Please disable editing of post

[Harmon]

Well, I am a little compulsive about typos and misspellings. Maybe even a bit of a perfectionist. Okay, okay, I'm neurotic. If I weren't able to fix those things I'd go crazier.

[crich70]

Originally Posted by Harmon

Well, I am a little compulsive about typos and misspellings. Maybe even a bit of a perfectionist. Okay, okay, I'm neurotic. If I weren't able to fix those things I'd go crazier.

Reading your post and looking at your Avatar.

[beppe]

Originally Posted by Prestidigitweeze

if someone rewords their post, I'll assume it was either for readability or tact, both of which are, in my incredibly humble opinion, noble causes.

your pretty signature

[Prestidigitweeze]

Here's the exchange that made me add the title of that organ prelude to my sig:

Me: At ten years old, J.S. Bach lost both his parents; at twenty-eight, his wife. As a child, I used to force myself not to weep while learning his music. Now, at last, I know why: Bach's freeing complexity flows from the vantage of loss. His ecstasies of intellection, the lingering care he brought to lines of counterpoint -- all these were ways of resurrecting those who were gone.

[Excellent poet whose name has been withheld for the sake of his privacy]: "Ornament yourself, O beloved Soul." This organ prelude is also a prelude to dying. The soul has to look good when it encounters the Eternal. In that realm, the bereaved also meets those who have preceded him.

That, and because "Schmuecke dich" is kaleidoscopic manna: harmonic sequences and chains of softly dissonant suspensions leading ever upward.

[Prestidigitweeze]

(That said, I'm also a fan of Wiltold Lutoslawski's "Funeral Music.")

But where were we? Ah, yes, "Disable Editing of Post": No thank you, since editing is half of writing (perhaps more, in many cases). Carry on.

[kennyc]

If editing were disabled I'd look like a total moron.......oh......wait.....

[Donnageddon]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

Donnageddon is a perfect example of a person who rarely edits posts due to typos, lack of clarity or other mental errors.

He is a fine netizen, and should be admired by all!

Why thanks, Marc.

[montsnmags]

Originally Posted by Donnageddon

Why thanks, Marc.

Watch it, precious. I've got access to the ModCP (like the UserCP but plastered with warning stickers) and I'm not afraid to mash it in anger. Oh, look, Donnageddon's user profile...

Cheers,
Marc
(Note, Alex is a nice chap who would arrange our disappearance if we abused our powers. Incompetence, however, is forgiven. Thankfully)

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by montsnmags

Watch it, precious. I've got access to the ModCP (like the UserCP but plastered with warning stickers) and I'm not afraid to mash it in anger. Oh, look, Donnageddon's user profile...

Cheers,
Marc
(Note, Alex is a nice chap who would arrange our disappearance if we abused our powers. Incompetence, however, is forgiven. Thankfully)

And you certainly have a face one can trust!

[JSWolf]

Originally Posted by lestatar

Gotta say: EDIT is vital. We all make typos. We all may want to clarify stuff on occasion. We are all adults here, mostly.

No need for such a dramatic step IMO.

This is why the "QUOTE" function is so useful.

If there is too much time gone by or enough replies, don't edit the original post. Make a new one to cover the errors in the original post.

[theducks]

There are Typos and there are mis-typos that pass spell check.
The number of the combined that I have fixed via edit exceeds my karma number

[kennyc]

Originally Posted by theducks

There are Typos and there are mis-typos that pass spell check.
The number of the combined that I have fixed via edit exceeds my karma number

Karma for that!

[Prestidigitweeze]

Originally Posted by JSWolf

If there is too much time gone by or enough replies, don't edit the original post. Make a new one to cover the errors in the original post.

Here are some of the problems with that idea:

1. Continuity. Someone rereads their post a few days later and realizes it's abysmally written. Do they edit said post to keep the edits relevant or do we really want them to post the corrections in the middle of a developing conversation a few pages later?

2. Redundancy. If we want people to multi-quote in one post instead of posting several times to answer each quote, that implies we're trying to avoid redundant posting. If someone posts, realizes their post is questionably written, contains misspellings or acronyms, and wants to correct these, should they really post a detailed errata below the first post, forcing the casual reader to do three times as much work?

3. Redundancy, pt. 2: Explaining edits is what the Reason footer field is for.

4. Relevance. How likely is it that the casual reader will be interested in the masturbatory minutiae of an edit? And if there turn out to be several edits noticed after the first is commented on, who is going to find four posts detailing these to be relevant to the general conversation?

5. Inconsistency. Many writers edit their own work endlessly, Virginia Woolf ten to twenty times per story by her own estimation. Robert Lowell famously said that "All my thoughts are second thoughts," meaning that he always revised. Why should writers who post here drop their standards to adhere to some rigid idea that assures someone else they haven't altered a thought or an opinion?

6. Tact. If someone realizes they've said something cruel or thoughtless, or which violates Mobile Read policy, what moderator wouldn't want them to revise their statements? Isn't that in fact one of the main reasons moderators step in to change members' posts -- because they didn't think to change them first?

[Billi]

Honestly, Prestidigitweeze, there are too many interesting threads to follow here that not everyone rereads the posts you've written three days ago. Members coming new to a thread or being absent here for some days, okay, they will, but people who contributed to or followed a thread from the very beginning? Normally not.
If you still spot any typos after a certain amount of time (not in the first half hour or during the first day), let them stay in your text - it's not the worst trait not to be perfect. If you want to change the content - do so in a new post, it's not the worst trait to admit, "I have thought about it and changed my mind" or "I have not been clear enough, I wanted to say this or this". This way you have much better chances that your new expression of your thoughts will be read.

[Prestidigitweeze]

This thread isn't about whose posts are most "interesting," nor is it about anyone's "looking to be read." It's about whether posts should be editable, as they are in virtually every other forum.

So far, it has been generally agreed that people should be able to edit their posts. You may disagree if you like, but it isn't your place tell me personally when and how to edit my posts -- particularly when the subject is everyone's ability to edit.

Some people care about mistakes and others do not. If you're of the school that doesn't, then good for you. But the policy we have now allows some not to edit themselves and others to edit as they please. The opposite would forbid everyone to do what didn't happen to suit some of us.

Originally Posted by Billi

Honestly, Prestidigitweeze, there are too many interesting threads to follow here that not everyone rereads the posts you've written three days ago. Members coming new to a thread or being absent here for some days, okay, they will, but people who contributed to or followed a thread from the very beginning? Normally not.
If you still spot any typos after a certain amount of time (not in the first half hour or during the first day), let them stay in your text - it's not the worst trait not to be perfect. If you want to change the content - do so in a new post, it's not the worst trait to admit, "I have thought about it and changed my mind" or "I have not been clear enough, I wanted to say this or this". This way you have much better chances that your new expression of your thoughts will be read.