Please consider setting a time limit of 15 minutes to edit a post

[TomatoTomahto]

My other forum is College Confidential. They allow edits to posts for 15 minutes after posting, which is sufficient time to fix typos, fix broken links, etc. The moderators can, of course, make edits and/or deletions as they see fit, based on their terms of service (similar to those here).

While it's sometimes a PITA to realize you've had a typo after the 15 minutes are up, I think it is better than allowing an OP to delete the entire initial post some number of days later.

I request that this be considered for BH.

[The Wizard]

The M* forums are similar, but you have most of a day to edit a post, not sure exactly how many hours...

[ResearchMed]

My other forum is College Confidential. They allow edits to posts for 15 minutes after posting, which is sufficient time to fix typos, fix broken links, etc. The moderators can, of course, make edits and/or deletions as they see fit, based on their terms of service (similar to those here).

While it's sometimes a PITA to realize you've had a typo after the 15 minutes are up, I think it is better than allowing an OP to delete the entire initial post some number of days later.

I request that this be considered for BH.

We also post on CruiseCritic.
They have a similar policy, but I think it is just 5 (less than 10, I think) minutes. So one must be quick noticing typos.

However, there's a different problem with not allowing edits later.

Quite a few times, someone posts something that is flat out wrong. And kudos to Bogleheaders for generally being right, or at least not egregiously wrong. But here, on BH, IF someone wishes to correct something, or re-word something for clarity, or even update the situation, one can do so.

On CC, one can't.
And that leads to HUGE numbers of responses to something clearly in error (which could be just a typo), with one after another, and another... and... sometimes even months later... posts that "correct the error".
Meanwhile, it's difficult to read the "real info" semi-hidden amongst the "error alerts".
Very annoying.

WORSE... it often starts the issue (when there wasn't total agreement on some fact or another) all over again...
Sigh.

As an aside, THANK YOU TO MODS for reasonable moderating.
It is appreciated!
(CC has gotten a bit better, but not too much so. They've left up dreadful ad hominem attacks, which build fast...
That detracts from the overall tone, even in other sub-forums and threads.)

RM

[TIAX]

Terrible idea. Leave it as is. People often make corrections (and not just typos) days later to, for example, take out something that's inaccurate. If you think it's so important to preserve people's posts, quote them when you reply.

[retiredjg]

I don't see how this could work since we frequently ask people to add information to their original posts some time after it was posted.

[Taylor Larimore]

While it's sometimes a PITA to realize you've had a typo after the 15 minutes are up, I think it is better than allowing an OP to delete the entire initial post some number of days later.

TomatoTomahto:

I read many of the posts. I can't recall this happening. Even if it does happen--does it matter?

Best wishes
Taylor

[Niam]

Strongly disagree with this for 2 reasons:

1. Often, people will continually update a post with more recent information (such as changing financial holdings when discussing their portfolio). It would be crazy to lose that option and force people to keep starting new posts/threads instead of updating old ones.

2. It is nice to give people the ability to delete/edit their posts. What if someone posted detailed financial information to get help on their portfolio or their financial/life situation, but then felt more comfortable deleting that for privacy reasons instead of having it out there on the internet forever? Seems preferable to give people the opportunity to revise/delete content.

[The Wizard]

Sounds like one solution to the problem Tomato posed is to quote the entire Original Post in your first reply to an interesting thread if it hasn't already been done.

This won't help in the case of someone posting too much personal info who requests moderator help to remove it...

[Levett]

Seems like a proposed "solution" to a non-existent problem.

I appreciate the opportunity to, on further reflection, improve an initial post.

Lev

[celia]

My other forum is College Confidential. They allow edits to posts for 15 minutes after posting, which is sufficient time to fix typos, fix broken links, etc.

I don't see the problem here. We can already edit our posts for 15 min, 15 days, or 15 years (assuming it isn't archived and cleaned out of the board).

[jebmke]

I don't see the problem here. We can already edit our posts for 15 min, 15 days, or 15 years (assuming it isn't archived and cleaned out of the board).

I think OP wants to prevent edits after 15 minutes have passed.

[Fallible]

My other forum is College Confidential. They allow edits to posts for 15 minutes after posting, which is sufficient time to fix typos, fix broken links, etc. The moderators can, of course, make edits and/or deletions as they see fit, based on their terms of service (similar to those here).

While it's sometimes a PITA to realize you've had a typo after the 15 minutes are up, I think it is better than allowing an OP to delete the entire initial post some number of days later.

I request that this be considered for BH.

I don't see a good reason for a 15-minute edit restriction on this forum; what would be accomplished by it? Why does College Confidential have one?

[GoldenFinch]

I edited a post months later after I realized that I had given a piece of identifying information that I didn't feel comfortable putting on the internet. If what I had shared was still there, I would feel anxious about it since this is a financial forum and I've written things about money that I'm happy to say to Bogleheads, but not necessarily other people I know.

[bottlecap]

Please PM a moderator with your request.

JT

[siamond]

I would be strongly opposed to prevent edits after 15 minutes. For the reasons already mentioned (allow to correct false or inappropriate information is crucial). Also we have various posts which are references for links to spreadsheets (e.g. Simba, VPW, Bond Fund, etc) and where the author needs to regularly edit the post with the latest link to the latest spreadsheet.

The fact that there is a 'last edited by' mark makes it clear that the original content has been changed and when (date/time), this is enough to capture the fact that the poster changed his mind. And most people are good about the etiquette of adding an "EDIT: blah" line to explain their change.

