Why can't users edit their own posts?

Other forums allow this (e.g. Microsoft) so why can't we?

Discussion is locked

Reply to: Why can't users edit their own posts?
PLEASE NOTE: Do not post advertisements, offensive materials, profanity, or personal attacks. Please remember to be considerate of other members. If you are new to the CNET Forums, please read our CNET Forums FAQ. All submitted content is subject to our Terms of Use.
Reporting: Why can't users edit their own posts?
This post has been flagged and will be reviewed by our staff. Thank you for helping us maintain CNET's great community.
Sorry, there was a problem flagging this post. Please try again now or at a later time.
If you believe this post is offensive or violates the CNET Forums' Usage policies, you can report it below (this will not automatically remove the post). Once reported, our moderators will be notified and the post will be reviewed.
- Collapse -
It was mooted in the forum changeover.

As noted, preview is your edit. If spammers, porn link posters, disruptive posters et al could change their posts at will, mods would be useless to act. therefore, the forums would be not moderated, chaos would ensue.

- Collapse -
I wonder why "chaos has (not) ensued" on the MS forums.

Microsoft has orders of magnitude more posts than there here, yet chaos hasn't ensued there. Have you ever wondered why that is? Pardon my skepticism, but that answer sound like something some bureaucrat with no real experience in this area came up with.

- Collapse -
I just tested on, they allow it too. No...

...chaos there either. That sure does make me wonder. As someone who spend many years working in a huge company, this sure reminds of things I've seen. Some bureaucrat makes a decision that makes no sense, and everybody goes along saying "I know it makes no sense, but we have to do it anyway". All too familiar. Sad

- Collapse -
It was "mooted" long before the changeover. See this link.

I've gone to the forum feedback and announcements FAQ and found this:
It's dated 2009 with a 2010 update so that was at least 5 years before the big update last year. One quote from Lee Koo jumps out at me:

Thus, as our forum administrator, Lee Koo, has said on the subject, "as discussed in the past, once history has been made--it sticks. So as it stands, it is very unlikely that we will ever allow editing of posts. I'm sorry and I hope you understand where I'm coming from."

I can't believe it. By that logic we should all be riding around with horse driven buggies, heating our homes with coal and firewood, having no air conditioning and maybe nothing electric, certainly not anything like computers! Shocked
Somebody please tell me this forum is not that out of touch before I decide to move to one of the forums that DOES allow users to edit their own posts, and not follow some old obsolete bureaucratic decision that makes no sense! Cry I'm serious. This forum has been shrinking for a good while, and it appears that it's starting to fade into the dust anyway. Beginning with when CBS ruined, followed by the big change last year, I've been increasingly disappointed with what I've seen here. Maybe it's time to give up on CNET and move on?

- Collapse -
I Vote

That Lee makes wpgwpg a MOD so he can edit his posts Devil

- Collapse -

I meant to add this to my last post for wpg

- Collapse -
There're lots of ways it could be done safely.

They could say you have to earn the edit privilege by making some number of posts without problem. Maybe 25, maybe 100, I don't care, l've got over 4800. Maybe you'd have to have been a registered user some length of time. There are lots of ways of doing it if you want to do something intelligent and not bureaucratically sticking your head in the sand and saying "that's the way we've always done it".

- Collapse -
See what you're saying.

Maybe some sort of trusted member scheme? Because if every new member had the right to edit, the spammers would tie us in knots.

- Collapse -
You have to watch for spammers whatever you do but...

...I understand your concern, even though Microsoft and don't have a problem with it. I suspect it's more of an academic concern than a real one, but I understand and respect the concern. Most of the spammers I've seen here post a few notes (maybe 5 or 6?) and are never seen or heard from ever again. If you lock their IDs from future posts (as you probably already do), that would severely limit the harm they could do it would seem to me. I will say I don't envy your having to deal with them!

- Collapse -
(NT) Digger, thanks but no thanks! I don't want that job. :-)
- Collapse -
Most of what John said I agree with.

Maybe Lee would like to comment on this. Would be a shame to see you go because you're very knowledgeable and helpful. If memory serves me correctly, didn't you "leave" a while ago over some issue?

