A few comments on posting on the BFC message board.

[Battlefront.com]

OK, that explains it. Well, even though I can edit any post at any time I don't. The time limit on corrections is sensible because if you get in there and edit a post really quickly usually only a couple of people notice. If you do something REALLY big, like retract a flaming attack on someone, it usually gets preserved in the form of quotations on follow ups. And those can not be edited by the original poster. Therefore, the editing is usually just to clean something up. People usually pick up on new content as well, therefore the discussion generally isn't negatively affected. But posts edited LONG after they were made is not a good thing at all.

A year or so ago we had a long time forum member go into a major meltdown. Just before he got himself banned he went into a thread and edited out all kinds garbage he had posted. Problem was most of it has been quoted already, so his attempts to purge the record didn't work. I suspect that's when we instituted the 1/2 hour editing rule. Editing stuff written hours, or even days, prior is unjustifiable. If you need to amend your earlier message, make a new post and explain whatever it is you need to explain. Works fine.

BTW, I can also edit any of your posts at any time. I never do that except under two very rare circumstances:

1. A link is posted that is in violation of one or more Forum rules.

2. The poster screwed up some of the message format coding and his thread is unreadable, an image isn't displaying, or a legitimate link is broken. 99.9% of the time the original poster fixes this on his own, but occasionally I've fixed it for the person in order to be helpful to everybody (including the original poster).

In either case vBB notes who edited the thread and I separately note why I did whatever I did. Moon is pretty much the only other guy who does any regular posting here and I know he handles things the same way.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I still think that an editing limit of 3 days makes much more sense than 30 minutes or 1 hour or whatever it is. I am as annoyed as anyone by people wiping out all their old posts (and delete threads of they can), but this affects posts that are weeks or months old at the time. A 3 day limit would mostly be used to polish things up and tame down the occasional flame.

And as I said, vbulletin now allows you to specify that people can see the diffs of previous edits (usually configured to ignore diffs from the first 30 minutes). So that would allow you the best of both world, the face of the post can be polished but if somebody makes an idiot out of himself and you need to show it you just link to the appropriate diff link in the post.

[mike_the_wino]

Overall I think Steve takes all of our (my) bitching in stride and good naturedly. I appreciate the latitude given to forum members (me) bitching and whining when things down't work out the way they (again, me) want.

Looking forward to a trip back to Normady, through the Ardennes and beyond.*

*and by beyond I mean your feckers better do some Korean War sh*t and hypothetical Cold War sh*t as well.....or this game is gonna sux**

**tongue in cheek, of course

[Wengart]

The biggest problem with the 30 minute editing period is its effect on user made FAQs. A good example of this is Winecap's? Normandy FAQ. After the first post it would eventually require the reader to scroll multiple pages to find information.

[Sergei]

I agree with Wengart. The same applies to announcements of scenarios & mods and later updates to them. At least letting the thread's initiator to edit the original post without limitations would be an improvement.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

Not quite sure why the edit limit was imposed in the first place. Don't think there was abuse of it.

[MeatEtr]

So is it possible to give a thread starter unlimited editing ability? As pointed out, Winecapes Normandy recap thread is the best example. I think the original thread starting post should have this option. If not then couldn't this be given on a special basis for those kinds of threads?

[Redwolf]

So is it possible to give a thread starter unlimited editing ability?

No.

But vbulletin lets you choose whether the originator can nuke the whole thread (should be turned off) and it lets you keep the history of edits behind links if you want.

[Battlefront.com]

I think 3 days is ridiculous. Look at this one thread for example. It's not even 2 full days old and we're on Page 4. Who is even going to notice if someone, 3 pages back, has edited their post? The discussion usually isn't even about the same thing (at least in detail) as was being discussed several posts ago. And that isn't even counting the really active threads where we can do 4 pages in a single day. So no, I can think of no reason why 3 days is reasonable for regular postings.

I do agree that user created FAQs are more difficult because of the time limits imposed on editing. But the work around to that is to post the FAQ on an external website or file hosting service. Or just do what people already do.

For the record, we did have a problem with someone trying to rewrite history. That's why we have time limits imposed. Unfortunately, it's one of those things which only takes one idiot to cause us to change the rules. I personally don't see the 1/2 hour editing limitation as a problem and I've explained why. I don't see a compelling reason to change the way it is. Or at least I see no reason that is more compelling than the reasons for keeping it as is. I don't think the FAQ/announcements issue is enough to change the balance.

Steve

[Redwolf]

II personally don't see the 1/2 hour editing limitation as a problem and I've explained why.

Your explanation did read "because I'm not subject to that limit", though.

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

Your explanation did read "because I'm not subject to that limit", though.

Well, you can read whatever you want, but it isn't what I wrote. Here is what I wrote:

Whatever the case is, I have a sort of 2 minute rule for my posts, in that if after I post I notice a problem I have 2 minute to correct it or I let it stand and post a follow up correction. I do not edit my posts beyond that unless it's an egregious error (like forgetting a "not" in a key sentence). I also do not change what I say, though I do edit/add to it to make the message more clear. Since there is always someone out there trying to read between the lines, it's pretty important I correct gaffs. Especially when I forget to put in a "no" or "not". I'm always screwing that one up!

