schlange - Posted - 01/28/2011:  11:29:56

---

Hey Folks,

We're trying to experiment. Starting right now, replies posted to topics can only be edited for 15 minutes, then they're locked.

This has been suggested numerous times as a method of improving the civility of the forum. I think it's a good idea--so we're gonna give it a go.

Let me know what you think!

FYI--TOPICS can still be edited as before (so the title of the topic, and the initial post on the topic). It's just replies to the topic that can't be edited. I did it this way (at least for now) because we've got several topics whose first post is regularly "maintained" by a loyal member (like this one: banjohangout.org/forum/topic.a..._ID=80383) and I don't want to break those.

janolov - Posted - 01/28/2011:  12:38:45

---

I think it is a good idea. I have seen some examples where some answered have been changed so the whole discussion is difficult to follow after a while.
Edit 1: this is just a check after 15 minutes.
Edit 2: This is more than 15 minutes now and I can edit.

---

Edited by - janolov on 01/28/2011 12:57:25

minstrelmike - Posted - 01/28/2011:  12:51:41

---

I like that idea

I mean no I don't

I mean yes I do ;-)

---

Edited by - minstrelmike on 01/28/2011 12:52:21

James Harry - Posted - 01/28/2011:  12:58:25

---

It seems like something closer to 2 minutes.
I'd disapprove if you gave us a week.
Thorough editing is the essence of literature.

Banjo - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:03:57

---

---

Edited by - Banjo on 01/28/2011 13:04:37

Banjophobic - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:05:40

---

Very needed change Eric and thank you for trying it out. It will make all of us more aware of what we post. There will be no question as to who said what,etc,etc. This is a welcome change.

James Harry - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:06:40

---

On second thought,
I would have much preferred "soul of literature" to "essence of literature."
And I'm powerless to change it.
Don't think I'm joking when I say this is the sort of thing that tears at me
and keeps me up late at night.

I hate, hate, hate this new system.

bluemule_77 - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:11:15

---

I think it's a fine idea. Does it prevent deleting as well? I recall an old-time forum user who would go back through and delete all of her posts when she no longer wanted to participate in a discussions. (Actually she only edited them to be blank, as I guess she didn't realize the delete option was available to her, but you understand.)

rudy - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:13:23

---

Eric,
Good idea.
Many other forums have this feature, and it gives you time to re-read what you wrote and re-word something or make grammer corrections without modifying it later so it becomes hard to follow.
I would second the idea that it adds civility to a medium where one can easily say things that we would not normally say without careful thought.

bobbybanjo - Posted - 01/28/2011:  13:29:43

---

You can eliminate the problems with civility by implementing more regulations or you can just discipline the offenders. I think more regulation and less flexibility is the wrong route.

RB-1 - Posted - 01/28/2011:  14:12:05

---

Being a non-native speaker (writer) I strongly disagree with this change.
I'd like to be able to edit whatever I wrote at any time.

Jim T - Posted - 01/28/2011:  14:17:53

---

I think this is a great idea, Eric, and certainly worth a try. Maybe folks will think a little more about what they post.

Jim

robertsart - Posted - 01/28/2011:  14:44:52

---

I was wondering the same thing as Brian (bluemule 77).

Deleting can wreak havoc on a thread as much as editing can. I'm not suggesting we should loose the ability to delete posts. Just suggesting that folks who can no longer edit might just delete, and as long as it hasn't been captured in a quote in someone else's post, some folks won't know what others are commenting on.

Guess there's no perfect solution...

From Greylock to Bean Blossom - Posted - 01/28/2011:  16:15:36

---

This sounds good and fair. Who can argue against being accountable for what you say.
I don't think it is good to limit posts. There can be some great conversations had there.
Ken

---

Edited by - From Greylock to Bean Blossom on 01/28/2011 16:16:48

schlange - Posted - 01/28/2011:  16:23:01

---

Deleting is disabled after 15 minutes as well, FYI.

Jim Yates - Posted - 01/28/2011:  16:37:09

---

I didn't like it when I read the title, but after reading the posts on this thread, I think it's a good idea.

jim109b - Posted - 01/28/2011:  16:43:12

---

Just been trying this Eric, looks like I can still edit and delete after 15 mins ????

Look at my last post on banjohangout.org/topic/191236/

---

Edited by - jim109b on 01/28/2011 16:47:29

Don Borchelt - Posted - 01/28/2011:  17:09:37

---

Yeah, I just edited one of my posts, and I'm not sure how long a time it was, but I know my nap in between was longer than 15 minutes.

schlange2 - Posted - 01/28/2011:  17:21:13

---

Hmmm... let's test this.

banjo_brad - Posted - 01/28/2011:  17:35:15

---

Actually, I believe the original post should be locked, also. If the thread goes to ---- in a handbasket, which is what we're trying to prevent, isn't it. then the originator can alter the cause of it all and make everybody else look stupid.