- Collapse -
I did restrict posting once until filters were put in place.

The message here, Dafydd, is that we shouldn't have to put up with old bureaucratic rules that have no logical basis when there're plenty of forums that don't have such. "That's the way it's always been" is not a sensible answer, especially in the fast changing technology business.

- Collapse -
Allowing users to edit post is something I have on our...

forums road map. Once we get some resources, we will built this feature.

That post of mine that you referenced from many years ago is not where I stand today on allowing forum users to edit their own posts. Trust me I have been wanting to allow our members to edit their posts for many years --it's just finding resources to do it.

If I still stood that ground on not allowing people to edit their own posts, I would've never allowed our members to edit their own comments in CNET articles and reviews. You can see today and for the past 4-5 years that we DO allowing our members to edit their comments those areas of our site--currently once you submit a comment you have 10 mins to edit your post. Once that window of opportunity expires, it is set in stone.

Unfortunately for the forums it's not that easy because our forums are built in-house. So all these features you see here in the forums were custom built and not something I can just "turn on" as it has to be engineered, tested, and deployed. On the other hand our comments platform utilizing a third party software --some of the features are simple to implement or remove with a flip of a switch.

I know many people have requested the edit feature and I want it too. It's a matter of prioritizing our resources for feature sets not just for the CNET forums but for the rest CNET. And when resources are pulled every which way, it is hard to get them.

wpgwpg, I do truly appreciate all your contributions to this community--our members appreciate it. Your knowledge is invaluable. And I wish I can please everyone, but when my hands are tied for the lack of resources to get features out like this, it will slip to a lower priority when you have an entire site to manage and run--the forums are only a small footprint of our site. So I'm sorry about your frustrations and I want to tell you up front the challenges I face behind the scenes and I hope you understand. If you don't, no worries. Until you are in my position and work behind the scenes most would never understand.

If we were to implement the ability to allow our members to edit their own post in the forums, the implementation would be similar to our comments system where you will have a set amount of mins (ie 15-20 minutes) to edit your own post. After that window of opportunity expires, the post sticks with no editing ability.

Does that sound fair?


Post was last edited on January 14, 2016 2:47 PM PST

- Collapse -
Thanks for the reply Lee.

I appreciate your position Lee. I worked for a huge company for 3 decades, so I know how difficult making changes can be.
But getting back to your suggestion of 15-20 minutes and then closing the ability to edit, I have something different in mind. You've got to deal with spammers, I understand that. However Microsoft,, and BleepingComputer all allow a user to go back and edit his post (not anybody else's) at any time, and that's what I think is reasonable.
Maybe you have to have a user make a given no. of posts before you can be reasonably sure they aren't spammers. I could live with that, however these 3 forums have no such restrictions. So my friend, I wish you the best, but these forums are where I will be in the next few months. I'll check back here every few months to see if anything has changed here, but you have other problems here that're annoying too. E.g. that "I'm sorry Dave..." message that I was seeing a dozen times a day.
I can imagine how frustrating it must be to deal with the CBS bureaucracy, but the bottom line for me is that I will go where I DON'T have to suffer from it.

- Collapse -
easy answer

1) You say insulting and inflaming things to someone. They reply in kind. You remove yours. Moderator only sees theirs.

2) You say nothing wrong, but someone has it in for you, so they claim in a post after yours that you said "this and that" and then removed it. They also insult you to "prove" they were offended.

- Collapse -
Why then isn't it a problem w/3 forums I mentioned?

From a purely academic theoretical point what you say is a possibility. From a real world perspective, it's not a problem for the 3 forums I listed. And if it were a problem, I already listed ways to prevent it. You must not've seen that in this thread.
I used to work with a guy who's favorite expression was "just because you're paranoid, that doesn't mean they're not out to get you"! Grin

- Collapse -
Would this idea work for you

What if the OP, and the OP only, could be edited for a limited amount of time or until the first response to it was posted? There could be rules as to what sort of editing would be permitted. Edited posts could also be marked as such being that they may have already been viewed.

CNET Forums

Forum Info