My own self-imposed rule is actually 28 minutes sooner than the limit. So no, I don't think a 1/2 hour limit is a problem.

Now, having said that, upon rare occasion I do correct a major goof like saying "CM: Normandy will not be set in Normandy" to say "CM: Normandy will be set in Normandy". I might have done that a couple of times this year so far. And I only do it in threads where my post is still the last or near last post. Otherwise I make a new post because of exactly what I said in my previous post.

And lastly, when you find yourself in a position where thousands of people are potentially hanging on your every word, looking for meaning even where there is none, then you can be seen as having equal reason for the rare edit like me. But then again that would likely mean you've made your own game and have your own game forum

Forums are continuous conversations, not set piece battles. You make a post, people respond to it. That gives the readers and responders some degree of ownership in the conversation and I don't think it's fair, necessary, or even useful to have people be able to revise what they said beyond a reasonably short period of time. For all other instances amending is the way to go.

Steve

[Redwolf]

I meant "didn't read" but can't edit it now.

[Battlefront.com]

Nice try

Steve

[Redwolf]

I'm serious. It was one of my usual typos. That I'd like to correct

[Battlefront.com]

Really? Then I'm confused! It makes perfect sense for me the way it is written. With it altered it doesn't make sense at all. So, er, what was your point supposed to be?

Steve

[Redwolf]

If you had made a typo that reverses the meaning of what you said you would go back and correct it. And you could. We can't.

And the timeout is short enough that, contrary to what you said earlier in the thread, the post in question hasn't fallen back by 4 pages. In fact we are discussing it right now.

[JonS]

Not quite sure why the edit limit was imposed in the first place. Don't think there was abuse of it.

I've seen it introduced elsewhere as a way of preventing folk from throwing their toys out of the cot during a meltdown and self-deleting all their own posts. I think it may have been introduced here for the same reason.

Personally, I'd like to see the limit upped to at least 24 hours, probably 36-72 would be better. I suspect that people generally check the boards at about the same time every day, and generally check posts in which they've been active. Often you won't catch your own typos till you have a chance to go away and come back to the post fresh. 30-mins doesn't allow that.

I've also had the situation where I post, notice something is wrong or want to add addl detail, get mid-way through editting a post, go off to do something else for a bit (food, loo, kids, etc), then come back and discover the 30 mins has run out. That is annoying.

Back in the day when there were no edit limits I used to edit my own posts - fixing typos and grammar - years after it was first posted. Probably pointless, but there it is.

Jon

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I frequently edit. Even now, most of my posts have an edit notification. Nothing nefarious, merely typo harvesting. And being a non native English speaker I frequently re-read a post and feeling it needs further work after all. Mostly minutes after posting but sometimes I only detect embarrasing linguistics hours later.

I think the advantages of being allowed to edit outweigh the negative. There was no rampant malicious editing going on. And the current board software supports the linking to the original text underneath through the edit notification. IMHO the current measures are an overreaction to a largely imaginary "threat".

[Paper Tiger]

Although I edit frequently to correct typos that slipped by my initial proof reading I don't think that there's any need for a longer edit period than 30 minutes with the obvious exception of that FAQ thread. I type what I want to say, check it quickly, post it and then read my post again. If I see some horrible typo or some grammatical error I will edit I quickly and then leave it. (Honestly, how often does anybody hammer a non-native poster for a spelling mistake or a grammar error?)

So why do people feel the need to edit after 30 minutes? They have said what they wanted to say and have had 30 minutes to read and reread it. That's more than enough. If you can't polish your argument in that time then you were simply too hasty posting it. And if you really don't like what you said then you shouldn't have posted it in the first place.

[MeatEtr]

Well, look at the bright side, we got more excuses to jack up our post counts!

Btw, does anybody else like me scramble to try and fix typos and whatnot before seeing your post get the "Edited by.." stamp? I strive for perfect posts, hate to see it all go to waste with the edited stamp. :eek:

[Battlefront.com]

Redwolf,

If you had made a typo that reverses the meaning of what you said you would go back and correct it. And you could. We can't.

True, but as I've stated my posts are scrutinized to a degree that none of you, on the best of days, has to endure. Plus I don't edit beyond 1/2 an hour except a couple of times. Apparently unlike you, and others, I reread my post immediately after posting it so I can catch mistakes when it matters most. I do that because I understand that if I put it up for even a 1/2 hour all kinds of crazy stuff can come about if I goofed up something. Therefore I try to make sure that my posts are reread and double checked when it's relevant. 3 days later it's almost definitely irrelevant.

And the timeout is short enough that, contrary to what you said earlier in the thread, the post in question hasn't fallen back by 4 pages. In fact we are discussing it right now.

That's not what I said. I said that this whole thread is less than 3 days old, but you're asking for a 3 day "clawback" capability. Which would be the equal to the original poster going and deleting his entire post that kicked this thread off. And for what? We're not even talking about that stuff any more. We haven't for 2 pages.

