Ability to edit posts after someone has replied removed

I have got Kevin to disable the ability of users to edit posts once someone else replies to them. This will help remove some forms of forum abuse.

You will get the following error if you try to edit your post after it has been replied to – Error: You cannot edit a post after it has replies.

This is mainly to stop the abuse of the forums by users posting flames / troll posts, then removing them after other users have replied.

I am considering other actions to stop the current spate of noise from drowning out reasonable conversation in the main forums.

Not only do troll and flame posts serve to ‘noise up’ Discogs users threads, but they also dramaticaly reduce the time we have available to work on the database functionality and programing (the most important part of Discogs).

Return to Discogs Blog
78 Comments
  • nik
    Feb 23,2006 at 5:07 am

    Ok, I’m going to incite Godwin’s Law and lock this thread.

    Sorry.

    We will try to improve matters ASAP.

  • Feb 22,2006 at 11:08 pm

    Just for Monk:
    [url=http://help.discogs.com/ticket/1339]http://help.discogs.com/ticket/1339[/url]

    Whats with these people and their anti-edit button nazism? Its like the episode from Seignfeld with the soup nazi.

    No soup for you…. er…. No edit button for you! YOU GO NOW!

  • Feb 22,2006 at 11:04 pm

    EDIT BUTTON!

  • Feb 22,2006 at 3:13 pm

    I have some more input.
    Perhaps in the ID-FORUM you can have a separate STICKY for members
    to request the specific edits. Then an Administrator can be in charge
    of performing the updates.

  • Feb 22,2006 at 2:05 pm

    please please please
    REACTIVATE THIS EDIT FUNCTION !!!
    this is a main part of the ID-FORUM

  • Feb 21,2006 at 1:41 pm

    i’m not gonna read the entire thread but i think it’s not such a good idea to remove the edit function

    it’s a pain in the ass for one thing, and maybe more important it will require more data, instead of editing an existing record you have to add a new record each time you want to edit a post…

    i can imagine that the edit function can be abused but in some forums for example the track id forum it is a necessity !

    maybe a suggestion (perhaps it has been suggested) : allow the edit post function in certain forums such as the track id
    and disable it in the forums where abuse is common…

    just my 2 cents

  • Feb 21,2006 at 8:47 am

    LOL! classic! ;)

  • Feb 21,2006 at 8:28 am

    wrong thread?

  • Feb 21,2006 at 8:02 am

    Bad idea…

    Sometimes someone replies with telling you there is an error in you submission so you can change it without having to resubmit it. I like the option…

  • Feb 21,2006 at 4:26 am

    take it off till you found a solution. ;)

  • Feb 21,2006 at 4:04 am

    [b]I am not in favor of:

    * Returning to the free-editing capabilities, especially on the main Discogs forums
    [/b]

    agreed.

  • nik
    Feb 21,2006 at 3:35 am

    I am in favor of:

    * Per-forum preference set by the forum mods for expiry times, edit functionality etc
    * Making edits available on a post until someone else replies

    I am not in favor of:

    * Returning to the free-editing capabilities, especially on the main Discogs forums

    Teo’s time is very important, however, and it is vital that he is allowed to concentrate on the updates to the submission process and database entry functionality for the moment. This means that, for the time being, we need to work with things the way they are. I am dead sorry that this creates more work for forum moderators in forums outwith the main Discogs forums. I’ll try and get it sorted ASAP, but don’t hold your breath!

  • Feb 21,2006 at 2:25 am

    [url=http://help.discogs.com/ticket/1339]closed[/url]

  • Feb 21,2006 at 12:41 am

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/board?forum_id=52]Any chance to free mi whole forum with that ‘stupid’ ban Nik or Teo?[/url]

    This is an INVITE ONLY forum so no one can come in and start to post bullshit ;)

  • Feb 21,2006 at 12:20 am

    I’m not trying to enter a pissing contest with you, just discussing the merits of your posts, thus the purpose of these forums. Yes, lets not discuss things, lest we have to create lengthy posts that we can’t edit later.

