status-monitor Should NamePros Change the "Edit" 30 Mins Timelimit in the Discussion Area?

[LucidDomains]

I find it quite annoying and I'm sure others do to, that there is only a 30 minute window to edit your posts in the discussion area. I do proof read my posts as much as I can, but I often still find spelling and grammar mistakes, plus other reasons I want to add/remove to existing posts instead of submitting another post.

I'm sure I'm not the only person on here who has been frustrated by the 30 minute window to edit a post.

I would like to see if anyone else feels the same way and if you would like more time to edit, how much time?

Cheers.

 

[shorterwinters]

If you allow people to go back and edit what they have said you take away all credibility of the forum, plain and simple along with threads becoming jibberish. We all put our foot in our mouths at some time and not just here.

How so??

Let's say you and I disagree about something here and I decide to call you an asshole. (we might disagree here but I not calling you and asshole, it's just an example) I say.......
" Grilled doesn't know what he is talking about and he is a stupid fool."
next person comes in and agrees with me.
next posts are from people defending you.
next post is an analogy about me from something else.
next post is a reference to something about you.
next post is from you defending yourself and calling me an asshole and who knows what else.
I go to bed, wake up the next morning and after reading the other posts my mind is changed and I don't think you are an asshole anymore. I edit my post.
Not only do the following posts really not make sense but your left standing there calling me names and my post starting it all is gone. You look like the bad guy to all who come from here on. Yeah, the thread flow changed to jibberish because the post that started it all has been edited, some could figure it out, but the credibility of the forum is gone because I was able to go back and edit my post rather than having to post in the thread why I felt I changed my mind.
That is just one example but it kind of branches off like that and I hope I conveyed what I am thinking to this in a way that makes sense.

with that said and comparing to the edit history of facebook to me it really is just a way for someone to take back what they said and not be accountable for what they have chosen to say.
We don't want to hurt any feelers here, lets let everyone have a chance to take back what they said.
It's still there but you have to go an extra step to see what I said? BS!. Who wants to do that?
I think it takes away the credibility of the forum as well as the poster editing it. Does anyone really think that the postings on facebook are credible?

 

[Chris Hydrick]

Let's say you and I disagree about something here and I decide to call you an a*hole. (we might disagree here but I not calling you and a*hole, it's just an example) I say.......
" Grilled doesn't know what he is talking about and he is a stupid fool."
next person comes in and agrees with me.
next posts are from people defending you.
next post is an analogy about me from something else.
next post is a reference to something about you.
next post is from you defending yourself and calling me an a*hole and who knows what else.
I go to bed, wake up the next morning and after reading the other posts my mind is changed and I don't think you are an a*hole anymore. I edit my post.
Not only do the following posts really not make sense but your left standing there calling me names and my post starting it all is gone.

I see your point, however, in that example I believe mods will step in, delete all off topic / unprofessional banter, and issue warnings for rule violations.

1.2. Be professional, tactful, and constructive at all times. Do not harass, threaten, attack, instigate, insult, or antagonize others.

Confusion could come if you call me an arsehole, but edit it within the time limit, and I'm left (a) thinking I'm crazy because I could've sworn you called me an arsehole (b) Upset that you won't get in trouble for violating the rules, even though if I read it, you got your point across. This, of course, could be prevented if there was an edit history, and then mod's would then have an added task of reviewing reported edit history's for violations.

I said some colorful things via PM to an admin here. Immediately edited the PM to 'See edit history for more..." thus no tangible proof existed to the naked eye of 'colorfulness' - but if he/she, being an admin wanted to, he had that ability. Whereas now, in various instances, posts edited within 30 minutes aren't able to detect this type passive aggressive censored content without being an admin or a public edit history.

 

[carob]

A half-joking suggestion: Let posters set a delay on their post.

In other words, you know your post won't be published for 5 minutes. You have time to think about it and proofread it.

You'd need to have a catchy title for this feature to get people to enable it, something like Post Tempering, or Modesty Monitor, or ReThinker, or PostingForDummies, or Self Moderation.

You could even set it to be triggered by alcohol levels.