Although I see what you mean about certain posts, like the Index to TOTW.
-B-

---

Edited by - banjo_brad on 01/28/2011 17:37:02

dmiller - Posted - 01/28/2011:  20:09:36

---

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

Sultans of Claw - Posted - 01/28/2011:  20:37:50

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

I agree completely (especially with the part about all of us paying for the sins of a few), and I know David and I don't often agree, FWIW!

---

Edited by - Sultans of Claw on 01/28/2011 20:39:10

TrainmanCSZ4UP - Posted - 01/28/2011:  20:49:45

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

Im in agreement. Maybe 30 minutes and being allowed to change spelling only. I don't know if you could program it to where you could change the spelling but if it looks like you changed the word completly it doesn't work. Either way with every syestem their are pros and cons. And with main idea behind this one I think the pros out way the cons. And that is a step in the right direction in my book.

James Harry - Posted - 01/28/2011:  21:04:38

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

Beautifully expressed.
These changes are not for the better.
A wrong has been done here.
Correct it.

dmiller - Posted - 01/28/2011:  21:24:16

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller
I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

---

After spending the last hour on Google Earth, I came back to revisit this thread.
I bolded a mistake I made in the initial post that I missed in the proof-reading,
even though I looked it over quite carefully before hitting "enter".

It should have read "It seems" and NOT "It's seems". That's what I'm talking about.

By the way - - - I edit with "integrity".
Since other's have quoted my post for all to see (mistake included),
I refuse to "edit it now", even if I could.

edited to add - - - I added an extra / in front of the final b for bold,
and that screwed up the bolding for emphasis there.
I feel comfortable editing this post, but not the previous one.
Did i say - - - editing with integrity? Or something like that?

---

Edited by - dmiller on 01/28/2011 21:29:17

jim109b - Posted - 01/29/2011:  02:51:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sultans of Claw

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

I agree completely (especially with the part about all of us paying for the sins of a few), and I know David and I don't often agree, FWIW!

---

Nothing is perfect, and you are of course correct, but... IMO we WERE paying for the sins of a few BIG TIME over the last week or so.

Egregious spelling errors or egregious behaviour/atmosphere? - I can live with the former, not the latter

---

Edited by - jim109b on 01/29/2011 02:52:35

Thor - Posted - 01/29/2011:  04:33:27

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

^^^^ This.

I've also posted links or links to images... and if a thread gets bumped (weeks or months later) and the image or link is broken, now there will be no way to fix it.

desert rose - Posted - 01/29/2011:  04:40:06

---

Thank you Eric

Wish this would have been in effect a few years ago when a few of the worst troublemakers would routinely post inflamitory stuff to cause trouble then go back a few days later and delete it trying to look like angels

This really puts preasure on the spell checking though, that my weak point

I say keep it but maybe be flexible in deciding the exact time

Scott

bobbybanjo - Posted - 01/29/2011:  05:55:13

---

Restricting the many due to the misbehavior of a few is never a good idea.

Just deal with the people who violate the rules.

ramjo - Posted - 01/29/2011:  06:57:58

---

I agree with the editing lock because its purpose fosters coherent exchanges of ideas. Troublesome threads like those that brought on this proposal become meaningless when posters return to change or delete information taken up by later posters. I can't see how the lock impinges on freedom (as some folks have implied). You are always free to add a new post to the thread amending, explaining or correcting an earlier post. Or even apologizing for an earlier post, if that's what you want. I think its fair for a public forum to have a rule that promotes thoughtfulness--the thoughtfulness going into the post in the first place, thoughtful reconsideration, if necessary, and thoughtful elucidation if the poster wants to express something different later. Spelling mistakes? Well, they are blemishes, but for me, it's the thought that counts.

Jim Yates - Posted - 01/29/2011:  07:56:40

---

I've also seen posts, some of them mine, which make no sense after a previous post has been deleted by a mod. Maybe we could enable changes, but not deletions, although a major change could have the same effect as a deletion.

janolov - Posted - 01/29/2011:  08:32:56

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jim Yates

I've also seen posts, some of them mine, which make no sense after a previous post has been deleted by a mod. Maybe we could enable changes, but not deletions, although a major change could have the same effect as a deletion.