  • Feb 21,2006 at 12:04 am

    My goal here is not to enter into a pissing contest about who is more
    clever. I don’t want to waste any more time composing long posts like
    I just did. I have made my point and you disagree. That is fine. I don’t
    want to counterargue otherwise we will be spending alot of time not con-
    vincing each other of things.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 11:54 pm

    “name 3

    It takes longer now to create a post for me because I have to make sure
    I get it right the first time. I hate it when I make an error and then I
    have to make a separate post explaining myself, say using a bunch of
    these: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and then someone has posted in front of my fix.
    I personally tend to write a post quickly and then notice some semantic/
    grammar/content/syntax type of errors which I then fix very quickly,
    Maybe I am in the minority. And yes if I preview the thing long enough
    I can proof read it. Who likes to do that all the time!

    People feel impinged upon by having this thing taken away. It is bad
    for morale. Also emphasized by the fact that MODS get to fix their
    posts in some situations.

    Sometimes it is necessary to erase a post on legitimate grounds.
    One example is from me. Before I figured out that the editing feature
    was missing I posted the contents of a slightly sensitive email.
    It occured to me only afterwards that I should remove it. ”

    1st one – a bit like “think before you speak”
    2nd one – circular arguement
    3rd one – see 1st one above

  • Feb 20,2006 at 11:36 pm

    I used the word ‘add’ specifically to emphasize that aspect of editing.
    A very linear example of how this is useful is your example of updating.

    I disagree with your statement that contextualizing is [i]more[/i] effective
    through dialogue. In a two way verbal conversation yes.. However, these threads commonly
    drift from subject to subject, often 20+ people are involved: it can get
    chaotic and lose cohesion.

    [i]much like having a conversation in the real world. [/i]

    but this is a noisy room sometimes. People are talking over each other.
    There are interwoven conversations amongst the posts.. Not a conversation – a house party.

    [i]name 3 [/i]

    It takes longer now to create a post for me because I have to make sure
    I get it right the first time. I hate it when I make an error and then I
    have to make a separate post explaining myself, say using a bunch of
    these: ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ and then someone has posted in front of my fix.
    I personally tend to write a post quickly and then notice some semantic/
    grammar/content/syntax type of errors which I then fix very quickly,
    Maybe I am in the minority. And yes if I preview the thing long enough
    I can proof read it. Who likes to do that all the time!

    People feel impinged upon by having this thing taken away. It is bad
    for morale. Also emphasized by the fact that MODS get to fix their
    posts in some situations.

    Sometimes it is necessary to erase a post on legitimate grounds.
    One example is from me. Before I figured out that the editing feature
    was missing I posted the contents of a slightly sensitive email.
    It occured to me only afterwards that I should remove it.

    My complaint about bloating was farfetched. I suppose I intended it
    to mean that it would add to the clutter.

    Now your point about cowards modifying posts is 100% valid.
    I don’t happen to know the scope of this problem, therefore yes
    if it is a sufficiently big problem then the edit needs to go. I don’t
    think it is a sufficiently big problem.

    Now your comment about ‘turning the edit feature on’ – who has control
    over this? The forum mod? So he must always be on standby for the
    specific purpose of being available to push a button, should a member
    wish to have this feature applied to his specific post?

  • Feb 20,2006 at 10:27 pm

    [i]One thing that can go wrong is: I see several corrections I wish to make
    to my post. Damn >>> better make a new post. Bloated threads.[/i]

    not really – threads do not become bloated because of the odd spelling correction, and if its clarification of something you have expressed badly, then clarify with a new post.

    [i]It has the stronger repercussion of not being able to clearly contextualize
    your thoughts about a previous post. i.e. You can’t add to one of your previous posts.[/i]

    contextualising is more effective via dialogue, not through rewriting what you have said. Add to your prevoius post with a new one – much like having a conversation in the real world.

