Editing / Deleting Posts

[Tiberius]

I edit new replies into my posts when I get sniped, such as now. Now I have to do that within 20 minutes or double post?

Double posts by default will be merged into your previous posts, and separated with a line.

Like I said, if 20 minutes isn't enough time, I can easily increase the limit to an hour or two, depending on what length of time people think is necessary. I doubt for most people this will be an issue though.

[edk]

The idiotic vandals who do this kind of thing edit out the content of their posts, usually leaving a punctuation mark.

Then let users view the original post, maybe have a "view original post" button or something under it that shows the content of the post when it was submitted. I don't mind other people seeing what I originally posted, it just won't contain all the content that was edited in later.

[Tiberius]

The idiotic vandals who do this kind of thing edit out the content of their posts, usually leaving a punctuation mark.

Then let users view the original post, maybe have a "view original post" button or something under it that shows the content of the post when it was submitted. I don't mind other people seeing what I originally posted, it just won't contain all the content that was edited in later.

This would involve complex modifications to the code that we simply do not have the resources to do.

[edk]

Ed, why not give it a try? Like, Tiberius said, he'll be flexible if it is an issue.

Well since I'm not being given an option, I can't really say no to that.

---

This would involve complex modifications to the code that we simply do not have the resources to do.

But do you think it would be a good thing if it did exist?

[Minimalist]

My take Adrian, as always, is that the guy who does all the work gets to make all the decisions.

[Tiberius]

But do you think it would be a good thing if it did exist?

Not particularly. It would be a massive waste of resources on the server, which already has huge backups to deal with. I don't really want to create a copy of each post every time someone edits it. I doubt many people will even consider clicking to see what edits were made.

It's far easier to assume that edits were kosher, and to limit the amount of editing that can be done after a specific time period.

Fact is, you don't often edit posts that you submitted a few hours before. Most editing of posts takes place in the first few minutes after submission.

If this makes people more conscious about what they type before they submit it, I can only view that as a good thing.

[Shell B]

Well since I'm not being given an option, I can't really say no to that.

You do have the option to point out direct instances where it was a problem. Right now, any complaints are hypothetical. I'm interested to see if it will be an issue at all. I don't think it will. After 20 minutes, any new thoughts on the topic should be new posts anyway.

[Dotard]

It's your world, do as you see fit.

All changes are going to create a wave of whiners. They'll get over it.

[edk]

I don't really want to create a copy of each post every time someone edits it

Original post, not every post. Also, delta encoding.
This is effectively what you are doing by requiring that a PM be sent to a mod detailing any edits, anyway. A PM's going to take up a similar amount of space to an edit, especially if it comes with a reply.

I doubt many people will even consider clicking to see what edits were made.

They might if the post has been vandalized, which was the point of the 20 minutes thing anyway.

It's far easier to assume that edits were kosher, and to limit the amount of editing that can be done after a specific time period.

> assume that edits were kosher
> limit the amount of editing that can be done after a specific time period
Not quite sure how you fit those together.

Most editing of posts takes place in the first few minutes after submission.

But how bad is the editing of posts that don't? Is it bad at all?

If this makes people more conscious about what they type before they submit it, I can only view that as a good thing.

Well it's making me agonize over posts before sending them to make sure there are no minor typos that could easily be fixed with an edit, or half-finished sentences etc. Proof reading, fine, but it's a post, not a fucking essay, and it's not going to be perfect first time so why not allow for correcting it?

[Shell B]

Since you're agonizing, you mind quoting the snippets of Tiberius's post, instead of quoting it and then rekindofquoting it?