What Happened to the Edit Button?

[48thStreetCustom]

Am I the only one who doesn't have an edit button under my posts?

 

[LBS-bass]

Otoh if you received the answers you were looking for and felt the thread had run its course, you could contact the staff and ask for the thread to be closed.

Deleting info from the thread has a negative effect in the sense that future members using the search function may come across your thread and missing or incomplete posts disrupt the flow of the thread and the user performing the search may miss out on info they were looking for.

Yeah, I did that once prior, to no effect. There are various ways to get something done and what I did a couple of days ago instead was effective to curtail the discussion and required no assistance.

But it's ok. I'm not here to belabor the point; I know you guys have a difficult job to do and, as I said, nothing you do is going to make everyone happy. This is an imperfect platform and I know that you try your best. No worries but I'd prefer not to discuss this further in public. I'll be happy to discuss it via PM.

 

[smperry]

Yes. Discouraging thoughtful edits is not the point, but it certainly is the side-effect. I'm certain there are lots of issues mere users don't understand, but isn't it possible there are things that mere mods may dismiss that are central to the supporting members experience? I can't value talkbass as much if it is more of just a chat list.

Seriously?

Limiting the editing window to an hour is the same as making it a chat list? I disagree with that. I wrote about how a person can make substantive modifications later, by quoting themselves and making the correction later. Plus, for major updates (like the first post in a thread about a builder that has gone missing for example), it's possible to contact the moderator for updates. You seem to be ignoring the other reasons I posted entirely. For example, we've lost a good amount of technical information due to prior editing ability; if there's been a decrease in posting since this policy, I don't see it in usage statistics.

I'm not saying people aren't putting thought into posting (or improving posts). You can put thought into a post without needing to edit it after an hour. Or, you can revise in the ways that have already been explained.

Lastly, I've been a member for some time, as have the other admins and moderators. I've made real friends here, and I spent the first ten or so years not as a mod. This policy has been in effect for some time, and it has made things easier for TB staff, who by the way, are volunteers. The fact that you're calling this a disgrace and arguing that it means we don't care makes it clear to me that we're not going to resolve this.

 

[Jim Carr]

Just so you know, any forum mod or admin can edit posts as well. If there is a correction you'd like to have made, you can PM a mod and one of us can make the change for you.

This point has been made quite often in the last few hours, but it has also been admitted that few requests come in.
That must be because we are all able to spend enough time on each post so that it is not going to need revision in the future, right?

 

[Jim Carr]

Seriously?

Limiting the editing window to an hour is the same as making it a chat list? I disagree with that. I wrote about how a person can make substantive modifications later, by quoting themselves and making the correction later. Plus, for major updates (like the first post in a thread about a builder that has gone missing for example), it's possible to contact the moderator for updates. You seem to be ignoring the other reasons I posted entirely. For example, we've lost a good amount of technical information due to prior editing ability; if there's been a decrease in posting since this policy, I don't see it in usage statistics.

I'm not saying people aren't putting thought into posting (or improving posts). You can put thought into a post without needing to edit it after an hour. Or, you can revise in the ways that have already been explained.

Lastly, I've been a member for some time, as have the other admins and moderators. I've made real friends here, and I spent the first ten or so years not as a mod. This policy has been in effect for some time, and it has made things easier for TB staff, who by the way, are volunteers. The fact that you're calling this a disgrace and arguing that it means we don't care makes it clear to me that we're not going to resolve this.

I do believe you care, that's why I'm calling it a diminishment. I too have friends here. I don't want things to be made harder for staff, but as a former teacher and longtime Unix sysadmin, I also know that what might make things better for staff is not always the right thing to do.

I've always valued your work and judgement. That you see no resolution and believe I am just here to complain is unfortunate.

 

[EchoEcho]

I can understand why(as mentioned in post 20) the staff would prefer the hour window, but I also think that there should be an easy mechanism for members to request edits. Having to message staff all the time is not ideal, either for members or staff.

How about a "Request edit" button on each post(maybe as an option to the report button)? Then you can click the button, copy and paste your post including the revisions, click send, and then a member of staff can revise it. If in the rare event that the edit is declined, then the mod can contact the member to state why. Perhaps even have a mod to be solely responsible for such drudgery?

 

[beaglesandbass]

I can understand why(as mentioned in post 20) the staff would prefer the hour window, but I also think that there should be an easy mechanism for members to request edits. Having to message staff all the time is not ideal, either for members or staff.

How about a "Request edit" button on each post(maybe as an option to the report button)? Then you can click the button, copy and paste your post including the revisions, click send, and then a member of staff can revise it. If in the rare event that the edit is declined, then the mod can contact the member to state why. Perhaps even have a mod to be solely responsible for such drudgery?

Seems like a plausible option, IF the current forum software supports it.

 

[mambo4]

The one hour limit has been effective for a long time, for non supporters.

ah...I had let my support lapse, that's why it seemed different

 

[LBS-bass]

Yes. Discouraging thoughtful edits is not the point, but it certainly is the side-effect. I'm certain there are lots of issues mere users don't understand, but isn't it possible there are things that mere mods may dismiss that are central to the supporting members experience?

Well, the big thing for me is, of course, that putting supporting members into the same basket as trolls who edit in order to revise posting history for malicious purposes doesn't make any sense. Like I'd pay a premium in order to acquire an enhanced trolling experience. Yes, that's EXACTLY why I'm here. </sarcasm>

That said, I do have a rather extensive background in internet forum backend and I know how hard these guys work, and I also know the extent to which disagreements about what is right and what is wrong occur behind the scenes. I can assure everyone that there are reasons. They may not always make great sense to the rest of us, but acquiring consensus on these things behind the scenes is NOT easy and they are doing the best they can.

