Editing posts

[Dickhouse]

Why is this not permitted? I've never been a member of a forum that does not allow post edits before! When I hit targets etc, I want to be able to change the 1st post in my log, not keep an outdated list of targets

[eLvarouza]

Most forums I've been on are like this actually. I think it results in less confusion, since you can't go back a day later and edit the first post of for example a thread where you're asking a question, which is confusing. I find it pretty confusing when people are quoting something that the guy edited out because he changed his mind or backed down or whatever. Maybe it would be something useful to have in training logs, but you can just update your progress throughout, or keep your progress in your sig.

[holvoetn]

Your targets are that: targets.
What you want to post are realizations. That's another thing.

I know about some other sites using other underlying software where editing posts is possible.
Not sure if it can be done using phpBB.

Anyhow, for the purpose of this site (and from what I understand you want to do) it is not needed at all to be able to modify your posts.
On the contrary.
When you would keep your log on paper, would you change your entries every time ? I don't think so ...
Not changing them has the advantage to look back so you can see what you where aiming for at a certain time. It may provide valuable information which you can use to learn from.

Targets are to be reviewed on a periodic basis (annually is most common). If your realizations surpass your targets, you made it too easy for yourself. That's also a lesson to be learned.

[sik0fewl]

I thought it was possible to edit your posts within a few hours or minutes (not sure what the limit is) after posting so that you can correct it. After a certain amount of time you can't edit your--this is to prevent confusion.

I agree it would be useful to be able to update the first post in one's training log.

[Edit: yep, I can edit... but only for a while ]

[mjh]

I think the time limit is about 15 minutes or so.

[Portillo]

I think its better if posts can be edited whenever. Sometimes i come back the next day and see a spelling mistake or something.

[iCookie]

Yea I hate this too. I just created a topic in the Weight Lifting forum, and found out it's full of spelling mistakes when reading it through 10 minutes later. Now I can't edit it...what's the point?

Ive never been on a forum which have time limits on editing posts....

[Mouse]

As mjh points out - you have a 15 minute window to edit your posts - that should be plenty of time.

Personally I very rarely ever submit a post or a new topic without checking the 'Preview' first to see how it will look.
That also gives you chance to read it again and check for spelling mistakes, grammar, etc.

Get into the habit of using the Preview.
Get into the habit of checking what you write.
Get out of the habit of 'fire and forget'.

It is a sign of the times - email, text messages, forums etc make it so easy to voice an opinion and fire it off into the ether.

If, after posting something you feel you want to change it, contact one of the Mod team by PM and we would be glad to assist.
Otherwise, if you post something and while posting it , think you may want to change , alter, retract what you have said in the future - then think very hard about posting it in the first place.

In business, if you send an email full of spelling mistakes, you can't edit it.

[mjh]

As mjh points out - you have a 15 minute window to edit your posts - that should be plenty of time.

actually, I think its 5 minutes. Sorry about that. But I think the point stands... why not proof read your posts before hitting submit?

[holvoetn]

In business, if you send an email full of spelling mistakes, you can't edit it.

I can tell you, receiving mails full of errors really ticks me off.

[jpez]

In business, if you send an email full of spelling mistakes, you can't edit it.

I can tell you, receiving mails full of errors really ticks me off.

Plural for mail is mail not mails. Reading this post really ticked me off!

LOL

Just kidding.

[holvoetn]

Plural for mail is mail not mails. Reading this post really ticked me off!

LOL

Just kidding.

Even when kidding, the plural of multiple electronic transmitted messages is 'mails' ...
Mail as plural is when you refer to the entire system, not the messages themselves.

Sorry for that

[jpez]

Sorry H the way I've been taught is

"I can tell you, receiving mails full of errors really ticks me off." (incorrect)

"I can tell you, receiving mail full of errors really ticks me off." (correct)

Electronic mail is email

I can tell you, receiving emails full of errors really ticks me off. (acceptable)

I can tell you, receiving email full of errors really ticks me off. (also acceptable)

[holvoetn]

Well, then you and I have dictionaries telling it differently.
And since I am not native English speaking, I am not going to argue any further about it

[atypical1]

Well, then you and I have dictionaries telling it differently.
And since I am not native English speaking, I am not going to argue any further about it

Not to belabor this point but does your dictionary really say that the plural for "mail" is "mails"? If that is the case then you are being done a disservice. The plural for "mail" is "mail". "Mails" is a verb and denotes the act of sending a letter, package, etc via the post.

E-mail can be spelled either way depending upon context. For example, "How much e-mail do you get each month?" or "Send me some e-mails when you get a chance."

Sorry for the hijack.

james