Looks like the "idea" is catching....
 

A certain other forum, is following suit.

However, the reason given there is very strange. Can anyone here verify that
unlimited edits eat server space? Is this true?

I can understand removing "abuse" potential. I would think that the Quote function takes more server space than edit.

I'll even share this one with you all:
I joined another venue recently, and they use vBulletin too. Only another skin.
The posting window is VERY small, so I hit enter and start a new line out of habit, I guess when I hit the edge. So I got an email from the admin after about 10 posts saying don't post in short sentences...it eats space. ???? So I looked at all the other posters, and they QUOTE every single post over and over and my 1 inch long post is the SHORTEST of all of theirs which are many inches long! Quoting the same posters over and over...makes the threads there very long and hard to read. But my 4 sentence post gets tagged? How weird is that? Needless to say I am not posting there anymore.

hmmmmmmmmmm
I too am puzzled by the reasoning of server space and the edit window mrsD

maybe someone who understands vBulletin can shed insight on that

however, here is was purely a case of it becoming very hard for mods to keep track of old posts being edited in ways against guidelines or to change the history of threads in their favor after the fact etc

just adding again that members who need edits or deletes should just contact the mods of their forums or myself or KimmyDawn and we will help wherever we can, whether it is a spelling correction, link update or removal of personal info etc . No reasonable offer refused :)

Honestly, anyone who is micromanaging their community to this extreme and worrying about 10 bytes versus 100 bytes per message suggests that either they are on a very limited hosting plan (and therefore can't support much growth in the community without falling over badly), or have very limited hardware. I find such arguments frustrating and very "1990's" in this day and age where I can buy 250 GB drives for under $100.

So the answer is, no, edits do not take up any significant additional server space and that's a completely bogus reason.

We will always keep up with our user's demands here at Neurotalk. Post as much as you'd like, it's MY job to ensure you have a reliable, secure and expandable platform to do so. If I don't do my job, then I'm failing as a community host.

Remember, computers are about helping people and giving them more power, not asking people to change their behaviors to meet the computers' needs.

John

Thanks for the reply, DocJohn !
 

I suspected that excuse (eating server resources) the minute I read it... as a red herring.

I could smell it all the way thru my terminal! :thud:

I appreciate the confirmation and so do others as well! ;)

I for one really appreciate the limiting of edits. It prevents abuse of the system, editing posts so much that you are left wondering what the whole thing was about, or wondering what potentially useful information was deleted. I have known situations where it was like a kid that got mad and said, "I'm taking my toys and going home!" I know that if I ever did need to go back in and edit something, that one of our nice mods would be glad to do it, assuming I have a good and valid reason for doing so.

yes....Lois....some did do that, but in fairness some people also delete their posts for very valid reasons ranging from protectiveness of their privacy to realising after the fact that they wished they hadnt made the post or many other good reasons

once again...we are here to help with edits and deletes when needed:)

Ok, I found out what the problem was... I had an extra zero on the edit time, making it more like 7 days than the intended 12 hours. All fixed now, thank you.

John

NOW I understand why the archives have not gone back up and probably never will. Server space. When someone doesn't use a hosting service, but instead maintains his own stacks in a basement.... VERY limited to what you have in the way of the space (photos showed very crowded area). And tons of gigs of space now perhaps otherwise devoted to other ventures??

And the search function possibly sucks a lot more bandwidth, maybe leading to crashes. The archives were an entire web resource and brought in many people. But maybe he could bring in Google to index and maintain the search capabilities for the site?

just popping in... will drop in again in a few months again... nice to see so many familiar "faces" ...

Hi OMT

I assume you are referring to the original BRAINTalk archives? Because here at NEUROTalk the archives are safe and easily accessible by everyone, members and guests alike! :)

I did some searching on the net....
 

since OBT changed its banner to say est. 1993.

I was surprised at that. So I looked and looked for links from old forums.
Then I thought well, maybe they were not public but only retrievable from
MGH by MGH patients in the beginning. Still nothing.

So I went to Wayback Archives. By fiddling around there--- which I find difficult and slow BTW--- I discovered something very interesting.

I found the very first posts when the 1997 forum opened. It was on 10-10-97.
This is the forum I called the "first" forum, since many of us old timers started out then. I joined there in late 97 early 98 myself. It was a pretty rough place, with insults flying, mean petty posting, and endless flames.

So I checked the first posts on several forums there on Wayback. I found JL posting a short welcome. Then on Spinal Disorders I found a very telling post.
I won't copy it here, you can PM me for it if you want. It was a couple of days later, and it opined: "Why can't we have the data from the first THREE forums that we worked so hard on then?" It went on to say, details about the previous 3 formats then. So the opening of the 1997 forum was in reality the FOURTH forum by MGH and JL. And the data was NOT restored for use.
That was in 1997. It appears that a pattern was in place even then, 10 yrs ago, to just drop previous work and efforts with no explanation. I think it is very possible that we will never see the archives. I suspect they were never
backed up, or that the personal intent of JL is to never make them available,
and just move on.(as he has done in the past more than once).

And I think I mispoke my earlier question here. The "excuse" for changing the edit function there was SPEED not space. Being the computer dope that I am, I didn't understand that fine point. It appears there is enough SPACE to have all our chatroom graphics on that server. Yep, they are there. Only we cannot use them, only the forum admin is using them now. Just right click on the graphics he uses and you will see the address. If you try a general index address however it says forbidden.

Also anyone can search Google and find vBulletin.org forum posts on how to
optimize speed on vBulletin. There are many complex ways to accomplish it, but none of the long lists of computerese fixes includes changing the time on the edit button. The number of registered posters at OBT is not great at any one time. I have seen 60-80 on average. How many do you think are editing at any one time? Maybe none, or maybe 2 or 3 at most? Some drain.:rolleyes:

I am reminded of this quote by Galileo:
"All truths are easy to understand once they are discovered; the point is to discover them."

I really appreciate this forum for its forthright approach to this issue.
At least the truth is more forthcoming here. I may not agree with the new policy, but I can respect its need. And the availability offered to help, is
appreciated as well.