Repeal the 15 Minute Edit Limit

[TromboneAl]

The 15-minute limit on editing does more harm than good. Today someone posted some incorrect information concerning taxes, and when he found he was wrong, couldn't go back to fix it. Someone else might see his original post, but not see his correcting post.

Mr. Gorbachov, tear down this wall!

[Martha]

I'll discuss it with the rest of "management."

[mickeyd]

I agree with Al.

BTW, what is the reason why there is any retrictions at all on a post that we may make? Too much of Big Brother?

[retire@40]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd I agree with Al. BTW, what is the reason why there is any retrictions at all on a post that we may make? Too much of Big Brother?

Strange that we only have 15 minutes to fix our own post here but the IRS gives us 3 years to fix our tax returns.

[Nords]

Quote:

Originally Posted by mickeyd Too much of Big Brother?

Hey, how do you think the rest of us became moderators?!?

The problem lies with those very few individuals who insisted on editing the official record to suit their changing priorities. This resulted in many critical threads being totally gutted of semantic context because other poster's responses depended on subsequently-deleted posts. One poster's ruminations on his financial advisor and his own impending ER were a classic on emotional turmoil and how not to ER, but he deleted the whole thing before we realized what was happening. Others have gotten cold feet about their years of being naked in cyberspace and have attempted to delete their record. Again we can't benefit from their contributions, let alone their examples.

So there'll be some "grace period" allowing posters to edit their posts. After that you'll have to PM a moderator to make your changes, and that's a lot more common than you may think.

[haha]

Quote:

The problem lies with those very few individuals who insisted on editing the official record to suit their changing priorities. This resulted in many critical threads being totally gutted of semantic context because other poster's responses depended on subsequently-deleted posts. So there'll be some "grace period" allowing posters to edit their posts.

I fail to see the problem. We all know who is blowing smoke; and as to semantic sense, well you tell me- how much worse could that get?

Also on ocassion I have exceeded even my tolerance for sarcasm directed at others. I have been unhappy that I could't make my impoliteness disappear.

And then there is spelling. It would seem weird to PM a moderator-please help me look less stupid and repair my spelling!

Ha

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by retire@40 Strange that we only have 15 minutes to fix our own post here but the IRS gives us 3 years to fix our tax returns.

Hmm..

Send me 28% of your annual income and I'll give you 5 years to fix your posts .

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Just to let y'all know that the mods are mulling this around even as we speak. As Nords says, the trick is to allow enough edit time to correct the usual errors, while not letting enough time go by that replies start to accumulate. Changing a post after replies have been sent leads to confusion for all subsequent readers.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa Changing a post after replies have been sent leads to confusion for all subsequent readers.

Horse-puckey. How on earth could fixing typos or amplifying a point after replies have been made make that much of a difference?

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha Also on ocassion I have exceeded even my tolerance for sarcasm directed at others. I have been unhappy that I could't make my impoliteness disappear.

Can any of us make the impoliteness of our spoken words disappear? No, you can't un-ring a bell.

But we can apologize for things we may regret posting saying and perhaps think before posting speaking next time.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Horse-puckey. How on earth could fixing typos or amplifying a point after replies have been made make that much of a difference?

Agreed.

The problem is there is no way to limit edits to amplification and/or correcting typos. One prolific forum member deleted hundreds of his posts before huffing off. The result was threads that made little sense or had huge gaps in continuity.

Not good.

[Rich_by_the_Bay]

Quote:

Originally Posted by brewer12345 Horse-puckey. How on earth could fixing typos or amplifying a point after replies have been made make that much of a difference?

Fixing typos is one thing. Totally munging a message is another. Both have occured.

[Danny]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Agreed. The problem is there is no way to limit edits to amplification and/or correcting typos. One prolific forum member deleted hundreds of his posts before huffing off. The result was threads that made little sense or had huge gaps in continuity. Not good.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa Fixing typos is one thing. Totally munging a message is another. Both have occured.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nords The problem lies with those very few individuals who insisted on editing the official record to suit their changing priorities. This resulted in many critical threads being totally gutted of semantic context because other poster's responses depended on subsequently-deleted posts. One poster's ruminations on his financial advisor and his own impending ER were a classic on emotional turmoil and how not to ER, but he deleted the whole thing before we realized what was happening. Others have gotten cold feet about their years of being naked in cyberspace and have attempted to delete their record. Again we can't benefit from their contributions, let alone their examples. So there'll be some "grace period" allowing posters to edit their posts. After that you'll have to PM a moderator to make your changes, and that's a lot more common than you may think.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rich_in_Tampa Just to let y'all know that the mods are mulling this around even as we speak. As Nords says, the trick is to allow enough edit time to correct the usual errors, while not letting enough time go by that replies start to accumulate. Changing a post after replies have been sent leads to confusion for all subsequent readers.

