No "edit" option on my posts....

[An Infinite Journey]

I can see the logic of both sides. It would definitely help the sellers to keep things a little more straight forward as to what was still available (see my recent post in the buy/sell forum) - but I totally understand the need for self control.
Thank you for everyones help.
Michie

[Steve Gledhill]

Wouldn't we all like to turn the clock back now and again? I certainly would.

For correcting spelling or minor points of clarification the option to edit at any time later would be good. However, many threads in this forum depend on what's said, how it's said and the chronology in which it's said. The option to edit earlier entries is open to misuse at worst or causing confusion [entered via edit !] - unless the full before and after is displayed as well as a time stamp for the change. Obviously none of us would misuse an edit facility would we ... ?

A better way to handle this is for the person who wants to edit their entry after the edit window has closed is to simply add a new clarifying post possibly quoting the original post. Although I do try to spell correctly, I can live with the odd missspelt word.

[Kirk Gittings]

Got the answer, but not the explanation or logic as to why.

I'm guessing, because this was set long before I became a moderator, but based on related discussions, the forum is both a present place for discussion and an archive of information and thought related to LF. Everyone has a chance to edit their thoughts for a short period, but after that, for better or worse, your post become part of the archive. We would rather have people carefully consider the content of their posts as they are making them, knowing that they will be preserved and public for a very long time.

[Preston]

Kirk,

Can the edit 'window of opportunity' be increased to (say) 1 hour, or 2 hours? That may be a good compromise.

--P

[Eric James]

Preston, My guess of thirty minutes was off - you'll see in my "last edited" comment that I was able to edit at least ninety after my original post.

There is both a time limit and a response cut-off. Once a reply is posted, even if within the time limit, the original post cannot be edited.

This avoids situations where elements of the original post to which others have responded might be changed if edits were allowed beyond the configured limits.

I'm confused

[Ralph Barker]

There is both a time limit and a response cut-off. Once a reply is posted, even if within the time limit, the original post cannot be edited.

This avoids situations where elements of the original post to which others have responded might be changed if edits were allowed beyond the configured limits.

[Kuzano]

Nothing like having the option to go back three days later and dig the bullet out of the body. ...

Lazarus anyone?

[Kirk Gittings]

Nothing like having the option to go back three days later and dig the bullet out of the body. ...

Lazarus anyone?

[sanking]

I'm guessing, because this was set long before I became a moderator, but based on related discussions, the forum is both a present place for discussion and an archive of information and thought related to LF. Everyone has a chance to edit their thoughts for a short period, but after that, for better or worse, your post become part of the archive. We would rather have people carefully consider the content of their posts as they are making them, knowing that they will be preserved and public for a very long time.

I agree in principle with the notion that people need to carefully consider the content of their posts but believe that the 30 minutes to an hour limit is too short. Most forums appear to allow a period of some twelve to to twenty-four hours to edit posts and that seem much more reasonable to me than the current limit on this forum.

Sandy King

[neil poulsen]

I see some sense in the way it is now.

A thread is a sequential flow of logic. Making changes to a post after subsequent posts runs the risk of putting those later posts out of context and can thereby disrupt that flow of logic.

Another problem could occur when a quoted post is changed after it's been quoted.

It seems like 30 minutes is sufficient for someone to carefully review what they've written. (And, that's in addition to the "Go Advanced" option that offers it's own editing cycle.) If a member wants to add additional information later, they could quote their own post and add the information at that time.

Or, they could restate their position after quoting their own earlier post. In that way, it would be clear how their thinking had changed by comparing the two statements side-by-side.