# Do people reread the posts in a thread?



## maxiogee

Recently I made an error in a post and when this was brought to my attention I apologised and explained what I meant to say.

The person who drew my attention to my error then suggested something which hadn't occurred to me - 'why not edit your post and I can delete mine'. I am normally slow to correct a post after what might be termed a "length of time".

Then I see that a forer@ has said, in post 43 of a thread,
I'm ready to give up! I have rewritten my intitial post many times, would somebody please (where are you Andym when I need your help!) help clear things up!​
I am stuck here. What is the point of re-writing a post to which people have responded - no matter how difficult people find it to understand (or even how error-ridden it might be) if most people aren't ever going to go back and see the changes? I can't believe that people here read each thread all the way from the beginning each time they clock in here. I use the "go to first new post" button.

Is it time to review the length of time the edit button remains available to us?


----------



## french4beth

I am somewhat of a control freak - I would prefer to just be able to edit the post, regardless of who will take the time to read the edits - don't forget, once we post, it's stored in the dictionary under the "*Forum discussions with the word(s) 'post' in the title:"*

I would be totally embarrassed if at some later date, I came across a post of mine that was riddled with errors...


----------



## elroy

Don't forget that your post, and all the ones before it, will be read by new people who come upon the thread after you've submitted your post.  Like you, I would guess that most users who have taken part in a thread or at least read along do not re-read everything every time they visit the thread, but there are many other users.  I don't see how you don't see that editing your post would indeed be beneficial to a certain segment of the WR population.


----------



## cuchuflete

Hi Tony and Beth,
It used to be that one's ability to edit a post expired after a day or two--I don't recall the exact time limit.  With recent vB software release upgrades, this has been stretched to a week.
Some of the mods have been talking about the benefits of returning the edit period to the prior period, or a day.  No firm conclusion had been reached as of early today.

As a forero, and not as a mod, I would like to see a very short edit period in the CD forum, where changes after the fact can badly distort the logical (or illogical!) flow of a discussion.  People there should "edit" by writing new posts which correct or amend previous statements.  An exception to that, which would fit in a shorter edit period, is correction of a typo, which doesn't materially affect the intention of a post.

For the language forums, a day should be a reasonable period.

What do you see as the pro's and con's of longer and shorter editing time windows?


----------



## fenixpollo

Many foreros don't visit daily. Sometimes even I, despite the severity of my addiction, am unable to visit for 24 hours.  Once in a great while, the three-day edit window was insufficient for me to correct my mistakes.... in the language forums. I like the one-week window, although I use it very rarely.

In CD, I agree that a day would be enough.


----------



## PaoPao

Sorry to give my opinion in english, but I prefere to express my self in spanish.
Por ejemplo yo, recien estoy inscrita en el foro hace unos dias (creo ya son 10 días) sin embargo he usado el WR Dictionary desde hace más de un año, y de ahi siempre he entrado al foro para aprender sobre los usos de las palabras que necesitaba traducir.


----------



## fenixpollo

So... Tony, PaoPao is corroborating elroy's and cuchu's point about our posts being written in stone for posterity.  She says that it's good to edit any posts that might cause confusion, for the benefit of users like her who was reading your unedited posts for a year before she registered as a member


----------



## PaoPao

Thanks fenixpollo


----------



## maxiogee

I still feel it is 'wrong' to change what has been written and responded to. It can make what appears to follow from post 1 seem strange and un-connected. I'd see the debate format as more important than any other use to which my posts might be put. I think it can be an unintended insult to those who replied to post X to modify it to post X.1, or even X.4 - as this alters the thread totally.

I suppose I just have to be more consistent in my usual practice of quoting what I am replying to, and more assiduous in proofing what I post before I commit my deathless prose to permanence. 
However, I retain the right totally to ignore later changes to posts I have already read.


----------



## cuchuflete

maxiogee said:


> I still feel it is 'wrong' to change what has been written and responded to. It can make what appears to follow from post 1 seem strange and un-connected.


Well said.


There may be another option:

Original post:


			
				Bonzo Billy said:
			
		

> There are sixteen things I dislike about that policy.......



Edited post:



			
				Bonzo Billy said:
			
		

> There are sixteen * seventeen* things I dislike about that policy.......


----------



## elroy

Just to clarify, I was referring to this scenario: 





			
				maxiogee said:
			
		

> 'why not edit your post and I can delete mine'


 where there would be no confusion resulting from references to the original error.

I, too, don't like it when people go back and edit their posts when there is a reference to the error later in the thread.  The only times I do it is when I think that my error might genuinely mislead a beginner, whose language skills may not be advanced enough to understand that the subsequent posts include reference to and acknowledgment of an error in the original post.  In any case, I always make it fully clear that the post has been amended, either in a post stating so or in an otherwise informative way in the post itself (see cuchuflete's example).


