Limit to period where a post can be edited

[#1]

This was introduced as a trial to see how it would affect normal posting habits and for that reason it wasn't formally announced
Since some concerns have been raised, we've decided to ask you all to vote on the changes.
Note that there have been a number of occasions where unhappy posters have decided to delete their posts wholesale with the consequent disruption to threads so in principle the moderators feel that there should be such a limit to cope with the disruptive behaviour of a few who have abused the system by such wholesale deletion or by persistent editing of posts a considerable time after the initial post
It should be noted that there is no possibility of differentiating between editing a single post and for the thread starter deciding to edit the title
Please note - judging by the previous thread on this there is a possibility of this developing into a tit for tat exchange. As such any such posts will be removed.

[#2]

I'd say a max of 18 hours. even being able to edit a post a day after it was made shouldn't be warranted.
Either that, or introduce it so posts can't be edited if a post has been made after it.

[#3]

Quote

or introduce it so posts can't be edited if a post has been made after it.

As far as I can tell - I may be wrong - that option isn't available

[#4]

A day is ample time to think about the post and make any necessary changes.
But what about being able to make a change through a mod after that time if it really seems necessary to do so?

[#5]

I've voted for "Other"
My suggestion would be 24-48 hours.

[#6]

I've voted for "No limit"

[#7]

Quote from: Mav

But what about being able to make a change through a mod after that time if it really seems necessary to do so?

That wouldn't be a problem but we wouldn't make minor changes such as spelling or grammar unless it really made the intent of the post unclear

[#8]

Here is my 'other' vote.
You can only amend a post up until someone posts a response to it. After that it can't be edited. Although I understand that people would like to correct spelling mistakes, etc. I would prefer to read posts with errors rather than the situation I have experienced on other forums where people have changed the content of their original post, which in turn as changed the meaning. It got so bad that people had to quote a post they were replying to for their post to make any sense.

[#9]

I would suggest dropping it to an hour, or only being able to edit until a post has been replied to and suggest those worried about grammar and spelling proof reading before hitting the post button

[#10]

One thing that springs to mind is would not limiting the period before a post can no longer be edited encourage more people to double/triple-post which could then fall foul of the bumping rule?

[#11]

Works fine on other fora, and stops snidey/sneaky editing of posts...

[#12]

I voted for 1 day. Having said that I always preview my posts before hitting 'post'.
However, I presume if someone was really upset about a post they made could they contact an Administrator to get their post deleted?

[#13]

I voted for no limit.
We never used to have one and it didn't seem to bother anyone. Now it's been changed, it's become an issue or as OJ puts it, a tit for tat exchange. I disagree with OJs opinion to be honest but the issue has certainly become a problem since this change was introduced.
For some reason, people always think new strict restrictions will make people happy. In reality all it does it wind people up and cause annoyance.
There was no need for this change.

[#14]

Had a lower time limit than 10 hours been available I might well have voted for it. A few hours should be more than enough to correct any formatting/spelling mistakes, and in any case I would question why minor spelling errors really matter - or even in many cases missing out (eg) "not" when it's obvious what is meant.
It's unfortunate that the disruptive actions and "games" of a few necessitate imposing the restriction on everyone, but unfortunately life is like that.

[#15]

I've voted '1 day', on the basis that -
It's quite feasible, and reasonable, that a poster may legitimately have a good reason to modify a post within 24 hours.
If it's not been done within 24 hours then it's probably not reasonable.