    [i]there are a half a dozen other reasons I can think of too.[/i]

    name 3

    [i]I know the other side of the coin so anyone wishing to illuminate me
    on the advantages, please don’t bother.[/i]

    I did

    These forums functioned better without the ability to edit posts than they have since. Turn the edit feature on when its useful – ie when there is info to update like in track ids. But as far as editing your posts in a discussion style dialogue, it creates a less realistic style of discussion and allows cowards to change what they said instead of explaining it or standing behind it.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 9:58 pm

    edit button!

  • Feb 20,2006 at 8:54 am

    take it off till you found a solution.

  • Feb 20,2006 at 8:46 am

    take it off till you found a solution.

  • Feb 19,2006 at 10:46 pm

    take it off till you found a solution.

  • Feb 19,2006 at 8:13 pm

    agree with viewable edits history concept.

  • Feb 19,2006 at 7:42 pm

    I think this rule is useless. Well not useless, but the disadvantages
    outweigh the utility.

    One thing that can go wrong is: [i]I see several corrections I wish to make
    to my post. Damn >>> better make a new post.[/i] Bloated threads.

    It has the stronger repercussion of not being able to clearly contextualize
    your thoughts about a previous post. i.e. You can’t [i]add[/i] to one of your previous posts.

    there are a half a dozen other reasons I can think of too.

    I know the other side of the coin so anyone wishing to illuminate me
    on the advantages, please don’t bother.

  • Feb 19,2006 at 6:11 pm

    As madivory mentioned, the TRACK ID forum needs this feature back on asap, since the FORUM RULES disallow posting new threads – you are supposed to edit the original post with updates, not start new threads!

    I suggest to first remove the edit ability from those who abuse.

    Another could be a wikipedia like everyone viewable history of edits, making abuse editing less useful.

  • Feb 17,2006 at 10:47 am

    [b]Hauw wil i bee abel too corect al mai mistakes that i’fe hafe wrote in tis centense?[/b]

  • Feb 17,2006 at 8:52 am

    BOOOOOOE ! ! !

    Bring back the EDIT feature.

    How can I update [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=88129]this[/url]?

    It seems like I’m [u]not the only one[/u] who doesn’t like the way this is going?!

  • Feb 16,2006 at 6:16 am

    i think that’s not the best solution.
    how should we upgrade the list with the discogs-links for identified records?

    it was a cool service. so all users has a good overview about all identified tracks and have not to scroll down and down to search the tracks.

    please reactivate this!

  • Feb 16,2006 at 4:50 am

    word langster!

    ban those abusers from editing

    simple!

  • Feb 16,2006 at 4:13 am

    as langster. undo the function till teo has time.
    myspäce: don’t tell me! whoa :O

  • Feb 16,2006 at 3:53 am

    BTW MONK.

    You cannot edit posts on MYSPACE either. :P

  • Feb 16,2006 at 3:53 am

    Would be better if you could just allow edits and then when the idiots abuse the edit function either ban them from THAT forum or remove THEIR ability to edit.

  • nik
    Feb 16,2006 at 3:13 am

    Hey folks,

    Ok, fair enough questions. This ‘lockdown’ wasn’t meant as punishment or anything like that – it was introduced to stop people posting flames / troll posts then editing them after other people reply, therefore removing the original troll / flame and thereby removing their guilt.

    I am of the opinion that once someone writes a post or reply, that should remain fixed after someone else replies to it, otherwise we loose the flow of the conversation. This is how it happens in real life, we speak, then reply. This way, we have to say what we mean. The recent forum abuse just brought that into focus.

    As I said above, I will try to get Teo to put some more flexability in the code so we can at least edit our posts before others reply, and also so forum admins can set a user preference for their entire forum to allow editing. Unfortunately, there are a lot of other coding issues to do, a lot of which involve the database code (new add release form, new fields and functions for releases and artists), and frankly, the database takes priority in Teo’s coding time.

  • Feb 15,2006 at 4:46 pm

    Why don’t you just ban the 2 or 3 idiots that cause all the trouble and be done with it? Why must the rest of us suffer?

  • Feb 15,2006 at 3:15 pm

    Nik,

    Why is EVERYONE being punished because of a few….?

