Handling of typos and spelling errors.

[mc2fool]

Almost all my posts are submitted then immediately edited and if more than a line or two re-edited each time I see them again as I spot things I just couldn't see when re-reading them last time.

Sounds like me, except it's "previewed" instead of "submitted". Indeed, it doesn't take even a line of re-editing to spot other changes needed on the next Preview.

Even if all that's (apparently) needed is a single character edit I always do another Preview and re-read it all through top to bottom again after.

[GoSeigen]

I am not arguing for the site to be customized to suit an edge case but I would appreciate greater latitude in edit time as I like to avoid comments from the minority that feel obliged to point out my errors often instructing me with things like "tenses are important" which doesn't benefit me as much as they think as I know what I should have written, and meant to, but perhaps it makes them feel better.

There is no limit to edit time. Just use the "Preview" button. That creates a preview of the post in the same format as it will appear when submitted, and there is no timeout for doing whatever edits you want to. You can then click "Preview" again (and again, unlimited times) and see the result of your changes. A time limit only arises when you have clicked the "Submit" button and the post goes live onto the site.

GS

[Lootman]

I am not arguing for the site to be customized to suit an edge case but I would appreciate greater latitude in edit time as I like to avoid comments from the minority that feel obliged to point out my errors often instructing me with things like "tenses are important" which doesn't benefit me as much as they think as I know what I should have written, and meant to, but perhaps it makes them feel better.

There is no limit to edit time. Just use the "Preview" button. That creates a preview of the post in the same format as it will appear when submitted, and there is no timeout for doing whatever edits you want to. You can then click "Preview" again (and again, unlimited times) and see the result of your changes. A time limit only arises when you have clicked the "Submit" button and the post goes live onto the site.

Undeniably true. And if I were submitting a thesis for a doctorate or an article for wide publication, then I would spend a considerable amount of time ensuring that it was as perfect as it could be prior to submitting.

But this is a glorified internet chat site. And when you consider the utter gibberish that is exchanged on Twitter, Facebook etc., then even a prematurely unedited post here is light years ahead of the average social media post that is littered with emojis, acronyms and spelling errors.

So I have some sympathy for AWOL, particularly when he talks about spelling nazis and the pedant police (my words, not his, but sympatico). Maybe we should drop impeccably high standards for spelling and grammar, as long as we can understand the point someone is making? Because the younger generation certainly do not have a lot of time for it with their text-speak and the rest.

[gryffron]

I would like the time period that posts can be edited to be expanded.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t. The ability for posters to change the meaning of their words AFTER someone has responded would not be acceptable. 10 mins is about the least time it usually takes people to respond. It’s enough if you spot a mistake immediately after posting, and no more. I think that increasing the edit time would cause much more serious problems than it would solve. The odd typo doesn’t really matter at all.

As a moderator, I never fix typos unprompted. We’re not the grammar police But I have sorted out broken quotes that occasionally result in words being incorrectly attributed to the wrong writer.

Gryff

[XFool]

I would like the time period that posts can be edited to be expanded.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t. The ability for posters to change the meaning of their words AFTER someone has responded would not be acceptable. 10 mins is about the least time it usually takes people to respond. It’s enough if you spot a mistake immediately after posting, and no more. I think that increasing the edit time would cause much more serious problems than it would solve.

I don't.

The odd typo doesn’t really matter at all.

That's your opinion. I think it is for individual posters to make that decision for themselves, apparently you don't.

Look at it another way: What harm does it do these '5 minute posters' if others are more exacting?

Why is it that some on this site always want to impose their posting habits and tendencies on others?

Perhaps that should be the matter under scrutiny?

[88V8]

I would like the time period that posts can be edited to be expanded.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t. The ability for posters to change the meaning of their words AFTER someone has responded would not be acceptable. 10 mins is about the least time it usually takes people to respond. It’s enough if you spot a mistake immediately after posting, and no more. I think that increasing the edit time would cause much more serious problems than it would solve.

I don't.

Well, I do.
Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

V8

[Newroad]

Hi All.

It's down to the moderators to adjudicate, but I think this has gone somewhat off topic.

