Forrest - Posted - 01/30/2011:  07:20:54

---

My own personal feelings aside (regarding the inability to edit my own posts for grammar and spelling), I agree that this rule is likely a good thing overall for the reasons that others have stated.

I do see another side to this issue and I'd like to put it forth at the risk of playing devil's advocate. This new policy should have a positive effect on conduct only if the poster a) cares and b) is not hiding behind the shield of anonymity by not having any personal information in his/her profile.

If someone is trolling, they're going to troll. If you don't know who they are, then that can potentially embolden them to engage in such behavior. I don't know how practical it would be to do this as a retroactive policy, but in my mind it would go a long way toward making people more civil if they were known and unable to hide. 9 of the new accounts added in the past 24 hours either have no name or hometown or no last name. This doesn't mean that a user with no personal information will be rude, but it does seem that the offending ones I've seen over the years are more likely to not have this data in their account.

minstrelmike - Posted - 01/30/2011:  08:46:14

---

The supposed anonymity may be a problem but from what I've seen on most of the lists (including Usenet), the most obnoxious and annoying people are the ones who have been on long enough to think anything they say has more merit than postings of newbies.

That's addressing the anonymity and angry posting argument.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
For straight-up anonymity, starting anonymous on a new site is fairly common and is what I recommend to people. If you try BHO and like it, you can always add info later. But if you decide to leave, you can delete your personal info but that doesn't mean it hasn't been saved by some of the web history spiders.

And more often, a user doesn't leave so much as just not come back so any personal info posted is just sitting there waiting to be harvested.

Forrest - Posted - 01/30/2011:  09:13:52

---

Good point Mike. Oddly enough, some of the ones I'm referring to fall into the group you mentioned and still don't have any personal information in their profiles. Why should we be worried about personal information *if* we're planning on participating on a level that requires some level of credibility? Lurkers don't need an account to read the site.

minstrelmike - Posted - 01/30/2011:  09:30:10

---

Why should I post -any- personal info at all?

I don't find any of that stuff useful for responding to people because I respond to their post and never click on their homepage.

If someone likes to read that info about someone, that's fine.

But if it changes their response or their interpretation of the poster, then I have my standard backasswards, non-conformist way of viewing it like I view most human behavior--they're prejudiced because they treat people differently depending on how they think of the poster and they base their interpretation on silly stuff such as age, looks, location, gender, etc.

I suspect the people who get the most use out of personal data posted on the web are spammers and data harvesting advertisers.

pickNgrin - Posted - 01/30/2011:  09:32:43

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Forrest
I do see another side to this issue and I'd like to put it forth at the risk of playing devil's advocate. This new policy should have a positive effect on conduct only if the poster a) cares and b) is not hiding behind the shield of anonymity by not having any personal information in his/her profile.

---

I think that is a good point with a lot of truth in it. Remember banjo-L? There will always be people who want to make trouble. Even long standing members could cause occasional trouble by creating fake accounts. That is of course against BHO policy, and could result in them getting both accounts locked if they get caught doing it.

One thing that is good about the new policy is that it will make it easier for the mods to find trouble makers and deal with them since the stuff they post will not be a moving target. Under the old system, a lot of posts were heavily edited and/or deleted before the mods even became aware that there was trouble afoot.

-matt

---

Edited by - pickNgrin on 01/30/2011 09:36:22

KE - Posted - 01/30/2011:  09:48:21

---

I recall Eric or a moderator has said elsewhere that the editing history, including deleted posts, is retained and reviewable by moderators. Please correct me if this is wrong.

Forrest - Posted - 01/30/2011:  09:53:07

---

Mike:

I feel that you should post your personal information for the very reasons I've already mentioned. If the entire point of imposing a time out on editing and deleting your posts is to encourage posters to behave in the same manner that they would in a face-to-face situation, then I feel we should go a step further and have them identify themselves as that would likely further encourage civil discourse by making it more difficult for them to hide behind an anonymous account.

I think the fear of having your personal data mined by spammers and data harvesting advertisers may be relevant in other situations, but I believe that Eric has taken steps to prevent that from happening. I've had similar information to that which I list here posted on the web at my work or posted in statewide newspapers over the past year from my musical activities, so I guess I see my name and location as being important to me in establishing a level of familiarity with those that I interact with on the forums. Since I feel the risk for being spammed is relatively low, it makes me wonder what they have to hide.

