Should editing posts be allowed ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I know there are a handful of folks that don't believe in editing, or allowing edits to posts. I am strongly in favor of allowing editing but want to throw it out there for discussion. I feel it would be impossible to manage it, if none were allowed, as I would get a thousand emails about helping to edit, or delete, a post. I think it would be uncomfortable for all parties. Other's thoughts?<br /><br />see, I edited a typo I made by accident <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve M.</b><p>should be allowed. In the heat of battle all of us sometimes say things we later regret. How many times have you seen a "nevermind"?<br /><br />Handy too to correct spelling and/or grammatical errors that would otherwise make the poster look like a fool. <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bigfish</b><p>Why are people opposed to this.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I forget what their overall reasoning was for not wanting them.....but one thing is that someone could incite someone and then edit their post...which can be caught about 100% of the time, essentially by looking at when something was edited. For the record any post that gets edited, by a moderator, or anyone else, will have the small edit tagline....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I am against nuclear proliferation, global warming but for edits.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bigfish</b><p>Thanks Leon.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Absolutely. I generally edit not to change the subject matter or tone, but to edit/revise after reading my own post and determining that it (usually) needs clarification/grammar changes, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>john/z28jd</b><p> A forum about the Pittsburgh Pirates i post on regularly allows edits for posts for only a certain amount of time mostly for the same reason Leon said. It allows people to correct spelling and maybe clarify their points once they go back and read but it doesnt let them start controversary and then change their stance once too many people are either opposed to or riled up by their post. I think they allow something like 20 or 30 minutes to edit posts before youre unable to. Dont know if thats possible here or not though<br /><br /> Leon,when you read this,please email me, i have a question almost totally unrelated to cards to ask you.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joann</b><p>I echo Cobby. Without edits, my its versus it's situation would be a mess!<br /><br /><img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />J

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tony Andrea</b><p>Leon -<br />There's been many a post ive edited that were necessary. This shouldn't even be a discussion in my opinion.<br /><p>Tony Andrea

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Cobby33</b><p>Joann-<br />Too bad you're not in my class <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JimB</b><p>Some people should be required to hire an editor. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />I am for keeping it.<br />JimB<br /><br /><br />Edited for spelling. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> Seriously.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barry arnold</b><p>Editing is a must.<br /><br />all the best,<br /><br />barry

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>kelloggs</b><p>Should editing be allowed? Does Rose Kennedy have a black dress?<br /><br />Leon (hi, Leon!) should edit every post (hi, Leon!) he writes (hi, etc.).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Marty Ogelvie</b><p>I think editing is a must. <br />I am constantly editing posts that I just posted.. <br /><br />I tend to read what I wrote after I post and then realize how stupid something sounds or how obvious that TYPO is.<br><br>martyOgelvie<br />nyyankeecards.com

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Please continue to allow editing of posts. The ever so slight benefit of curtailing editing is vastly outweighed by the good reason above favoring editing. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Mike Snyder</b><p>I do not foresee possible problems unless there is the ability to edit someone else's posts.<br /><br />All other forums that I belong to allow editing of one's own posts. I have accidentally posted replies in wrong discussion areas, made numerous spelling and grammar errors, etc. <br /><br />I am sure that it would save the owner alot of time in cleaning up erroneous errors also.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>It wasn't even a question in my mind. Honestly though I have been so mistaken about some issues recently I have tended to doubt myself. I had to at least ask. You know the ole saying "the only bad question is one not asked"...please continue and edit at your own pace....and for David R- I think you would implode without editing <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. take care ya'll

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>John Kalafarski</b><p> As a retired English teacher, some of the grammar errors I see on this site make me scream, especially my own.<br /><br />PS: Your or you're--is that distinction now obsolete?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><br />Leon,<br />There is no doubt that allowing self-editing of posts improves the quality and tone of the content on this board for reasons stated. Moreover, not allowing self-editing would have a chilling effect--without the ability to control their own content, many people would elect not to post at all. Nor do I think it is wise to place a time limit on self-editing. The more time that passes, the more opportunity people have to reconsider an issue, yielding better reasons for revisiting a post.<br />Scot

