-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Ability to edit old posts expires
- Thread starter apacheguy
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Site Feedback
I'm not caught up with the thread yet so apologies if this is redundant:
1. As I understand it, the first post in the "Guide/FAQ" thread has been turned into a wiki.
2. This has the "good" effect that it retains the ability for FlasherZ to edit that first post.
3. This has the "bad" effect that it opens the ability for others to edit that first post.
Question: Does the forum software allow editing of specific wikis to be granted only to those in specific groups (example: Saint Louis Tesla Enthusiasts)?
If yes, then my proposal would be:
4. Create "FlasherZ's approved editors for FlasherZ's wiki Guide" group (FAEFFWG).
5. Make FlasherZ the owner with approval power for new membership to FAEFFWG.
6. Change the modify permissions for the Guide/FAQ wiki post of that thread to include only FAEFFWG members and Moderators.
HankLloydRight
No Roads
If doable, that really only solves one specific issue (albeit an important one). It's a work-around. Not a solution.
But for all other "wiki" style posts, the mods would have to go through steps 4,5,6 for every wiki style post and it's exclusive "owner". I have a dashcam install thread that I'd like to update with helpful information provided by other users in my thread (at the very end of it) that really simplifies the installation for future readers. Do I request my thread also to be turned into a wiki? And then a new custom user group created for me? Lather, rinse, repeat for *every* user who wants exclusive access to edit a first post in a thread to turn it into a wiki. That sounds like A LOT more work for the mods then simply allowing users to edit their own posts.
So I don't think that really solves the problem in a more simple way that I've already proposed.
Also, isn't there the problem that Wiki's aren't searchable as easily as normal threads/posts?
But for all other "wiki" style posts, the mods would have to go through steps 4,5,6 for every wiki style post and it's exclusive "owner". I have a dashcam install thread that I'd like to update with helpful information provided by other users in my thread (at the very end of it) that really simplifies the installation for future readers. Do I request my thread also to be turned into a wiki? And then a new custom user group created for me? Lather, rinse, repeat for *every* user who wants exclusive access to edit a first post in a thread to turn it into a wiki. That sounds like A LOT more work for the mods then simply allowing users to edit their own posts.
So I don't think that really solves the problem in a more simple way that I've already proposed.
Also, isn't there the problem that Wiki's aren't searchable as easily as normal threads/posts?
I feel your frustration. It sucks when it feels like you or your ideas are not being properly heard. Terse answers by moderators certainly have been a bit of on-going sin here, but I guess on many internet forums as well. Obviously the feeling among the responding administrators/moderators is that the decision to limit edits and/or the problem behind that decision ultimately weighs more than your concern does and that's the current reality. The merging of the two threads may mean there is some level of wanting to contain/hide the lashout as well.
Hopefully all that is because late edits actually was a bigger problem than your concern is, rather than just the inertia of things - taking back a decision is harder once it has been made and implemented. Unfortunately the latter is too often the reality of the world. Reversing bad decisions is often harder than making them, socially.
Personally I would think the kinds of contributions FlasherZ does should trump any concerns over late edits by a deranged few. If you must, put some seniority limit on the ability to curb out the largest risk group. Big contributors are a large attraction on any forum like this.
I am a bit late to this discussion, but as someone who is on the dark side, guilty of frequent editing and less frequent deleting of posts, I feel obliged to chime in.
My reasons for editing and deleting posts are numerous. At this stage, they may be irrelevant to this discussion. I will gladly elaborate if people feel that it adds value to the topic of removing the edit function after 24hrs, or if someone is curious.
When I deleted or edited posts, I was not thinking that my actions might have such adverse effect on moderators and other members. I did not give it a second thought when doing it. I am not familiar with the details of moderators' work. Now I can see the unfortunate escalation and unintended consequences. My sincere apologies to all, but most of all to Robert and Nigel for causing trouble, it was unintentional but nonetheless careless and thoughtless.
There were many proposed software solutions presented up thread. My experience with problem-solving is that the problems most often persist due to a lack of resources to implement solutions, not because there is no solution.