JonS,

I've seen it introduced elsewhere as a way of preventing folk from throwing their toys out of the cot during a meltdown and self-deleting all their own posts. I think it may have been introduced here for the same reason.

Yes. As I said, it only takes one such moron to highlight the fact that revisionism is possible. Even though that moron is now banned (a dozen times over) his memory lives on

I've also had the situation where I post, notice something is wrong or want to add addl detail, get mid-way through editting a post, go off to do something else for a bit (food, loo, kids, etc), then come back and discover the 30 mins has run out. That is annoying.

Yes, I can see that being an issue. I can also see Elmar's point about non-native English speakers being slower to edit than native English speakers. But measuring in days isn't supported by such arguments.

Elmar,

There was no rampant malicious editing going on. And the current board software supports the linking to the original text underneath through the edit notification. IMHO the current measures are an overreaction to a largely imaginary "threat".

I think the griping is an overreaction to a largely overblown perceived need The rule for 30 minute edits has been in place for quite some time. Over a year? And it's only coming up for discussion now, despite tens of thousands of posts. Somehow thousands of people have been able to make posts under the 30 minute rule and still manage to communicate with each other without constant reediting hours or even days later.

So it is all a matter of perspective

The real issue here is that a time limit alone isn't the best way to regulate revisions. It should instead be regulated based on where your post is within a thread at the time you go to revise it. The further back it is, the lower the justification for revision and the higher the benefit of making a new post. Time is still important because I don't think people should go back and reedit posts from several years ago (sorry JonS .

With all that in mind I just increased the time limit to 2 hours. I still don't agree this is something really harming the quality of discussion here, but I also agree that a little more flexibility isn't likely to hurt things.

Steve

[Sergei]

I think the griping is an overreaction to a largely overblown perceived need The rule for 30 minute edits has been in place for quite some time. Over a year? And it's only coming up for discussion now, despite tens of thousands of posts. Somehow thousands of people have been able to make posts under the 30 minute rule and still manage to communicate with each other without constant reediting hours or even days later.

Ah, now you're being ignorant of the chronical griping that we've been doing for all that time starting in day one. Not only that, I've also been griping about the poorer search engine in the new board (it can't index such important words like T-72, LAV-25 or ISU 152 because they have too few letters). But cheers for raising the limit.

[Other Means]

The search sucks.

That's as constructive as I can be I'm afraid.

[Elmar Bijlsma]

I think the griping is an overreaction to a largely overblown perceived need The rule for 30 minute edits has been in place for quite some time. Over a year? And it's only coming up for discussion now, despite tens of thousands of posts. Somehow thousands of people have been able to make posts under the 30 minute rule and still manage to communicate with each other without constant reediting hours or even days later.

Day one of the forum, post #6

http://www.battlefront.com/community/showthread.php?t=82534

And edit was used for various reasons, such as to update tourney threads and various threads like Winecapes informative gathering of snippets and when links went bad. Not a whole lot, but it certainly seems it got used much more then abused. Unlimited editing was used for years and no-one got killed.

And once again, the historical record can be preserved now anyway, by clicking on the link of the edit, if you change the forum settings to allow that.

And then there is the Peng thread. With unlimited edit once again enabled a participant of that most regrettable series of threads could repent and delete all his Peng contributions. How can you possibly say "No!" to a potential reduction of Penginess? Strike a blow against the Peng thread, enable unlimited edit! :D

PS

Yeah, the search feature can be pain, if looking for such things known by it's acronym or numbering. Which in the world of military hardware is everything.

PPS

Where are the old emoticons! Ye olde "angry" and "roll eyes" were so much more expressive.

[Battlefront.com]

Elmar,

Day one of the forum, post #6

Cool... so it has been a bit more than a year this ha been in place. Thanks for the confirmation.

For the record, there is probably at least one complaint on this Forum about anything relevant to this Forum, our products, or us as a company. That's because, in case you hadn't noticed, you guys love to complain My point still stands though... if this were REALLY such a huge issue there is absolutely no way we would be here a year later, and tens of thousands of posts made, with the time limit in place. So obviously this is an extremely trivial issue for almost everybody almost all the time.

And edit was used for various reasons, such as to update tourney threads and various threads like Winecapes informative gathering of snippets and when links went bad. Not a whole lot, but it certainly seems it got used much more then abused. Unlimited editing was used for years and no-one got killed.

And we've had this 30 minute limitation in place for a year and no-one got killed either

Unlimited editing is indefensible. I've made several practical, tangible points as to why unlimited editing is not beneficial to a discussion here. So far the only real counter to that is a rare and specific case of a FAQ type post. Oh, and the Peng Thread. But we really don't want to start talking about "greater good" feature requests for this Forum in that context

And once again, the historical record can be preserved now anyway, by clicking on the link of the edit, if you change the forum settings to allow that.

I'll look into that feature as I forgot about it.

Yeah, the search feature can be pain, if looking for such things known by it's acronym or numbering. Which in the world of military hardware is everything.

I agree that the search functionality here sucks in regards to short "words". It is, I think, better than UBB's search functionality.

Steve