Time Limit for Editing and Deleting Your Posts?
 

Please vote in the poll! Thanks!!

Doc John,

I think it is great that you are allowing us to vote on the issue of deleting or editing our messages, but I do not understand your position on this. Why would you not want to allow someone the right to their written posts? We were always allowed this at BT and actually I cannot think of any other board that I post on the Internet that does not allow it. I do not think I am comfortable posting on a board that does not allow it.

I think everyone will agree that Healthboards is probably the most moderated board on the Internet. By that I mean that members are not allowed any contact with each other, no e-mail addresses, no PMing, links are not allowed, other board names are not allowed to be mentioned on the threads, the list of things not allowed goes on and on. It is so restrictive that I refuse to post or read there. I find it too frustrating and there are better boards on the Internet, yet some people do post there.

I found this board open and inviting, but now midstream you suddenly changed the rules and I was not informed. You should have placed a sticky at the top of each forum and announced that you had changed the rules before making the changes. I do not check the Community and Forum Feedback usually. When the board first started I visited this forum occasionally to determine what was happening with BT and this board. I was very supportive of this board. I go to the spinal forum to see if there is a question that needs answered and then move on.

If I do not have control over my posts...I simply will not post...

GJZH,

If DocJohn is changing the rules "mid-stream", it's to give us an opportunity to decide if we want to expand the present status of this system that limits edits after 15 minutes or so. Since we got here, the system has restricted editing after a certain period of time. I only realized this when someone asked where their edit button went here in FF.

So DocJohn is actually engaging us to determine if we want a longer period to edit or unlimited ability to edit.

He runs PsychCentral in a certain way and has for years. That is the system he set up here, because it has worked for him at PsychCentral. But due to member concerns, he's decided to poll us to see if we want a longer period to edit our posts.

I'd say that's pretty generous of him. :)

I give DocJohn a lot of credit for being so accommodating with us and what we're used to. He hasn't changed any rules (editing was limited from the beginning), but he MAY change that if the majority of US would prefer to allow editing for an extended or unlimited period.

I think you might have misunderstood what was going on here. DocJohn is offering to give us MORE liberties here, not less.

I must say that I will enjoy seeing what comes of this.

I'm honestly of two minds:

First, if you only have one day to edit your words... perhaps you will be more thoughtful about them and it will mean less flaming. Also, those who choose not to be careful and are not kind to others on a consistent basis will be easy to identify.

However, some things might need to be edited if people are here long term. For example, if you want to tell the story of how you were diagnosed and how you found wellness, it would be nice to be able to post updates without taking up another whole space or having your 'story' chopped into pieces. There might be ways around that though... like a thread of your own... hmmm

Thanks for allowing us the opportunity to voice our opinions on the issue. :)

I also can see both sides...
 

For my own personal view... I can certainly understand DocJohn's, point of view, as an administrator.

And I would also like access to my own material to update it if it needs it.

If this does become a real possibility...DocJohn, and you do decide to try
unlimited edit time... and it leads to grief in some way for this venue, you
can always put it back to the 90 minutes or whatever you feel is best.

What I saw evolve at OBT was a very polite community in the beginning, and as time passed and the net expanded with internet links to OBT common, then the flamers became more frequent and things did change. So I would consider this place as dynamic in that way too. Nothing need be cast in stone at this point.

That is just my opinion.

After reading this message my impression is that a decision has not been made yet. My thought was that this post was an attempt to poll and/or question the members as to what do we want. What would out preference be. To give us the opportunity to have a say in what we want.

However, after reading what GJZH had to say it seemed that a decision has already been made. So now I am confused. GJZH I wonder if you received some type of communication or information to make you feel that a decision has already been made. Did I just misunderstand in thinking this post was for feedback and particpation by members in a pending decision????

Deborah

Hi debtoo,

The time limit for editing posts was changed a couple of days ago. However, members brought up concerns for the time limit and Doc John started the poll.

I hope that helps a bit?

It's good to meet you. :)

I run a tiny website and I've always allowed an unlimited timeframe for editing or deleting posts. I haven't had any problems in relation to this. I can see where it could be a problem with a larger site, but I think people should always have the option at any point in time of retracting or rethinking what they've written.

