Edited posts

[MistressTorres]

Is there any way to remove the notice at the bottom when a post is edited? I have the basic theme right now.

[Arantor]

For all posts and all edits regardless of who made them?

[MistressTorres]

No, just the admin, if it's possible.

[margarett]

You mean that, when an admin edits a post (ANY post?), that info shouldn't be shown?

[MistressTorres]

The "last edited by" stuff. I know it can be done on other forums, just not sure if on SMF.

[margarett]

By default I think not. But it can be coded for you if you want.
But before we tell you how to do it, we need to know WHAT you want to do...
Of course, in your head, it's clear what you want But it's not so straight for us because there is a LOT of variables here...

So, can you please explain WHAT do want to do, as detailed as possible? Example:
"I want that, when an admin edits a post from any user, that "last edited by" information is now shown. All other edits should still be present."
OR
"I want to completely remove the "last edited by" information from all posts, no matter who edited or who was the original author".

Can you please help us help you?

[Kindred]

http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=3016


although I would suggest that you NOT do that, since it is deceptive to your users.

[Randus]

although I would suggest that you NOT do that, since it is deceptive to your users.

I might be out of line here, and if I am or if I have no right to respond to this post, I would ask the mods to please remove mine, or edit it. 

It seems that Kindred has the point. There are two issues which arise from editing work without it being noted.

Firstly, I think (again, just me) we have a fiduciary responsibility to the people who come to our forum to be as honest as we can be.  Furthermore we also have an obligation to be as respectful of their words as we can.  If it is necessary to change their  words, then they have a right to know we did that.  It seems almost ethically irresponsible not to tell them that we edited their posts.  They can then contact us and appeal our decision if they choose.

Secondly, if the other people reading the posts are not informed that the post has been changed by someone else, they may quote that person incorrectly.  That seems irresponsible on the part of the forum's admin.

Personally I have set my 'grace-period' to what I think is a goodly length of  time; if the posters re-reading their post see they've made a typo, or they forgot a word, they have enough time (in my opinion) to change it:  I've set it to 20 minutes.  After that, I think, enough people might have read the post, that if it changes due to an admin rewrite, or if they re-write it themselves, it actually isn't the same post anymore, and that's not fair to the reader who read the original.

This is just my 2 cents and if it's out of place I apologize, and ask the post be removed so as not to offend anyone.

[margarett]

* margarett is a little less platonic in such issues...

We can of course post our opinions. But *I* think that, if we can and/or know, we should try to give the user the solution he seeks. The ethics involved should be analysed by him, as an administrator.

[Randus]

Agreed!

This is merely an attempt at a caveat.  Like posting copyright law above a photcopier.  You are providing the answer to their copying needs.

[Kindred]

Well, there are certain things which we do not answer
(one specifically, how to read/find the PMs of the users, but there are a few others)

We also do not provide support for hacking or Warez sites.

remember, this is not a paid product. There are no legal obligation to provide ANY sort of support and there are certain things which we have no moral obligation to provide as well (actually, I would argue that we have a moral obligation to obscure certain answers).


That being said, I did post the link to the mod which does what the user wants before my opinion that it was a bad idea.

[Randus]

That is one of the things I admit I admire about some of the people posting here.  I read one thread and one of the support guys actually said he would not show someone how to read other posters' private messages or hack their passwords.  I was not only impressed but I had a respect for someone who wouldn't show someone how to violate someone else's privacy.  I thought it was an honor thing. 

This situation, to me, is the same thing.

For all I know we may have a legal obligation to provide evidence of having changed something posted on a publically accessible forum.  If we do fine, if not, we may very well have an ethical one.

As was inferred from Kindred's post, we may have an ethical obligation not to show someone how to do something which might be illegal, or at least ethically questionable.

[MistressTorres]

Okay.....not sure what this is all about, but I'm talking about for JUST my posts. And if I changed a typo, why does it have to say last edited? For one letter? That doesn't make any sense. I'm not talking about hacking or going in to change people's stuff illegally. This is my site and I paid good money for it, so why would I want to do something illegal? I think it should be an option to have it gone if the admin does it. Not for illegal purposes, but I shouldn't have to recreate my original post each time I notice a typo. That's all I'm asking for. And when I mean, I've seen it elsewhere, I've used many forum types and a few don't have it. I don't think they intend on it being used illegally either as theirs are free mostly although you can buy. That'd be a lot of business lost for one minor thing.

[Arantor]

There is actually a facility whereby you can edit posts within a timeframe (configurable in the admin panel) that doesn't show up the 'last edited' aspect, specifically for fixing typos and stuff.

The problem with introducing an option for admins is that then it becomes 'but what about other groups?' so we then end up having to implement something more thorough for that kind of thing, all for a single line of text.

The argument about accountability is fine in theory but doesn't work in practice, the only way that would work is if SMF had post history, which by default it does not.

[Randus]

...but I shouldn't have to recreate my original post each time I notice a typo.

As I see it, the problem is your first post asked if there was a way to remove the 'last edited' notation, not was there a way to avoid it showing up in the first place.  Had that been your question I would have recommended giving yourself a big 'grace period'.  I played with this option when I first installed smf and it works wonderfully.  You can find that check box under posts and topics under the 'forum' heading.  If you give yourself a goodly length of time you can re-read what you posted and modify it.  Before I found this check box I used to remove articles, cut and paste them into a new post, and re-submit the post as a new post.  Of course I would only do this if there were no posted replies to the original.

Then you asked that the option to not have the notation show up be available to all admin. I thought you meant anyone in admin could change their own posts. That's kinda a different scenario; personally I think it smacks of favoritism, but still,  it involves people editing their own words.  This is the case you make in the above quotation.

Kindred gave you a link to a mod which allows you to edit other people's work without it being recorded publicly.  That, is the issue we are debating.  He even cautioned you, and that was in my mind the relevant thing.  This mod is that global in its scope.

From a purely business standpoint, why would you wait more than the time it takes to proof read an article you posted before you modify it?  Why wouldn't you give yourself a grace period long enough to read the copy and change it if you have to.  The longer the mistake is up the longer people have to read it and see your lack of proof reading care.

(five errors for you to spot)

[kat]

If I edit a post, to correct a typo, I add something, at the bottom, to say something like:

<<Edited to correct something done by the Typo-fairy>>

Thing is... If your members figure-out what you've done, if you go ahead and do what you want, they might just insist that you set it, that way, for them, too...

[Randus]

If you don't then do it, you would be playing favorites, which would, IMHO drive away more people.