Edit by *Username*?


Wally

I am a banana!
Joined
Jan 31, 2006
Messages
3,213
Age
37
Location
Melbourne, Australia
Just wondering why all users are being forced the "edit by" line when they edit a post.

It's pretty nonsense if you ask me.
 
Are they?

Edit: test edit

Edit2: Do you mean users as distinct from mods?

I don't really see the point in it, though...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I mean that. End users can't control whether they post about it or not.. Can you come on IRC?.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Are they?

Edit: test edit

Edit2: Do you mean users as distinct from mods?

I don't really see the point in it, though...
It helps to determine wether someone edited his post after it has been adressed by others
 
I for one am very unhappy with this and am hesitating to even post now. I make a lot of little typos or awkwardly phrased sentences and it's hard for me to catch them preemptively even if I review my posts. I usually notice them a minute later instead. Or find that there was something else I wanted to say. But I hate having that "edited by" message get in the way. Very distracting and makes the post feel dirty.

The forum has been like this for years without it being a problem. The only reason it's a thing now is because mods started editing posts without signing them, but that's easily solved by either putting it in manually (and an explanation should be there) or checking the option. Very rarely have I seen anyone really abuse this. And if it happens people should have the right revoked only after it becomes a problem. It's not right to punish the entire forum.
 
I don't like that at all... I personally used to manually write my own edits: when changing the meaning, and just do silent edit to correct typos... now I just won't correct my typos to avoid looking someone who write stupids things and edit them afterwards...

(manual) edit: hey, I still have the choice to mark as edited!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sweet, the option's been reinstated. Thanks whoever did it! (ED probably, I figure he's the only one who can)
 
Awwwwww, now once again...people can post bad things (porn) and then very quickly deny what they did. :(
Has something like this actually happened, and if you know they did it does it really matter?

What'd be best if is mods and admins have access to edit histories.
 
did they do that? never saw that in more than 4years of lurking here...
 
Why is this nonsense? Imagine you post something and it gets edited by a mod who decides not to leave a comment.


You can clearly see, that the post was not changed by you but by a mod.
 
Mods should always leave a name & reason.

The problem is that (once or twice in the last few weeks) its been known for users to fake-moderate their own posts :wacko:
 
Not a problem if mods actually do start leaving signatures - partially because people will no longer have a reason to spoof them but also because it'll be obvious it's fake. It's moot anyway given that you know when someone was doing it so would probably know next time too.
 
1. Mods don't have to do shit if they're just editing a thread typo or something very minor or small.


2. If member A posts some porn and only one other member, other than a mod witnessed it...then we'll have to give member A the benefit of the doubt.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top