DescentBB

i'm not trying to be a jackwipe. i want to know the guidelines, in your opinion, of how often and when a poster can edit without being "not cool". can we agree on this?

i feel the need to type this.
i personally think bash is very intelligent, detailed, and well versed in many arenas. i've enjoyed some extended chats in pxo with him on the topics of music and the blind in the last week. this is not personal at all. but our little exchange brought this up... and you're right i have no game.

Needs an aditional option for: 2 days.

If I know I am going to want to re-read and edit one of my posts I usually put, "This will be edited soon, please don't respond." Then take it out once I am done.

Heh, I just noticed the delete option has been removed.

*deleted*

Did you double post on purpose?

Yes. Consider it my way of saying that no matter what options are removed and no matter how many wounded whiners try to make it an issue, I'm not going to alter the manner in which I post. Beefis, why don't you just start a poll whether to have me banned if you don't like what I have to say?

IMO, 5-10 minutes is acceptable for editing (even without adding "edit: " at the end.) Because, really, if someone writes up a response in under 10 minutes, they didn't put any thought into it anyway. This is E&C, not the Cafe -- your posts should actually require some thought.

Though I still prefer to add "edit:" when I modify my own post...

Any of you homos touches me, I'll kill ya.

Great, now all we need is Ferno to come along and post something about total rewrite or damage control.

5-10 minutes is a good amount of time. any longer and i start to suspect a total rewrite or damage control.

If you need more time, there's always notepad.

rofl

i would never ask that someone be banned... it's just a place to type your thoughts.

and if any of you homos touch me, i'll kill ya.

If think that 5-10 minutes is acceptable. Even if you make changes after that, they would most likely elaborate on what's already there.

Most of my edits are either fixing some grammar error, or finishing a unfinished thought. In general they only take a minute.

It would be good if the E&C were timestamped, but no other forums. Maybe NHB too.

I never make substantial revisions after I post a serious argument, only proofreading or grammar changes. I put 10-15 minutes though, simply because that's that's how long it takes me to read a serious post from start to finish and catch grammar errors.

I agree with Lothar. If you can't fix any glitches within 5 - 10 minutes after posting (with obvious exceptions of course simply because nobody is perfect) then you didn't put a whole lot of effort into the post to begin with. However, I do believe the feature that made a note that the post was edited should be turned back on so its plainly obvious that the post was edited, and will remove any doubt that the original post was altered (whether its for the better or worse).

I agree with Lothar. If you can't fix any glitches within 5 - 10 minutes after posting...

Actually, that's not what I was saying.

I was saying, if you can write your response within 5-10 minutes of someone posting their original post, you probably didn't put enough effort into it. If your response is done before the original poster has finished their once-over edit, you need to start making a habit of putting more time, effort, and thought into your replies. If your response is actually *completely written* before bash (or whoever else) finishes editing the thing you're responding to... you're responding too fast.

Now, I also agree that you should (for a typical 2-3 paragraph post) be able to fix all of your glitches within 10 minutes, and that anything significantly more than a glitch-fix should be labelled with "edit:" but that's not what I was saying in the first place.

the most time i've ever spent on a post is maybe 15 minutes, and that's rare. if you think that is weak i can understand that lothar... not that i'm gonna change my style. the point you seem to be missing is some folks like to alter their initial posts after reading a response (sometimes hours later) to give the impression they had it worked out to begin with... or they may even insult you then edit out the insult before anyone else reads it... making you look like a drama queen.

you basically have to be a freakin' troll to even keep the abuse in check... it's a game within the game. it's crooked like a politician.

so ignore my slop and i'll ignore your "war and peace".

TheCops wrote:not that i'm gonna change my style.

I'm not asking you to... but I am suggesting that if you've finished a response in under 5 minutes, it's probably a waste of time to read it. In particular, if you consistantly respond to a particular person's posts in under 5 minutes, you're probably trolling ;)

the point you seem to be missing is some folks like to alter their initial posts after reading a response (sometimes hours later) to give the impression they had it worked out to begin with...

No, I'm not missing that point. I understand it perfectly -- that's why I'm giving 10 minutes as a reasonable time to edit, instead of giving 3 hours as a reasonable time to edit.

If the edits bug you that much, quote the whole post inside of yours.