# Edited posts not showing as such.



## User (1 Jun 2016)




----------



## Spiderweb (1 Jun 2016)

It is likely that the original post has been edited after you quoted it.


----------



## Spinney (1 Jun 2016)

If you report some examples,@User, we might be able to see more details of when things were edited (or not!). Just refer to this thread in the report so we know why you're reporting yourself.


----------



## mjr (1 Jun 2016)

If the edit is within N seconds of the posting (and in the same browser session?), it does not get labelled as edited. I often do that because I ytpe stuff wrong adn word order botch.


----------



## Spiderweb (1 Jun 2016)

User said:


> No that is the point, neither show that they have been edited although they were.


Your right, it doesn't always say last edited. I've just edited my post and it is now different from my post that you've just quoted.


----------



## summerdays (1 Jun 2016)

Spiderweb said:


> Your right, it doesn't always say last edited. I've just edited my post and it is now different from my post that you've just quoted.


After what sort of time gap? There is a small window for correcting typo's immediately after posting. I know that one as that's often when I spot my mistakes, why I can't see it until after I hit the Post button I don't know.


----------



## Spinney (1 Jun 2016)

User said:


> OK, will do.


This post that you reported...
Post in thread 'Helmet - would you or wouldn't you?' by Adrian has been reported by Adrian.

...Steve in Denmark added the final sentence (I like how this thread is going) 3 minutes after the original post - so that is within the 'correcting errors' window allowed by the software.

The Cunobelin quote you also reported - again, the edit was made about 3 minutes after the original post.

So likely just something to be aware of if posting on a thread where things are being replied to quickly.


----------



## Rapples (1 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Can it not be just removed? An edit is an edit after all, no matter what the reason.



Indeed, I for one can't sleep at night for fear of someone editing a post I've quoted


----------



## Spinney (1 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Can it not be just removed? An edit is an edit after all, no matter what the reason.


What, the edit? Or the time slot? I suppose the time could be made (say) 2 minutes, but that is something for Shaun to do.

If it bothers you, there is no reason why you cannot edit your own post (even the quote in it) to make it the same as the revised post, or alternatively, you can add a note to your own post to point out that the thing you were quoted was edited after you quoted it.


----------



## Spiderweb (1 Jun 2016)

summerdays said:


> After what sort of time gap? There is a small window for correcting typo's immediately after posting. I know that one as that's often when I spot my mistakes, why I can't see it until after I hit the Post button I don't know.


I edited within 5 mins.


----------



## Rapples (1 Jun 2016)

Spiderweb said:


> I edited within 5 mins.


Well I sincerely hope that now you realise the psychological damage this causes you'll refrain from being so hasty to edit in future.


----------



## Rapples (1 Jun 2016)

Things are getting worse.

I've just tried to edit a post and it's disappeared completely without trace.

Is there no end to the psychological damage this forum can create?


----------



## classic33 (1 Jun 2016)

Edit within five minutes of making the post, and it won't show as being edited.
Anything over five minutes will show as being edited. One year time limit on editing a post.


----------



## Spinney (1 Jun 2016)

Just a reminder of part of the rules, folks (including @Rapples )


> *Fixed That For You (FTFY)* - Quoting, and then altering the post/s of another member for comic effect, can be fun and add to the enjoyment of the community. However, it should be clear what you have changed and that it is intended as harmless fun. Otherwise altering quoted posts is not allowed - with the exception of trimming a quote (leaving a ... to show where material has been omitted) or highlighting a specific section to reply to.


----------



## Rapples (1 Jun 2016)

Spinney said:


> Just a reminder of part of the rules, folks (including @Rapples )


Are you suggesting what I did wasn't harmless fun for comic effect? @User is always going on about tossing off his coin, and I'm not convinced he really does have a magic tossing coin..

Where's your sense of humour Spinners


----------



## Spinney (1 Jun 2016)

'Twasn't me that deleted it...

... but I agreed with the decision.

You've had harmless fun on this thread without modifying quotes, and rules is rules - and in the case of that rule it clearly says it must be obvious the quote has been changed (and it doesn't just mean that the quoted poster wouldn't call themselves that name..). 

And I'm afraid we often have to delete things that we think are funny, because they go against Shaun's rules.


----------



## classic33 (15 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Edit within five minutes of making the post, and it won't show as being edited.
> Anything over five minutes will show as being edited. One year time limit on editing a post.


Now down to four minutes for that first part


----------



## Shaun (15 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> Now down to four minutes for that first part



3 minutes (reduced from 5).


----------



## Shaun (15 Jun 2016)

User said:


> Is there a good reason for it to be more than zero?


