Forum upgrade complete

[TheMailMan78]

I agree with everything you wrote with the small exception of what i highlighted: i figure a 24 hour period for the situations it refers to is appropriate.

EDIT

That said, there are cases, and then there are cases. For example:

It doesn't make much sense to be able to edit a post that was posted 4 hours ago when there have been ... say ... 40 replies already since the time it was posted.

Considering most people skim past most of a thread after reading the OP to the last post 24 hours is more than fair. I think the notion of going back days or even years and editing a post is a minority position. Personally I cant remember what I posted yesterday. Never mind from 2007.

 

[sneekypeet]

After some discussion, thread has been edited once more to reflect the decisions made. RCoon's warning still applies. If this topic cannot be handled with civility, it will earn you vacation points.

 

[Bill_Bright]

I agree with everything you wrote with the small exception of what i highlighted: i figure a 24 hour period for the situations it refers to is appropriate.

Not sure what you mean here. My point is, just because there would be no notice of the edit. once there's a reply (regardless if 24 hours have passed) edits should not be allowed.

For example, if I left the word "not" out of my last sentence, it would change the whole meaning of that sentence. That could affect a whole series of replies. If I were allowed to edit it after those added replies, folks might never see what I meant to say because they would not get any reply email notice.

 

[TheMailMan78]

Not sure what you mean here. My point is, just because there would be no notice of the edit. once there's a reply (regardless if 24 hours have passed) edits should not be allowed.

For example, if I left the word "not" out of my last sentence, it would change the whole meaning of that sentence. That could affect a whole series of replies. If I were allowed to edit it after those added replies, folks might never see what I meant to say because they would not get any reply email notice.

Emails for edited posts? Is this what you are suggesting? Because we used to get emails for just about everything and people complained. Im talking YEARS ago. W1zz vastly reduced it from what I remember. I mean I think most people (could be wrong) turn off email notifications except for PM's.

 

[Bill_Bright]

Emails for edited posts? Is this what you are suggesting?

NO!!! I suggested that only as an alternative if edits are allowed after additional replies are posted. And that is because thread followers would NOT otherwise be notified of those edits.

I clearly stated in post #824 above,

My personal preference is, if there are no replies, the last poster should be able to edit his last post. But as soon as a new reply is added to the thread, edits will no longer be allowed (without mod/admin intervention) and a new reply will need to be added. In that way, subscribers will get notice of the new/corrected content.

 

[TheMailMan78]

NO!!! I suggested that only as an alternative if edits are allowed after additional replies are posted. And that is because thread followers would NOT otherwise be notified of those edits.

I clearly stated in post #824 above,

Ah ok! I was going to say that would be kinda crazy. I can see an email getting the equivalent of a DDOS from edit emails lol

 

[Bill_Bright]

I can see an email getting the equivalent of a DDOS from edit emails lol

If new thread or reply notification emails are not getting tagged as spam or DDoS attacks, I would not expect edit notifications would.

 

[TheMailMan78]

If new thread or reply notification emails are not getting tagged as spam or DDoS attacks, I would not expect edit notifications would.

Meh it was a joke. But I suspect you are right.

 

[CheapMeat]

Just wanted to throw in that I like TPU's forum MUCH MUCH better than OCN's now. OCN's forum is just a bulky/convoluted mess IMO. TPU's forum is is much cleaner and straight forward and the Like feature is simple and effective.

 

[W1zzard]

if there are no replies, the last poster should be able to edit his last post. But as soon as a new reply is added to the thread, edits will no longer be allowed (without mod/admin intervention) and a new reply will need to be added. In that way, subscribers will get notice of the new/corrected content.

Isn't that a highly unlikely scenario? Even if you just mistyped, someone will make a comment asking for clarification, effectively blocking you from editing.

 

[lexluthermiester]

So edits, important or not, may not get noticed.

That's a good point.

It doesn't make much sense to be able to edit a post that was posted 4 hours ago when there have been ... say ... 40 replies already since the time it was posted.

Unless you want to correct your grammar/spelling..

 

[Mussels]

or threads like benchmark compilations, or the clubhouses - those are the kind that get edited regularly after posting.
Hell even user reviews, how-to guides, posting the answer to a problem/question from a help thread in their first post all sorts of things like that pop up here on the forums.

Personally i think OP's should be unlocked, if we can un-delete posts or view edit history, we can undo trollish actions like what happened in the past anyway

 

[qubit]

It doesn't make much sense to be able to edit a post that was posted 4 hours ago when there have been ... say ... 40 replies already since the time it was posted.

That's just not true. Just because you can't imaging a scenario where an edit is required, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Fixing typos as @lexluthermiester is one reason, but there are others, such as adding to a post, because it makes sense to in the context of the thread, or making some other correction etc.

