[inquiry]

We can make it 100% necessary for the software to include a note if a post is edited. Should we make this a requirement? Feel free to comment on why you voted yes no, or other and why.

Note administrators and original poster are only people who can currently edit post by someone.

[jjbrr]

No. I frequently edit just because I noticed a typo or grammatical error or something tiny. There's no reason to add a tag to make it look like I changed the content of my post. If I change the content of my post, I make a clear note of it.

I don't really understand the purpose of this if over half my posts end up with an edit tag.

Edit to add: If you do change it so that the software requires the edit tag, is there also a feature that easily allows the poster to give a reason for the edit?

[matmat]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-24, 10:58, said:

No. I frequently edit just because I noticed a typo or grammatical error or something tiny. There's no reason to add a tag to make it look like I changed the content of my post. If I change the content of my post, I make a clear note of it.

I don't really understand the purpose of this if over half my posts end up with an edit tag.

Edit to add: If you do change it so that the software requires the edit tag, is there also a feature that easily allows the poster to give a reason for the edit?

You can state your reason in your edit.
I'm strongly in favor of turning this feature on (I edit my posts a lot for grammar/spelling/clarity etc. too). Ideally, there would be a grace period to allow changes without the tag being added (although I imagine that's not really an available setting in the software)

I've seen a bunch of instances where an OP was substantially changed for content without any note and several subsequent replies looked wrong and out of place with people wondering what happened. At least this way there'd be a record and a timestamp of when things happened.

[jjbrr]

matmat, on 2011-June-24, 11:11, said:

You can state your reason in your edit.
I'm strongly in favor of turning this feature on (I edit my posts a lot for grammar/spelling/clarity etc. too). Ideally, there would be a grace period to allow changes without the tag being added (although I imagine that's not really an available setting in the software)

I've seen a bunch of instances where an OP was substantially changed for content without any note and several subsequent replies looked wrong and out of place with people wondering what happened. At least this way there'd be a record and a timestamp of when things happened.

On the forum I frequent most often, users can edit their posts within 15 minutes of making the post. After some period of time (10 mintues?) the edit tag always displays when the post is edited, otherwise the poster can choose whether or not to include it. There is also a short text field offering the poster to give a reason for the edit that, when filled in, displays in smaller text beneath the post.

I'm in favor of something like that, but requiring the edit tag always seems completely unnecessary.

Edit to add: This may be against the terms of service of BBF, in which case Inquiry or someone can delete this text/post/me/whatever, but here is a link to an example post with the edit tag and a reason provided by the poster for the edit. This link goes to another forum, so if you're at work and afraid of sites you've visited, or if you find the internet in general to be a frightening place, you're better off just staying in BBF.

This post has been edited by jjbrr: 2011-June-24, 11:35

[hotShot]

It doesn't matter how often I check my post or if I use the preview the Moment the post was sent, I encounter an error.....

This would result in nearly all of my posts having an edit line. People would waste time to reread my post unless they carefully compare the posting time with the edit time.
So I am against a forced edit tag. People will realize that if they want that a change to a post is noticed they have to add a remark or a new post.

If you answer to a post that might be changed, quote it, the quote does not change.

But I it is enforced , that won't stop me posting.

[Antrax]

A common implementation allows "free" edits until more posts are made in the thread.
I'm for it, I see no reason not to be.

[diana_eva]

I think it should be on by default. It's not that complicated to check time difference between posting time and edit time. For spell check and grammar stuff we can use preview, and even if it's edited a bit later i don't think it would bother subsequent readers that much.

[helene_t]

Setting it on by default without forcing it would solve most issues of the kind mentioned by matmat, I think.

If it is always forced I think it is a terrible idea. For the reasons mentioned by jjbrr and hotshot.

If there is a grace period of say 10 minutes and/or if it is forced only after new posts have been added, I don´t feel strongly about it.

Maybe upvotes should be cancelled once a post has been edited.

[Foxx]

IMHO posts that have no votes or replies, should be editable for half an hour and still stay clean.

[mycroft]

I agree with the no-people; I frequently notice a "clarification word change", never mind a spelling mistake or suit error, even after preview. I do, religiously, add the edit tag (or write my own) if I make an edit that might, even, change the meaning of my words.

I don't think it's necessary for most people to know I went in - even two days later, when I reread it - and fixed myrcoft to mycroft (or mycroft to Mycroft), for instance.

I do think it's necessary - so I do it - to tag a change that would queer something said in reply, or even "clarified last sentence of first paragraph".

[jillybean]

I agree with those suggesting a 10minute grace period, until there has been a reply is also good.

[jjbrr]

Inquiry et al, can you see what a user wrote in a post before it was edited?

If so, can you not just reserve the right to either restore the post or to post the original content in the thread if a poster pulls a Cayuga?

[inquiry]

jjbrr, on 2011-June-24, 17:56, said:

Inquiry et al, can you see what a user wrote in a post before it was edited?

No

[Vampyr]

I like the grace period thing; I always find things I have to change too. But still it must be kept in mind that the edit line will mean nothing if the changed text is not indicated.

[blackshoe]

I don't think an edit line should be required. I do think it should be included when a substantial change is made. I've seen original posts that were edited because somebody pointed out something or other, but there's no indication when they were edited, or why, or what changed, and that makes several later posts in the thread very confusing, to say the least. We do have the strikeover code available; it would be good to see more use of it. OTOH, if an admin is deleting something because it violates the ToS or whatever, it should be deleted, not just struck over.

Note: I'm as guilty as anyone of editing some of my posts without explanation or including the edit line. Usually immediately after I post when I realize I mispelled something or left something out. Mea culpa. As Apple (Computers) said to Apple (Music), sosumi.

[1eyedjack]

I think that as long as there are no votes attached to the post and no subsequent posts in the thread then the poster should be allowed to edit without noting. And I see no reason for a time limit to be attached to that facility.

Personally I am not fussed either way, but I can see good reasons for forcing an edit-by line if there have been either votes attached or subsequent posts.

I would not be too fussed if I were forced to apply an edit-by line even to correct minor grammatical errors within a few minutes of posting. Like many other responders many of my posts would "suffer" from this, but the suffering is not painful. Just adds a bit of white noise to the post.

[inquiry]

The only option available is to either ENFORCE the edit line, or not enforce it. There is no option for conditional enforcement (if after 10 minutes, if after a down vote, etc). We can either turn on the requirement that the edit line is automatically added (along with the time of the edit) or it is not automatically added. I am leaning towards advocating to decision makers that we requiring it, although when I saw years ago you could add this requirement, I thought we should not add it.

[Bbradley62]

Are we talking about fixing something that isn't broken? Have there been problems caused by a lack of an "edited" note?

[jillybean]

The 'edited by' feature is only useful if a reader can tell what was edited. The onus is on the author to include a comment if they change the content in any significant way. Having an automatic, 'edited by' comment with no description only adds clutter.

[diana_eva]

Bbradley62, on 2011-June-26, 10:41, said:

Are we talking about fixing something that isn't broken? Have there been problems caused by a lack of an "edited" note?

Not really problems, but there have been posts altered significantly after some replied were made, making the continuations look off topic.