15 min limit on editing posts

[Illconceived Was Na.9781]

I think I'd rather see no restrictions on editing and use the moderation system to identify people who abuse it.

There's always a balance between making things convenient for the forces of Niceness & Good and making them difficult for those of Badness & Evil. In this, it happens frequently that positively-contributing posters have cause to edit their posts, whereas the number of folks attempting (and succeeding!) at baiting others seems rare. Just today, there are people attempting to summarize feedback on issues -- it's a great service to the rest of us if they can keep the top post current.

[Blood Red Arachnid.2493]

I don't like this change at all. Though in theory somebody can abuse the endless editing time to troll another player in a convoluted way, I have never been witness to this practice in all of my years of being on forums. To contrast, I've used the edit feature long after 15 minutes.

Effectively, the message of this change is "We're removing a useful feature we use all this time to deal with a problem that is functionally invisible".

[Alimar.8760]

Do you think it was intended to keep people from bumping dead posts?

[Celtic Lady.3729]

@Alimar.8760 said:Do you think it was intended to keep people from bumping dead posts?

@Alimar.8760 said:Do you think it was intended to keep people from bumping dead posts?

No, because you can still bump a thread whether the posts are edited or not.

[Ashantara.8731]

@DakotaCoty.5721 said:Don't punish the good because of the actions of the bad.

Here we go already with the judgment. This black & white world view is exactly why a voting and ranking system is not improving but harming the community.

@Ashantara.8731 said:

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:To answer a few questions and comments:

2. The above means that yes, higher ranks--those who have been active with meaningful posts and reactions--will have a longer edit period.\

Who gets to decide what is "meaningful"? People will have to jump through hoops in an attempt to please everyone and receive positive feedback. I don't think this is sending a positive message and certainly will leave some people feeling uncomfortable to post anything in the first place.

[Tiscan.8345]

@Charrbeque.8729 said:Couldn't it be set up so moderators would see the original post as well as any edits made after it was posted? This way if someone makes a bad post to upset another user then edits their post and claim they did nothing wrong, a moderator can see the original unedited version of the post to get full context of what happened.

That could be done, of course. But it would require a certain amount of rework of the database. Also, it would extend the capacity of space being used, which might be the main reason why ANet decided against this option.

ANet is now using Vanilla Forums which has built in support for logging edits of postings. So in theory they could easily track if somebody is using the edit-function to troll people. And its easy to just run a simple cronjob that removes all log-entries which are older than a certain number of days, keeping the database all nice and tidy.

[Mown.2356]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:You can see where those kinds of manipulation could have negative consequences. What are your thoughts on those? Have you experience that sort of issue - perhaps seen such an incident on another forum? The question is one of risk versus benefit, and I'm going to look into this over the next several days to figure out whether we want to make changes, and where those changes can most effectively be implemented.I have actually never heard of this happening in the 10 years or so I've been actively frequenting forums. It seems like a downside that is very much marginal in comparison to all the convenience you rob the consumers by making them unable to make their OPs support flexible information.

Even if this were to be an actual issue, it's one that should be possible to fix with relative ease in other ways. Storing the history of edited posts has been mentioned already. Another option is to embed a copy of the current post if it's reported.

[Flatley.1620]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:To answer a few questions and comments:

1. These forums do not support a edit limitation by sub-forum. I thought of that for forums like Community Creations, when someone pointed out they might want to edit their fanfic. However, that's simply not an option. On the other hand, we are able to set limitations by user group or rank.
2. The above means that yes, higher ranks--those who have been active with meaningful posts and reactions--will have a longer edit period.\
3. We cannot offer edit rights for the initial post but not others, as I saw mentioned above. It's edit all or edit nothing after the proscribed editing period.
4. You can bet I'm aware of these concerns, and I'm investigating the best way to address them.

By way of background, the edit limitation is a default function for many forums because it reduces a form of trolling: Someone insults a forum member, gets the desired heated response, then edits their comments to appear innocent of wrong-doing, after which they report the person who responded for wrongdoing. Or someone engages in hate speech, then edits hours later, having wrought some pretty nasty consequences on the community.

