|
Grex > Coop > #278: Grex Town Hall -- How do we move forward? |  |
|
| Author |
Message |
| 25 new of 357 responses total. |
mary
|
|
response 114 of 357:
| 
Jun 23 15:54 UTC 2010 |
That last was entered by a user who has zero skills when it comes to proof
reading.
|
slynne
|
|
response 115 of 357:
|
Jun 23 15:55 UTC 2010 |
As long as I can easily cut and paste other people's responses into mine
so they can't edit them after I respond to them, I'll be happy.
|
kentn
|
|
response 116 of 357:
|
Jun 23 17:55 UTC 2010 |
Since you own the response, I'd expect you'd be in control of its
contents, not others who have responses quoted. If they want to respond
to your comment, they can in their own response. I don't know where the
idea that editing implies others can edit your responses comes from but
that's not what I'm envisoning.
|
slynne
|
|
response 117 of 357:
|
Jun 23 18:28 UTC 2010 |
That isnt what I mean. I don't like the idea of people editing their own
responses if I have entered a reply to their response. However, if I cut
and paste their response into mine, then they cannot do that. That is
all I am concerned about.
|
tonster
|
|
response 118 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:08 UTC 2010 |
resp:117: you used m-net for a long time, slynne. when was that ever a
problem there? I don't think I've ever seen that occur. We've never
prevented people from modifying their responses on m-net.
|
tonster
|
|
response 119 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:10 UTC 2010 |
and as I stated before, it's clear from the added 'response last
modified' header that a response has been changed, so it should be
pretty clear just based on that that a response to that response could
have been altered in that way.
|
tonster
|
|
response 120 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:13 UTC 2010 |
resp:112,resp:113: I still feel that doing that pretty much removes all
of what is Grex. It becomes just another website at that point.
|
kentn
|
|
response 121 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:17 UTC 2010 |
Right.
If you cut and paste a response and they edit theirs, that will just
show what you responded to. Feel free to editor yours if you want
to make this clear.
|
kentn
|
|
response 122 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:19 UTC 2010 |
(My response was to 119 and 117. If I could edit my response, I would
have added this information to 121. Instead you get another response
and have to figure out how this response relates).
|
slynne
|
|
response 123 of 357:
|
Jun 23 19:26 UTC 2010 |
resp:118 No. I don't think it is a problem there but it could be. It
might be nice on Mnet if a way of cutting and pasting quotes were easier
though.
resp:121 Yep. That works for me although if we are adding new features,
the blockquote tag feature makes such things easier.
I am NOT against adding the ability to edit ones own responses at all. I
just would like a way to more easily cut and past text in a way that
makes it more clear that the text being cut and pasted isn't mine.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 124 of 357:
|
Jun 23 20:08 UTC 2010 |
I don't understand why anyone should want to post-edit their responses. This
conferencing thing is a conversation, and conversations can't be edited. If
one wants to correct themselves in a conversation, they just do that with a
new statement (response...). I see only confusion being engendered by users
post-editing their responses.
|
slynne
|
|
response 125 of 357:
|
Jun 23 20:11 UTC 2010 |
I don't expect it will be a feature used very often and when it is used,
it will most likely be used to correct typos. I doubt I'll do much
editing other than typos myself.
|
rcurl
|
|
response 126 of 357:
|
Jun 23 20:28 UTC 2010 |
Why bother? Many users currently correct their typos, if significant, in a
subsequent response. It's not as if anything posted here is for the ages.
|
lar
|
|
response 127 of 357:
|
Jun 23 20:30 UTC 2010 |
you can say that again
|
richard
|
|
response 128 of 357:
|
Jun 23 21:09 UTC 2010 |
As long as you can /quote a user's previous post so it shows up in your
post in a box, it shouldn't matter if they subsequently edit it. It
wouldn't change the quote of their dialogue that you posted in your
response.
|
slynne
|
|
response 129 of 357:
|
Jun 23 21:16 UTC 2010 |
resp:128 Exactly! That is why I think it would be nice if we also added
something like blockquote tags to make it easier.
|
tonster
|
|
response 130 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:00 UTC 2010 |
resp:124: I think it's unlikely someone would want to modify their posts
much past about 5 minutes after they've written something, and usually
to correct a typo. Either way, it may be similar to a conversation, but
it's not the same.
|
lar
|
|
response 131 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:19 UTC 2010 |
I don't see why slynne is worried,her posts look just as stupid in
context as out
|
mary
|
|
response 132 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:27 UTC 2010 |
How would this go? Say slynne entered a response in responding to
something tod entered. In her response she copied tod's comment. tod
comes back and some point and removes all of his posts. Do tod's words in
slynne's response get immunity from deletion?
I don't know why but I think this may come up. ;-)
|
mary
|
|
response 133 of 357:
|
Jun 23 23:30 UTC 2010 |
See, I told you I couldn't proof read worth squat.
|
tonster
|
|
response 134 of 357:
|
Jun 24 12:46 UTC 2010 |
resp:132: tod's words in slynnes response would not be removed, nor
should they. I doubt very much any software that allows quoting would
have the ability to remove such things.
|
tod
|
|
response 135 of 357:
|
Jun 24 13:19 UTC 2010 |
Yea, like if I entered an item about breastmilk then I couldn't go and
erase what slynne duplicated from me in her own responses?
Maybe you could setup privileged censorship commands for friends of grex
board members so a few folks could go and do that while the rest can
go eat a hat.
What if I started an item about divorces and then said a bunch of things
and later wanted the entire discussions removed. That would be the
perfect example of an increased privilege erase command.
Not that those things have ever happened before
*COUGH*
|
kentn
|
|
response 136 of 357:
|
Jun 24 14:12 UTC 2010 |
Even in Confer days some people quoted entire items to keep them from
being deleted by their owners. So this is quite an old issue.
Although this seems like an interesting twist, it doesn't affect the
editing discussion because this issue of quoted text could occur (and
has) even without editing. This is getting into "business policy"
territory rather than technical (although the BP might be implemented as
a technical solution). One solution is to allow moderation due to the
number of people and competing interests that might be involved. And of
course, we don't like *COUGH* moderation.
|
mary
|
|
response 137 of 357:
|
Jun 24 14:58 UTC 2010 |
Yep, making it clear that your ability to edit your words only extends to
responses you have entered sounds like a good policy. I'd support giving
users the ability to edit their responses in that case.
|
slynne
|
|
response 138 of 357:
|
Jun 24 15:05 UTC 2010 |
One thing to consider would be a time limit. One site I frequent allows
editing but only for 90 minutes after the response is entered.
|