Editing Threads

[GerryNick2]

Hi

No doubt this issue has been raised before and I apologise in advance should this be the case.

I am becoming increasingly frustrated (hence this post) by the 15 minute time out factor in being able to edit my posts without the need to contact an administrator. On many occasions I have spotted an error or wish to add further information omitted etc.etc. after posting a thread or quick-reply only to be told your time is up.

As a regular contributor to other sites I have not come across such a short timescale for editing posts, interestingly earlier today on a popular bird forum site I was able to edit my post 24 hours after submission without difficulty.

There may be a good reason for the 15 minute restriction, but I have some difficulty in coming up with one. It would be appreciated if consideration could be given to extending the time available for editing. I am not suggesting it should be 24hrs or indefinate, just 1 hour would be a big improvement.

Look forward to your response on this one.

Gerry

[StuartDH]

Hi Gerry,

I'm not 100%, but I think it may be a default setting on the forum. I kept it in place (or put it at 15 minutes) as just enough time to make any changes to obvious spelling mistakes etc that were noticed after posting.

I didn't want to leave it too long or increase it as members could then go back and change the original content of a post after it has been replied to, which creates quite a few problems in debates. With the current 15 minutes, any really big additions or corrections in a post can just be remedied by adding another post below that explains or clarifies what should have been posted originally.

However, if lots of members don't like the current system and want it increased to 30 minutes etc then I'd certainly consider it.

Stu

[GerryNick2]

Thanks Stu

Certainly 30 minutes would be helpful. Perhaps I am the only one who has a problem, probably an age thing.

Gerry

[glsammy]

Let me just add that it's not a problem asking for basic errors to be corrected, I don't mind at all. I will correct the odd typo, but I try not to alter posts if possible, unless asked, and then only if it doesn't alter the meaning of the post.
As one of the editors that does the name corrections in the Gallery, I know Gerry well, he cares enough to get the info correct, which is more important than the time it takes to do it.

[Words]

I'd be in favour of a longer time span. I'm used to 24 hours elsewhere, but I sometimes want to correct a view a few hours later. Post in haste, repent at leisure sort of thing.

[eeyore]

Originally Posted by Words

I'd be in favour of a longer time span. I'm used to 24 hours elsewhere, but I sometimes want to correct a view a few hours later. Post in haste, repent at leisure sort of thing.

i know what you are saying, but one problem with this would be that in a fast moving discussion altering previous posts would make the thread difficult to follow from the begging for those that didnt encounter it from the off - look for instance at the calendar thread where stu has used his special powers to edit his first post but left the original text for continuity - think how difficult this would be to follow if he had not done this.

I cant really see that there is a problem , if we want to change stuff later we can always ask a moderator nicely and 15 mins ought to be plenty for the "ooooooh £$%& i shouldnt have said that" instinct to kick in

perhaps the real moral here is that if one doesnt want to repent at leisure , dont post in haste in the first place