From a practical standpoint, I really don't like the idea of not being able to get back to my own words, for very innocent and valid reasons that have already been discussed.

From a philosophical point of view, this is more of a civil liberties sort of issue. We are talking about taking away the rights of the majority who don't abuse the edit capability to control the minority who abuse it. I believe Doc John threw out some random figures suggesting perhaps only 1% abuse the capability, but that 1% can really wreak havoc. Even if 5% abuse the capability, is it right to take the edit ability away from the rest? Perhaps those who repeatedly abuse this do deserve to be banned?

In terms of effectiveness, if the main goal is to catch people in the act of their words, then the limit should revert back to 15 minutes. Once increased to a day or two, or even 90 minutes, is it really effective? It seems that is plenty of time for the "hit and change" abuse to occur.

While I've already seen some benefit of the words cast in stone, and I believe it would train some people to think before they speak, I still have a a hard time coming down in favor of any limit.

Do we really want to bog our moderators down with the mundane task of correcting and changing others posts?

Here is a new question.

Is there the technical capability to change the limit of edit time per user?
(I want to say privilege, but really??? editing our own words is a privilege???)

Would it be possible to put individuals who abuse the indefinite edit capability on "probation" by limiting their editing capability back to 15 minutes? or is there a review capability, where the post has to "pass" by a moderator before being added out, for those who have abused the editing capability?

Even if some false accusations were being made, the innocent might accept and even welcome an "edit probation" while working out a flaming or other negative situation. We tend to be more willing to give up our personal freedoms when we've actually been the target or recipient of wrongdoing...which probably explains the differences of opinions expressed here.

Cara

As for how do people know if the new thread has been updated, either

1) it isn't important enough to call attention to (Like, "hey everybody, I corrected an expired/spent/changed link"), but those reviewing the thread or reading it for the first time will have the benefit of updated or corrected info

2) if it is really important and I want to be sure people see it, I add a post to the end of the thread, AND update it up at the top.

We may be highly organized, but most of our members seem to really appreciate that :D. Not all the forums operate as heavily on 'data' as we do, but we offer both support and data.

Cara

For us [and many others] - Knowledge means Health. The more we know about our afflication, ourselves, our food, the healither we will be. The data [this is seperate from support that is offered] that we post, is crucial to our daily existance. Eating the wrong food can make us sick!

If per user is not possible, then perhaps per forum, or some other method? According to the current vote tally, it appears that “Unlimited” is winning out, but if there are problems in the future I would hope it would be possible that everyone would not have to be restricted due to a few who might abuse this feature.

Also for those who might not be aware, there is a “Reason for Editing” field at the bottom of the edit screen. We should be courteous and use this, or perhaps put a note in our edited versions (when/where appropriate) so people would know why the post was edited. For small edits, just a few words should suffice. The time stamp is also updated at the bottom of the post after a post is edited (same place where the “Reason for Editing” is put).

DocJohn

I think it is a great idea to add a poll asking us what we think
about this editing of the posts.
I am in favor of the unlimited editing.
Thank you for everything you have done here for us.
I think you are doing a great job!
~Kell~

My vote is One Day...This gives people time enough to re-read their posts and make changes if they so desire. I do not know of any other forum that allows unlimited time. Wittesea mentioned to contact the administrators if changes need to be made later on and then it is at the discresion (sp) of the Mod whether to edit or not. Is there a spell check on here? :p

It looks like it will be unlimited, but I'll keep things open a few more days to ensure everyone has had a chance to see this and vote.

I wish there were a way to set permissions on this feature with more granularity, but it appears to be an all-or-nothing setting for the entire community.

John

Why would you, even, consider, setting a time-limit, when, some
of us have to depend, on, library computers, and, sometimes, we're not
able to get on-line, for a few weeks?? Doesn't seem, to make much
sense, to me.

[QUOTE=jccglutenfree;12979]From a practical standpoint, I really don't like the idea of not being able to get back to my own words, for very innocent and valid reasons that have already been discussed.

From a philosophical point of view, this is more of a civil liberties sort of issue. We are talking about taking away the rights of the majority who don't abuse the edit capability to control the minority who abuse it. I believe Doc John threw out some random figures suggesting perhaps only 1% abuse the capability, but that 1% can really wreak havoc. Even if 5% abuse the capability, is it right to take the edit ability away from the rest? Perhaps those who repeatedly abuse this do deserve to be banned?

In terms of effectiveness, if the main goal is to catch people in the act of their words, then the limit should revert back to 15 minutes. Once increased to a day or two, or even 90 minutes, is it really effective? It seems that is plenty of time for the "hit and change" abuse to occur.

While I've already seen some benefit of the words cast in stone, and I believe it would train some people to think before they speak, I still have a a hard time coming down in favor of any limit.

Do we really want to bog our moderators down with the secretarial task of correcting and changing others posts?

Here is a new question.

Is there the technical capability to change the limit of edit time per user?
(I want to say privilege, but really??? editing our own words is a privilege???)

Would it be possible to put individuals who abuse the indefinite edit capability on "probation" by limiting their editing capability back to 15 minutes? or is there a review capability, where the post has to "pass" by a moderator before being added out, for those who have abused the editing capability?

Even if some false accusations were being made, the innocent might accept and even welcome an "edit probation" while working out a flaming or other negative situation. We tend to be more willing to give up our personal freedoms when we've actually been the target or recipient of wrongdoing...which probably explains the differences of opinions expressed here.

Cara[/QUOTE

Cara asked a couple of questions that I had thought of myself but if I'm understanding what Doc John said, it won't be possible to do this, unfortunately. Personally I still don't care for the unlimited time (I agree with Phillipe) but I do see the point that many of you are trying to make as far as being able to add or change information. Since I only read and post on one forum, I'm not aware of what goes on on others and that it may be necessary to update info regularly on some forums to be able to keep up with the latest info on certain conditions or illnesses. But, I do want to say that assuming that if you "quote" a troublemaker's post in a reply thinking that that way the words written by the troublemaker can't be edited out there, didn't always work at OBT. I remember several times where people did just that, thinking that that way the troublemaker couldn't go back and edit out the "bad" part, but evidently there had been enough complaints about the troublemaker- and the mods would either edit out the "bad" parts of the troublemakers post AND the "bad" parts in the quoted post, or several times I saw not only the troublemaker's post completely removed but also the other person's "quoted" post was totally removed too- in other words, the inocent person's post was removed to punish the troublemaker. And there wouldn't be any explanation and the inocent person(s) would feel either hurt or embarrassed thinking that they were being punished (or banned) when what they had said wasn't bad at all.

Thanks for the opportunity!