Matt:

I agree your assessment and I think your suggestion was an excellent one. I'm glad Eric decided to implement it and I'll just have to be more attentive to my mistakes from now on.

---

Edited by - Forrest on 01/30/2011 09:55:33

minstrelmike - Posted - 01/30/2011:  10:04:12

---

Well I read the response and can see that I've made my case and won't retry it.

KE - Posted - 01/30/2011:  14:48:14

---

The evidence that the behavior of those who identify themselves is better than those who do not is, well, not evident. Some just apparently don't care or aren't aware they lack civility.

I used to include all identifying information, and removed it in response to those who thought it mattered. You're known by your relationships and behavior, not by your identity.

As for editing, don't care one way or another. I like to get it right the first time. But as some continually remind us on other subjects, it's not the tool (editing) but those who misuse it who should be regulated.

Jim Yates - Posted - 01/30/2011:  15:47:08

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dustinTN

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.

---

I don't know enough about computers to know if this is possible, but it sounds like a good plan to me.

RBuddy - Posted - 01/31/2011:  08:23:29

---

Eric kindly pointed out on another thread that this thread was running. Luckily he and I caught it within the 15 min rule and I was able to move it here:

"I'm really hoping there is a darn good reason for the 15 min rule. Personally I can't see one. What are the typing impaired or the error prone BHOer's like myself supposed to do when we re read a post the next day and realize we've hung the stupid sign around our neck - again?

I don't like it, it is so much easier to correct a post than to write an explanation of an earlier post that may have been posted pages earlier."


Well I don't like the rule for a number of reasons and I'll list one or two more. I just put up a fairly long and complicated post in the builders section about how to calculate neck backset angle. If I made a mistake, I'd have to correct it with a second post, maybe pages later, now suppose several members take my original post to heart and screw up a bunch of necks. I'd feel pretty bad and I may be less likely to post technical info knowing I can't go back and either update or make corrections.

When we post here we are putting up a piece of ourselves and once posted I'm not sure whose intellectual property our posts become but taking that post out of a members control does sap a bit of our BHO self out of it. Another rule that had a similar effect was the elimination of "signatures".

I think this will also lead to a ton of requests to mods asking them to make some legit corrections to a bunch of posts.

Just my 2 cents.
Brian

---

Edited by - RBuddy on 01/31/2011 09:58:48

spinley - Posted - 01/31/2011:  09:43:37

---

Seems to me if you remove REPLY with Quote, it would maybe cut out some bull
Stuart

dustinTN - Posted - 01/31/2011:  13:26:36

---

That's an excellent point, RBuddy.

Jody Hughes - Posted - 01/31/2011:  19:52:34

---

My only suggestion is for there to be an "hour glass" filled with sand that pops up in my upper right hand corner after I make a post so I'll know how much time I have :P :P

banjoez - Posted - 02/04/2011:  07:57:35

---

I hate this feature. Please go back to the way it was. Some of us make mistakes in typing or thought processes and being locked out after 15 minutes makes us look like idiots sometimes. The restricted time makes the forum less civil in my view. At least allow us to delete and start over!!!

---

Edited by - banjoez on 02/04/2011 07:58:07

Banjo - Posted - 02/04/2011:  08:45:47

---

Again I Say.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Banjo

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.

---

RBuddy - Posted - 02/04/2011:  10:58:09

---

One last comment on the new rule. Just as I figured I would, I've cursed this new rule already a couple times since it was initiated. It might not matter to a lot of posters but when discussing building and repair for instance it is imperative to be able to make updates and/or corrections for the good of other readers.

What are we really doing with this rule anyway (and I've read this whole thread)? Is the point to punish some poor schmuck forever for posting something stupid? Is it to protect follow up posters to a dumb post from looking mean when the stupid previous post disappears or is made less dumb on reconsideration? Is it to make the quality of posts less accurate and dependable? Is it to prevent folks from making legitimate corrections to legitimate posts? Is it to make people less likely to post at all for fear of making an error and never being able to go back and correct it?

