Edit button

[Brad]

The edit button has been turned off for now. Tech support is trying to see if the software has the ability to notate all edits made to a post.
We are trying to eliminate the possibility of someone making a statement, getting called on it, then editing the post with no trace.

This was brought to my attention a while back and we have been trying to figure of what the best course of action.

If you have questions of concerns please feel free to contact me.

Brad

 

[fiver]

if you can show when it was edited it would help.
also if it's been quoted the quote shouldn't change even if the o.p. has been.
I have had to go through and cleanup both the o.p and the quote when sumthin bad has been quoted.

 

[Brad]

That is the problem. We can't get the edits to show a time stamp. That is a problem as it makes all edits silent. Easy way to have some problems as experience on other forums has shown that editing a post to change the nature of a comment is a tool used by some to sew discourse.

 

[Pistolero]

OK, cancel my conversation.... found this. Couldn't figure out why I could not
edit my post!

 

[Pistolero]

Pretty bad for me, I probably edit a post 5 or 6 times before I get it right!

How about letting the person edit it for some time limit, like 1 hour or 20 min if that seems too
long. Long enough to correct errors, but not come back "later" and change things.

 

[smokeywolf]

It seems that the edit feature has been withdrawn based on the use or misuse of the feature to save face.
Perhaps the edit feature can be configured to show the original text lined out and possibly greyed out next to the new or edited statement.
The only time this may not be preferable is when a statement has been edited because the author has realized that their statement may be perceived as an insult to another member.

Don't have an answer for you, just input.

 

[Brad]

That is pretty much the issue. As it was all edits were silent, no trace of change was left behind.
What we want is a comment left behind showing an edit was made, by whom, and when.
What we are trying to avoid is someone being called out for a comment then going back and changing the statement they made.
Past experience on other forums has shown this to be a potential problem.

 

[Pistolero]

If things are lined out and then replaced..... boy my posts are going to look like a mess. LOL!

 

[Rick]

Kevin is trying to get edited posts to time/date stamp that they have been edited. I have no idea why this would be a problem but evidently it is. Seems like a Kevin question, perhaps he will chime in here.

 

[Ian]

It was indeed a problem on other forums. I have a folder full of screen shots to illustrate the need.

 

[Brad]

Kevin, tech support, did some checking and all methods of leaving a "paper trail" on edits he can find are, in his words, easily defeated.
A false sense of security is worse than no sense of security.

Until a viable method of leaving a paper trail is found, for the forum software, we will be leaving the edit button off. Mods DO have the ability to edit so should you feel something of a grave nature needs to be corrected please contact us. This would be something like interpret charge weight in load data. These edits should be rare and not used as a way of changing how a post mght be interpreted.

Any questions, feel free to contact me.

 

[Rick]

Do we need a "paper trail"? If an edited post simply said . . . "edited at (time) on (date) by (so and so). Seems that should be sufficient. If someone received a warning for a post and then went back and changed the post and then said I didn't do that and you can't prove it he's right, we can't but if it was time/date stamped and the time was after the warning he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.

If we could show the edit time a paper trail of what the post did say wouldn't be nearly as important.

 

[Brad]

That is what I mean by paper trail. Kevin can't find a reliable way of making sure edits are not silent. He said the methods he found are all easily defeated making the edit silent.

 

[Rick]

If the edit button is returned can the "edit silently" button be removed? Seems that should take care of it, all edits would be time stamped just as they always have been UNLESS the edit silently button was checked. If there is no "edit silently" button it couldn't be checked.


Test edit

 

[Brad]

I agree, it isn't the edit that is the issue, it is the silent edit that is the issue.

As long as a date and time stamp exist we are good. Sort like in the above post.

But not like the edit I added in this post.

 

[Rick]

I'll try and explain it this way.

Since the forum first started if you edited one of your posts and DID NOT click on "edit silently" your post WAS date/time stamped unless you clicked "edit silently". If you did check the box "edit silently" then there was no trace of the edit.

I did it with one of my own posts some time ago. I made the post and then saw a typo so I edited it but didn't click on "edit silently" and my post was date/time stamped and also "edited by Rick". I then saw another typo and edited it also but this time I did check the "edit silently" box. On that post was still the time stamp from the first edit but no trace of being edited a second time.

So . . . If the edit button can be removed why can't the "edit silently" button also be removed?

Sort of like this edit. I edited this post, there should be a time stamp on it because I didn't check "edit silently". Except now it's making me nuts because it didn't time stamp. Brad, your edit says edited by a moderator.

 

[Rick]

Ok, there is a 5 minute window where the post can be edited silently clicking the box or not. I edited the above post again after 5 minutes and it did time stamp it.

 

[Brad]

Kevin said the edit silently box can be removed but there are ways around it.

He told me getting around it would be easy for him, difficult for me. Sounds like the computer savvy could defeate the non silent edit and make a silent edit.

 

[Rick]

That wouldn't be me, I can't even spell puter.

That's probably true of any part of the forum, if a guy is tech savvy enough there is probably little he couldn't do if he desired to.

 

[JWFilips]

I'm very much in favor of a few minutes of "silent edit" ... Many times my typing finger ( I only have one of those but it is starting to get senile) can't keep up with what is in my head. I hit post then only to read something that makes no sense to me so i quickly edit it to properly convey my thoughts.

Now I don't think we should have a hard edit after the post has been read by somebody! If there is an issue... I think a new post is in order to do damage control for whatever dumb thing you said in the previously read post!
Just my 2 cents