Post editing time preference survey

[admin]

There has been some talk about the time frame for editing submitted posts. Currently it is set at 30 minutes to allow for corrections in spelling, grammar, formatting, etc... However, I am open to changing this value. My original intent was to give some editing time for minor fixes but still preserve the content. I think we have all been on forums that allow indefinite editing and then somebody decides to go back and delete their entire post. I'm sure this would be a very infrequent occurrence here on CJO, and I have only had a small handful of requests to alter previous posts from users. Nonetheless, I am open to input. Just be aware that if we choose "indefinite", a user has the ability to delete every post they have ever made on the site and all that input/knowledge/etc would be lost and unrecoverable by me.

CJO is your site. I want to run it how you guys (and gals) want it. So I'm going to open this poll up for 30 days for feedback to see what the users prefer.

[Wildcat]

In a couple of forums I've administered, having an indefinite editing time turned into a headache. Sometimes a member has regrets, or gets into a tussle with the moderators, and they'll go in and either remove the content of the post, or delete the post entirely. (And I haven't used phpBB in over a decade so I don't know if posts can be "soft deleted" vs. being permanently removed from the database.) That throws off entire conversations when "holes" get cut into them. I think we've always used a 10-30 minute editing window--just enough time to correct a few errors, but not so long that someone having a change of heart could make a mess out of many threads they've participated in.

[AnotherJohnson]

It’s always a trade off between the mad destroyer and the OCD corrector.

I fall into the latter category and appreciate more time to add new links, or share updated info.

[Wildcat]

I do the same--I'm a stickler for spelling and grammar (although I'm way better at the former than the latter), and I'll go back and fix little things as I see them. I admit it's sometimes a pain to have to quote the original post in a new one to add information after the editing window has closed, but having been on the other side, I can understand why a forum doesn't often have an indefinite editing window.

[AnotherJohnson]

I understand too. I told admin to do what he thought was best. I’ve seen disgruntled posters go back and decimate a forum… literally scorched earth.

Maybe there could be classes of users … though this adds work. And I do not want admin to feel burdened.

[admin]

These are all really good things to consider.

I too like editing windows on posts in the other forums I am active in. It's nice to make corrections for spelling and grammar, especially if I am writing a post while on my phone. And although I am not technically bound with editing times on here due to my administration privilege, I try to self-impose a similar editing time limit as well. If I need to ad something new and a substantial time has passed, I will make another post and not just go back and edit a previous.

I’ve seen disgruntled posters go back and decimate a forum… literally scorched earth.

This really is the reason why I didn't set the board for indefinite editing. It's a rare event on forums, but I've seen it a few times and it completely destroys the narrative of a post. We are a relatively small community, but what we may not have in volume I think we make up in quality. Losing even a few topics worth of information could be a significant loss to the community.

Also, if there is an edit that is important to make or requested, I have done that in the past. An example of this would be a situation where a user posted the real name of another. I was asked for his name to be removed and of course I immediately went back and edited that out and politely asked the original user not to use real names unless permission was granted beforehand. I have to wonder if indefinite editing was enabled, would that original user have just deleted all there posts and moved on? If so, the entire context of the full topic (which has many posts) would have been destroyed.

These events are very rare on CJO. We have a very respectful and civil community and I can count on one hand how many times manual edits have been needed in the past decade.

There is also another event that could cause loss that we should consider. If a user's account information was stolen or compromised. Imagine if a user such as AnotherJohnson's account was compromised by a spam bot. It could literally go back and wipe out 2500+ posts and replace it with some scam link to auto insurance. A security lapse on the user side is not something I can control, and again, I would not have the ability to recover the original posts. Now it is unlikely that somebody would go through the effort getting your password specifically for this site, but we should remember that if somebody hacks your email address, they will automatically have the ability to reset your password on CJO. Stealing people's email credentials is a top target for hackers.

From a technical side. Once an edit is made, the original is lost forever. There is no "versioning" information either. So, the last edit is the only copy available.

Maybe there could be classes of users … though this adds work.

I don't mind the extra work if it improves the site, but I'm not sure if this is technically feasible with the software that runs CJO. Editing time is a global setting. There are group permissions that allow editing of posts, but they are for moderation purposes. In other words, it would allow a user to edit all posts, not just their own. Obviously, that would not be acceptable.

Regardless, let's see what the poll says and we can make changes that we think will benefit the users most.