Pixtus - Photography Forum, Photographers, Photo Tips

PeteQ · 07-28-2010, 05:54 PM

Agreed, a very good discussion.

Now imagine what this thread would look like if I went back and put a "." in place of every one of my posts. Better yet, go back and read the thread that way. And why shouldn't I edit them? After all, maybe I just got tired of the discussion and wanted to delete my side of things, at least the posts not quoted. Maybe even change up the posts a little to make me look better? Well within the TOS as mentioned before. (And please, lets all not get into the "quote everything" so as to prevent that. OMG those forums are horrible...)

How would that look to the people reading this for the first time tonight? I bet they would think it is disjointed at best and a waste of their time. And I did it just because I could.

I was actually going to do that just for effect but I thought better of it. No need to be a jerk just to illustrate a point. If it takes that then I need to work on my writing skills.

KJ Smith · 07:36 PM

When someone goes back and edits their post, it gets time stamped at the bottom.

We can all see it was edited. That speaks for itself.

At that point do you care what they said??

I will use Wil as an example. I am sure he made a comment that was taken in a different manner than he intended.

He left the comment as was. As far as I know, its still there.

And as far as I know. He is still slightly embarrassed by it.

Despite what he says in this thread, he did the right thing.

That also speaks for it self.

Now lets all do a search and see if he left it......

Your Welcome Wil.

PeteQ · 07-28-2010, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

When someone goes back and edits their post, it gets time stamped at the bottom.

We can all see it was edited. That speaks for itself.

It may speak, but not nearly as clearly as the original text.

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

At that point do you care what they said??

Yes, I do care and I would like to see them expound on their thoughts. If they think that everything they said to that point is worthless, let them post that in a new post at the end of the thread.

KJ Smith · 07-28-2010, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteQ

Yes, I do care and I would like to see them expound on their thoughts. If they think that everything they said to that point is worthless, let them post that in a new post at the end of the thread.

Let me be clear. IMHO the people you are referring to, are not going to do that.

You can not make them.

So they edit and move on.

Take it for what its worth.

They obviously don't wish to discuss it further.

PeteQ · 07-28-2010, 08:22 PM

Kevin, frankly I don't care if they wish to discuss the thread further or not, that's their prerogative. I do, however, think that what they have said should stay so threads have the context they should have.

KJ Smith · 07-28-2010, 08:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteQ

Kevin, frankly I don't care if they wish to discuss the thread further or not, that's their prerogative. I do, however, think that what they have said should stay so threads have the context they should have.

I understand where your coming from.

I am just not sure an edit limit is the answer.

I do like the idea of being able to see the original post like FM.

There was a guy here that was very fast with the smart ass answer. Then completely changing it later.

But he is gone now.....kinda.

Brains · 07-28-2010, 09:03 PM

I've run message forums for many years, finally stepped back from it. One thing I learned, is there's two pretty distinct camps:

1. Those who put themselves above the community. These are the "." editors.

2. Those who feel the community is part of them, and they are part of it. They're typically the ones providing the bulk of genuinely "useful" information - the big threads full of reference material if you will. They edit grammar, they edit spelling mistakes, or they edit to add in further thoughts. They rarely, if ever, edit with "." because they got their fragile feelings hurt.

The problem is, those in camp #1 aren't necessarily useless posters, often far from it. They post very useful information as well, but on the same token will often punish the greater community with their edits by removing useful information along with whatever triggered their upset. They're the ones who feel the forum exists to suit THEIR needs, and the greater context of community is lost upon them. So if THEY are done with a thread, it no longer serves any purpose - their question is answered, so they delete the thread. Their sale thread is complete, so they delete the details of what they were selling. Things like that.

Yes, there are plenty of exceptions and plenty of blending and plenty of people who don't fit neatly in either "box." But by and large, people DO tend to fit one or the other.

In my experience, we allowed full editing, partial (timed) editing, or no editing based on the context of the particular forum. Classifieds allowed no deletions, and no edits after a VERY short time period (we used 5 minutes). You could amend your post after the fact by posting to the thread. Technical forums allowed edits up to 6 hours. Off-topic forums allowed unchecked editing, and were purged periodically to boot. Seemed to work quite well for the community of 110,000 members.

PeteQ · 07-28-2010, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KJ Smith

I am just not sure an edit limit is the answer.

I do like the idea of being able to see the original post like FM.

An edit limit would accomplish seeing the original post without having to click away. Keep it simple. Simple is good....

oldfotopro · 07-28-2010, 10:27 PM

I believe that a majority of people never read all the posts anyway.
This thread is mute for most of them.
The others read all the posts and then make their comment. They don't usually have to go back and edit for content.

KJ Smith · 09:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteQ

An edit limit would accomplish seeing the original post without having to click away. Keep it simple. Simple is good....

I understand that too.

But there are legitimate reasons to edit, even after whatever limit is set.

There should be allowances for that.

I don't necessarily disagree with you.

Just like to see both sides represented.

tertius · 07-29-2010, 01:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteQ

Kevin, frankly I don't care if they wish to discuss the thread further or not, that's their prerogative. I do, however, think that what they have said should stay so threads have the context they should have.

It is their prerogative to edit their post to "." Why should they care about your prerogative to add another post? Why should they make you happy?

Don't get me wrong, I find it annoying as well. But that is their prerogative.

Abel · 07-29-2010, 08:39 AM

what happens is when users change their posts to '.' then the thread then gets filled with holes... threads and/or responses then might not make sense because of members decided to blank out their responses..

A thread that makes no sense is no better than any thread at all.

I've had members that have had their feelings hurt and have decided to leave the forum and began to go through every single one of their posts ever made and replace the content with "." That's not cool and upon noticing that behavior I simply lock their account so they cant make swiss cheese out of our forum.

This forum takes a lot of time in upkeep and maintenance and I for one hate to have these "holes" plugged in all over the place. If a member is pissed and wants to leave.. then leave, I'll close the account and/or change the username to "guest" so that the posts are no longer associated with your original username instead of making a mess of our forum and database..

PeteQ · 07-29-2010, 04:14 PM

I am a bit confused Abel, on one had you say that a thread that makes no sense is better than no thread at all and then you go on to say if someone does "period out" their posts then you will change their username and effective lock them out of their posts. As has been pointed out to me here there are no rules that say that a person cannot do this and the unlimited editing certainly makes it easy.

What constitutes the number of "holes" that one can leave before they are locked out?

If I decided that I no longer wanted to have my unquoted thoughts associated with this thread and went back and dotted out all of my posts would that be ok? How about just a few? What if only a couple in different threads throughout the day?

Yes, I realize I am taking it to the extreme, but to my point, if there were no editing after a reasonable time to allow for typos it would not be an issue in the least. If someone really had a problem and had to have a post deleted (legal issue etc) the mods could do it.

While I am pushing my point, I am not trying to argue, just pointing out the fact that there's a lot of ambiguity in regards to this issue.

KJ Smith · 07-29-2010, 04:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by PeteQ

on one had you

See, you can still edit your typo.

I thought we were talking edits.

If someone goes along removing post, thats a different story.

That should be against the rules.