1. Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 09, 2009
- 1075 views
Two suggestions relating to editing forum posts:
1. when PREVIEWing one's own post, could the title for the edit section say "editing", rather than "reply to"?
2. when one edits their own post AFTER IT WAS POSTED, could that fact be automatically indicated? As in "<edited [time stamp]>"?
Dan
2. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 09, 2009
- 1063 views
Two suggestions relating to editing forum posts:
1. when PREVIEWing one's own post, could the title for the edit section say "editing", rather than "reply to"?
Hm, but you are not really editing at that point, you are still replying to someone elses message. i.e. the message your are entering really doesn't exist and when you hit the reply to, you have not edited an existing message, you have posted a reply.
2. when one edits their own post AFTER IT WAS POSTED, could that fact be automatically indicated? As in "<edited [time stamp]>"?
It does that already, unless something is not working. After I post this, I'll edit it. It should have a message added to the attributes area (where it states who it's from and when) that says "Last edited 5 minutes ago".
Jeremy
P.S. This was added via an edit.
3. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 1030 views
Two suggestions relating to editing forum posts:
1. when PREVIEWing one's own post, could the title for the edit section say "editing", rather than "reply to"?
Hm, but you are not really editing at that point, you are still replying to someone elses message. i.e. the message your are entering really doesn't exist and when you hit the reply to, you have not edited an existing message, you have posted a reply.
Unless I'm more confused than I might be normally, I am NOT replying to SOMEONE ELSE'S post if I'm previewing a post I'm initiating!
For instance, this post here, now is in fact a reply to an earlier post (a reply to my initial post in fact, but it is an earlier post and I am replying to it), so there's no conceptual problem in using "Reply to..." as the title of the editing section when I preview this post.
However, my original post with this subject was NOT a reply to any other post, therefore when I preview any initial, new post, I am not replying to a post, I am previewing it for possible EDITING of it before posting.
That's when (and why) I suggested that the title for the edit section for a preview of a new post be "Editing...", rather than "Reply to...".
(Although I notice now that I did not specify "...for a preview of a new post" in my original suggestion, which is clearly unclear and not very helpful, sorry 'bout that.)
Admittedly not a big deal, just trying to suggest conceptual consistency.
2. when one edits their own post AFTER IT WAS POSTED, could that fact be automatically indicated? As in "<edited [time stamp]>"?
It does that already, unless something is not working. After I post this, I'll edit it. It should have a message added to the attributes area (where it states who it's from and when) that says "Last edited 5 minutes ago".
Jeremy
P.S. This was added via an edit.
Uh, maybe I was again unclear: in your post above your edit is not preceded by:
<edited at xx:xx o'clock universal time>
And that's what I meant: an indication of an edit IN THE BODY OF THE POST ITSELF; sorry if I was unclear again.
Dan
4. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 10, 2009
- 1048 views
Unless I'm more confused than I might be normally, I am NOT replying to SOMEONE ELSE'S post if I'm previewing a post I'm initiating!
Oh, I see it now. Can you create a ticket for this so that it's not forgotten?
Uh, maybe I was again unclear: in your post above your edit is not preceded by:
<edited at xx:xx o'clock universal time>
And that's what I meant: an indication of an edit IN THE BODY OF THE POST ITSELF; sorry if I was unclear again.
Your edit may be that you add the letter t to the word ea to make it eat. How would you notate that in the actual body of the message?
Jeremy
5. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 1025 views
Unless I'm more confused than I might be normally, I am NOT replying to SOMEONE ELSE'S post if I'm previewing a post I'm initiating!
Oh, I see it now. Can you create a ticket for this so that it's not forgotten?
[grumble; trying to shake salt out of wounds caused by paper cuts from..."tickets"]
ok, I'll try to get a "ticket"
Uh, maybe I was again unclear: in your post above your edit is not preceded by:
<edited at xx:xx o'clock universal time>
And that's what I meant: an indication of an edit IN THE BODY OF THE POST ITSELF; sorry if I was unclear again.
Your edit may be that you add the letter t to the word ea to make it eat. How would you notate that in the actual body of the message?
gotta admit, I presumed most edits would be MORE than something like that, so maybe more like:
put the <edited: [timestamp]> at the very end of the post?
6. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 10, 2009
- 992 views
Dan, I fixed up your post so it was quoted properly. I now see an "Edited XX seconds/minutes ago" for that post. Does everybody see that or just mods?
7. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 10, 2009
- 994 views
gotta admit, I presumed most edits would be MORE than something like that, so maybe more like:
put the <edited: [timestamp]> at the very end of the post?