The OP referred to correcting "blatant" typos and spelling errors. In my topic, linked to on p1 here, I referred to "obvious" ones. I cited the following three as examples

"How much do you pend on fuel"
"How much of your car runnung costs is fuel"
"Wondows 11 Address Book"

It's fine if you think it unreasonable for moderators to be empowered to correct examples such as these (especially when they are titles) but that, IMO, is the broad topic matter at hand - not the kind of editing discussion this has drifted to.

Regards, Newroad

[Lootman]

I would like the time period that posts can be edited to be expanded.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t. The ability for posters to change the meaning of their words AFTER someone has responded would not be acceptable. 10 mins is about the least time it usually takes people to respond. It’s enough if you spot a mistake immediately after posting, and no more. I think that increasing the edit time would cause much more serious problems than it would solve.

I don't.

Well, I do. Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

Yes, it does beg the question for me about what kind of edit someone would want to perform 24 or 48 hours after making a post.

I haven't used Disqus in a long time but it used to allow edits for 7 days, and it caused problems as I recall with exactly that.

Post in haste; regret at leisure.

[XFool]

I would like the time period that posts can be edited to be expanded.

I’m afraid I wouldn’t. The ability for posters to change the meaning of their words AFTER someone has responded would not be acceptable. 10 mins is about the least time it usually takes people to respond. It’s enough if you spot a mistake immediately after posting, and no more. I think that increasing the edit time would cause much more serious problems than it would solve.

I don't.

Well, I do.
Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

"rewriting history" ? You'll need to explain that. Obviously I would hope my (less flippant) posts are taken seriously, but I don't think they are actually historical.

Could it be that on TLF the default assumption of readers wrt other posters is one of bad faith? Things must have moved on from TMF, where we were advised to assume good faith on the part of other members and their posts.

Once again, I feel the commenting on this topic lacks insight and nuance: It's not simply all about "typos and spelling"

[XFool]

Hi All.

It's down to the moderators to adjudicate, but I think this has gone somewhat off topic.

The OP referred to correcting "blatant" typos and spelling errors. In my topic, linked to on p1 here, I referred to "obvious" ones. I cited the following three as examples

"How much do you pend on fuel"
"How much of your car runnung costs is fuel"
"Wondows 11 Address Book"

It's fine if you think it unreasonable for moderators to be empowered to correct examples such as these (especially when they are titles) but that, IMO, is the broad topic matter at hand - not the kind of editing discussion this has drifted to.

Well, then my answer is "No!"

Or is it? That's the point. If I say "No", which I just did, then it's down to me. But then, if it's down to me it does involve "the kind of editing discussion this has drifted to".

[XFool]

Well, I do. Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

Yes, it does beg the question for me about what kind of edit someone would want to perform 24 or 48 hours after making a post.

I have no idea (I guess I could come up with some ideas if I tried), but as nobody is asking for "24 or 48 hours" editing time - that I know of - what is the point of the question? I have only asked for an "increase", without specifying any numbers. Just more than now. Obviously this could be extended indefinitely and yet still never be a complete solution. So I will just stick with "longer" (minutes rather than days).

[Lootman]

Well, I do. Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

Yes, it does beg the question for me about what kind of edit someone would want to perform 24 or 48 hours after making a post.

I have no idea (I guess I could come up with some ideas if I tried), but as nobody is asking for "24 or 48 hours" editing time - that I know of - what is the point of the question? I have only asked for an "increase", without specifying any numbers. Just more than now. Obviously this could be extended indefinitely and yet still never be a complete solution. So I will just stick with "longer" (minutes rather than days).

If you wish the site sponsors to consider your request to "improve" the site with a change, then I believe it is incumbent upon you to both specify the magnitude of the change (i.e. how long an edit window you request)

AND

to justify that by explaining what kind of change cannot be accommodated by the existing window, as I suggested.

Without both of those I suspect your odds of succeeding here are close to zero.

[XFool]

...Irony of ironies. Have I just found yet another issue to justify comments about how a "five minute" reply may not be the be all and end all of replying to and editing TLF posts?

Attempting to edit a reply to this post have just been sabotaged by the TLF site failing. So for this one it has to be an offline and tediously repeated hand edited reply.

Well, I do. Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

Yes, it does beg the question for me about what kind of edit someone would want to perform 24 or 48 hours after making a post.