Personally i think OP's should be unlocked, if we can un-delete posts or view edit history, we can undo trollish actions like what happened in the past anyway

Exactly. This restriction has been put in to make it more convenient for admins/mods in the rare scenario that a disgruntled user starts wiping out all their own posts. Since the edits/deletions are all simply hidden and not deleted, they can all be restored anyway and perhaps even with a script, to make it easier. Hence, this restriction is punishing everyone all the time for management's convenience under a rare circumstance. @W1zzard I know this is the reason you put in this policy, so I hope you'll reconsider.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

There are still problems with sigquote as you can see in my signature. It doesn't support inline formatting BBCodes nor does it display the author.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

When merging posts, it still doesn't add a headline rule or something to show they were merged and where.

 

[W1zzard]

When merging posts, it still doesn't add a headline rule or something to show they were merged and where.

Working as intended, I vaguely remember discussing that option

 

[HTC]

Working as intended, I vaguely remember discussing that option

Perhaps adding something along the lines of this:

To where the post was merged?

Also, the notification part should count as a new post in such instances, to notify those that follow the topic that a "new post" has been made.

 

[lexluthermiester]

When merging posts, it still doesn't add a headline rule or something to show they were merged and where.

Working as intended, I vaguely remember discussing that option

My 2cents; I think it's fine the way it is. Posts are only merged for the first 24hours, after that they're just two posts.

 

[FordGT90Concept]

It doesn't differentiate between the two. A lot can happen in 24 hours but a thread may not get any other posters in that timeframe. Without a splitter, the post effectively becomes a run-on.

Perhaps just dropping the auto merge to, for example, four hours would be sufficient. Most posts that should be merged are usually made within minutes of each other. Shouldn't need a splitter if the time was reduced.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Without a splitter, the post effectively becomes a run-on.

It would be that way even with a splitter.

 

[HTC]

It doesn't differentiate between the two. A lot can happen in 24 hours but a thread may not get any other posters in that timeframe. Without a splitter, the post effectively becomes a run-on.

Perhaps just dropping the auto merge to, for example, four hours would be sufficient. Most posts that should be merged are usually made within minutes of each other. Shouldn't need a splitter if the time was reduced.

Look @ this post: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...processors-mitigation-out.246795/post-3886856

I posted once. Several hours after (more then 6, IIRC), i posted again but both posts got auto-merged: you can see where i edited it, to clearly separate them (i had reported this post because of it but that did no effect).

With something to clearly differentiate the posts, no editing would be needed. As can be seen from this specific post, both replies cover different things, which is why i didn't edit that post and posted another to begin with.

That worked well ... not ... because it got auto-merged and, when that happens (AFAIK), no "new post" alert is given, which means that when other posts do get posted, when users go check the newer posts they might just miss the merged post because of it, since it's "not new" and, as such, assumed to have been read before, when it has infact (@ least partially) not.

 

[lexluthermiester]

Look @ this post: https://www.techpowerup.com/forums/...processors-mitigation-out.246795/post-3886856

I posted once. Several hours after (more then 6, IIRC), i posted again but both posts got auto-merged: you can see where i edited it, to clearly separate them (i had reported this post because of it but that did no effect).

With something to clearly differentiate the posts, no editing would be needed. As can be seen from this specific post, both replies cover different things, which is why i didn't edit that post and posted another to begin with.

That worked well ... not ... because it got auto-merged and, when that happens (AFAIK), no "new post" alert is given, which means that when other posts do get posted, when users go check the newer posts they might just miss the merged post because of it, since it's "not new" and, as such, assumed to have been read before, when it has infact (@ least partially) not.

So it looks like a single post, so what? Is the information somehow different because it's not separated? And seriously, how difficult is it to simply add the word "Edit" or to just edit the original post? I do it and so does everyone else. Why is this a big deal?

 

[HTC]

So it looks like a single post, so what? Is the information somehow different because it's not separated? And seriously, how difficult is it to simply add the word "Edit" or to just edit the original post? I do it and so does everyone else. Why is this a big deal?

I think you missed the point.

By adding that small separator, 2 different things are being done:

1 - separating the original from the addition
2 - notifying those that follow the topic where to start reading from

But #2 only works if those that follow the topic are "informed" a new post was posted (via an alert), even if that new post was actually a merge with a previous post. Without this, and assuming further post(s) by other user(s) have been made since the merge, the post(s) marked as new will start from the next one, meaning those users will think the whole post, including the merged part, is an old post and it will therefore ignore it and start reading from the next post: the 1st one marked as new.

 

[gupsterg]

I should use this forum a lot more, damn slick interface IMO . Props to W1zzard & TPU team .

 

[INSTG8R]

I should use this forum a lot more, damn slick interface IMO . Props to W1zzard & TPU team .

Good to see you!