---

You can alway add an extra post and refer to your other post. If you edit your post there may be other posts that are difficult to understand, so the writer want to edit, and so on. It is easy to get a Catch 22 effect of this.

Don Borchelt - Posted - 01/29/2011:  10:05:35

---

I sympathize with some of the thoughts of those opposed to the change, but I would still like to see Eric give this change some decent time, to see if it works as we hope it will. I would point out that it is still possible to have a mod unlock the post, if a specific error is really serious and just has to be fixed. Still, it won't work if folks are bothering the mods for every little spelling error, so we are all just going to have to be a little more careful. I routinely edit my posts after the fact for spelling, grammer, etc., but I'm willing to be more disciplined in my initial posting, in order to try something that could make a significant difference. Some more specific thoughts:

- I also don't think it was a good idea to exempt the first post. While not every descent into nastiness begins with the first post, the first post often is the start of it all. In those cases, when that first post is heavily edited, it generally renders the entire thread meaningless. A lot of really nasty drive-by whackings happen with that first post. I think there is a simple solution; for the few threads that are continuing, like the "Chords for..." thread; Eric could give the author of the thread moderator status, so they could unlock their own post.

- I don't think the offenders in this are just a few; I think we all do it from time to time, that is, edit an old post in a way that disturbs the continuity of the rest of the thread, often without meaning to. There may be just a few who do it routinely and egregiously.

- Changing the edit time to 30 minutes to me is no big deal, as long as there is a limit of relatively brief duration. Heck, if it was an hour, I could even squeeze a nice nap in between!

Again, I'd like to see us give it a chance, it might make a big improvement for a small inconvenience.

I hope I edited this enough!

---

Edited by - Don Borchelt on 01/29/2011 10:11:13

Marc Nerenberg - Posted - 01/29/2011:  10:19:31

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Thor

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

I'm not in favor of this at all. I see the reasoning behind it, but there are times I post one thing, go on to another thread to read there, then come back to the original post only to find an egregious error in spelling (or something similar) that would BUG ME TO NO END if I couldn't fix it. As mentioned, I see the reasoning and impetus behind this new "rule", but it will be irksome to NOT to be able to correct mistakes I've made.

I figure most of us who use the edit feature do so legitimately with no nefarious intentions.
It's seems (to me) that ALL of the Hangout members are now "paying for the sins" of the few.

If you're dead set on this "editing/ deletion ban/ curfew" (and it sounds as if you are):
May I suggest that 15 minutes is an entirely TOO short amount of time.
You're the owner/ boss of the site, but I'm not in favor of this new "improvement" to the BHO.
My two cents - - - For what it's worth.

---

^^^^ This.

I've also posted links or links to images... and if a thread gets bumped (weeks or months later) and the image or link is broken, now there will be no way to fix it.

---

Of course there's a way to fix it: you just post another reply to the thread with the correction, such as:

Oops, in my post above, "heffalump" should have read "elephant".
or
I just noticed that the link I posted above is no longer working. Here's another link that does work.

Pig_Eyed_Jackson - Posted - 01/29/2011:  13:26:10

---

I see this as only putting a Curad on Melanoma, you can't see the cancer but it's still there and it will only get worse. The only thing that will get rid of cancer is to remove it and treat it aggressively.

vrteach - Posted - 01/29/2011:  14:32:21

---

This morning I made a quick reply to a thread where it was pointed out that I had missed adding one entry to the TOTW index. When I saw the red message about time-out of editing I got a bit worried as I had not yet done the needed edit to the index, nor had I added the one posted on the 28th.

So, I was glad to see that I could still change the index. Maintaining, and using a resource like that would be awkward if it was not possible to edit the main entry. The same statement applies to the individual Tune of the Week entries. In the long term, each TOTW entry is of more use to the world if the first poster can use extra information provided by the respondents to update and enhance the first post. It's not necessary to make such changes, but does makes it easier to use the information later.

But, I see and agree with Don's point above about not excluding the initial post from "time-sensitive editablity". Most of the forum topics are conversations, not publications. In a real conversation you cannot edit or take back what you said, you can only clarify, defend, or apologize latter. And, there should be no expectation that the first post is going to be any more sane or correct or un-nasty then responses (if that makes sense).

I don't know if the BHO software allows permissions to be set on a per-user or per-thread moderation, as Don mentions. If it is not already a feature of the software, it could be quite an effort to add it.

Another direction that some forum or web-publishing softwares is the use of "roles". The BHO has (I think) three roles: Administrator, Moderator, and everybody else. Perhaps there could be a middle role, people who have been granted the ability to edit their own posts?