You can see where those kinds of manipulation could have negative consequences. What are your thoughts on those? Have you experience that sort of issue - perhaps seen such an incident on another forum? The question is one of risk versus benefit, and I'm going to look into this over the next several days to figure out whether we want to make changes, and where those changes can most effectively be implemented.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

The thing is, after I exceed 15 minutes, I'd need to post another post if I want to clarify or correct something. To my mind, this can lead to spam although it will increase my post count... B)

[joneirikb.7506]

Not to mention that you can get a "norice" for double posting. Which seems pretty silly if you're not allowed to edit your post after 15 minutes.

So technically, if I want to correct something (like my spelling), and the 15 minutes expire, I have to wait for someone else to post, just so I can post a new post, and correct my own spelling" "Oh I really meant to type 'the' and not 'teh' in my 3rd line in the previous post. That's all."

[draxynnic.3719]

@Djinn.9245 said:People should eat the post they are responding to which will alleviate this issue. Bad use of forums should not be addressed by punishing those who use the forums correctly.

To play devil's advocate, there's nothing stopping people from being able to edit the quote to put words into someone's mouth.

That said, assuming the moderators can view edit histories, then this shouldn't really be an issue - the moderators should be able to look for the signs of bait-and-edit trolling and drop the hammer on the person who actually deserves it. This does require a little more work on the part of the moderator, of course, but the current system does seem to be throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

Plus, once someone gets to the Veteran rank, they can put up their bait at a busy time, wait three and a half hours, and then edit. It might well make trolling easier if the moderators are assuming that bait-and-edit trolling can't happen because of edit time limit and therefore don't look for evidence of it happening.

[symke.3105]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:To answer a few questions and comments:

1. These forums do not support a edit limitation by sub-forum. I thought of that for forums like Community Creations, when someone pointed out they might want to edit their fanfic. However, that's simply not an option. On the other hand, we are able to set limitations by user group or rank.
2. The above means that yes, higher ranks--those who have been active with meaningful posts and reactions--will have a longer edit period.\
3. We cannot offer edit rights for the initial post but not others, as I saw mentioned above. It's edit all or edit nothing after the proscribed editing period.
4. You can bet I'm aware of these concerns, and I'm investigating the best way to address them.

By way of background, the edit limitation is a default function for many forums because it reduces a form of trolling: Someone insults a forum member, gets the desired heated response, then edits their comments to appear innocent of wrong-doing, after which they report the person who responded for wrongdoing. Or someone engages in hate speech, then edits hours later, having wrought some pretty nasty consequences on the community.

You can see where those kinds of manipulation could have negative consequences. What are your thoughts on those? Have you experience that sort of issue - perhaps seen such an incident on another forum? The question is one of risk versus benefit, and I'm going to look into this over the next several days to figure out whether we want to make changes, and where those changes can most effectively be implemented.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

About edit limitation:I can understand your concerns, but what you've done with this is basically labeled everyone as a possible troll.I mean, you are literally asking us if we have seen an incident you described happening, after you've already set this forum to run on this same principle? Now, don't get me wrong. Kudos to you for giving us an option to communicate about this matter, but I have to ask: "What made you decide to incorporate such a feature in the first place?". Was it your own experience in the old forums? If so, how often did such a thign happen? If not so ... why?I agree there need to be ways to combat trolls and abusers, but doing so by limiting ALL users is just not the right way to do it.

[Inculpatus cedo.9234]

RIP Just a Flesh Wound and Astral Projections' wonderful 'New and Returning Gem Store Items' Sticky. Or any other thread such as that one that would need constant updating. Seems a counter-productive restriction, in my eyes.

[Menadena.7482]

@BobbyT.7192 said:So found out there's a 15 min time limit after you make a post you make any edits to it.Don't know about anyone else, but i tend to find my grammar mistakes like a day after i make a post :'(

Yes, I am constantly making posts on one forum or another then at some time later noticing I made a whopper of a grammo/typo. Enforce a field for why a post was edited, but at least let us fix our mistakes!

[saerni.2584]

Probably difficult to implement but...

Could you add a temporary archive that saves previous versions of edited posts for X length of time?