Not understanding the validity of the rule change, I can still tell you one thing for sure, the rule change is successful at making the answers to all the questions except the first one in the last paragraph a definitive YES.

My mother always taught me that the only person that can make a fool of me - was me. It was good advice.

Hope I didn't make any misstaks. edit - I mean misteaks. edit...oops too lat

---

Edited by - RBuddy on 02/04/2011 11:03:31

banjoez - Posted - 02/04/2011:  11:42:11

---

Another big downside to the 15 minute rule is that it will most likely increase the number of overall posts due to having to make a new post to make corrections to a previous post thus taking up more server and bandwidth resources and making threads that much longer and unwieldy.

the-fish - Posted - 02/04/2011:  12:02:11

---

I dont mind it, I try to think a lil more before posting. I shoud put mo efort inta me speeling tho..

Forrest - Posted - 02/05/2011:  10:38:25

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by banjoez

Another big downside to the 15 minute rule is that it will most likely increase the number of overall posts due to having to make a new post to make corrections to a previous post thus taking up more server and bandwidth resources and making threads that much longer and unwieldy.

---

Very true. I just saw where someone posted the wrong price (too low) in a for sale ad in the Swap Shop and had to go back and make another post to correct the first one. Editing the first one ,or deleting it all together would have saved him a bit of explaining and some potential confusion regarding the price.

BANJOJUDY - Posted - 02/05/2011:  18:45:55

---

I hate the new rule. I rarely notice I've erred within the first 15 minutes after posting, because I usually don't re-read a post until after someone else has added to the topic.

I want to be able to edit when necessary, not after just 15 minutes.

It seems as though the masses are being punished for the behavior of a few. NOT FAIR.

Judy

robertsart - Posted - 02/06/2011:  06:18:18

---

I understand and appreciate the idea behind this change but I'm finding that it's caused me to really restrict what I say.

I would venture to guess that most editing and deletions are NOT done with sinister intent, or to save face (after someone calms down or realizes they are being a jerk), or to make others look foolish. Most editing is done to simply clean up grammar, spelling, inadvertent mistakes, bad links, etc. Sometimes editing/deleting is done not just to improve the post, but to improve the entire thread...

In other words, as a thread progresses, sometimes editing or deleting an early post will help clarify, or improve the flow of topic. For example, I have found that sometimes I will post a response to topic that, at the time, seems relevant, funny or clever, or may guide the topic in a certain direction. If, after 10 more posts from other folks, no one has responded to what I have said, I might realize that my post now looks "out of place" or seems to interfere with the flow of the thread. Then I'll just delete it, since it no longer seems to have any place in the topic. Problem is, sometimes it takes hours, days, or even weeks to get to that point.

This post was prompted because I just composed a response to a topic that I thought this could happen with. I ended up not bothering to post it.

I'm a fairly selective poster as it is (if you average out how long I've been here with how many posts I've made, it comes out to a couple a week) but now I find myself even more so.

Just another two cents...

KE - Posted - 02/06/2011:  07:44:37

---

Good points. There are good and thoughtful posters who use editing to improve their own posts for the benefit of others. Some edit for readability; some to correct inaccurate information; some (as above) to improve the flow of the thread; some to retract something they said that might hurt others that they now regret. Say, these represent at least 99+%. Then there are those who use editing maliciously to make themselves look good at the expense of others or as trolling. They're probably less than 1% of edits.

Isn't there a better way to deal with the <1% who abuse a feature?

If you suspect there are people who do this, then you probably know who they are. Use the forum editing history to ferret them out and use an appropriate discipline, perhaps restricting privileges or just a word to the wise.

I could point out numerous analogies to the debate on gun control frequently made on the BHO, but will leave that as an exercise to the reader and stay on topic.

Pig_Eyed_Jackson - Posted - 02/06/2011:  08:19:58

---

Here's a idea, if someone is breaking the rules with a post and not just debating, (even if debating a "pro.") ignore them and use the "Report to Moderator button." If you feel you must post a remark, quote them and then have a Mod look at the quote.

Don't feed the trolls, is the answer, not a 15 min time out.

TrainmanCSZ4UP - Posted - 02/06/2011:  08:56:32

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Pig_Eyed_Jackson

Here's a idea, if someone is breaking the rules with a post and not just debating, (even if debating a "pro.") ignore them and use the "Report to Moderator button." If you feel you must post a remark, quote them and then have a Mod look at the quote.

Don't feed the trolls, is the answer, not a 15 min time out.

---

Amen

wb4yal - Posted - 02/07/2011:  08:10:56

---

Works for me Eric. Glad to see the change!

vrteach - Posted - 02/07/2011:  11:15:53

---

I have to say that I have grown to miss being able to edit my posts. I sure like to fix things when I realize I made a mistake.

Tom Hanway - Posted - 02/15/2011:  20:54:42

---

I like this feature. I just do all my editing in word, then post, and I don't waste my time with minutiae, screw up threads by changing my replies. I was certainly one of the poster-boys for endless editing and re-posting, though I do take the liberty of deleting an entire post in the time-frame if something new comes to mind, going back to word, editing, then tossing it out again.

I have to learn to live with typos, that's a hard one for me. Hahahahahaha.

DantheBanjoMan - Posted - 02/17/2011:  09:09:06

---

This rule doesn't work for me because I am prone to typos and I tend not to catch them until later. I think it is the only real option Eric has and I think it's regrettable that a few people who should know better have put him in this uncomfortable situation. This should not have been an issue in the first place. Eric is providing a great service and shouldn't be forced into the role of an enforcer.

Unfortunately, for solution there is a problem. If a person makes a comment that he or she later regrets it will be impossible to delete it, so it might present its own set of problems, but I don't know what else could be done.

For the people who post negative comments, please re-think your actions. Certainly there are better solutions.

jazzylynne - Posted - 02/17/2011:  10:58:22

---

You can always contact a mod to have the comment removed if it's a problem and if no one has commented on it.

DantheBanjoMan - Posted - 02/17/2011:  15:27:06

---

Lynne,

That's good to know. I really appreciate everything you folks are doing to keep this website going, and I am sad that a few people are making your job harder than it needs to be.

Kemo Sabe - Posted - 02/18/2011:  08:26:20

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schlange

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.

---

Hello Eric - I see your point on improving civility - good point indeed. I appreciate that you are allowing edits of TOPICS as before and edit of the INITIAL POST on the topic. (I am the guy who posted and 'maintains' the example post you linked - 'Today's Chords: _________' - and I appreciate your comments.) There seems to be a lot of folks that visit that post (50 or 60 a day for about four years) and I think from their comments on the thread they seem to get value from the post. And I think the value of the post comes a great deal from being able to edit that original post. Thank you sincerely for the edit privileges on the original post. (Kemo Sabe) Phil Mathers - Katy, Tx.

impickin5 - Posted - 02/23/2011:  15:13:15

---

I don't like the change. Quite often I may think something hours or even the next day to add too or clarify my reply.

Just MHO.

robbif - Posted - 02/26/2011:  08:16:18

---

I saw that statement that posts could only be editble "for 15 minutes" but misinterpreted that to mean you could only sit there in edit mode for 15 minutes or be kicked out, not that once saved with a timestamp, they could not be edited after timestamp+15.

I know I'm guilty of not proof-reading every time, but there are occasions when I need to add or correct some information that was not known at the time of the post. And that may be (as others have stated) a relatively longer time than 15 minutes. I know there's an answer to that - add another post quoting the original post.

minstrelmike - Posted - 02/26/2011:  12:21:03

---

We should go with robbif's recommendation.

Since he's got the biggest banjo, he wins ;-)

(I love that pic).

RBuddy - Posted - 03/01/2011:  20:07:24

---

I don't know about you, but as a hangout regular I'm noticing a whole lot more misspellings and or other typos or other errors than I used to because of the new rule. I still don't like it by the way. Pretty soon, when you google misspelled words maybe the hangout will come up first. Next thing you know we will be better known for any of the drooling banjo jokes. Seems like we all will suffer for the discretion's of a few.

dmiller - Posted - 03/01/2011:  21:15:46

---

15 minutes is a ridiculously small amount of time for one to edit a post. I just spent a good half an hour or so writing an answer to Figmo about violins and violas. Although I (initially) tried to choose my words well, spell them right, and make a point without "rambling" too much, I found several mistakes I had typed, in my perusal of the post both before and after I hit "Enter".