Anyway, I think this current experiment is worth trying, even though I often edit my own posts, both to correct things, but also sometimes to add extra information that I thought of (or learned of) later.

Edit: see, I read it through and changed some wording.

---

Edited by - vrteach on 01/29/2011 14:36:21

Forrest - Posted - 01/29/2011:  21:04:16

---

I have mixed feelings regarding the new rule.

I think that if you are willing to post something on the forums, you should have the intestinal fortitude to stand by what you wrote. If that's not the case, then you shouldn't post at all.

On the other hand, I often catch bonehead spelling or grammar mistakes after the fact and it's often more than 15-20 minutes later and I hate, hate, hate having those hanging out there on a permanent basis.

I think Eric will need to measure the effect that his regulations have on participation. If posting slows down and many folks become lurkers rather than posters, then that's a sign that maybe it wasn't such a good idea. I know that I personally will think twice or three times before posting from now own, if only to make sure that I can live with what I write and my potential typos. I do think there is a point where you regulate the soul out of a site and I can see us getting closer and closer as time goes on.

Had to edit my grammar. Good thing I caught it with 12 minutes to spare.

---

Edited by - Forrest on 01/29/2011 21:05:51

Banjo - Posted - 01/29/2011:  21:29:13

---

Just write things out in Microsoft Word and cut / paste it into the forum
after looking at it and mulling it over.
Sometimes sarcasm and wit just doesn't translate well as you wished to express it.

schlange - Posted - 01/29/2011:  21:30:49

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forrest

...

I do think there is a point where you regulate the soul out of a site and I can see us getting closer and closer as time goes on.

...

---

Really? At the risk of getting slightly off-track here... what other "regulations" have we put in the place in the last couple years that you think have diminished the soul of the site? I'm curious.

Please continue to give your input everyone--I do appreciate it. I find it interesting that many of your are balking at the new "regulation." In my mind, I was seeing this as a way to reduce regulation forum-wide. My thinking was: without the ability to edit posts, people will be more thoughtful when they write, resulting in less need for moderator intervention. Personally, I feel like it makes the forums feel more immediate, more visceral--more like real-world interaction, where you're liable for what comes out of your mouth.

But that's just me, and there are thousands of other folks here, so again--please continue with your comments.

Tuneager - Posted - 01/29/2011:  21:55:27

---

I'm sure Wiki Leaks would say the same..................
And Face Book, and My space, etc.,

Forrest - Posted - 01/29/2011:  22:05:53

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schlange

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forrest

...

I do think there is a point where you regulate the soul out of a site and I can see us getting closer and closer as time goes on.

...

---

Really? At the risk of getting slightly off-track here... what other "regulations" have we put in the place in the last couple years that you think have diminished the soul of the site? I'm curious.

Please continue to give your input everyone--I do appreciate it. I find it interesting that many of your are balking at the new "regulation." In my mind, I was seeing this as a way to reduce regulation forum-wide. My thinking was: without the ability to edit posts, people will be more thoughtful when they write, resulting in less need for moderator intervention. Personally, I feel like it makes the forums feel more immediate, more visceral--more like real-world interaction, where you're liable for what comes out of your mouth.

But that's just me, and there are thousands of other folks here, so again--please continue with your comments.

---

I don't know if you were being snarky by including my use of the term regulation in quotes, but restricting the time that we have to edit posts in order to force people to "be more thoughtful when they write" is a regulation.

I see a regulation as being a rule designed to control or govern conduct. Do you disagree that this is the intent of the policy you have put in place?

I also wonder if one of the big reasons for this is in your previous post. Is this new rule also designed to protect you from legal action? As a systems admin, I've had to produce data in response to a subpoena when one of my clients and or employers has been subject to legal action.

I'll PM you in response to your other question to as to keep it on topic regarding your new rule. There may be thousands registered, but they aren't all posting...not as far as I can tell.

Tuneager - Posted - 01/29/2011:  22:08:30

---

Don't forget it was very recently just a few months ago that everything everyone posted to BHO was available on iTunes for free downloads without our consent, if you don't think that can happen again then you might want to reconsider posting any music on this site. Anything you put on here is subject to the owner's intent or objective. Post at your own risk.

schlange - Posted - 01/29/2011:  23:10:00

---

I put regulations in quotes because that's the term others are using, and not myself. I wasn't being snarky--and I'm sorry if it came off that way.

And no, this has nothing to do with protecting myself from legal action--that thought hadn't even crossed my mind.

