New restriction: users cannot edit posts after 1 hour Options

[Jan S.]

We have had a number of episodes where some member decides to delete all his posts by removing the content. This can often deface threads as there is now parts of the discussion missing and we end up having to spend a lot of time cleaning up.
To avoid this regular members can now only edit their posts in the first hour. Developers can still edit their own posts without restrictions.

[chrizoo]

Akkurat,

your points are valid and I agree with them, but since you seem to reply to me, they are mute/off-topic because I only pled for modification rights concerning the thread's first posting, not in general.

And as far as "Wiki is Wiki, forum is forum" is concerned, that's not an argument, just the way you want things to be, but you have pointed that out yourself anyway.

This post has been edited by chrizoo: Feb 8 2010, 00:40

[Akkurat]

your points are valid and I agree with them, but since you seem to reply to me, they are mute/off-topic because I only pled for modification rights concerning the thread's first posting, not in general.

Certainly not OT. All of my points apply to first posts as well as any subsequent posts. Also look at the topic name. Off-topic?

And as far as "Wiki is Wiki, forum is forum" is concerned, that's not an argument, just the way you want things to be

It's how I like it to be, and it's how many many others want it too. And it's an argument IMHO. These web applications have been created to satisfy a need and this is the current way they operate. Let's look at what wiki and forum actually mean today. "A wiki enables documents to be written collaboratively", while "An Internet forum, or message board, is an online discussion site". What's the difference? "Wikis, unlike conventional forums, typically allow all users to edit all content, including each other's messages".

You're basically looking for a feature in a forum software that already exist in wiki: a talk page (also known as a discussion page) (+ a wiki page of course to accompany that). I haven't seen nor participated in any HA wiki discussions. I guess mainly because we have this wonderful forum to satisfy that need much better.. and AFAIK, there are only few that have wiki rights. Here's the dedicated wiki forum here in HA. Note that there was only 3 topics that had posts made to last year. Dunno why. Is HA wiki so good, or are people not interested, or don't they know about it?

As for your point of:

...it's not just useful for subsequent readers but also for those who contribute to the thread WHILE it is written, so as to have an overview what has already been said - in a concise form. I don't count the number of times when points get repeated three and more times ....

I believe that the discussion itself presents the actual content much better than a "one-sided", have to quote tpijag, "executive summary" in the first post. Also, I believe that it's the participants responsibility to check out what is being discussed before launching into action. Seriously, how do you properly participate in a discussion if you only have read the summary?! Who do you answer to? Or do you just post general stuff based on what you read from the summary? It's like participating in a book reading club when you've read an abstract of a book while others have read the full story.. I hate analogues but there it is.

Note that I'm not against trailing summaries at all. Unfortunately the reality is that people do not write those. Trailing summary is ok because it's always a "new" post to all and easier to address.