Time limit on Edit function

[snpark]

Who thinks the edit function should have a time limit of say 5/10/15mins max and then after that you have to make a new post.

It should be used to correct spelling mistakes or grammar.

NOT used to change or amend or update large amounts of text hours and hours later.

This is wrong and not fair. And unless you notice that a post says it has been edited you don't realise that some members are going back and changing their posts several hours or even days later particularly if they have been called out for posting something wrong or incorrect data

Thankyou

Yes edit up to 15 mins then have to make a new post

No let members change their words hours and days later to completely change whole posts

 

[marcus]

... NOT used to change or amend or update large amounts of text hours and hours later.

This is wrong and not fair ...

It may be not fair sometimes (minimized if the other posters can also change or even delete) but , at least to me , I felt that when I changed my posts I was (mostly) benefiting the Forum (besides , of course , benefiting my credibility too) .

I think that this Forum is important for the (so many) people looking for information , and a lot less important for (very few) active members argue (in which case you may find unfair situations) .

For those people looking for information , it is a lot more efficient & useful if they don't have to ready a thread of too many pages to clear their doubt(s) .

Notes :
1. In the older Forum , (if I am not mistaken) the "Edit" function had no time limit . Then the time limit started because just 1 member (maybe in about 10 years) deleted his/her many posts , making 1 or a very few threads almost useless , but as far as I remember this event was not important for the Forum , in my view . And this can also be minimized if we answer posts by copying the question(s) .
2. I constantly revise what I wrote , many times and near the next day limit . Not to win an argument , but to optimize the content in order to be clearer/precise/trustful to the readers .

 

[Bad_azz]

Who thinks the edit function should have a time limit of say 5/10/15mins max and then after that you have to make a new post.

It should be used to correct spelling mistakes or grammar.

NOT used to change or amend or update large amounts of text hours and hours later.

This is wrong and not fair. And unless you notice that a post says it has been edited you don't realise that some members are going back and changing their posts several hours or even days later particularly if they have been called out for posting something wrong or incorrect data

Thankyou

Yes edit up to 15 mins then have to make a new post

No let members change their words hours and days later to completely change whole posts

Or perhaps just add a simple 'track edits" to show readers what was edited?

 

[snpark]

It does say edited 53 mins ago or the time but so small and who has time to go through every single post to check if they have been edited.

Why not just post new and say "and to follow on from my previous post"

Example visa info. What if someone went back to a 2024 post and just edited it. How does that help? Why not just post a new one and say updated info October 2026

And deleting a post is not editing it.

 

[El_Goretto]

It may be not fair sometimes (minimized if the other posters can also change or even delete) but , at least to me , I felt that when I changed my posts I was (mostly) benefiting the Forum (besides , of course , benefiting my credibility too) .

I think that this Forum is important for the (so many) people looking for information , and a lot less important for (very few) active members argue (in which case you may find unfair situations) .

For those people looking for information , it is a lot more efficient & useful if they don't have to ready a thread of too many pages to clear their doubt(s) .

Notes :
1. In the older Forum , (if I am not mistaken) the "Edit" function had no time limit . Then the time limit started because just 1 member (maybe in about 10 years) deleted his/her many posts , making 1 or a very few threads almost useless , but as far as I remember this event was not important for the Forum , in my view . And this can also be minimized if we answer posts by copying the question(s) .
2. I constantly revise what I wrote , many times and near the next day limit . Not to win an argument , but to optimize the content in order to be clearer/precise/trustful to the readers .

Completely agree. I'm against adjusting anything because a handful of users are using the forum as a playground for their constant, useless bickering. The fastest way to solve this problem is to ban everyone involved once and for all, if I had my way.

 

[snpark]

Completely agree. I'm against adjusting anything because a handful of users are using the forum as a playground for their constant, useless bickering. The fastest way to solve this problem is to ban everyone involved once and for all, if I had my way.

Just to clarify. Are you agreeing with Marcus original post at 11.25a.m or his edited one at 12.05pm?

Because I'm confused now what you agreeing with him about? Since he has changed what he originally said.

See what I mean. And maybe tomorrow he might change it back. But you are already on record as agreeing with him?