Forrest, you wrote "I see a regulation as being a rule designed to control or govern conduct. Do you disagree that this is the intent of the policy you have put in place?" How could I disagree with that? I've removed the ability to edit--of course that will change how people conduct themselves. Every time we add, remove, or change a feature on this site it changes how people can use it!

schlange - Posted - 01/29/2011:  23:15:05

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Tuneager

Don't forget it was very recently just a few months ago that everything everyone posted to BHO was available on iTunes for free downloads without our consent, if you don't think that can happen again then you might want to reconsider posting any music on this site. Anything you put on here is subject to the owner's intent or objective. Post at your own risk.

---

I've already dealt with this topic in depth here, FYI: banjohangout.org/topic/185401

Please try to keep this discussion on track. Thanks!

dustinTN - Posted - 01/29/2011:  23:45:08

---

Don't like this at all. I'm neurotic about spelling and typos, so that will bother me. That's not a big deal, though. I do think that broken links, pictures, etc. will be awkward and annoying.

Given what's been written above, was this directed at a few individuals who were specifically posting inflammatory things knowing they could come back later and edit? If people were truly doing that in a premeditated fashion, I guess I can kind of see the logic, though it's a bummer to make changes based on the actions of a tiny few. If, however, this is designed to promote civility in a general sense, I don't see it making that big a difference. If someone is responding in anger, I doubt they too often think "I'm going to write this angry/rude post because I know I can delete it later." I don't think that's how emotions typically work.

Here's my proposal. Is it possible to write code for the edits so that the original post has a line through the edited text? That way, there is a "record" of what was originally said, but corrections/alterations can still be made.

dmiller - Posted - 01/30/2011:  01:15:44

---

This was from a different discussion, but I took the liberty to "bold" the words in the final sentence,
since it seemed applicable (to me) concerning this topic being talked about here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by schlange

quote:

---

Originally posted by greenhorn

I like the large pictures. You can see much more detail. I find the thumbnail sized pictures more annoying.

---

The point of thumbnails is to show you a preview, which you can then click to enlarge. Large photos take a long time to load up, and they blow out the layout as explained above. Basically, thumbnails give people a choice--large photos give you no options. People generally like choice.

---

ramjo - Posted - 01/30/2011:  05:04:10

---

I just can't see how this edit lock limits choice. You're free to edit your thoughts and typos for 15 minutes (even if you used the "preview" feature before posting and missed them there). And after 15 minutes you're free to make any number of additional posts expanding, contracting, correcting, apologizing for, enlightening, etc. your earlier post(s).

desert rose - Posted - 01/30/2011:  05:15:10

---

Personally I dont think this new situation will stop ANYONE who has something to say from expressing themself. Cant see how that could happen. The situation now stops new members from posting for fear of getting flamed and stops veteran members of the banjo community from even visiting the Banjo Hangout because of the exact things Eric is trying finally to stop
IF it reduces the amount of posting here, without question it will be the posts causing the problems. If someone cant respond with something to offer that is not sniping, derogatory or just down right antisocial, the Hangout is better off without it

One of the prime childish things it will reduce is when someone has nothing worthwhile to offer they snipe at someones spelling. If thats on permanint record, people will think twice before being so small

Scott

---

Edited by - desert rose on 01/30/2011 05:18:24

pickNgrin - Posted - 01/30/2011:  05:29:39

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dustinTN
I don't see it making that big a difference. If someone is responding in anger, I doubt they too often think "I'm going to write this angry/rude post because I know I can delete it later." I don't think that's how emotions typically work.

---

I think that is correct. Typically they write something that is roughly equivalent to "diarrhea of the mouth", then realize later that the came off as a total ass, then go back and fix it up to make it seem as though they had a rational point to make. The problem is, a lot of other people will have already gotten stirred up by the original comment. With the new system, people might be more inclined to think about what they are writing knowing that they will have to take responsibility for it.

The system that Eric put in place is not perfect, but it will help. And it was probably easier to implement that some of the other proposals (including mine). It is a practical solution.

The new system is more like having a real conversation. In real life, if you continually act like an ass, then people will get wise to you. You can't get in a time machine and revise the history of what you said and how you acted.

I, like some of the others who have posted here, tend to go back and fix up some of my posts, either for spelling, grammar, or because I did not make my point very well. Even so, I don't think it will be too much of a hardship to get into the habit of getting it right before I hit "Post New Reply". I think I can also overlook a few spelling/grammar errors on the part of other posters.

Hey... it is already working! The original tone of that last paragraph was pretty sarcastic. But after I thought about it for a while, I toned it down.

-matt

Update: I was able to edit this about an hour later. What up?

---

Edited by - pickNgrin on 01/30/2011 06:58:10