  • Feb 15,2006 at 11:38 am

    ok ;)

  • nik
    Feb 15,2006 at 11:09 am

    [u=MONK][i] – “show me one forum out there in the web where you can’t edit your posts…”[/i]

    Off the top of my head… [url=http://slashdot.org/]Slashdot[/url]

    As I have said – sorry to those who this affects ATM – just email the forum admin and ask for “Allow Edits” to be turned on for your topic.

    I’ll see if Teo can make it so we can still edit our posts until someone else replies, and also to get a individual forum-wide preference set by the individual forum mods.

  • Feb 15,2006 at 10:36 am

    thanks!

  • Feb 15,2006 at 10:11 am

    djKen-
    email the admin for that forum (via his contact page > [u=esteban_morientes])- he can turn editing back on for your thread, and or other threads in that forum. sucky solution, but better than nothing.

  • Feb 15,2006 at 9:57 am

    lol, typed wrong and can’t edit the post.. lol

  • Feb 15,2006 at 9:57 am

    I’m not happy with this… What do you want me to do with:

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=88735]http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=88735[/url]

    … kinda weird?

  • AEK
    Feb 15,2006 at 6:57 am

    Damn nik, can you make so it doesn’t apply within Spam or private forums???

    [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=87429]MY FOR-SALE THREAD[/url] took nearly 12 HOURS you put together, what with night on 800 links in there, and now i can no longer edit it when items are sold – SORT THIS OUT QUICK!!!!

    cheers

  • Feb 15,2006 at 6:50 am

    don’t get me wrong but atm the discogs administration treats it’s contributers once more like idiots…

    just add “allow edit posts” as a forum administration setting and you’re out of this disgrace.

  • Feb 15,2006 at 6:44 am

    i still don’t get the reason why we now (again) aren’t allowed to edit our posts. show me one forum out there in the web where you can’t edit your posts…

  • Feb 15,2006 at 6:33 am

    As above. It also lays waste to the Mixes and Mixes archive forum, especially the latter.
    Reinstate edit function for forums that won’t survive without it.

  • Feb 15,2006 at 5:23 am

    This totally defeats the intention and functionality of the [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/board?forum_id=476]Record Store Index[/url] sub-forum, so I already went in thread by thread and turned editing back on ;)

  • Feb 15,2006 at 1:12 am

    Thank you, Langster.

    The original reason for these changes are found [url=http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=8068133&blogID=86436447&indicate=1]Here![/url]

    I mean this really is gone far enough, MONK. I never had any problem with you and enough is enough. I have also had my own fair share of warnings from both teo and nik as well as several moderators.

    The reason why I am still here is obvious. And that would be because I am not the one starting all these useless flames. In fact the blank topics I created in the mixes forum allowed me to condense 6 mixes into one topic thread. You see no matter how bad things get, I do have good intentions. Stop blaming me and look at the facts, Pls!!

  • Feb 14,2006 at 5:07 pm

    “nik wrote:
    I have got Kevin to disable the ability of users to edit posts once someone else replies to them.”

    [b]This is extremely BAD and its not when someone else replies to them but for always (I tried this before).[/b]

    “dj_purity_control wrote:
    Good idea. Thank you, Nik.”

    [b]I respectfully disagree[/b]

    uzumaki wrote:
    “the forum was absolutely ideal but not now :(”

    [b]You know this sir![/b]

    “mayday wrote:
    SHIT rule

    get back to the drawing board”

    [b]You are also one who is in the knowing.[/b]

    “Ultravoid:
    The ability to edit posts was one of the most significant improvements to the discogs forums in the last few years. Removing it because of the infantile behavior of a small number of people (several of whom are banned at this point) is an overreaction worthy of the Bush administration.”

    [b]Oooooooohhhhh Word![/b]

    “dj_purity_control wrote:
    But on the other hand, that doesn’t solve the problem of other cases where certain users habitually change the thread topic, or blank the topic entirely.”