It might be easier and more effective to ask people to behave in desired ways rather than try to control them with software. If deleting posts is undesirable, then it might be helpful to have messaging in a pop-up or similar. A message telling people that their action might cause considerable trouble to someone else is likely to cut out most of the undesired behaviour.
If removing the edit option has a goal to reduce moderators' workload, then perhaps such goal can be achieved by simply intervening a bit less. Perhaps a short trial can be done by any moderator that chooses to do it - reduce a moderation for a week or any set period of time - then evaluate the difference.
If the reason for removing edit option is multifaceted, including something that can not be shared publicly, then without adequate understanding the discussion is moot.
It seems that TMCers feel strongly about their ability to edit being taken away after 24hrs. Such change seems to be not welcome, as most attempts at controlling behaviour are not welcome.
In some instances, behaviour compliance needs to be achieved, for various reasons. I do not have sufficient understanding of the underlying reasons for this change and it is not my place to say how it should be. I am sorry for my contribution to this unfortunate outcome.
My reasons for editing and deleting posts are numerous. At this stage, they may be irrelevant to this discussion. I will gladly elaborate if people feel that it adds value to the topic of removing the edit function after 24hrs, or if someone is curious.
When I deleted or edited posts, I was not thinking that my actions might have such adverse effect on moderators and other members. I did not give it a second thought when doing it. I am not familiar with the details of moderators' work. Now I can see the unfortunate escalation and unintended consequences. My sincere apologies to all, but most of all to Robert and Nigel for causing trouble, it was unintentional but nonetheless careless and thoughtless.
There were many proposed software solutions presented up thread. My experience with problem-solving is that the problems most often persist due to a lack of resources to implement solutions, not because there is no solution.
It might be easier and more effective to ask people to behave in desired ways rather than try to control them with software. If deleting posts is undesirable, then it might be helpful to have messaging in a pop-up or similar. A message telling people that their action might cause considerable trouble to someone else is likely to cut out most of the undesired behaviour.
If removing the edit option has a goal to reduce moderators' workload, then perhaps such goal can be achieved by simply intervening a bit less. Perhaps a short trial can be done by any moderator that chooses to do it - reduce a moderation for a week or any set period of time - then evaluate the difference.
If the reason for removing edit option is multifaceted, including something that can not be shared publicly, then without adequate understanding the discussion is moot.
It seems that TMCers feel strongly about their ability to edit being taken away after 24hrs. Such change seems to be not welcome, as most attempts at controlling behaviour are not welcome.
In some instances, behaviour compliance needs to be achieved, for various reasons. I do not have sufficient understanding of the underlying reasons for this change and it is not my place to say how it should be. I am sorry for my contribution to this unfortunate outcome.
NigelM
Recovering Member
I apologize for coming to this a little late but thanks Auzie for stopping to to think about how editing/deleting affects others. I'm absolutely sure that if we polled members and asked "Should every member be able to delete or edit posts you've already replied to?" The answer would be a clear "No"; it messes up historical conversations and has the potential to make many discussions look nonsensical. I'll admit that in the moderator past-life I supported the move to reduce editing abilities for that very reason, and I still do.
That said however, I agree we do need a better solution for folks like Flasher, wk057, Akikiki (and a few others) who provided a great service (or subject of high interest) that required them to keep going back and updating an old post. I know that Doug has a lot to do and like the mods also has a full time civilian job, but hopefully he's trying to find some time to come up with an alternative solution for those members that are providing help to others. We may have to be more patient than we'd really like to be but perhaps the depth of feeling on this issue has moved it up the priority list.
While I'm here I'd also like to thank Flasher for his real-life support and contributions to my panel at TESLIVE and for leading a side table discussion at TMC. His willingness to share advice and knowledge was much appreciated.
