Give premium members (or everybody!) a checkbox option (or make it default) to not show 'edited' when you edit a post.
Maybe it's just me, but I proof my own posts about a billion times before I post them, then edit them a billion times afterwards because I'm too ****. XD It results in every post I make having an 'edited' quote at the bottom. >.<
Edit:Follow
Only if it takes 3 seconds for a dev to do this. I couldn't care any less about this option as a premium user and would rather see others things fixed.
However, if it's a quick fix, sure, go for it.
Edited, Feb 19th 2010 12:25pm by Uglysasquatch
However, if it's a quick fix, sure, go for it.
Edited, Feb 19th 2010 12:25pm by Uglysasquatch
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
I don't like the OPs idea, but a lot of other boards will not put a 'edit' tag on the post unless the post has been viewed prior to the edit. That allows people to go back and fix their typos without tagging it.
If it's an aesthetic thing, why not just remove the "Edited by..." from the bottom, and keep the "Edited: <Date>" on the top bar of each post.
Is it just not visible enough?
It's not really a big deal, and I can see why the Admins would want to keep it there. Just curious.
Edited, Feb 19th 2010 9:25am by Kirby
Is it just not visible enough?
It's not really a big deal, and I can see why the Admins would want to keep it there. Just curious.
Edited, Feb 19th 2010 9:25am by Kirby
'Edited by' will stay. It is so a poster can't say something then later just edit it say state "but I never said that!". The edit text shows that the post was edited since the initial post.
Could we do it better? Probably, but it will always exist for every poster.
Could we do it better? Probably, but it will always exist for every poster.
KTurner wrote:
I don't like the OPs idea, but a lot of other boards will not put a 'edit' tag on the post unless the post has been viewed prior to the edit. That allows people to go back and fix their typos without tagging it.
This. Would be nice to have a window of like 3-5 minutes, or until someone else posts, whichever comes first where you could edit, without having the edited by message.
Princess ThePsychoticOne wrote:
KTurner wrote:
I don't like the OPs idea, but a lot of other boards will not put a 'edit' tag on the post unless the post has been viewed prior to the edit. That allows people to go back and fix their typos without tagging it.
This. Would be nice to have a window of like 3-5 minutes, or until someone else posts, whichever comes first where you could edit, without having the edited by message.
I think that's reasonable. We are looking to make some changes to our forum software, I have added that to the list.
i expect compensation in the way of sage! :D
kidding aside, thanks
kidding aside, thanks
Besides, I just finally got a custom 10k title (thanks again DF!) and it's centered around the fact that I
I suppose those other reasons are good too, but I'd not want it changed for my reason alone.
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 2:20pm by bsphil
The One and Only chewzer wrote:
proof my own posts about a billion times before I post them, then edit them a billion times afterwards because I'm too ****. It results in every post I make having an 'edited' quote at the bottom.
I suppose those other reasons are good too, but I'd not want it changed for my reason alone.
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 2:20pm by bsphil
His Excellency Aethien wrote:
Almalieque wrote:
If no one debated with me, then I wouldn't post here anymore.
gbaji wrote:
I'm not getting my news from anywhere Joph.
In exchange for this, can we have an edit count show up in the top bar of edited posts as well? It'd be interesting to see how many times some guides have been edited, and I know I'm not the only person who, for things that get edited repeatedly, takes off old "Edited <whenever>" messages.
Princess ThePsychoticOne wrote:
KTurner wrote:
I don't like the OPs idea, but a lot of other boards will not put a 'edit' tag on the post unless the post has been viewed prior to the edit. That allows people to go back and fix their typos without tagging it.
This. Would be nice to have a window of like 3-5 minutes, or until someone else posts, whichever comes first where you could edit, without having the edited by message.
This definitely works for me.
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:07pm by chewzer
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:08pm by chewzer
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:08pm by chewzer
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:08pm by chewzer
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:08pm by chewzer
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:08pm by chewzer
In my opinion, the edit tags on posts could be made to save more space and be less conspicuous if:
1) You can't create extra padding between the post itself and the edit tags. This happens to me a lot, and I know it's my fault rather than the software's, but I usually don't catch the mistake until after I've already edited it.
2) If a post is edited more than once, a tally of how many times it is edited is added to the current edit tag rather than creating another one (e.g. "Edited 2 times, Nov 11th 2011 11:11am by Davejohnsan" or "Edited, Nov 11th 2011 11:11am by Davejohnsan -- edited 2 times").
3) The font color is changed. Gray might work, but I'm not sure if it would make the edit tag hard to see. I just think it should be distinguishable from an actual post as far as colors.
I like the idea of having the edit tag just on the top bar instead of also having it on the post, too, but my only problem with it is that it would require a little more attention to detail -- at least on my part.