If someone reports a person for abuse and their post is edited, then that person can see what was said and when.

I just think editing has highly legitimate uses and hasn't usually been a problem.

[Lanhelin.3480]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:

3. We cannot offer edit rights for the initial post but not others, as I saw mentioned above. It's edit all or edit nothing after the proscribed editing period.

So why isn't it "edit all" ? Why limiting it at all?Did you have troubles with people editing their posts in the old forums?

[Menadena.7482]

@ShiningSquirrel.3751 said:I have seen where posts where edited after getting a response and it did cause a lot of trouble, up to and including getting innocent people banned from a forum. I have also seen some forums, (can't think of which ones unfortunately) that kept the unedited version as well. When you edited a post, the changes where tracked and a mod could always see the original post and any changes that where made to it, sort of like what Wikipedia does.

I use a forum that keeps old versions of posts that mods can see. While the head mod discourages ninja editing if you make an edit and leave a comment as to why you will be okay almost all the time. Especially if you have a long reputation with the forum, it is not like a long-time supporter is going to turn rogue overnight.

[Yzortuma.8532]

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:To answer a few questions and comments:

1. These forums do not support a edit limitation by sub-forum. I thought of that for forums like Community Creations, when someone pointed out they might want to edit their fanfic. However, that's simply not an option. On the other hand, we are able to set limitations by user group or rank.
2. The above means that yes, higher ranks--those who have been active with meaningful posts and reactions--will have a longer edit period.\
3. We cannot offer edit rights for the initial post but not others, as I saw mentioned above. It's edit all or edit nothing after the proscribed editing period.
4. You can bet I'm aware of these concerns, and I'm investigating the best way to address them.

By way of background, the edit limitation is a default function for many forums because it reduces a form of trolling: Someone insults a forum member, gets the desired heated response, then edits their comments to appear innocent of wrong-doing, after which they report the person who responded for wrongdoing. Or someone engages in hate speech, then edits hours later, having wrought some pretty nasty consequences on the community.

You can see where those kinds of manipulation could have negative consequences. What are your thoughts on those? Have you experience that sort of issue - perhaps seen such an incident on another forum? The question is one of risk versus benefit, and I'm going to look into this over the next several days to figure out whether we want to make changes, and where those changes can most effectively be implemented.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

The application of justice in the real world is ALWAYS a case of risk vs benefit. Trolls and bullies will not stop doing what they do because it has become more difficult to do so - they will just find other creative approaches to abuse people. On the other hand, the edit limitation has a serious effect on the vast majority of players, who are not abusing the system. People have already pointed out the many scenarios in which this is a problem - guilds cannot update their lfg posts, pvp players cannot update their class guides, authors cannot update their fanfics, and the one that personally hurts me the most is that the kind souls who take the time to compile GW2 sheet music for playing on ingame instruments cannot edit their post in order to add new music to the list.

I understand what you guys are trying to accomplish with the new system and I think it's very admirable to try to tackle cyber bullying, but the cost of fighting it from this angle is far too high. It is less a case of 'we should take away guns to prevent gun crime' and more a case of 'we should take away knives to prevent knife crime.' The former is a reasonable position that we can have a debate over; the latter is not, because knives have far, far, FAR too many other uses in the hands of responsible community members.

[Gaile Gray.6029]

Yep, this is a legitimate concern. I can go into the whole chapter and verse about why it's currently set up this way, but suffice to say I understand and completely agree with your concerns. I'm taking this to our team meeting in 6 minutes, and feel sure that we'll all be in one accord about making some positive changes. I'll be back to explain what those changes will be, and the reasoning behind them, sometime this morning. (Pacific time morning. :) )

Thanks for the input!

[Lonami.2987]

@"Gaile Gray.6029" said:To answer a few questions and comments:

1. These forums do not support a edit limitation by sub-forum. I thought of that for forums like Community Creations, when someone pointed out they might want to edit their fanfic. However, that's simply not an option. On the other hand, we are able to set limitations by user group or rank.
2. The above means that yes, higher ranks--those who have been active with meaningful posts and reactions--will have a longer edit period.\
3. We cannot offer edit rights for the initial post but not others, as I saw mentioned above. It's edit all or edit nothing after the proscribed editing period.
4. You can bet I'm aware of these concerns, and I'm investigating the best way to address them.