Yes, because I said so. 

ETA: And, like most, I also like a few minutes grace to go back and edit things without my dooferishness being highlighted.

Edit history is stored for all posts, regardless of the initial time window, so if you have a query about a change just ask.


----------



## classic33 (15 Jun 2016)

Shaun said:


> 3 minutes (reduced from 5).


Only showed at four minutes.
I'll try this one just to check. Not doubting what's been said about three minutes.


----------



## Shaun (16 Jun 2016)

User said:


> It isn't about history though. It is about situations where people reply to another person's post and the original poster then edits it, without that being apparent. It ends up looking as though the reply has done the editing. What need is there for this, beyond playing Shaun says? People should acknowledge their doofereshness more, not try to hide it.



The vast majority of posts are _never_ edited. Of those that are most are done within a few minutes and are small, subtle changes to correct spellings or add a word or two, or picture, and don't substantially change the content or context of the post. I am happy to offer people a few minutes grace to do this without their posts being marked as edited.

It's the same on BikeRadar (+1 hour) and YACF (where I added a full stop to a post from 2009 and it still didn't publicly mark it as edited) and on most of the other forums I use too.

No one can "hide" from the edit history though and the moderator team will always be able to check if a change was substantial, and if it had a negative impact on your reply. If that does happen we can help you correct it or remove your reply, but unless you're in the habit of regularly going back to check every post you quote to see if it has been edited, you are not going to benefit from tagging it straight away or at 3+ minutes because you won't see it.

As for others seeing that a post has been edited (or not seeing the full post in your quote), it will be no different to the many occasions where only part of a post is quoted for reply. Providing your response is relevant to what you _have _quoted then it is unlikely anyone will take issue with it. If someone does, just let us know and we'll help you to resolve it.

Cheers,
Shaun


----------



## mjr (17 Jun 2016)

If the edit time goes to zero, it would be nice for non JavaScript browsers like light mobiles to have a preview option.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Jun 2016)

I actually do edit a lot, if not most of my posts. Just superficial stuff, but I'm lazy about proof reading while composing, and glaring errors often jump out at me after posting. 

I'd be really sorry to lose, or have curtailed, the ability to go back and fix things. I'd live with it, of course, but the shadow of a frown may pass over my ordinarily sunny visage. So please don't reduce the edit time to zero.

I have no opinion either way whether posts are *marked *as edited. I've never actually noticed that it _*was *_marked. I've just gone back and edited a really old post (I put something terribly rude and contentious into it*) and lo! It was marked as being edited. I am utterly unpeturbed.

There are also info posts like my London Audaxes that I go back to repeatedly to edit and add rides as people suggest them. That's been there for a few months now and I can still edit it. If it gets locked some time in the future I will not lose any sleep.

* I didn't really.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jun 2016)

Dogtrousers said:


> I actually do edit a lot, if not most of my posts. Just superficial stuff, but I'm lazy about proof reading while composing, and glaring errors often jump out at me after posting.
> 
> I'd be really sorry to lose, or have curtailed, the ability to go back and fix things. I'd live with it, of course, but the shadow of a frown may pass over my ordinarily sunny visage. So please don't reduce the edit time to zero.
> 
> ...


One year limit on editing a post.


----------



## winjim (17 Jun 2016)

Maybe just wait three minutes before replying?


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> One year limit on editing a post.


As long as it's not 1 per year

I'm with @Dogtrousers, particularly as I access predominantly from my phone with its frequently idiosyncratic autocorrect that I can often miss or find I hit b or n instead of spacebar & make some pretty funky portmanteau words up by accident. 

I appreciate the opportunity to save face with swift edit when I've missed a slip of the finger. 

The forum rules are clear that editing a quote should not be done in malice, so to speak, nor to deliberately mislead & I guess that's what the report button is for if you take umbridge at how someone has represented you in amended quotes.


----------



## Dogtrousers (17 Jun 2016)

I'd also note that I'd have absolutely no objection to "this post edited x minutes ago" or whatever it says if I have edited it immediately. I don't know why anyone would care when I've edited my posts, mind ... but I've no objection to it being shown.


----------



## classic33 (17 Jun 2016)

shouldbeinbed said:


> *As long as it's not 1 per year*
> 
> I'm with @Dogtrousers, particularly as I access predominantly from my phone with its frequently idiosyncratic autocorrect that I can often miss or find I hit b or n instead of spacebar & make some pretty funky portmanteau words up by accident.
> 
> ...


You take a year to edit a post!!


----------



## shouldbeinbed (17 Jun 2016)

classic33 said:


> You take a year to edit a post!!


 I'm a slow writer


----------

