But if you posted in error you can quote yourself and make a correction. WLooks someone said, when a posts is changed or deleted or something and there are posts or pages of posts after it doesn’t make sense. It actually makes more sense to quote yourself and say hey, this isn’t what I think any more. Then there’s more context.
Enjoy the benefits of a premium membership!
Upgrade Account
-
TalkBass has been independent since 1998. Add your voice.
Create a free account to reply to discussions, view embedded media, and browse with fewer display ads.
Join free Log in
Want zero display ads or expanded classifieds tools? Compare plans.
Unable to edit comments
- Thread starter Wild_Bill_57
- Start date
- Status
Do mods sometimes reconsider their decisions based on sufficient user feedback?
We can agree to disagree. I don’t sense a lot of willingness on the part of TB staff to rethink the policy - rather, a raft of defensiveness. So be it, now I am done.
I rest my case. This post alone is sufficient evidence that my concerns have neither been considered or understood.
I thought that's what your concern was?
That someone would misunderstand what you posted, post an answer about what they thought, instead of what you meant, then the snowball effect of post after post about something different.
I think he's saying that if you were to edit your post, the rest of the comments wouldn't make sense at all.
Was that not your concern?
I really like idea the combination of #3 and #4 if it is possible to set up the system this way. It seems to me this would solve all the problems of "revisionist history," etc. that prompted the new policy, while at the same time allowing folks to later add a clarification, correction, or apology to a previous post. This would be especially helpful for the OP in many threads, and could save a lot of people a lot of wasted time. Think about how often the OP asks a question or describes a problem, later posts somewhere on page 2 of the thread that the problem/issue has been resolved, and the thread goes on for another 10 pages because nobody saw the latter post. Once the problem is resolved, a note could be added to the OP saying something like, "problem resolved -- see post #28."
Yes. The solution could even be stated in the thread title, where appropriate, or in the attached note as you say.
Also, occasionally it's necessary for an OP to keep a thread they create continually updated. For example, if someone makes a master list of the nut width of every single bass, they would have to keep on updating it when people supply some new info to add to the list. Either the staff("Hi. Sorry about this, but can you add this to that thread. I know this is the 26th time I've bugged you about this, but....") would have to keep on updating it, or the OP would. Currently, the OP cannot, so it would have to be staff. There are also many such examples where it's really inconvenient to have to trawl through a huge thread to find out all the relevant information scattered in 276 pages, when it could better be placed all in the original post.
On the other hand, an OP could make a contentious statement, get everyone riled up, and then change it to suit his/her argument. Maybe for an OP(supporting member and, possibly, ordinary member), they could be given the ability to edit their post indefinitely, but with either a "edit history" or just a simple "last edited at [time and date]".
Maybe the revisionist history could be just for OPs because that's where it would be of most use and would minimise server storage on the technical side.
Last edited:
A great example of this is the Compressor Comparison thread. It's going to get really confusing to read, now that @scubaduba has lost his ability to edit new reviews into the original post.
Testing Compressors: Cali, Smoothie, Empress, Diamond, Keeley, FEA, Darkglass, Doc Lloyd, JHS & more
His title says he's a staff member.
Last edited:
Chef
In Memoriam
Once you're a Jet, you're a Jet for Life;
and always have access to the 12 year old scotch and Cohibas.
and always have access to the 12 year old scotch and Cohibas.
Say what? I thought the position of the moderators/staff is that editing the original post of long threads is always very very bad, and that the correct procedure is for scubaduba to quote himself (which provides more context) rather than edit his original post. If you're saying staff members don't have to follow the same rules as the rest of us, then that just makes my blood boil. Someone who types with an adaptive keyboard can't fix the embarrassing typo they made 61 minutes ago, but staff members get to edit posts from years ago any time they buy a new pedal?!? The amount of gaslighting by the moderating team, and disregard for people with disabilities, is just astounding. If the ability to edit old posts has legitimate, non-malicious use cases for moderators/staff, then it also has legitimate, non-malicious use cases for regular supporting members. I don't know how the moderators can look at popular, beloved, useful threads like the Compressor Reviews and then tell us with a straight face that "editing old posts is bad, m'kay?" Being able to add/remove/edit/update content over time is a key "feature not a bug" of the digital medium. All my other social media (like Facebook for example) lets me edit/delete old posts. In this day and age where a tweet from 10 years ago can ruin someone's career, TalkBass is doing a huge disservice to its members, by not allowing us to delete or edit the content we have created.