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:26pm by Davejohnsan
1) You can't create extra padding between the post itself and the edit tags. This happens to me a lot, and I know it's my fault rather than the software's, but I usually don't catch the mistake until after I've already edited it.
2) If a post is edited more than once, a tally of how many times it is edited is added to the current edit tag rather than creating another one (e.g. "Edited 2 times, Nov 11th 2011 11:11am by Davejohnsan" or "Edited, Nov 11th 2011 11:11am by Davejohnsan -- edited 2 times").
3) The font color is changed. Gray might work, but I'm not sure if it would make the edit tag hard to see. I just think it should be distinguishable from an actual post as far as colors.
I like the idea of having the edit tag just on the top bar instead of also having it on the post, too, but my only problem with it is that it would require a little more attention to detail -- at least on my part.
Edited, Feb 20th 2010 5:26pm by Davejohnsan
Kaolian wrote:
After a horrific accident involving a radioactive housecat, Davejohnsan becomes “THE CAT YODALER!†By day, mild mannered veterinary supplies salesmen, but by night, daemon feline scourge of the swiss alps! Swiss cheese production falls sharply in the first quarter as lack of sleep slowly drives everyone in Switzerland insane
The edit tag is supposed to be quite conspiquous. And yes I realize I cannot spell that word properly.
Arch Duke Kaolian Drachensborn, lvl 95 Ranger, Unrest Server
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Tech support forum | FAQ (Support) | Mobile Zam: http://m.zam.com (Premium only)
Forum Rules
Why not make an additional cell over the posting from that only appears when you edit a post? Instead of having 32897 "edited bys" you could have just one that updates whenever relevant.
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but people do realise you can delete your previous "edited" comment if you re-edit, right? That way, there's only ever one "Edited, date, time, by user" at the bottom.
Wondroustremor the Flatulent wrote:
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but people do realise you can delete your previous "edited" comment if you re-edit, right? That way, there's only ever one "Edited, date, time, by user" at the bottom.
That's what I do
Wondroustremor the Flatulent wrote:
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but people do realise you can delete your previous "edited" comment if you re-edit, right? That way, there's only ever one "Edited, date, time, by user" at the bottom.
Of course. My previous post was an attempt at a funny.
Multiple 'edited by's is not what this was about. It's about making an edit immediately after you post, realizing poor grammar, spelling, etc. after posting it.
The One and Only chewzer wrote:
Wondroustremor the Flatulent wrote:
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but people do realise you can delete your previous "edited" comment if you re-edit, right? That way, there's only ever one "Edited, date, time, by user" at the bottom.
Of course. My previous post was an attempt at a funny.
Multiple 'edited by's is not what this was about. It's about making an edit immediately after you post, realizing poor grammar, spelling, etc. after posting it.
Aaah, so you just want a timer set on it. Gotcha, will ask them about it.
Quote:
'Edited by' will stay. It is so a poster can't say something then later just edit it say state "but I never said that!". The edit text shows that the post was edited since the initial post.
Note, however, that this reasoning doesn't work very well, because of
Quote:
I'm not trying to sound facetious, but people do realise you can delete your previous "edited" comment if you re-edit, right? That way, there's only ever one "Edited, date, time, by user" at the bottom.
All a poster who cares has to do is wait until he is called out on editing a post, and then edit it again erasing the original edit timestamp. Then he can say "Lol durr, I edited it after you wrote that!" Since quoting an edit stamp gives you a chance to change it (and, for that matter, anything in the quoted material as well), there isn't any way to prove which of the two people arguing edited the disputed material.
All of which is ridiculous and childish. My point, though, is that keeping edit stamps around just to make it easier for childish posters to argue about who said what doesn't even work for anyone who cares enough to argue about it. If the edit stamp can itself be edited, it has no validity and is therefore pretty pointless.
Oops... I meant to write, well, nothing at all.
Edited, Feb 24th 2010 6:28am by Doug
Edited, Feb 24th 2010 6:28am by Doug
Dread Lörd Kaolian wrote:
The edit tag is supposed to be quite conspicuous. And yes I realize I cannot spell that word properly.
I'm going to buy Kaolian a Firefox spellchecker.
Just as Planned.
Nizdaar wrote:
'Edited by' will stay. It is so a poster can't say something then later just edit it say state "but I never said that!". The edit text shows that the post was edited since the initial post.
Could we do it better? Probably, but it will always exist for every poster.
Could we do it better? Probably, but it will always exist for every poster.
Yeah, I can see that. Then (on boards where you can do invisible edits) everyone who has a problem with the original post makes it a habit to quote the whole thing to preserve it, and that gets messy.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
The current "edited by" is fine. A window with no message would be nice since I tend to edit 85% of my posts for minor typos or incomplete thoughts but it's no big deal.
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Recent Visitors: 138
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (138)
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC