# Changing a posting after someone else has quoted it



## maxiogee

Oh all-knowing ones,

Would it be possible (or desirable) to make it difficult (if not impossible) for a poster to edit a posting after someone else has already quoted all or some of it? 
Maybe the original poster might be allowed to delete, but not to modify?

It would save a bit of bother with mods having to delete responses to since-edited posts.
This query is prompted by an incident which happened to me, but it is not a sour-grapes whinge - the Moderator in question and I have discussed the matter and I'm happy with the situation.


----------



## cuchuflete

Reply from one who knows just a little about the mystical workings of vB code...

It would be a custom coding job, not desireable.  The ability to edit can be set to expire after a certain passage of time, but does not, as far as I know, have a parm (parameter to the non-AS/400 reader)  for locking after having been quoted.  


We can only ask for common sense.  Yesterday a fellow forero edited a post I had quoted.  That made my own post meaningless, so I just deleted it.  No harm done.   If you reply to something you have quoted, even though the prior post may have been edited, your own post will have an internally consistent logic, though the thread may lose something.  

Personal preference: If you change your mind, just say so in a new post.  Don't edit prior posts other than for spelling, grammar, or stylistics.  Let the content remain.


----------



## fenixpollo

I often use PM to correct this situation.  For example, I say something stupid, and someone quotes me.  I go back and change it, so I don't look stupid in perpetuity.  I PM the person that quoted me, saying "thanks, I changed my stupid post".  If my original post was sufficiently stupid and I care enough about it, but they don't change their (now mis-)quote of me, then I sometimes send a follow-up PM asking them pointedly if they wouldn't mind changing the quote.  

But cuchu's personal preference would obviate all of that subterfuge, now, wouldn't it?


----------



## cubaMania

My personal preference is to edit the original post, but make it clear that I have done so. Like this:
apples _oranges_
EDIT: XXX pointed out that it should be oranges, not apples. Thanks, XXX.

EDIT: P.S.  It probably would not occur to me to ask another poster to change anything inside a quote.  After all, that's what my post said when they wrote their message and quoted me.  The subsequent EDIT notations in my original should make the sequence of events clear to new readers.  There might be exceptional circumstances calling for a different remedy, but so far I have found this method to make sense out of nonsense.  (Actually, now that I think of it, I did have a case where another poster kept editing their own posts, making my subsequent posts appear nonsensical.  In that case I made both subsequent posts and edits of previous posts to explain and clarify the confusing situation.  Such as "XXX originally said this....so that was what I was responding to..." etc.)


----------



## geve

I do the same as CubaMania (ie. write "Edit:" and then my edition) when I correct something in the content of my post shortly after posting it (usually to add some information or a link, or to take into account the post that someone sent just 2 seconds before mine). I wouldn't use the "edit" function some time afterwards, I rather post a new message or no one who already participated in the thread would read my edit...
For minor changes such as those listed by Cuchu (typos, syntax... yes, these things happen!) I only fill the "reason for edition".



			
				cubaMania said:
			
		

> (Actually, now that I think of it, I did have a case where another poster kept editing their own posts, making my subsequent posts appear nonsensical. In that case I made both subsequent posts and edits of previous posts to explain and clarify the confusing situation. Such as "XXX originally said this....so that was what I was responding to..." etc.)


This happened to me once: someone posted a thread with a short letter in French, and there seemed to be some "gender misunderstanding" between the sender and this person. There was "grammatical proof" of the gender in the text, and the poster asked clarifications and made statements that showed it was not what he expected. After I answered, he went back and erased his posts (which made my posts look irrelevant), and then posted something like "mind your own business, don't make assumptions like that, how would you know that I'm a he anyway" (well that's what you said in that erased post)  
I don't always quote the text I'm replying to, I had done it with one of his post but not the 2nd. Maybe I _should_ systematically quote whole posts... 

I also saw a thread once where the original poster kept editing his first post to add information or ask a new question; which made the whole thread look totally inconsistent...

Still, I'm quite happy with the current features of the function. _Most_ members use it appropriately most of the time. 
For other cases, is there something mods can do if the poster seems to be doing it purposely/repeatedly?


----------



## cuchuflete

geve said:
			
		

> For other cases, is there something mods can do if the poster seems to be doing it purposely/repeatedly?



Hola Geve,
If there is a consistent display of attempts to mislead, or just bad manners, I suppose a mod could send a PM, but this is all very subjective.  Mods do not enjoy playing constable.  This sort of problem rarely appears because the large majority of foreros normally act in a friendly and honest manner. 

On those few occasions when someone edits a post in a way that causes confusion, it's usually best for the foreros to work it out by PM, or you may just ignore the person who over-edits in the future.

If people follow CubaMania's advice, and show their edits
like that this, then the problems will likely go away.

Thanks for the good ideas.

cuchu


----------



## maxiogee

geve said:
			
		

> I don't always quote the text I'm replying to, I had done it with one of his post but not the 2nd. Maybe I _should_ systematically quote whole posts...



I have taken to doing this - for two reasons.
1. In case of editing of the first post, I can at least appear to be making sense.
2. When I get to the each forum I open all the unread threads in a series of tabs, and work my way through them. This can leave a long time delay between my reading what appears to be the last posting to a thread and my posting a response. I found in the past that I appeared to be endorsing posts I hadn't read. Quoting overcomes that.


----------



## geve

Tony, your "work method" kind of scares me...   

(please note that I have edited my previous post)*


_* this is something I sometimes do too - call attention to an edition of a previous post when it's relevant (which it isn't here)_


----------