I use the 'Preview' function. It's there for a reason. I find TB to be one of the better forums/communities on the internet.
I'm a Gold level member to supprt the site and so that I don't have the restrictions for non-pay members. I hate not being able to edit whenever I need to. I'm always finding errors I made even days after posting, and adding another post to correct them is useless when there are so many posts after mine. If the restriction stays, it makes no sense for me to pay anymore.
Chef
In Memoriam
Guys:
the length of edit window was never one of the benefits from your subscription. it's not a thing you paid more, to get more of.
It was an error made when the policy was implemented.
the length of edit window was never one of the benefits from your subscription. it's not a thing you paid more, to get more of.
It was an error made when the policy was implemented.
There’s a lot of gold here, some comedic, some actual good reading.
I just love this too much to not do.
Sticking to the topic and having more experience in vastly different software, so I’ve no idea what it’d take to implement this... what I’d like to see so I feel more enthusiastic about recommending this site to other people:
1) Only additive editing. you can add crossthrough on a) poorly worded phrases b) idea which you’ve found was entirely less well thought out than you’d initially felt c) aggressive post that you want to have diffused for future readers before they go on; add clarifying text for those reading through who might hit the Quote button and skip past the next three to five pages of clarifying discussion.
1.1) edit history right there in the post. Date(s) of crossthrough(s) and date(s) of additions in a small grayed font to the left of the addition.
2) deletion fees! OMFG how are you not monetizing deletions, especially for some of our caffeine-fueled “YOURE WRONG AND IM ANGRY ABOUT IT” dingleberries that sometimes go beyond a PG13 rating and have just got to go. For those ones that get flagged it’s “hey, you’re pushing it, $5 or you get a dingleberry next to your SN on all of your posts”; the Rated R vitriol gets a $20 invitation to leave.
3) being very able to edit-quote your own new post into the bottom of an old post for future readers who aren’t semi-Real-Time participants in the discussion and might be in a Quote Shark kind of mindset at that point in their day; not being able to quote your own past post... because there’s never a way that doing that is without a large amount of some kind of dumbness or another; being more easily able to hyperlink back to an earlier post without having to copypaste the url thingy- yeah, that’s kind of the same as PastOne’sSelfQuoting, but it’s just better in a few ways (agreeing with other posters, tone being a very large factor) to have an orange/yellow #23 or whatever post # instead.
I definitely feel that there should be nearly zero of the douchey posts deleted and that they should be crossthrough’d by a staff member and being noted as an example of poor behavior for future readers to see just as such with a hyperlink to the codes of conduct page and a reference to which rule they pushed.
So, I guess, really I think that they oughtta be Crossthrough Fees and Deletion Fees and deletions ought to be reviewed to determine if whether their post should stand and have additions or if it really is better that their text goes- even when they’re being requested to go by their author.
And that, hopefully, is my whole day’s worth of internetting right there. Maybe two days’ worth. Have fun guys!
Also, loving the new-to-me words Neurodiversity and Neurotypical. Feeling like a dope for not knowing them.
I just love this too much to not do.
Sticking to the topic and having more experience in vastly different software, so I’ve no idea what it’d take to implement this... what I’d like to see so I feel more enthusiastic about recommending this site to other people:
1) Only additive editing. you can add crossthrough on a) poorly worded phrases b) idea which you’ve found was entirely less well thought out than you’d initially felt c) aggressive post that you want to have diffused for future readers before they go on; add clarifying text for those reading through who might hit the Quote button and skip past the next three to five pages of clarifying discussion.
1.1) edit history right there in the post. Date(s) of crossthrough(s) and date(s) of additions in a small grayed font to the left of the addition.
2) deletion fees! OMFG how are you not monetizing deletions, especially for some of our caffeine-fueled “YOURE WRONG AND IM ANGRY ABOUT IT” dingleberries that sometimes go beyond a PG13 rating and have just got to go. For those ones that get flagged it’s “hey, you’re pushing it, $5 or you get a dingleberry next to your SN on all of your posts”; the Rated R vitriol gets a $20 invitation to leave.
3) being very able to edit-quote your own new post into the bottom of an old post for future readers who aren’t semi-Real-Time participants in the discussion and might be in a Quote Shark kind of mindset at that point in their day; not being able to quote your own past post... because there’s never a way that doing that is without a large amount of some kind of dumbness or another; being more easily able to hyperlink back to an earlier post without having to copypaste the url thingy- yeah, that’s kind of the same as PastOne’sSelfQuoting, but it’s just better in a few ways (agreeing with other posters, tone being a very large factor) to have an orange/yellow #23 or whatever post # instead.