I looked the post over a couple of times (after editing the first two times), and by the time I found one last "wording of a sentence" that I wanted to correct, my window of opportunity was gone. To be blunt - - the 15 minutes "time to edit" sucks. Sorry, but that has been and will continue to be my opinion. It's obvious the edit time limit is here to stay. I don't like it, but I'll learn to live with it.

But for crying out loud - - - Let's get real about the editing time limit. 15 minutes is an affront for those of us who want to have posts look "presentable" and coherent once we've hit the "Enter" key, only to find out we've hit keys on the keyboard that we didn't mean to and would like to rectify the situation. I enjoy this site (hugely), but the 15 minute editing limit is a severe detriment to those of us who want to add to it/ contribute to it/ etc. Let's get AT LEAST an hour or two "window of opportunity" for editing (although I would suggest 12 hours), since it's obvious that the ball-and-chain-of-an-editing-time-limit will be around our ankles from henceforth.

janolov - Posted - 03/02/2011:  00:33:20

---

I agree with David. If you have long posts 15 minutes is too short time, especially when English is your secondary language. However, the majority of posts seems to be short, and I have noticed (before January 28) that most of the edits on the short posts were made within a few minutes.

---

Edited by - janolov on 03/02/2011 00:36:02

jazzylynne - Posted - 03/02/2011:  05:49:14

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by RBuddy

I don't know about you, but as a hangout regular I'm noticing a whole lot more misspellings and or other typos or other errors than I used to because of the new rule. I still don't like it by the way. Pretty soon, when you google misspelled words maybe the hangout will come up first. Next thing you know we will be better known for any of the drooling banjo jokes. Seems like we all will suffer for the discretion's of a few.

---

As a mod I read a lot of posts, there are no more or less spelling and grammatical errors then before.
When I was first on here I noticed them all and was shocked now it no longer bothers me.
Some of us are good at spelling and some, not so much.

gradelyduck - Posted - 03/02/2011:  06:51:05

---

A good way to check if your post reads right, is to hit the preview button before posting. Reading the post "anew" in the preview box gives a good opportunity to correct errors.
I wish I always followed my own good advice.

KE - Posted - 03/02/2011:  06:56:21

---

A Yah-but. Spelling is all well and good, but imagine my horror when trying out a recipe for peanut butter cookies that inadvertently left out the key ingredient -- peanut butter! Sure it was corrected way down the page, but there should remain an option to make technical corrections.

Fixing whatever "problem" there was wasn't worth it.

bobbybanjo - Posted - 03/02/2011:  08:08:53

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KE

A Yah-but. Spelling is all well and good, but imagine my horror when trying out a recipe for peanut butter cookies that inadvertently left out the key ingredient -- peanut butter! Sure it was corrected way down the page, but there should remain an option to make technical corrections.

Fixing whatever "problem" there was wasn't worth it.

---

Sometimes a poorly thought out "repair" results in a situation that is worse then the one that was to be "fixed".

figmo59 - Posted - 03/02/2011:  08:10:53

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by dmiller

15 minutes is a ridiculously small amount of time for one to edit a post. I just spent a good half an hour or so writing an answer to Figmo about violins and violas. Although I (initially) tried to choose my words well, spell them right, and make a point without "rambling" too much, I found several mistakes I had typed, in my perusal of the post both before and after I hit "Enter".

I looked the post over a couple of times (after editing the first two times), and by the time I found one last "wording of a sentence" that I wanted to correct, my window of opportunity was gone. To be blunt - - the 15 minutes "time to edit" sucks. Sorry, but that has been and will continue to be my opinion. It's obvious the edit time limit is here to stay. I don't like it, but I'll learn to live with it.