I've personally wished I hadn't been quite so open on the addiction forum at OBT, as I wrote about some issues that didn't need to be common knowledge in my workplace and I used the same screen name there as I am known by in my email addy. It could have caused me great distress professionally had the wrong person read what I wrote!

Hindsight is 20/20, so they say...

Thanks,
Dented Angel/Lisa

"There is danger in not expressing your feelings. There's an even greater danger in not knowing what they are..."

I'll add the same reminder here that I added in the toher thread...

IF DocJohn decided that there will be a time limit on editing posts, and IF there is something in a post of yours that needs to be edited after the time limit has expired, you can contact the moderator(s) of your forum and ask them to edit the post for you.

So, I just wanted to remind people that even if there is a time limit on editing, that nothing is set in stone, and moderators and administrators will always be happy to assist you if something needs editing at a later date.

If anyone has any questions regarding my thinking on this issue, please see this thread where I make an attempt to explain my concerns:

http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthread.php?t=1355

I will abide by the community's decision on this one. If we ever run into problems in the future, it's something that can easily be put up for further discussion at that time.

Best,
John

Oh gosh, earlier this morning I posted that my son had been gf for 22 months. It seems like forever - LOL. But later I realized that he went gf last November - 10 months ago. Silly mistake which doesn't really matter to anyone but me, but I edited my post to correct it. I can go either way, but if I inadvertantly post incorrect information or make a typo, I like to be able to fix it!

DocJohn,

Am I misunderstanding your position? Are you stating there are restrictions on editing and deleting regardless of the results of the poll? The poll results, though many have not voted, clearly shows people want the ability to edit and delete, without a time restraint. If so, then this is my position:

I think at this time, I am not comfortable with the time restrictions on posting at BT2. I usually only post on the spinal boards and read a few others. Please delete all of my posts at this time. I will delete my membership after this has been accomplished. I do not want to participate in a community that has ownership of my written words. I wish you well with your endeavor. I will await the return of John Lester and the original board. I do not think John would abandon thousand of friends and if he has, I guess he was not the person he portrayed to others.

The huge majority of forums (in the high 90% range) have a time limit on when you can go back and edit your post. The default limit is typically 15 minutes.

It keeps people from saying something that goes against whatever TOS is in place and then deleting it when confronted.

Personally I think unlimited is going to end up causing some problems. Won't know until it happens.

1 day is more than reasonable, and if you want to have something edited after that, contact the forum mods or KD or DocJohn.

gosh GJZH... how could you misinterpret that??? to indicate that DocJohn may have stated, in your words "there are restrictions on editing and deleting regardless of the results of the poll?":confused:

he clearly said "I will abide by the community's decision on this one"

I have used unlimited editing to correct links. Fix misspelled words. Add or fix content to make it clearer. Add to a post to bring it up to date such as in the "journeys" thread. It is also used to keep recipes together in the gluten sensitivity/celiac disease forum. There are times that we ask another if he(or she) wants to add something to an original first post to keep references together.

I posted on the old gluten sensitivity/celiac disease forum for over 3 years and I cannot remember anyone abusing the priviledge of unlimited editing.

I post occasionally on two other celiac disease forums and both have unlimited editing.

I hope that unlimited editing is continued.
Jamietwo said:
Jamietwo, it does matter to those of us on on the GS/CD forum how long your DS has been GF. :cool: We want to celebrate with you as he continues on the path to better health. :)

Anne

To those who know how this all works:

A long time ago I had a conversation (email) with John Lester about editing. He told me that even if something was edited, that at his end, he still could see what was the original post; so we didn't have to worry about people flaming, editing and running. He said he had a record of everything that has ever been written, and edited.

Does it work this way? Maybe my recollection isn't correct. I certainly wouldn't swear to it on a Bible.

Thanks,

Linda

Most of my edits occur within the first few minutes of posting to correct typos and whatnot. However, I love the way some of the threads on the GS/CD forum are regularly updated... especially the diagnostic journeys and the Gluten File.

I was reading this thread (http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...?t=1200&page=2 post#13) and found it very disconcerting to see that Swift's thread was editted by kimmydawn. At the time, I did not know she was an administrator. From reading the rest of the thread, it seems the post was editted to spell out cerebral palsy, making it easier for the rest of the world to read it. Anyway, with the talk of not wanting folks to "change history," why are moderators allowed to edit and put words in our mouths? I can understand when moderators lock threads and delete a lot of imflammatory words, but spelling out cerebral palsy? Or did Swift request it? Or was there more to that post I don't know about? (Swift has always struck me as pretty polite, so I don't think it was an imflammatory post.) I assume you can't easily allow one person to edit one specific post from 6 months ago for a 24 hour time period?