Also note that for typos and so on, the ability to edit one's *last* post on a thread without the "last edited by" mark is very convenient and should be kept as it. If nobody reacted yet with another post, there is no reason to bother the poster and make him/her embarrassed about fixing typos. We have our share of senior members, and I for one, at the ripe old age of 55 already tends to think one word and type another, so I really appreciate the editing capabilities...

Bottomline: what we have works...

[FraggleRock]

Terrible idea. Leave it as is.

I agree.

[LadyGeek]

Decisions on this forum's post editing policy are set by the site owners. Those wishing to change this policy should first PM a moderator or site administrator with your suggestion. From there, we'll submit it to the Advisory Board for vetting. If it passes, the site owners will have the final say.

If anyone has personally identifiable information in a post that's quoted by someone else, please report the post and explain what needs to be done. We're sensitive to protecting privacy and will accommodate a member's request.

[rgs92]

How about a better solution? Whenever a post is edited, it generates a new post in the thread alerting that this happened.
If this is too cluttered for responders, maybe it could be done just for an OP.
Or maybe this should be a recommended practice informally.

[BigFoot48]

I have posts years and months old that I edit when I release a new version of the Retiree Portfolio Model. I would like to continue to be able to do that but could do a work-around should the forum-powers decide to have a time limit.

[CABob]

I hope the Advisers and Moderators will give some consideration to this matter. Personally I have some mixed emotions because I see some significant differences in what are being called "edits". Correcting typos, misspells, grammar and the like should be allowed but probably a time limit would not hinder the process significantly. Adding pertinent information to an original post I think is good for the process of asking questions and receiving responses and I think should be allowed. If I mistakenly put incorrect information in a post or reply it seems reasonable that I should be able to correct that information for the benefit of all. Putting time limits on these edits is not warranted IMO.
I think that the OP was especially concerned about an OP deleting an entire post and in most cases I would share that concern. It could be very frustrating to have a number of responses to an OP nullified by lack of context contained in the OP which has been deleted.

[Dottie57]

Terrible idea. Leave it as is. People often make corrections (and not just typos) days later to, for example, take out something that's inaccurate. If you think it's so important to preserve people's posts, quote them when you reply.

I often wish the OP of a thread would go back and edit the post to reveal new info. Many times 30 or more posts later OP will provide new info, but new readers post regarding only the original.

[tibbitts]

While I see pros and cons, on balance it's far better to allow edits indefinitely.

[Mudpuppy]

The moderators and administrators have said this time and again: If the feature is not supported by default in phpBB, it's not happening here.

phpBB default behavior is to allow infinite edits, but add an "edited x times" block underneath the post if there are replies when the edit is made ("ninja edits" can be made without this block appearing if the edit is made before someone replies). So that's the behavior here.

Take it or leave it, but it's not changing until phpBB changes.

[grabiner]

There are good reasons to allow later edits, particularly with updated data, or corrections pointed out by someone else.

As another example, many of the local chapters have a single thread in which the first post contains information about the upcoming meeting; this makes things easier to find, and ensures that old information won't be found by mistake (someone trying to go to May's meeting, and going to the location of last May's meeting instead)

[Nicolas]

I like it just the way it is. Sometimes I will rashly post something perhaps too personal or silly which I will regret, sometimes days later. I like the ability to remove my offending words lest they stand for all eternity.

[grabiner]

Another very important reason to allow unlimited editing: Often, someone makes a post asking advice, but is missing important details. It works best if the original poster can update the post with the new details, so that people giving advice have all the information in one place (rather than, for example, seeing only the IRA allocation and not knowing that there is a taxable account as well).

[DVMResident]

Maybe a better approach is add an editing guidelines, e.g. strike through deletion and color code additional information (so readers can understand the context of subsequent posts if there pre- or post-edit).

When I've been corrected for an error, I let the original text stand with a strike out and a color coded correction with parenthetical credit to the poster pointing out the error like so:

error corrected statement (credit to ____ for correction)

[Jack FFR1846]

Ah, but how many times do we see: "Please use the standard form to post your information when asking about portfolio advice. You can use the pencil icon to edit your original post".

I'm a moderator on a car forum with no limits on edits. However, if funny business occurs, any moderator can go back and compare history of post edits and change it to any version. I'm sure that's available to moderators here. Besides "ninja edits" that occur in the first minute, any edit shows a message at the bottom of the post that it has been edited and by who. So when I, as a moderator edit a post (for example, adding necessary information to keep an ad open), it will show that I edited it.

[gwrvmd]

I believe the Moderators do a great job and the policy should be left as it is
People often post symbols for stocks, mutual funds and ETFs. A one letter mistake can be serious
You should be able to correct it as soon as it is pointed out or you realize your mistake......Gordon

[Leif]

I've always liked the ability to go back and edit a post. Some sites I've been on allow no editing. I soon leave those sites.

I assume if the user is deleting his entire post there is some reason. I understand if you've put a lot of work into a reply. But it is rare case here. It has happened to me here once as I recall. That is not bad after 10 years. I would rather see the flexibility for the author to update, or delete, for their personal reasons.

[nalor511]

I like being able to edit posts later, please leave this functionality as it is now.

[retiredjg]

Ah, but how many times do we see: "Please use the standard form to post your information when asking about portfolio advice. You can use the pencil icon to edit your original post".

That sounds like me. Perhaps I should say "use the pencil icon to add to your original post".