But for crying out loud - - - Let's get real about the editing time limit. 15 minutes is an affront for those of us who want to have posts look "presentable" and coherent once we've hit the "Enter" key, only to find out we've hit keys on the keyboard that we didn't mean to and would like to rectify the situation. I enjoy this site (hugely), but the 15 minute editing limit is a severe detriment to those of us who want to add to it/ contribute to it/ etc. Let's get AT LEAST an hour or two "window of opportunity" for editing (although I would suggest 12 hours), since it's obvious that the ball-and-chain-of-an-editing-time-limit will be around our ankles from henceforth.

---

Don't worry bout it MR. Miller..................i forgive you.

maybe ...with a little practice....you too can be a fine word murderer ....like me!...

figmo59 - Posted - 03/02/2011:  08:15:40

---

hey i don't mind the rule myself.

and as it was pointed out the mods can fix things at one request.

however, i do not advocate that thier time be spent ....fixin typos.

bigger fish to fry and all that.....;-)

schlange - Posted - 03/02/2011:  10:00:06

---

I'm going to have a discussion with the mods to see what they think of the effects of the editing timeout, and whether it should continue, be modified, or be done away with.

Personally, I think it's working well. I want to confirm this with the mods, but the number of rule-breaking posts in the "personal attack" realm seems to have been reduced significantly. I think people are being more careful about what they post, and it has resulted in a more friendly forum environment.

Has the edit timeout resulted in fewer posts? No. In February of 2010, we had 27,773 replies posted to the forum. Last month, we had 33,918. Why so many more? I don't think it can all be attributed to increased site membership, because in January of last year we had 38,729 posts, while this year we had 40,633. I'd like to think we're actually seeing MORE activity now, because the forum is a more friendly place to interact.

I do hear your grievances about not being able to fix a typo you found in a long post. That would bug me, too. I'm just not sure how to allow folks to fix typos, while still having an overall editing timeout. As always, I appreciate your honest feedback, as long as you're nice about it. :-)

minstrelmike - Posted - 03/02/2011:  10:51:40

---

I suspect the numbers might be misinterpreted.
In my experience on a variety of bulletin boards, negative behaviors come in waves that subside for 6-12 weeks at a time after they get a rise out of a large percentage of the readership. Some quit, others stop posting, and most folks try to consciously relax. That lasts for a few months.

If the editing prevention is stopping certain belligerent folks from posting, then they are far more toxic people than I thought they were. I've always thought most folks were inadvertently obnoxious and all the revision-editing after being called on it was silly reputation mgmt.

I don't think people plan ahead to be obnoxious and for me, the proof that editing-prevention stops annoying trolls will come after 4 months of good behavior. (I wonder how much of the additional postings are due to bad weather keeping folks inside).
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm already used to the editing lock; just not ready to attribute any problem-solving to it at this early point.

Forrest - Posted - 03/02/2011:  12:40:53

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by schlange


Has the edit timeout resulted in fewer posts? No. In February of 2010, we had 27,773 replies posted to the forum. Last month, we had 33,918. Why so many more? I don't think it can all be attributed to increased site membership, because in January of last year we had 38,729 posts, while this year we had 40,633. I'd like to think we're actually seeing MORE activity now, because the forum is a more friendly place to interact.

---

Nice spin, Eric! I personally wonder if we're seeing more posts because people are having to correct typos, grammatical errors or other misunderstandings and are doing so via the additional posts rather than editing the originals.

Vapor - Posted - 03/02/2011:  13:28:47

---

I do not like seeing people get overboard with their emotions, and it is quite easy for anyone to get passionate about what they believe. That said, for a while it was getting to the point of being just plain tasteless. I and many others I talked to were getting fed up. Since the 15 minute edit limit, I have seen a complete change in behavior. Pretty much as soon as it was started, so I think it works, although I agree inconvenient at times. This is the price we pay when things go out of control.

I think the fix for things like recipies, etc, is to send a message to Eric or the mods for a special exception correction, and this being understandable, would be fixed, on a case by case basis. Typos, too bad, that is just our vanity kicking in for perfection.

Just my two cents, I think Eric took the only avenue reasonable and it seems to be working.

Thanks Eric and BHO mods

minstrelmike - Posted - 03/02/2011:  13:50:19

---

Forrest's observation about the number of replies going up as folks append to editing errors is interesting.

Another measure that shows more involvement might be numbers of distinct posters.