Anyway, I don't know what the answer is. I just know I was upset to see Swift's post editted by kimmydawn and no reason given as to why.

Hi and it's good to meet you. :)

Help was asked for here:

http://forums.braintalk2.org/showthr...cerebral+palsy

thanks for the concern.

KD

Doc John,
I am guilty to sometimes not want to bring a post to the top, but like to update it. The unlimited feature allows me to do this.

Also, sometimes information is updated, or should I say out dated in the science world. The unlimited feature has allowed me to update new links, new information for those that even years from now could access.
What is the practicality of a 90 minute?
Liuke the one poster above, sometimes it takes several tries to correct typos in a high pain mode, or fingers ae buzzed out.

Sometimes I even linnk back to a post that I see is not sounding like I meant it to...I would drive the moderators NUTS to help me correct or update.
Just my thoughts,
Dianne

I agree that there are potential issues with having unlimited time to edit. I don't think though that 90 minutes is long enough.

The reason being my very ancient computer. I still use dial up and there have been many times when I have had to leave and reboot so that I could edit a post. By the time I log off and reboot and then find my way back, 15 minutes is not near long enough. And if I get side tracked by one of my kids then the 90 minutes isn't enough. Life does happen and we do get interupted.

My two cents.

Laura

Something else to consider, when you edit a post it doesn't get bumped.

With the thought of having one of the moderators fix a post.

Hmmm, what if you have had a run in with the moderator on
other site's and you don't want to take a chance of doing that
here and letting them do something to make you unwelcome.

I wont give that a chance.

I am very careful with what I will allow someone else to do.

Donna

If you're not comfortable dealing with a moderator, then you can always ask kimmydawn or DocJohn :)

I voted for unlimited. They are our words, after all.

But, on the other hand, do our words become the property of Braintalk2, once posted?

Making a new post to bump the updated thread is not a problem. It's much better than than having disjointed information [data that is split across several posts - or worse yet...several pages!!].

Well, I feel a little better about Swift's case. But, I still don't like it. Wish I could articulate it better, but all I have is that gut feeling of "I don't like it."

very good point zs.

so if posts are being editied to update informationm such as new medical news, how is anyone to know of such new news if an old post is edited?

i can see a lot of good information being lost in old posts. and very important info!

there needs to be some middle ground. i absolutly understand the concerns. the option of having admins or mods edit is still there on what ever time frame is chosen.

I asked for that to be changed - partly because my typing fatigues, and partly because I'm used to taking lectures, I abbreviate a lot...and a while after posting it I realised that CP does have other meanings too.

Swift

Mechanical tasks and brain disorders
 

I favor indefinite changes. To deal with the problem of the possible troublemaker changing their words, it's not beyond reach to hit the "quote" button and preserve a post in the very next post. If someone is going to make trouble, they're going to do it more than once, so missing the first time may not matter. I favor letting the deviant go a few times rather than holding everyone to a time limit.

People with Parkinson's (PWPs) have a similar problem to others, in that if someone goes "off"--meds/chemical costume not working---unpredictably, it might take hours or (sadly) days before a person can type or manage the buttons again.

The simple expedient of typing on another "page" such as a word processing program and then pasting the item to the reply screen is beyond what many a PWP can contemplate and/or fuss with.

Jaye

In our situation, it's a matter of ADDING info to an existing post. Here's a perfect example. Here's the [cached version] Diagnostic Testing Page of The Gluten File. Any one of the those posts could be edited and added to as new information becomes available. We use this concept heavily in organizing the board.

We also tend to develop index threads to popular subjects. As Cara discussed in another post about this, we had an extensive recipe index. Dedicated members will scour the board and gather up all the threads and compile an index thread. When a new recipe, food study, etc has been added, that index is updated with a link to that post.

If anyone feels like the thread needs to be brought to the top of the stack, a BUMP post is made.

I think you can see, that we work very hard at organizing the information we post! Without the extended edit abilities....ughhhh....I'd hate to even think about how the data would look.

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!