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Eric Brehm</b><p>Editing should be allowed, yes, as it is often needed to correct spelling or grammar, or to clarify a question or comment, or to modify card scans that have been inserted. It is not a good idea, however, to edit language that fundamentally changes the meaning of a post, as that is not fair to those who responded to it, and could disrupt the flow of thinking in a thread. For example, if someone reads an entire thread after it is created, they may not understand why Member B said something in response to something else that Member A originally said, but then changed or deleted after the fact.<br /><br />If you change your mind about something you have posted, perhaps based on some of the responses you have received, it is better to add a new post stating your new opinion, rather than going back and changing the original post. Again this is so the flow of logic within the thread makes sense to readers.<br /><br />Giving a reason for an edit can be helpful, such as "editing for spelling," or "edited for clarity," or "edited to remove unnecessary and superfluous inflammatory language that I would not have typed if I had not just had four beers."<br /><br />edited for clarity

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rich Klein</b><p>But I edited one of my posts in a thread because of some additional information I wanted to add.<br /><br />Editing a post is fine, and in fact; as long as the reason is notated.<br /><br /> And I will also tell you, that sometimes one types without thinking. There have been occassions doing material here at Beckett where I was going to post away on a subject but ran it through an editor or two here -- who usually got me back on the subject.<br /> While not everyone has the priveldge of having good editors, self-editing if even later, can usually only help<br /><br />See, I just amended my post to make it clearer as to WHOM edited it and why <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />Rich

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Judge Dred (Fred)</b><p>Usually I edit my posts within the first minute or two after the initial posting. The edits have to do with spelling or grammar. I don't mind when others edit but sometimes it detracts from the thread because a lot of the content may be removed which in a lot of cases makes the responses to the "original" posting seem incoherent. <br /><br />First edit - nothing done, just added this for the heck of it...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>if we don't allow edits - <br />my speeling and grammor would be bad.<br />I mean its bad even with edits... but it would be even worser <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br />I agree with eric - It is very useful to add a tag line when you make an edit to show what was changed or why.<br />"Edited for spelling". "Edited because I read my post and it came out all wrong."<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ed</b><p>without edits, how can you update which cards from a lot have been sold?<br /><br />I could launch a 1st amendment speech, but nuff said.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Dawson</b><p>If no one could edit grammatical or spelling errors in their posts, just think of where Barry Sloate's blood pressure would end up! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br /><br /><br />Steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve f</b><p>If no editting, I would have to think before typing. Please don't change it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Harry Wallace (HW)</b><p>I definitely can see why editing posts is needed for spelling and grammatical ettors, etc.<br /><br />But, it is frustrating to read a post that is missing pertinent information. I guess that I just need to check in here more often and read the threads before they they get edited.<br /><br />It would at least be nice to know why a post was edited. Whenever I see a post that has been edited, I wonder what I am missing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>I am in favor of editing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Steve D.- you pegged me perfectly ! <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />If I post something and three hours later I see I spelled a word wrong or transposed two letters, I'm going back in to edit it. You can't take that away from me (that's the name of a song...hear Ella Fitzgerald and Louis Armstrong sing it).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>How would David Rudd (Cycleback) cope if he couldn't edit a post? <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>I think we should all follow the strictest rules when editing. If not then "NO EDIT FOR YOU" and thus lose your place in the posting line.<br /><br />A second offense = "NO EDIT, ONE YEAR"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter chao</b><p>Where's the Edit Nazi when you need him. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14><br /><br />Peter

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Vargha</b><p><img src="http://www.1115.org/archives/soupnazi.jpg"><br /><b><font color=blue>No editing for you!"</font></b><br><br>DavidVargha@hotmail.com

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>The actor Larry Thomas is nothing like the soup Nazi in person. He's soft spoken and polite and has no accent at all. That one show put him on the map.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan</b><p>I can attest to that fact that sometimes people get caught up and say things they don't mean to say. Unfortunately with message boards and/or email and once you hit the send button you are already feeling that sinking feeling in the pit of your stomach. Another problem you see is that people are routinely more "brave" to say things from the comfort of their PC than to the person face-to-face or even on a telephone, hence, Leon has saved my butt on a few occassions when I first started to post here.