Please Simplify Post Editing RRS feed

  • Question

  • MSFT guys, please remove that irritating featue that requires us to explain every editorial intervention. What kind of lunacy is it? What is the practical value of it for you? It wastes our time immensely. Besides, there are bugs in there and some "notes" "Edited by so and so" appear multiple times. Who invented it? It is totally crazy!

    Why don't you think about practical side of what you are trying to set up first and then implement it.

    Out of curiosity I made a spelling correction and as "reason" I put: "no reason/unreasonable." I'll see how it will take it. What if the correction is going to be rejected? I am really nervous:)

    Here we go.
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008 3:20 PM

All replies

  • Yes I many times correct my typos or such but is it really necessary to add "Fixed typos"? So what if some one updates a post 5 times? Is it too much to have 5 "Fixed/updated"? And do people want to write some reason every time? Maybe some people want and some don't. Is there actually some reason to have the edit reason obligatory? By the way, many other forums don't require that, but well... its not much of an obstacle either.
    • Edited by Silvercode Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:30 PM There are obstacles
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:24 PM
  • It drives me nuts. When you are posting actively those extra seconds really add up. It also irritates you to be inventive, to come up with an excise nobody will evr read. Who came up with this ridiculous idea? What was wrong with the old design? It wastes our time and their server space. There are bugs in there. The code must have been set up to analyze the "reason." Do you accumulate statistics on it?

    Just pure lunacy.
    Wednesday, July 9, 2008 8:46 PM
  • I agree.  Mostly I just type "blah" or "buh" as the editing reason anymore.  It's like the feature was designed by someone who has never actually posted on a message board and doesn't understand how often people will do minor edits for spelling or the like.
    Thursday, July 10, 2008 6:42 AM
  • What I suggest is you keep the reason box, but make it optional. If someone makes a minor edit, they can completely ignore the reason edit box, otherwise if they feel the need, they can put something there.

    Makes everyone happy, and is simple to implement.
    Thursday, July 10, 2008 6:59 AM
  •   how often people will do minor edits for spelling or the like.

    Yes, especially given the fact that their so called speller is so rigid it is a tatal nuisance. I've given up on it. Another wasted resource.
    Thursday, July 10, 2008 1:24 PM
  • There might be a more nuanced solution that is required here.  Perhaps we shouldn't require edit notes for the original poster (although I actually do like seeing them, especially if I'm tracking down a he said / they said kind of problem), but we should definitely require edit notes for moderators who are editing other people's posts.  I'm not sure there's a good enough case in the moderator scenario where a moderator shouldn't be entering in edit notes.

    Jeremy Kelley
    Monday, July 14, 2008 10:16 PM
  •  But we should definitely require edit notes for moderators who are editing other people's posts. 

    I wish them doing it more frequently if they ever do it. I mean they never do. Had it been the case we would not have seen so many ugly posts in the forums. And in an unlikely scenario that a moderator edits a post, under no circumstances I want to see what he did and why. It is their own business and I think you are showing a very unhelathy curiosity that I doubt will generate much support. People who are curious of what kind of spelling error has been corrected probably should consider visiting language.English news forum in usenet. They will feel more in a comfort zone over there.
    Monday, July 14, 2008 11:37 PM