By way of background, the edit limitation is a default function for many forums because it reduces a form of trolling: Someone insults a forum member, gets the desired heated response, then edits their comments to appear innocent of wrong-doing, after which they report the person who responded for wrongdoing. Or someone engages in hate speech, then edits hours later, having wrought some pretty nasty consequences on the community.

You can see where those kinds of manipulation could have negative consequences. What are your thoughts on those? Have you experience that sort of issue - perhaps seen such an incident on another forum? The question is one of risk versus benefit, and I'm going to look into this over the next several days to figure out whether we want to make changes, and where those changes can most effectively be implemented.

Thanks for sharing your insights.

That sounds like such a bad excuse, no offense. I've been on multiple forums for more than a decade, and I've never seen anything like that. Even more:

• There is a "user edited this message" tag on every edited message.
• Quotes preserve original messages even if they are edited.
• Insults should be reported, and the moderators will be able to see the original message anyway.
• Even if all of that fails, there's multiple cache and archive services that could let you go back.

There's absolutely no excuse to remove editing from messages. It's so anti-user and anti-progress, and will do more harm than good in the long term.

[Cyprien.4208]

I understand the reason for people wanting to edit as some people use forum topics as a f.a.q and the first post tends to be edited heavily. I as well understand that what someone says should be set in stone while the edit time does allow people to correct mistakes they may have posted I do get that some could fully change later what they originally said.

While quotes can save the original comment it doesn't save if no one quotes the person which is something a lot of users don't do. The post above already as touch this however forums should have a cache and archive of edits so moderators can look at as well report should send a copy of the original post.

[Zania.8461]

I believe the edit restrictions is a case of "medicine is worse than disease". In order to post guides (which people will do), the guides will now have to be hosted off-site (on the 3rd party blogs/websites), with forum posts simply linking the actual guide. While this will bypass the forum restrictions on edits, it can also cause security issues for players as they are going to be far more likely to follow links to fake guides/malicious websites.

So this feature could exchange an occasional troll which causes minor headache (as mentioned earlier, rare occurrence on old boards) with a possible security issue.

[Darlgon.9273]

@Zania.8461 said:I believe the edit restrictions is a case of "medicine is worse than disease". In order to post guides (which people will do), the guides will now have to be hosted off-site (on the 3rd party blogs/websites), with forum posts simply linking the actual guide. While this will bypass the forum restrictions on edits, it can also cause security issues for players as they are going to be far more likely to follow links to fake guides/malicious websites.

So this feature could exchange an occasional troll which causes minor headache (as mentioned earlier, rare occurrence on old boards) with a possible security issue.

Lol.. Right now.. links to other threads inside THIS FORUM, give the "You are leaving the website" warning..

[Cyhann.2609]

When I first heard of this, I thought this was a joke. Turns out it's actually real.

@Gaile Gray.6029 said:To answer a few questions and comments:

By way of background, the edit limitation is a default function for many forums because it reduces a form of trolling

Could you give examples on these forums? I've been to quite a lot and never seen any of that D :Also what if someone wants to give me shit for something I wrote in the past, and I wanna get rid of it without deleting everything.Does this not warrant any protection from trolling? Ultimately the (edited) tag exists for a reason.

Edit: (wew lad)Can't even delte my own post??? D:

[MithranArkanere.8957]

Ideally, we'd have no time limit, and instead we'd have an extra line in the post stating it has been edited, when it has been edited.

It would be even better if you would be able to click on the link to show a story of changes in the post wiki style that at least mods can see, so forums members can't edit a post after being responded by another user without mods being able to see what really happened.

[insanemaniac.2456]

@MithranArkanere.8957 said:It would be even better if you would be able to click on the link to show a story of changes in the post wiki style that at least mods can see, so forums members can't edit a post after being responded by another user without mods being able to see what really happened.

i dont see that happening on our end because it preserves vitriol that the mods would rather have disappear :/