All in all, this is a pretty good place to be. The mods are generally responsive, and the rules that are in place do work to keep things generally peaceful and productive. I think we'll never all agree on everything, but I suppose I can agree to move on past this one as long as it's understood that my financial support is no longer in play, and why.

 

[LBS-bass]

Seriously?

Limiting the editing window to an hour is the same as making it a chat list? I disagree with that. I wrote about how a person can make substantive modifications later, by quoting themselves and making the correction later.

Which does absolutely nothing to discourage the 50 people who will post in response to the original post without reading the 6 pages beyond it.

 

[charlie monroe]

I can agree to move on past this one as long as it's understood that my financial support is no longer in play, and why.

You’ve actually taken your protest further though, haven’t you?

You have posted at least twice in threads regarding this topic that you use an ad-blocker of sorts. You are now actively depriving the site of the capital required to keep it running.

I find that surprising behavior for someone who is as prolific a poster as you and one that expects that they should have a say in how this business is operated.

 

[LBS-bass]

You’ve actually taken your protest further though, haven’t you?

You have posted at least twice as n threads regarding this topic that you use an ad-blocker of sorts. You are now actively depriving the site of the capital required to keep it running.

I find that surprising behavior for someone who is as prolific a poster as you and one that expects that they should have a say in how this business is operated.

I think everyone deserves a voice, and I think that hearing those voices is probably important to someone in the decision making realm. I've been in that seat, so I get it.

I use an ad blocker as a global convenience, which is my right, and I don't click ads on those sites that demand I don't engage it, so that's a non-issue. When I need consumer goods I do a search and find what I need that way.

Not exactly sure how that's relevant, though, since I've been an enthusiastic financial supporter here willingly for quite some time. Seems like you just want to argue with me.

 

[charlie monroe]

Seems like you just want to argue with me.

Nope. Just wanted to point out that you are doing harm to the site.

Revenue is derived from serving ads, not just clicking on them.

 

[LBS-bass]

Nope. Just wanted to point out that you are doing harm to the site.

Revenue is derived from serving ads, not just clicking on them.

My personal choice (we still have those, right?) was to directly send money to this site rather than view ads, and I was happy to do it until I was lumped in with trolls. I hardly see how that's been harmful.

I can assure you that even the paltry sum I was spending to be a supporting member was far more than any clickthrough revenue that would be generated from a user like me who does not click ads. I've been on the other side of that situation, revenue from ads served is negligible.

By your definition there are lots of people 'doing harm' to this site by exercising their right to use available ad blocking software who have never been supporting members and never will. Boo hoo.

This BS is exactly why I prefer not to discuss this matter further. Mods can contact me if they'd like to discuss.

 

[skycruiser]

Perfect example of why not to allow long term editing. There was a recent thread that got several pages of interactive responses but then the op rewrote the op and thread title completely. After that most of the posts no longer made sense, effectively trashing the entire thread. This is really bad for the site IMO.

 

[LBS-bass]

Perfect example of why not to allow long term editing. There was a recent thread that got several pages of interactive responses but then the op rewrote the op and thread title completely. After that most of the posts no longer made sense, effectively trashing the entire thread. This is really bad for the site IMO.

Sounds like my thread. If the thread was resolved and the question was answered to my satisfaction, did it matter that the thread was "trashed?" Who defines "trashed" in that situation? I think the thread was in danger of becoming actual trash if I didn't act to keep people from continuing to respond to a resolved situation. What's the point of asking a question here if not to simply get an answer?

This isn't theater and I apologize if I failed to provide suitable drama for your amusement by not letting it continue ad nauseum.

I mean, seriously, of all the active threads here on any given day, was *that* the one thing worth changing policy over?

 

[beaglesandbass]

The top two threads in this forum were about the same thing so I merged them.

 

[beaglesandbass]

I actually am wondering if we can advocate for a better policy. It seems very heavy-handed.

Suggestion Box

 

[Chef]

Sounds like my thread. If the thread was resolved and the question was answered to my satisfaction, did it matter that the thread was "trashed?" Who defines "trashed" in that situation? I think the thread was in danger of becoming actual trash if I didn't act to keep people from continuing to respond to a resolved situation. What's the point of asking a question here if not to simply get an answer?

This isn't theater and I apologize if I failed to provide suitable drama for your amusement by not letting it continue ad nauseum.

I mean, seriously, of all the active threads here on any given day, was *that* the one thing worth changing policy over?

In that case, what mattered was the original question being edited away, making all replies nonsense.
that's not ok.

 

[LBS-bass]

In that case, what mattered was the original question being edited away, making all replies nonsense.
that's not ok.

OK. My thought was that the question had been answered and people were still answering the original question, which had been quoted, so was still there for context if anyone was really still that interested. Many people don't read past the first post and even if you edit that to say "no further replies are necessary" in my experience they reply anyway.

I certainly wasn't attempting some nefarious deal, I think most people who read my posts here realize that I'm not someone who's going to troll the board, but I didn't think the thread was important enough that it needed to be kept pristine for posterity; it wouldn't have even existed if I hadn't started it in the first place.

It is not the end of anything if a thread "doesn't make sense." The edit simply caused people to move on to other threads, which was my goal. But I appreciate you clarifying what the thinking on that is here. More reason to avoid starting threads in the future.

 

[Chef]

I didn't mean to imply there was anything nefarious going on there...