----------



## Outsider

I edit little language errors (either in form, or in content) that may mislead whoever reads the thread. However, if someone corrects me _in the thread_, I often leave the error there, assuming that whoever reads the post with the error will also read the correction.

This case was more extreme. My initial reply was so misleading that I decided to leave it there (for context), but cross the whole text and add a rewrite.


----------



## timpeac

My view is that if we could trust people only to edit spelling errors and the like there would be no problem in leaving the editing option indefinitely. However, time and time again we see people change the substance of the post which is confusing and rude to later posters. I've also seen people add relevant information - this is a bad idea because most people do not go back and reread a thread but start from the time they left off and so any points added in this way will be missed by many people.


----------



## Etcetera

If someone corrects me - no matter if they do it in the thread or by PM - I always try to go and correct my error. But correcting errors isn't the same as re-writing a whole post, especially an initial one. It may be really confusing! In the end, one would feel clueless, seeing an initial post, then a discussion of something which has absolutely nothing to do with the initial post, and then a new discussion, this time more or less related to the initial post... 
In my opinion, it's much better to write a _new _post.


----------



## pedro0001

What about to make available a "history of changes.". So everybody could see what was changed at each time.


----------



## Outsider

Showing all previous versions seems a bit excessive, but you do have the edit summary...


----------



## pedro0001

Outsider said:


> Showing all previous versions seems a bit excessive, but you do have the edit summary...



It could be, but maybe if organized it is no so excessive. For example some link as "Edition history for this post" would be enough.


----------



## elroy

None of this would be necessary if people made sure they edited only typos and other misleading information *and made it crystal clear when they've done so*.  

Of course, if the text to be changed hasn't been referred to or replied to in a subsequent post, I think it's ok to edit it without signaling the edit.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:


> Of course, if the text to be changed hasn't been referred to or replied to in a subsequent post, I think it's ok to edit it without signaling the edit.


Do you mean for typos only? If you mean for substance too then I disagree. If you change the substance of your message then although someone later may not have mentioned the original explicitly what they read will still mould what they write, and they might have written something different if they'd seen the changed text. If I go through a post disagreeing on a line by line basis and "ignore" the final point (because it has been added later) then it might be taken as tacit agreement.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:


> Do you mean for typos only? If you mean for substance too then I disagree. If you change the substance of your message then although someone later may not have mentioned the original explicitly what they read will still mould what they write, and they might have written something different if they'd seen the changed text. If I go through a post disagreeing on a line by line basis and "ignore" the final point (because it has been added later) then it might be taken as tacit agreement.


 I agree.  I was indeed referring to typos and other grammatical/stylistic errors.

I would agree with a change in substance only if there have been no replies after your post.


----------



## pedro0001

elroy said:


> I would agree with a change in substance only if there have been no replies after your post.



I would agree only a change in substance only if nobody has read your post. If someone reads the post while you are editing it I would not allow to save the changes.


----------



## timpeac

elroy said:


> I agree. I was indeed referring to typos and other grammatical/stylistic errors.
> 
> I would agree with a change in substance only if there have been no replies after your post.


Ah - in that case sorry for the misunderstanding I'll go back and change my post... (joking!!)


----------



## Outsider

In my opinion, you don't need any complicated rules and deadlines, just common sense and courtesy. If I'm talking to someone in a thread, and for some reason I decide to edit a previous post, *and* my edit affects what we were discussing, *of course* the polite thing is to tell everyone I've edited my post. 
If I systematically fail to do this (in other message boards, I've often seen posters who crash into a forum, get into heated discussions, and then leave, after blanking all their posts -- very rude!), then everyone else will soon realise I'm not a serious person and they'll start to ignore me.


----------



## elroy

pedro0001 said:


> I would agree only a change in substance only if nobody has read your post. If someone reads the post while you are editing it I would not allow to save the changes.


 There is no way for you to know who, if anyone, has read your post.  Even if you keep track of the number of _thread_ views at the time of submission and at the time of the desired editing, there is no way for you to tell how many of the viewers have read the thread all the way through to your post.  Even if your post is the first one, someone may have clicked on the thread link, read one sentence, and decided the post wasn't interesting.

If there has been a reply after your post, I think it's reasonable to assume that your post has been read.


----------



## elroy

timpeac said:


> Ah - in that case sorry for the misunderstanding I'll go back and change my post... (joking!!)


 Actually, I went back and edited my post to clarify.  

(NOT  )


----------



## lsp

Outsider said:


> Showing all previous versions seems a bit excessive, but you do have the edit summary...


I'm just curious, what's an edit summary?


----------



## Outsider

Let me see if I can show you...

P.S. Look down.


----------



## lsp

Outsider said:


> Let me see if I can show you...
> 
> P.S. Look down.



Ohhhhhhhhh! Thanks. I didn't connect that area with the name.


