is a Good Thing. Post hoc editing is of the Devil, and if our software was state of the art and enabled members to rewrite history (which, after all, is what unlimited editing is) I would resist it all I could.

I post enough hasty gibberish already and you wouldn't like it if I could post more of the same, then correct it after you have quoted me. Promise.

Posted by RooK (# 1852) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
Yes - in my case it's that I'm dyslexic.

I think I'm not alone in thinking that your posts are eminently clear, and much additional editing would benefit only the most fervent pedant fetishists and sufferers of OCD.

Posted by Kelly Alves (# 2522) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If our software could magically change at my whimsy, the only thing I would change is to give it the capability to show everyone a preview of their post after they click post and before they actually posted. In other words, we'd basically have to click post twice. That's how it works on another forum I sometimes post on, and I think it really lowers the number of edited posts. People, including me, just don't preview their posts when they should. On the other hand, nothing in the world could make me stop wanting to change the wording of my posts/emails/etc. after they are gone. A longer editing time wouldn't solve that unless you all agreed to reread my posts every time I improved them so that you'd see the 'real' meaning.

IMDB and previously.tv work like this.

Posted by Marvin the Martian (# 4360) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Sioni Sais:
Anything that encourages care in posting is a Good Thing. Post hoc editing is of the Devil, and if our software was state of the art and enabled members to rewrite history (which, after all, is what unlimited editing is) I would resist it all I could.

For once, this isn't a software issue. We could allow unlimited editing perfectly easily if we wanted to, we just don't want to. [Smile]

Posted by Alex Cockell (# 7487) on :

I think there may be a maximum character length for posts as well - which is quite awkward.

Over on the Rape Culture thread in Purg, because it's all based around how the nature of feminism as a group changed over time due to historical infights and how it bisected with the real world, I had to split a very long post into 4 as some of the URL links I had to put in were being chopped - which in turn was causing problems with posting the content even though I filtered it twice for parentheses within URLs.

The only way I was able to submit it reliably was to split the piece into 4 posts as I think the links were being split or truncated in some way.

DS has an edit window of an hour, which allows an input buffer that may be shorter than the max post length to be catered for.

I inadvertently pissed off the admins over on Purg due to this technical issue bisecting with the short edit window...

Maybe some policy for where a long backstory needs to be told in order to then continue and cover other points?

Like with Feminism-when-viewed-like-the-church-universal with all the infighting and debates within the camp over 30 years then affecting the outside world...

Awkward thing if I had to bung it on a blog - someone may not necessarily go there.. even though it was all relevant...

Might be a case of longer edit windows or even a SHip Wiki in effect..

If there IS a max character length, this may need logic like a countdown in real time on the submission page - and then you'd need a long edit window.

Or allow people to annotate their posts "1 of x, 2 of x".

Posted by Eutychus (# 3081) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
I inadvertently pissed off the admins over on Purg due to this technical issue bisecting with the short edit window...

I can't speak for the admins, but from my perspective this was not merely inadvertent. You deliberately made multiple posts after having been asked not to. Twice.

quote:
Maybe some policy for where a long backstory needs to be told in order to then continue and cover other points?

The most relevant policy already exists and is enshrined in the first part of Commandment 1 (emphasis mine):

quote:
Lively, intelligent discussion is what we're about.

Making massively long consecutive posts in which you are not interacting with other posters is not going to nurture lively, intelligent discussion.

quote:
Awkward thing if I had to bung it on a blog - someone may not necessarily go there.. even though it was all relevant...

Aside from any breaches of our rules, multiple posts of such length here are, in my view, much less likely to be read than an appropriately referenced link.

It's not enough to believe the content to be relevant. You have to abide by our Commandments and Guidelines and, if you are interested in interacting with others, present it in a way that entices them to read it and interact if they wish.

I'm not going to derail this thread any further. If you want to continue objecting to my ruling in Purgatory, to be extra clear, you need to start a dedicated thread in the Styx.

Posted by Pants (# 999) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Alex Cockell:
...a very long post ...

And that is where you went wrong.

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0