This six hour deadline is crazy, it's nowhere near enough – in fact, do away with it all together.
Give folk the chance to edit their work whenever they like - the quality of subs would rocket.
I’m sure everybody would like the chance to go back and revisit some of their earlier stuff – tweak it here and there – improve on it.
I’m sure there are things out there that we regret posting too and would like the opportunity to redeem ourselves. I think it’s a little unfair that you can’t go back and put things right.
We are not all able to knock one off in just a few minutes. It takes some of us ages to muddle through and get things right.
Come on JOF, you don’t whack your own stuff off in just a few minutes.
Give us a break.
Quick links: NewsBiscuit Home • Chat Room • Writers' Room • Top Ten
PLEASE Can we have the edit deadline lifted
(32 posts) (15 voices)
-
Gerontius
offlineMemberPosted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberI agree.
I need to have the safety net of editing. Especially when I decide to post after alcohol.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberBecause generally, I'm pissed when I write the things I then want to edit, and using Word etc is beyond me by that point.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberBefore we moved to this fancy new site, with its abundance of stainless steel and glass, there was no time limit on edits.
That meant that you could post a reply directly under someone rather than have to "@" them so that it was clear who your response was meant for, and we could edit subs at anytime, meaning we could incorporate additions, suggestions, sort out typos etc.
It also meant that if you kept a thread going for long enough, your post was seen vertically...
Posted 10 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberI think it's good to have a time limit, it adds focus and encourages people to only submit something after they've given it some thought. The trouble with editing it after the initial submission is that people are unlikely to read it a second time anyway.
Maybe 6 hours is a bit short, but it needs to be reasonably strict.
Posted 10 months ago # -
weematt
offlineMember@sinnick - Do you really mean the thread to be frozen or just the original sub? Currently there is no limit in going back and dredging up an old sub and thread by making a reply. Our replica handbag correspondent uses this feature.
General point: If I wish to 'edit' my sub after the time limit I am required to post a reply or even a new sub which puts the sub artificially back to the top. A longer time limit would go towards reducing this effect.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I quite like the deadline being there. The fact that I know I can't edit something in the morning if I post while pissed has so far stopped me from posting much while pissed.
Also, I sometimes keep re-visiting subs and tweaking bits and pieces after I've posted them. If there was no deadline then I could end up doing that indefinitely, and I like to at least try to get some work done from time to time.
I've subbed some terrible stuff, which I would probably edit/delete if I had the opportunity. But what's the point in pretending that I've only posted good subs? I know I've posted some which, in hindsight, are shit, and I've tried to learn from it and only sub something if I'm happy with it.
Posted 10 months ago # -
I like the 6 hour limit. I have a habbit of posting then tweaking for an hour but that is usually just words or mistakes. With regards to bumping a sub, if you are making changes to a sub, surely you want people to see them. If your sub is on p2 or at the bottom of p1 then it is unlikely. If the edits are because of suggestions and added contributions i see nothing wrong with a new sub with the appropriate hat tips
Posted 10 months ago # -
How do you define a “sensible” time period? Is 24 hours more sensible just because it’s longer? Does that mean that 5 hours would be less sensible because it’s shorter? And 15 hours, 12 minutes and 34 seconds would be more sensible than 6 hours, because it’s longer, but not as sensible as 24 hours? And that 25 hours would be even more sensible than 24 hours? And 3,459,226 hours would be really sensible?
Or is how “sensible” a time period is measured on some sort of curve, with 24 hours being the absolute peak of the curve and anything shorter or longer being less sensible? If so, how was this curve derived?
You really need to explain yourself better at times or you’ll just leave more questions than answers bonjo.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberI remember when this was all fields...
Posted 10 months ago # -
beau-jolly
offlineMemberSay you write something shite and everyone ignores it. You then edit it to the best piece ever written but it's too late as everyone has already ignored it.
I think the edit function should just be there to let you correct typos if you want to, in which case a few minutes is enough.Also.
It's bloody annoying when an edit has been done after a comment as you can't see what happened:
This is shit
You are right I have edited it
Much better
What is much better and than what?However:
You can be beastly to someone, hope they react within 6 hours, and then edit your beastliness so it is all lovely and cuddly leaving your victim looking like a right cnut.In 5hrs and 59 minutes I will edit all this down to "I agree with whatever Wayland says"
Posted 10 months ago # -
Ironduke
offlineMemberThere was once an occasion when Jeni B agreed with me, and said so (I know, I know!)swiftly after I'd made my bold statement.
I was so dumbstruck I did the only sensible and mature thing; I edited the my original post to read 'Scotland smells of willies' or something similar, and had merry chortles.
Wot larks!
Posted 10 months ago # -
Gerontius
offlineMemberTommy Cooper went to the doctor
Tommy: Doctor, every time I do this it hurts
Doctor: well, don't do it
It's a bit like that with editing subs.
If you don't want to do it - then fine - don't do it. Nobody is forcing you to.
In which case, the six hour deadline doesn't affect or apply to you.
So I don't quite see your arguement
It applies to those of us who struggle with it - not those of you who don't.
It discriminates against those who need more time to sort things out.
If you are gifted enough to just knock them off at will then I envy you.
But not all of us are that clever.
But give me enough time and I am happy to put my GCSE English (B) up against your University Degree
One thing for sure, I can absolutely guarantee 100% that if it was lifted you would all take advantage of it.
Oh yes. Yes siree, siree oh yes.Posted 10 months ago # -
weematt
offlineMemberWhy 6 hours? Nobody has justified that choice so far.
If you sub before starting work there is a good chance you will not be able to edit after you finish unless you can edit during your working day. If you sub late at night you will probably not be able to edit unless you combine editing with another nocturnal activity, such as going for a pee.
Make it 12 hours which would span working day and sleeping night or vice versa.Posted 10 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberIt's 6 hours because scientifically, it's the correct answer.
Having longer to edit things would cause a conflict as editors try and edit something to use as a NiB or FP, only for the author to whine that their subsequent edit was far better.
6 hours is box fresh, dope and enormously fly. Any other time period would be somewhat whack.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberNo time limit worked perfectly well before, and can again.
Give us lesser mortals that get-out, please!
Posted 10 months ago # -
waylandsmithy
offlineMemberAre you arguing with science, Jeni? Science can be vengeful, if you give it the arse.
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberI laugh in the face of your 'science'!!
Science angers the gods you know...
Posted 10 months ago # -
The All New Jeni B
offlineMemberNo...
Posted 10 months ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.