Edit vs Delete-and-repost

[namida]

Hi all,

Just wanted to mention that, with the SMF 2.1 upgrade and the fact that the site now supports notifications for new quotes / replies to topics / etc, it would be very preferable if people edit their post if they need to make changes, rather than deleting it and then posting another almost-identical post. (This is doubly frustrating for site staff, who may very well click these notifications only to - maybe without realising it - end up in a topic on the Recycle Bin board.)

(At least at this stage) I'm not going to set any outright rules about this, it's more just a matter I'm raising as another user (rather than as admin).

[WillLem]

the site now supports notifications for new quotes / replies to topics / etc

The reason for delete-then-repost is this:

At present, if you're typing a reply to a post and then you hit "Post", if someone else has replied in the meantime, the Forum notifies the user of this and gives them a chance to view the replies before going ahead with theirs.

If I've edited a recent post, and I see that someone is reading it (particularly if it's someone who's likely to reply due to previous engagement with the topic), I'd prefer to give them the opportunity to see the most recent version; edits are sometimes significant enough to warrant this.

Having said that, your comments are duly noted and I'll try not to do this in future unless it's absolutely necessary. Or, I might post another reply simply stating that the previous message has been edited (which could then later be deleted); would that be preferable from an admin point of view?

I've also recently taken to using the "Preview" button a lot more; this helps. What would help even more is some sort of "save as draft" feature, although it's understandable that this might not be suitable for the Forum format in general (i.e. where several other replies may have been posted whilst yours is sat in draft).

[namida]

Having said that, your comments are duly noted and I'll try not to do this in future unless it's absolutely necessary. Or, I might post another reply simply stating that the previous message has been edited (which could then later be deleted); would that be preferable from an admin point of view?

First, let me remind you again - at this stage, I'm making (and replying to) this topic purely as a user of the site. It's not a case of "I'm the admin and I'm setting down the rules".

Personally, I would make such a reply only if it seems someone has responded and missed the edit. (I might also check if anyone is actually reading the topic at the time too - visible at the top of the page.)

[WillLem]

First, let me remind you again - at this stage, I'm making (and replying to) this topic purely as a user of the site. It's not a case of "I'm the admin and I'm setting down the rules".

OK, cool. I'm glad it's been brought up though tbh - now I know it's potentially frustrating for site staff, I'm of course happy to re-think my posting habits accordingly.

(I might also check if anyone is actually reading the topic at the time too - visible at the top of the page.)

Yes, this is the exact reason for delete-and-repost; if I see someone is reading, and they're likely to reply, I generally want to make sure they're up to date with any edits.

Posting again with "The previous post has been edited" seems a good enough solution to this (and even then, only if it's probable that someone reading is in the middle of typing a reply). Conversely, waiting until after their reply seems counter-productive: it then becomes necessary to make reference to the edit and ask the other user to reply again. This results in several additional posts as opposed to a single one that can later be deleted once the conversation has moved on.

[namida]

(Adminposting now, more as in "developer admin" than "rule-setting admin" though.)

The ideal solution of course would be to expand the "a new reply has been posted" thing to also cover new edits being made. I might take a look at that sometime, too.

Of course the question is how far back it should look. Does it trigger if ANY post in the topic is edited since the user began replying? (Probably easier to implement than any subset, and I suspect the edge cases where they *don't* need to be informed will be extremely rare.) Only posts made in the last so-and-so timeframe? Only posts made since the user's last post in the topic? Maybe it should look at the most recent X posts, where X is some fixed number (I suspect 5 would be plenty here)?

[WillLem]

The ideal solution of course would be to expand the "a new reply has been posted" thing to also cover new edits being made. I might take a look at that sometime, too.

That would be great

As well as being sure that others are notified of edits, I too would appreciate knowing if edits have been made to a topic I'm following as well.

Of course the question is how far back it should look

If it's easier to simply notify of any edits, start there and see how people feel about it. In order of preference after that, I'd probably suggest (1) since user's most recent post, (2) most recent 5 posts (this could be optional to include more posts if the user wishes), (3) over the past week (this could be optional as week/month/year).

And, of course, "notify of edits" itself could be optional from the start.

[namida]

While a notification for edits is a good idea too, I was talking more about expanding the "A new reply was posted while you were posting" thing to cover edits too here, and will focus on that one first.