----------



## cuchuflete

> _ 				Last edited by Outsider : Today at 05:12 PM. 				Reason: P.S. added 				_
> 
> 
> 
> 
> http://forum.wordreference.com/editpost.php?do=editpost&p=1542196


However, if Outsider or a Mod were to edit the post again, all record of the initial edit would be lost, as would the prior, unedited, contents.  

Look up for proof.


----------



## Outsider

Not fair!


----------



## pedro0001

cuchuflete said:


> However, if Outsider or a Mod were to edit the post again, all record of the initial edit would be lost, as would the prior, unedited, contents.
> 
> Look up for proof.




Who are you answering to?


----------



## geve

An extreme example of severe edit affecting a whole thread... except that the thread had no point from the start. I probably should have reported the thread, but I forgot about it, plus I don't think many people ever search for "????" 

From what I see it's essentially new members who act this way, don't you think? They do it because they don't intend to stay anyway and just don't care, or because they don't realize how it affects the course of discussion. If someone does that in a thread I participate in, I'd probably send a PM myself if the person doesn't seem evil-minded, and if (s)he does seem evil-minded I would call for the power of the mod's hat!


----------



## .   1

Etcetera said:


> If someone corrects me - no matter if they do it in the thread or by PM - I always try to go and correct my error. But correcting errors isn't the same as re-writing a whole post, especially an initial one. It may be really confusing! In the end, one would feel clueless, seeing an initial post, then a discussion of something which has absolutely nothing to do with the initial post, and then a new discussion, this time more or less related to the initial post...
> In my opinion, it's much better to write a _new _post.


I quite agree.
Do not re-write as confusion flows from that.
Make another post with an explination.

.,,


----------



## panjandrum

Outsider said:


> [...] I've often seen posters who crash into a forum, get into heated discussions, and then leave, after blanking all their posts -- very rude!), [...]


I'm glad you mentioned that. There have not been many of these, but I agree with you whole-heartedly - - very rude.

I really think that changes to posts should not be possible after, say, 30 minutes. That is more than time enough to correct any errors.

As things are now, if I feel the need to change a post after that kind of delay, I make it very clear in the post what I am doing and include some sort of explanatory comment as well - even if it says something like "Correction of really silly error, thanks for pointing it out to me Outsider."


----------



## geve

panjandrum said:


> [...] I really think that changes to posts should not be possible after, say, 30 minutes. That is more than time enough to correct any errors. [...]


30 minutes seems a bit short to me... I would like to be able to correct a typo that could be mislead someone who'll read the thread afterwards, or even to edit the content if it appears that it could be misunderstood (but showing explicitly what I've changed). And it can happen that I will not realize my mistake until I log in again and go see the new posts in the thread.

I find this way of editing the content very efficient: in this thread, the poster had misunderstood a previous post and realized it the next morning when seeing my answer to his post. He edited his previous post to avoid misleading any further reader, and posted a new message to tell us.


----------



## cuchuflete

pedro0001 said:
			
		

> Who are you answering to?



Outsider and *L*sp


----------



## calembourde

I don't like the idea of rewriting posts... it seems like something out of _1984_. You can't edit the past. It's really confusing reading responses to things that are not there any more, and whole conversations that don't make sense because of it.

french4beth, I don't think there is any shame in having people come across your mistakes later. We're all here to learn. If you made a mistake and somebody corrected you, there should be a record of that, so that other people can learn from your mistake. A 'history of changes' would accomplish this, and in a way I like that idea, but it would be tedious looking at the history for all the posts and trying to work out in what order things were done to reconstruct the entire flow of conversation. If there could be an automated feature to do what chuchuflete suggested (compare the two versions and show the changes using strike through) that would be okay.

People should perhaps be able to edit for a short time before anyone has responded (or maybe only before anyone has read the post), if, as I sometimes do, they spot a mistake a moment after clicking the Post button. I agree with timpeac and elroy that editing to fix a small typo which nobody has pointed out yet, and clearly marking what they've done, could be okay, but there is no way to restrict the editing feature to just that. But when I notice an error immediately after sending an email, or saying something to somebody in real life, I can live with that. I should be able to live with it on a forum as well. Certainly on a forum where we all learn from each other's mistakes.


----------



## calembourde

Argh. Now I want to correct my misspelling of cuchuflete.


----------



## cuchuflete

It is rumored that cuchuflete is much more interested in good intentions and substance than in spelling, but this might just be because he spells badly and adds lots of typos.


----------



## calembourde

Not knowing what cuchuflete means, I always read it as 'chou-chou flete' in my head.


----------



## geve

For those who might have not noticed: the edit window has just been reduced to 24 hours.


----------



## Rayines

> What do you see as the pro's and con's of longer and shorter editing time windows?


Actually for me it was better two or three days. Because it takes me some time to realize about some typo, or an involuntary grammar mistake. I think that would work in the Spanish-English (Grammar) forum, and in Sólo Español, where I take part.


----------