I definitely feel that there should be nearly zero of the douchey posts deleted and that they should be crossthrough’d by a staff member and being noted as an example of poor behavior for future readers to see just as such with a hyperlink to the codes of conduct page and a reference to which rule they pushed.
So, I guess, really I think that they oughtta be Crossthrough Fees and Deletion Fees and deletions ought to be reviewed to determine if whether their post should stand and have additions or if it really is better that their text goes- even when they’re being requested to go by their author.
And that, hopefully, is my whole day’s worth of internetting right there. Maybe two days’ worth. Have fun guys!
Also, loving the new-to-me words Neurodiversity and Neurotypical. Feeling like a dope for not knowing them.
Nonetheless , despite semantics .
We could before , non payers could not .
Now neither , and those who were paying had a perceived benefit, that had tangible value. That has now been removed, error corrected if you will still is the same result for those effected
The fact that the decision was made earlier, and was implemented now is immaterial to the member affected , NOW is when the action was taken.
Now is when were discussing it, saying that it was "supposed" to be different has no meaning.
Last edited:
Not for nothing, but
Worried about typos?
Proofread before you post.
Worried that you might come across with the wrong tone or attitude?
Type it out. Think about it. Read it out loud if you need to. Put a caveat tagline on it.
Worried that other people will misunderstand what your asking?
Clarify in another post. Or let it go...it's the internet.
A few of y'all think all the work and effort should be someone else's responsibility.
Worried about typos?
Proofread before you post.
Worried that you might come across with the wrong tone or attitude?
Type it out. Think about it. Read it out loud if you need to. Put a caveat tagline on it.
Worried that other people will misunderstand what your asking?
Clarify in another post. Or let it go...it's the internet.
A few of y'all think all the work and effort should be someone else's responsibility.
Going back in time to edit a post for corrective reasons is one thing, full out deletion is something else. We've had it happen before where a member rage quits and decided to delete all their content on the way out...... which leaves holes in the flow of a thread, or if it was the first post in the thread, deletes the entire thread and takes other user's content with it, which is not fair.
For those who think we on the Staff abide by different rules, we don't.
I meant to reply to you. Your entire post implied that the edit window should not be taken away because you have learning disabilities and make frequent typos. I was merely making sure you knew that the edit window was not being taken away, it is 60 minutes. I type quickly, I often make mistakes. I'm pretty sure web browsers have spell check built in (at least my version of Chrome does). At this exact moment in time I can't remember if Safari on the iPhone does, but I'd assume so. Before I submit my post, I look it over and make sure it says everything I wanted to say, and spelled correctly. In the even my double check misses this, which sometimes that happens, I would have 60 minutes to re-read it and correct.
I'm sorry you (and everyone) feels slighted about this rule change and subsequent implementation.
No one once said always. It was stated MULTIPLE times that the reason is that people that the biggest two would be to edit the original post to either a) delete all the content or b) try to hide their trolling. It also has ramifications regarding subsequent posts as well.
Wherever you work, do employees have access to things non-employees don't? Why can't you just go into the stockroom at Target and find the item you want? Why can't you just hop on the computer at the DMV and take your own picture for a new license. EVERYWHERE has access and privileges for employees and non-employees. Our banners say staff members, but make no mistake, we are ALL unpaid volunteers because we love TalkBass. We deal with a LOT of crap that 99% of the members here never see so we have the ability to edit posts past the hour limit, primarily because we often have to edit OTHER members' posts. But that's enough to make your "blood boil"? Is that really the hill you want to die on>
So contact the admins via the help desk. Maybe if enough of you do, some things might change. But if I'm being 100% honest, the posting that has been taken place in the several threads about the subject looks more like whining because people aren't getting their way and being told "no", more than people that want to improve the site.
Again, context is important. No one said editing old posts is bad. We said editing old posts with certain intentions is bad.
If it makes you feel better, Twitter doesn't have an edit function either. You can edit on Facebook, but a log of edits is viewable to anyone that wants to see it. And rest easy, if something anyone is posting is bad enough that it can ruin someone's life/career, it's probably bad enough that it was deleted by the mods for violating the site's rules.
Last edited:
- Status