I don't think the forum has suffered since that huffy prolific guy left with his posts - I don't think they were THAT important and they certainly didn't qualify for Library of Congress type preservation - "Official Record" - are you kidding?. If they opened up the editing we could probably get the no good miscreant to come back and redo those important posts or at least change some of the blog linkage for the essential ones that would help the continuity and fiill in the gaps so folks won't get confused.

This is just plain silly. The control mentality and the making of mountains out of molehills is what I wanted to get away from when I quit going to work. At the end of the day this concern about preserving trains of thought adds up to really nothing. I can't believe what I'm reading here from the mods.

[brewer12345]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Agreed. The problem is there is no way to limit edits to amplification and/or correcting typos. One prolific forum member deleted hundreds of his posts before huffing off. The result was threads that made little sense or had huge gaps in continuity. Not good.

So why penalize the rest of us over one bad apple?

Take corrective action when necessary with the few trouble-makers and let the rest of us edit. You mods can act out your control obsession at the Forum dungeon with leather outfits, paddles, dog chains and whips (with h05uk as the victim).

[TromboneAl]

I'd suggest that the disadvantage of sometimes modifying the meaning of posts is outweighed by the disadvantage of having incorrect or damaging information left uncorrected. For example, the consequences of having the following remain uncorrected is 20 years in prison with a cell mate named Randy John.

If your qualified medical expenses are greater than 7.5% of your AGI, you can deduct the entire expense. If it is less than 7.5%, you can't deduct anything.

[REWahoo]

Quote:

Originally Posted by TromboneAl For example, the consequences of having the following remain uncorrected is 20 years in prison with a cell mate named Randy John. If your qualified medical expenses are greater than 7.5% of your AGI, you can deduct the entire expense. If it is less than 7.5%, you can't deduct anything.

Only if you believe what you read on the internet...and act on it.

And think of the upside. Randy John may really need a 'friend' to help him do pass the time.

[clifp]

Not being able to correct any typos and errors is one of the reasons, I have largely stop contributing to the Motley Fool. I found TMF's reasons for not allowing editing (it is a financial website people could do nasty pump and dump things) pretty unconvincing.

Honestly, for the rare case where deleting/modifying posts makes a major difference the moderators can and probably should post a small note explaining what happened.

I am a horrible proofreader of my own work, and often leave out words or whole phrases that make my posts difficult to comprehend. Sometimes this take more than 15 minutes for me to catch. In the case of overheated exchanges, I see no harm in giving the participants the power to delete them. Finally, I think it is very important to allow people to correct inaccurate information with respect to financial advice. Figuring out that opps I was wrong is going to take a lot longer than 15 minutes.

Regarding believing what you read on the internet. As far as investment and tax advice if 8 out of 10 people on this forum say X is the answer and my Tax professional or Schwab Advisors says Y is the answer, I am more inclined to believe the consenus on this forum than any one individual.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by REWahoo Can any of us make the impoliteness of our spoken words disappear? No, you can't un-ring a bell. But we can apologize for things we may regret posting saying and perhaps think before posting speaking next time.

Yes, of course, I have no idea why I didn't think of that.

Ha

[nfs]

I act as an administrator at another financial forum. I think there are sound reasons for limiting edit times, because forum members really do get peeved about trivialities and, as Andy says, huff off after deleting much of the content they posted, turning entire threads into undecipherable Swiss cheese.

That said, that sort of behavior isn't addressed by a 15 minute time limit on edits. The administration's interest in maintaining the integrity of discussions argues for a limit, but the problem is in having week or month or year old posts mangled, not something from earlier in the day.

15 minutes is too short. Forever is too long. Consider something in between.

We use 48 hours at FWF, which gives members a chance to fix spelling and grammatical errors. It probably lets some sanitize their remarks but that's pretty rare. If someone is involved in a heated argument, it usually won't blow over fast enough for someone to have sober second thoughts and amend the record.

And, when all else fails and the time limit has expired, as ReWahoo says, you can always insert a correction and if necessary an apology.

P.S. I think moderators should not be editing any posts at the request of the original writer. Moderators are not flunkies to do the members' bidding.

[cute fuzzy bunny]

All darn good advice.

Now if we could just get an email client with a breathalyser option, all would be well in the universe...