    [b]But now we can’t have a topic edited…. All the way from the Bwooklyn Unda-grown…… by the fingers of…. DJ…….. Fwankie Bowns![/b]

  • Feb 14,2006 at 4:26 pm

    As with Ultravod, this will prevent honest and USEFUL members from bothering to contribute.

  • Feb 14,2006 at 4:24 pm

    I second that!

  • Feb 14,2006 at 3:26 pm

    [Hey, I wasn’t subscribed to Discogs News, how ’bout that?]

    As I made it clear in [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=89149#1167335]another thread[/url], I think this sucks balls. I make complicated link-heavy and forum-code-encrusted posts, and even after previewing them 2 or 3 times, I don’t always catch all the errors. Furthermore, I’m dyslexic, and I might not see a spelling or grammatical nightmare of mine until I re-read the post hours (or days) later.

    The ability to edit posts was one of the most significant improvements to the discogs forums in the last few [i]years.[/i] Removing it because of the infantile behavior of a small number of people (several of whom are banned at this point) is an overreaction worthy of the Bush administration.

  • Feb 14,2006 at 2:09 pm

    i still don’t see any use in it but could it be added as a forum-wide setting pls so all forums can take it off? ta

  • nik
    Feb 14,2006 at 1:05 pm

    “Allow Edits” function is now fully working.

  • nik
    Feb 14,2006 at 9:05 am

    Ok, we now have the “Allow Edits” function being turned on ATM. This will allow forum moderators to set a topic to allow all edits in that topic. It is applied on a topic-by-topic basis. Sorry to the forum admins for any added work this entails, but I think it will solve the immediate problem for now.

  • nik
    Feb 14,2006 at 8:12 am

    There is more important stuff to do, but it is also important that we don’t trash a load of good and very usefull (could argue the most usefull) threads here because of this lockdown.

    Teo is currently seing if he can add a function “allow editing” as a forum mod set flag (like the sticky flag) for each topic.

  • Feb 14,2006 at 7:14 am

    just remove the complete function instead of arguing freakin details. let me quote nik: there is more important stuff to do

    and how often have you seen abuse of it? (keep in mind you can’t abuse qwerty)

  • Feb 14,2006 at 7:00 am

    I wrote:
    [i] [u=nik]: the intentions behind this functionality are good, but we have two good examples above where it really messes up the forums.

    Would it be possible for teo to program it so that ONLY the first post in a thread (i.e. the one by the person who started the thread) can still be edited, even after the thread has replies….?[/i]

    [u=dj_purity_control] wrote:

    [i]But on the other hand, that doesn’t solve the problem of other cases where certain users habitually change the thread topic, or blank the topic entirely.[/i]

    Ok, here’s a suggestion:

    The Edit functionality is kept, but only for [b]thread content[/b] (ability to Edit the title itself would be disabled)
    AND
    ONLY for the user who STARTS a thread.

    Users starting multiple threads maliciously could be dealt with on a case-by-case basis by forum mods.

    That way, the useful features are kept and the ones which bugger up the place are disabled.

  • nik
    Feb 14,2006 at 3:25 am

    Ahh, yes of course, this screws up a lot of extremley usefull threads :-( Sorry folks.

    Back to the drawing board, I’ll see if we can do something to keep the functionality on stickies and the like…

  • Feb 14,2006 at 2:16 am

    MONK

    It was not just introduced for bones at all. 909 (pacou) was the main instigator and when banned from the mixes forum he spent a whole day editing and changing his old posts and topics names to start more shit in there with bones. He also did it in the deleted thread in the DISCOGS GENERAL forum. Bones did not help with removing his thread titles and leaving them blank but AFAIK thats all bones does with the edit function.

    Back to the topic, I AGREE 100% with MAYDAY here, his colin faver and dale kiss FM thread is a prime example as to why this rule is not clearly thought out. Also my recent Music Festival thread and the London meet thread in the Chat forum and Monks DMT thread in the Mixes forum will all be almost unworkable and unmanagable with this new rule. I think Stickies should be completely EXEMPT from this rule until a fair decision for everyone is worked out.