I have no idea (I guess I could come up with some ideas if I tried), but as nobody is asking for "24 or 48 hours" editing time - that I know of - what is the point of the question? I have only asked for an "increase", without specifying any numbers. Just more than now. Obviously this could be extended indefinitely and yet still never be a complete solution. So I will just stick with "longer" (minutes rather than days).

If you wish the site sponsors to consider your request to "improve" the site with a change, then I believe it is incumbent upon you to both specify the magnitude of the change (i.e. how long an edit window you request)

AND

to justify that by explaining what kind of change cannot be accommodated by the existing window, as I suggested.

Apart from my own prior explanations (much mocked in some quarters - TLF Rules*, anybody?), I believe a previous poster here has already given some insight into why a more enlightened attitude could be helpful.



* Your Responsibilities as Users of the Site

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/app.php/rules

"To make this a valued and successful discussion forum, LemonFool asks all users to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters"

[Lootman]

...Irony of ironies. Have I just found yet another issue to justify comments about how a "five minute" reply may not be the be all and end all of replying to and editing TLF posts?

Attempting to edit a reply to this post have just been sabotaged by the TLF site failing. So for this one it has to be an offline and tediously repeated hand edited reply.

Well, I do. Five minutes is ample to correct our words, after that one may be rewriting history.

Yes, it does beg the question for me about what kind of edit someone would want to perform 24 or 48 hours after making a post.

I have no idea (I guess I could come up with some ideas if I tried), but as nobody is asking for "24 or 48 hours" editing time - that I know of - what is the point of the question? I have only asked for an "increase", without specifying any numbers. Just more than now. Obviously this could be extended indefinitely and yet still never be a complete solution. So I will just stick with "longer" (minutes rather than days).

If you wish the site sponsors to consider your request to "improve" the site with a change, then I believe it is incumbent upon you to both specify the magnitude of the change (i.e. how long an edit window you request)

AND

to justify that by explaining what kind of change cannot be accommodated by the existing window, as I suggested.

Apart from my own prior explanations (much mocked in some quarters - TLF Rules*, anybody?), I believe a previous poster here has already given some insight into why a more enlightened attitude could be helpful.

* Your Responsibilities as Users of the Site

https://www.lemonfool.co.uk/app.php/rules

"To make this a valued and successful discussion forum, LemonFool asks all users to be respectful, understanding and helpful to other posters"

Any chance you could answer the two questions I asked, rather than going off on some tangent?

[XFool]

Any chance you could answer the two questions I asked, rather than going off on some tangent?

Answering a question of yours is NOT "going off on some tangent".

BTW I have noticed your selectivity in answering questions when I ask them of you, so I reserve the right to be similarly selective.

What's sauce for the goose...

[Lootman]

Any chance you could answer the two questions I asked, rather than going off on some tangent?

Answering a question of yours is NOT "going off on some tangent".

This has nothing to do with me. I was merely suggesting that if you want to achieve a change here then you have to actually prescribe the actual change you want AND to explain the benefits.

And you did not "answer my question". Quite the reverse. You appear to prefer to avoid doing that and so your attempt at change will fail. Again.

[doolally]

What's source for the goose...

Quick..... you've only got a few minutes to correct that typo
doolally

[Lootman]

What's source for the goose...

Quick..... you've only got a few minutes to correct that typo
doolally

Ooh, you have a sauce.

[XFool]

What's source for the goose...

Quick..... you've only got a few minutes to correct that typo
doolally

Just in time! Thanks.

(A further example? I call it "keyboard dyslexia")

[XFool]

As I already pointed out, my response to the original poll is likely "No", but this then does implicitly raise editing matters.

So, to summarise. We have these matters to address:

Spelling & Typos
"keyboard dyslexia" - my description
Grammar & Syntax
Clarification & Correcting ambiguity
Style & Nuance
TLF server/network issues
Some people have particular issues

MY suggestion, which is simplicity itself, is to extend the post editing time by some relatively short period (e.g. 10, 15 minutes? Not hours, days, weeks, months, years, decades...)

It can't and won't solve everything at a stroke. But IT WILL HELP. And I repeat: It is simple

(At least it is apart from the pile on of complexicators and some people seeking to be obliquely personal...)