Hm... You must be a better speller than I am then 
That's about the only reason I edit the message. I never edit a message to change it's content, that would make messages that replied to it out of context. When I need to add anything in mass, I do another post. Further, you have to take into consideration that when you edit just your core message, I may have already read it and I'm not going to re-read it normally, even if I see a "edited" type message.
If you're adding mass content, you should really use a follow up post.
Jeremy
8. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 1002 views
Dan, I fixed up your post so it was quoted properly. I now see an "Edited XX seconds/minutes ago" for that post. Does everybody see that or just mods?
yeah, I see it, but I never noticed there was anything like that up in the message HEADER section of a post. That's not an unreasonable place to put it, though it seems more obvious down in the post, though as Jeremy suggests, that's not without problems.
But how was my post not quoted properly, I thought I previewed it a NUMBER of times!
Dan
9. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by euphoric (admin) Sep 10, 2009
- 964 views
But how was my post not quoted properly, I thought I previewed it a NUMBER of times!
You had an unclosed quote that put your added comments inside of Jeremy's quoted box.
Your original post looked like this:
Unless I'm more confused than I might be normally, I am NOT replying to SOMEONE ELSE'S post if I'm previewing a post I'm initiating!
Oh, I see it now. Can you create a ticket for this so that it's not forgotten?
[grumble; trying to shake salt out of wounds caused by paper cuts from..."tickets"]
ok, I'll try to get a "ticket"
Uh, maybe I was again unclear: in your post above your edit is not preceded by:
<edited at xx:xx o'clock universal time>
And that's what I meant: an indication of an edit IN THE BODY OF THE POST ITSELF; sorry if I was unclear again.
Your edit may be that you add the letter t to the word ea to make it eat. How would you notate that in the actual body of the message?
gotta admit, I presumed most edits would be MORE than something like that, so maybe more like:
put the <edited: [timestamp]> at the very end of the post?
10. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 973 views
gotta admit, I presumed most edits would be MORE than something like that, so maybe more like:
put the <edited: [timestamp]> at the very end of the post?
Hm... You must be a better speller than I am then That's about the only reason I edit the message. I never edit a message to change it's content, that would make messages that replied to it out of context. When I need to add anything in mass, I do another post. Further, you have to take into consideration that when you edit just your core message, I may have already read it and I'm not going to re-read it normally, even if I see a "edited" type message.
If you're adding mass content, you should really use a follow up post.
Jeremy
I have, at least as it pertains to me and GOOD programmers, noticed an INVERSE relationship between correct spelling and programming ability. For instance, I know that there's "a rat" in SEPARATE.
But I do also use a spell checker button in a toolbar for most of my posts, so small corrections are not usually what I'd edit.
What I'd mostly use editing for would be CLARIFICATION of something I'd said in a post, not in relation to someone's REPLY to my post, but on re-reading my post a few minutes AFTER posting it, even if I'd previewed it, if I find I could attempt to make something I said more clear. But I see that this could create problems sometimes. WIP.
Dan
11. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by jeremy (admin) Sep 10, 2009
- 960 views
I have, at least as it pertains to me and GOOD programmers, noticed an INVERSE relationship between correct spelling and programming ability.
I notced tht two. Im a terblie spllr. I triey vary harde but sum thingies ar viry difecualt fer mee.
Jeremy
12. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 950 views
I have, at least as it pertains to me and GOOD programmers, noticed an INVERSE relationship between correct spelling and programming ability.
I notced tht two. Im a terblie spllr. I triey vary harde but sum thingies ar viry difecualt fer mee.
Jeremy
Proof! I knew my hypothesis was right! 
13. Re: Editing forum posts
- Posted by DanM Sep 10, 2009
- 893 views
But how was my post not quoted properly, I thought I previewed it a NUMBER of times!
You had an unclosed quote that put your added comments inside of Jeremy's quoted box.
Your original post looked like this:
Unless I'm more confused than I might be normally, I am NOT replying to SOMEONE ELSE'S post if I'm previewing a post I'm initiating!
Oh, I see it now. Can you create a ticket for this so that it's not forgotten?
[grumble; trying to shake salt out of wounds caused by paper cuts from..."tickets"]
ok, I'll try to get a "ticket"
Uh, maybe I was again unclear: in your post above your edit is not preceded by:
<edited at xx:xx o'clock universal time>
And that's what I meant: an indication of an edit IN THE BODY OF THE POST ITSELF; sorry if I was unclear again.
Your edit may be that you add the letter t to the word ea to make it eat. How would you notate that in the actual body of the message?
gotta admit, I presumed most edits would be MORE than something like that, so maybe more like:
put the <edited: [timestamp]> at the very end of the post?
Thanks, I really thought I'd taken care of all of stop/start quote tags, sorry 'bout that, and thanks again for fixing it!
Dan