    Please LET US EDIT STICKIES!!!!!

    I know nik@teo are only trying to stop all the shite that has been going on recently and fair play to them, they have far better fucking things to do than to keep giving kids detention. Rockenit707 is a prime example in a bones thread in MIXES, his posts were deleted and I presume he is now banned from the forum, but he fucked the page up with so much copy and pasting of massive posts that it crashed my browser when trying to open the thread.

  • Feb 14,2006 at 2:09 am

    A few rotten apples spoil the whole barrel

  • Feb 14,2006 at 12:21 am

    this was just introduced for bones. same happened with the 90 days rule. it was just introduced for eiskristall.
    but insted of finding a way for making it impossible to edit a thread title to [nothing] you introduce a function everybody hates. welcome to discogs. 2 seconds decisions made in the fm forum…

  • Feb 14,2006 at 12:16 am

    At least make the rule apply to only the PUBLIC forums

    I can’t see harm in that.

    But PRIVATE ones? Are you on Crack?

  • Feb 14,2006 at 12:15 am

    I started a HUGE thread in the Old Skool Lovers forum, which has mix tracklistings which were regularly getting updated as info filtered through to me

    Can’t do that anymore.

    Pathetic rule

  • Feb 14,2006 at 12:13 am

    SHIT rule

    get back to the drawing board

  • Feb 13,2006 at 11:56 pm

    Let’s all say “Thank you” to djfrankiebones, but hey no ban someone else…

  • Feb 13,2006 at 9:02 pm

    [i]”stickies and/or mods should be exempt from this”[/i]

    That may well be a good enough compromise. After all we have the Preview button. I guess if we post a link to something and the file location changes or whatever we can just do another post (or better hound mods!)

    If this isn’t implemented though – is there any point in having the edit feature outside of user controlled forums?

    BTW – if you click Edit and someone posts [i]while you’re editing[/i] can you still save it? (just out of interest)

  • Feb 13,2006 at 8:40 pm

    mods can edit previous posts in forums they moderate. i can edit in chat, electronic music, etc… but i can’t edit in here or selling, etc…

  • Feb 13,2006 at 7:34 pm

    stickies and/or mods should be exempt from this.

  • Feb 13,2006 at 6:59 pm

    I agree; it’s throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

  • Feb 13,2006 at 6:11 pm

    This is a copy of my post in the FM forum:

    [i]Ouch, that’s a very good point. I think that definitely takes a lot away from users.

    What are the posibilities of having only the first post in a thread editable? So, for example, if this was a thread in the MIXES forum, psymonkey would still be able to edit the above post?

    So, the thread “owner” is able to edit the starting post only.[/i]

  • Feb 13,2006 at 5:34 pm

    I can see your point but the solution seems a bit misguided. Why have an Edit feature at all? You’ll have to be fast as fook to correct typos/bad links. A bit pointless really.

  • Feb 13,2006 at 5:11 pm

    damn the few spoilers, there goes my idea of creating a [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=88900]Tokyo record shop guide[/url] which will take me months – the forum was absolutely ideal but not now :(

  • Feb 13,2006 at 4:29 pm

    [u=nik]: the intentions behind this functionality are good, but we have two good examples above where it really messes up the forums.

    Would it be possible for teo to program it so that ONLY the first post in a thread (i.e. the one by the person who started the thread) can still be edited, even after the thread has replies….?

  • Feb 13,2006 at 3:32 pm

    note to myself: extremely useful feature!

  • Feb 13,2006 at 3:29 pm

    hmh nice one, after ou removed me as an FM from the mixes forum without any reason except beeing one of many users who loled at bones i am now unable to edit [url=http://www.discogs.com/forums/topic?topic_id=86017]this one[/url]. cheers

  • Feb 13,2006 at 3:28 pm

    ^^^ nope, you can do that only if you’re admin.

  • Feb 13,2006 at 3:21 pm

    are you talking about the FM moderated forums? cos i still can edit posts and thread titles in self started threads in subforums

Leave A Reply