|
|
| Author |
Message |
| 14 new of 38 responses total. |
slynne
|
|
response 25 of 38:
| 
Oct 17 19:43 UTC 2007 |
I still think this is an issue worth considering. It is something
significant enough that I think it should be a change made by a member
vote though.
|
mary
|
|
response 26 of 38:
|
Oct 17 21:13 UTC 2007 |
It would most certainly have to go to the membership for a vote. But I
don't think there is anywhere near the necessary support. C'est la vie.
|
krj
|
|
response 27 of 38:
|
Oct 19 17:12 UTC 2007 |
Why not proceed to Grex II, intentionally designed for the web?
|
mary
|
|
response 28 of 38:
|
Oct 19 18:43 UTC 2007 |
This response has been erased.
|
mary
|
|
response 29 of 38:
|
Oct 19 18:47 UTC 2007 |
I'm not sure I see what that would do for Grex. If our community
wants to stay insular, then Grex II wouldn't serve a purpose. And
there are already lots of interesting communities out there with
mostly open forums, so starting a new one from scratch, to mimic an
old one? (Mary yawns.)
Something new, and fresh, taking what we've learned and applying it
to WWW? Cool. I've heard some ideas that are intriguing - John has
mentioned a few here. But it would look nothing like Grex for the most
part. Grex has been done.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 30 of 38:
|
Oct 19 21:09 UTC 2007 |
Instead of internet, I'm hearing a new term "interwebs".
What would Grex look like on the interwebs?
(let me put my vote in right now for "able to edit your own
posts,forever"). I'm in several communities that allow that, and boy
does it feel clunky to be back in the "mistakes and all, forever" mode.
|
nharmon
|
|
response 31 of 38:
|
Oct 19 22:04 UTC 2007 |
http://xkcd.com/181/
|
scholar
|
|
response 32 of 38:
|
Oct 19 23:26 UTC 2007 |
Re. 30 is very funny.
|
unicorn
|
|
response 33 of 38:
|
Oct 20 00:51 UTC 2007 |
Re #30: I think the reason for not allowing editing of posts is to
prevent people involved in a debate from being able to say "I never
said that" when they really did. Of course, they can always scribble
a post, but that leaves behind the evidence that it was once there,
even if the contents themselves are lost, so those denials are less
credible.
Back when I first started BBSing, many of the BBS's I used were on
8 bit systems with no hard drive, and things didn't hang around for
a decade or more. A couple of weeks or a month, in most cases, and
it was gone. These Unix systems may have been different, but they
weren't the norm. That fact has to be taken into consideration when
doing anything like making things available to google searches, or
making them editable, at least after they've been read by others.
Usenet posts have never been editable, but then, editing thousands
of copies on servers throughout the world would be a lost cause,
anyway.
|
marcvh
|
|
response 34 of 38:
|
Oct 20 03:27 UTC 2007 |
Well, USENET has "supercede" which is sort of like edit, but it wasn't
widely used nor universally supported. The widespread practice of
quoting in that medium means editing would be of limited value anyway.
|
cmcgee
|
|
response 35 of 38:
|
Oct 20 14:54 UTC 2007 |
The communities that I frequent that do allow editing do not allow users
to delete anything but the content of the post. They also have a
"version" indicator that shows when the post was first entered, and when
it was last edited, and whether the edit was by the poster or a
moderator.
One of them is Wizards of the Coast, which is frequented by
Magic-players and Dungeon and Dragons players, most of whom are
argumentative teen aged boys. I've never seen evidence of
"bait-and-switch", "I never said that" bits. It seems like the most
likely community to engage in that activity.
Does anyone hang out in an editable community where this is a problem?
|
naftee
|
|
response 36 of 38:
|
Nov 4 14:44 UTC 2007 |
Are you an argumentative teenaged boy, C. S. ?
|
tsty
|
|
response 37 of 38:
|
Nov 9 14:51 UTC 2007 |
re $0 .. no, thak you anyway.
|
albaugh
|
|
response 38 of 38:
|
Nov 19 17:43 UTC 2007 |
IIRC the thing that "turned the tide" last time was a "trick" that made the
postings of those who wished to not be identified somehow. Dunno if a similar
trick would work for google indexing.
|