That said however, I agree we do need a better solution for folks like Flasher, wk057, Akikiki (and a few others) who provided a great service (or subject of high interest) that required them to keep going back and updating an old post. I know that Doug has a lot to do and like the mods also has a full time civilian job, but hopefully he's trying to find some time to come up with an alternative solution for those members that are providing help to others. We may have to be more patient than we'd really like to be but perhaps the depth of feeling on this issue has moved it up the priority list.
While I'm here I'd also like to thank Flasher for his real-life support and contributions to my panel at TESLIVE and for leading a side table discussion at TMC. His willingness to share advice and knowledge was much appreciated.
Last edited:
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
Why not make valued members like Flasher, for example, a moderator i.e. giving him the priviligies to edit his posts, but without him taking on full moderator responsibilites?
Last night I implemented a solution that should give contributing members like the ones mentioned the ability to continue to edit the first post in their threads. Normally I like to verify software changes on a test server for a few days. That didn't happen here, so fingers crossed.
bollar
Disgruntled Member
Thanks for doing that. How does one know he's on the list / how does one get on the list?
HankLloydRight
No Roads
Last edited:
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
Excellent, doug. Much appreciated.
I think a lot of frustration could have been avoided had you simply stated "I'm looking into a solution but need to test this on a test server to make sure it doesn't eat your kittens".
Communication is good. Over-communication is often better.
That's hard when you feel like you can barely keep up with keeping the machinery running.
I'll be happy to volunteer my services as backup admin if that would help make your life easier.
I used the Supporting Member usergroup, of which those mentioned are already part.
Could you please explain what is the problem with deleting a post, especially for example something that has errors or wrong information. Would that not be better than letting misinformation set out there permanently for someone to stumble upon? How is anyone confused by deletion of posts--please provide some detailed explanation because it is not obvious to me.
i'm a technical guy and don't do a bunch of chit chat nor do i have or want to have 11k posts out there. i don't post often but when i do i want it to be the best technical information i have or can find at the time. If it turns out the information was in error then it needs to be edited or deleted so as to keep the integrity and signal-to-noise ratio high.
It's the people that have gone back and deleted dozens or hundreds of posts in anger that cause a lot of problems. If there is an old post you really need changed or deleted simply report the post yourself and in comments say what you want done.
I don't see the harm really . People will post what it was about if it gets confusing.
Now you have to pay for your freedom.
If people didn't quote the original post or the dozens of other posts then unless people have photographic memories they won't be able to recall everything. Then it would take going back and restoring every single post they deleted or altered.
Sorry you feel this way about your freedom.
dirkhh
Middle-aged Member
You can disrupt things quite badly. Just yesterday I saw a case where someone deleted a post and then the comments on that post (that happened not to quote it) that were following seemed very nonsensical.
That seems a bit harsh. I think my freedom is not defined by whether I can edit older posts of mine...
From doug's point of view I think this is a reasonable compromise. Now the people who can cause chaos are at least people who have donated some money.
I repeat what I said earlier in this thread: I'd be extremely surprised if TMC really created a net profit for doug. And if it does, it likely reflects an hourly rate below 10¢ an hour for him...
Which reminds me... I need to contribute so I can go back and cause havoc, err, I meant to say, so I support this great resource we have here
bonnie
I play a nice person on twitter.
How would you feel if you were responding to someone & then, after the fact, they edit their post so that your response looks totally foolish?
That used to happen on a regular basis. Is that also okay with you? Or would you then like the software to be updated so that you'd be notified?
As far as 'now we have to pay for our freedom', you know you're just being overly dramatic. Is it violating your 'freedom' when you're asked to stand in line? How about when you have to pay for something instead of just taking it? I don't know about you, but when I talk about 'freedom', it has a lot more to do with how I live my life that it does with posting on a private car forum where my participation is completely my choice.
A number of respected forum members have been saying that the privilege should go to those that have proven themselves to be trusted members of the community. doug had to pick a group. Supporters are an obvious pick. Another one would be to go with those with a certain amount of positive reputation, showing that the community appreciates their input.
Simple fact is that it is unlikely everyone is going to be satisfied. But applying the word 'freedom' to editing rights on a free-to-join car forum? C'mon.
Similar threads
