May moderators lift the limit of edits of a post

Can a limit of edits per entry be lifted?

Informed by an update scanner, I was on the way to update the table in a post of mine here (number 86) about Fortran’s return to higher ranks in Tiobe’s index; it would become edit number 14. This time however, the usual pen symbol to open the entry no longer is available to me on this post:

while for a later post (here, same thread, entry 88) there is:

I would like to request the moderators either to remove this hard limit of 13 edits (max) on this particular entry 86 for good, or to increase the limit of edits by five (for a total of then 19) which would allow edits up to and including of December 2023. In case the second option were granted, I could switch to a monitoring to one table per year. (This tracking project is driven by personal interest, the updates require only a few keystrokes on my side.)

Shouldn’t 13 edits be enough to track 12 months? You could even start a new topic just with these updates to monitor them.

@milancurcic do you mind lifting the limit? We can probably lift it for any post. What is the purpose of limiting the amount of edits you can do?

The current limit is based on time (360 days), not the number of edits, but in this case they’re consistent (12 months).

We have already lifted the time limit from the default (an hour or so) to very long (360 days).

I don’t understand the pros and cons of different edit time limits, but I assume that the defaults are Discourse’s best practice for communities based on their experience.

If you want the limit completely removed, please upvote this post. If you object, please write below. I’ll lift the limit tomorrow if there are no objections.

Most Internet forums allow unlimited post edits and ZERO post deletions. A user should not be able to completely remove their own post, that is a moderation activity if something is deemed inappropriate. Users able to delete posts in the middle of what used to be conversations destroys the historical record aspect of a forum, limiting clarity in the future. Users may choose to replace the content of their post with nothing, but at least the post is there to indicate in the future that at one point, there was content.

I think there’s a way to make a topic a “Wiki-topic”, in which case it may be editable forever, while keeping the usual edit limits for all other posts. I think that would satisfy the need raised in this thread.

1 Like

Usually the original poster would note that corrections or additions have been made to the post. In any case, everyone should be able to see the edit history, so if someone really wants to know the history, it is still there.

There are legitimate reasons to edit old posts, but I don’t think such edits will be common, and there is potential for abuse. I suggest that such edits be allowed but only after a moderators approves of the edit.

1 Like

I just made your post a Wiki. A big Edit button now appears for me in the lower-right corner. Can you give it a try?

Yes, this is the exact same issue caused by users able to delete their own posts. For this reason I usually insert the quote block in “replies to a post” rather than broadly to the topic. Even then, if the quoted post eventually disappears, then continuity in the future looking back is still an issue, especially for out of sequence replies.

I can edit it now, so I assume anyone can (or at least anyone with my trust level, which is “Regular”). Was this your intention?

Edit: I just realized, I can make my own posts into a wiki, too. Feel free to sign down here, if you can edit this post:
Carl
Ivan
PierU
Tyranids
epagone

2 Likes

That’s weird if anyone can edit a wikified post… Is there a way to grant finer grain permissions/denials ?

At least, you have to be logged in. Everyone can see who did which edit.

Except if two people edit in a very short time. You can see this when Ivan signed my comment, it looks like he did the entire edit, which I made before.

@Carltoffel I agree to the point 12 edits to cover 12 months would be fine under the assumption every thing works fine, and there are no (unintentional) errors as e.g. a typo spot later, after the commit. For their correction, access to some additional margin of operation (before reaching the actual limit of a setup) can be helpful.

@kargl For the particular post in question, subsequent edits were constrained to the addition of the new «readings» of Tiobe’s statistics. Each edit, both below the table, as well as the attached .csv came with an explicit time stamp (in addition to the version history of the post). On the other hand, there was no intent for substantial change of the content of the single post. Simultaneously, there was/is the recommendation by other subscribes to not engage too much resources in logging Tiobe’s statistics; hence, it likely takes about 3 mn per month or less by now (incl. deposit of a copy on archive and upload/substitution of the .csv here on fortran-lang.)

@milancurcic Thank you very much for the adjustment on this particular post, an edit as a Wiki is functional and is working fine. In continuation of the previously used pattern, the July '23 data and an attached .csv (about all monthly Tiobe readings available on archive.org, first entry dates back July 2016) are added. From my perspective, please consider the case as closed successfully.

2 Likes

Thank you for maintaining the TIOBE table!