Pony update: editing after posting January 22, 2009 6:33 PM Subscribe
Is there any update on the "edit your post/comment after posting" pony?
Hadn't seen anything since then, unless I missed something.
Hadn't seen anything since then, unless I missed something.
You need to go into your preferences and click the "yes" radio button next to "cabal?".
posted by dead cousin ted at 6:43 PM on January 22, 2009 [3 favorites]
posted by dead cousin ted at 6:43 PM on January 22, 2009 [3 favorites]
It went live for two and a half minutes, but the moderators reconsidered.
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 6:48 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by fantabulous timewaster at 6:48 PM on January 22, 2009
pb: But we're acting on the premise that a three minute window isn't enough time in most cases to act on new information.
That's maybe a faulty premise.
posted by carsonb at 6:50 PM on January 22, 2009
That's maybe a faulty premise.
posted by carsonb at 6:50 PM on January 22, 2009
If every edited comment has an unobtrusive (yet obvious) link to a pre-edit version of the comment, and you can only edit a comment once, I don't see how it would invite more jerkiness than being able to just type in a regular-old un-edited comment.
posted by popechunk at 7:01 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by popechunk at 7:01 PM on January 22, 2009
Things are more or less finalized with the feature, we're just waiting for the perfect moment to launch it. We know there's going to be some initial confusion so we need to choose our time carefully when we can all be around to keep an eye on how it goes. I'm guessing we're in the weeks rather than months range on releasing it.
posted by pb (staff) at 7:13 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 7:13 PM on January 22, 2009
popechunk, what do you think the worst case scenario is for the feature as it stands now? The feature now had unlimited editing in a three minute window, and no history available to the public. That doesn't seem too ripe for abuse to me, beyond a "JERKZ!" that gets deleted. To me the worst case is that jerky comment is up for a few minutes, and admins can monitor editing activity and banhammer appropriately.
posted by pb (staff) at 7:17 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 7:17 PM on January 22, 2009
Don't launch it now. Wouldn't want to take the spotlight off Obama.
posted by gman at 7:19 PM on January 22, 2009 [7 favorites]
posted by gman at 7:19 PM on January 22, 2009 [7 favorites]
and no history available to the public. [...] and admins can monitor editing activity and banhammer appropriately.
If all the work has been done so that edits can be checked by admins, why not everyone?
posted by Chuckles at 8:07 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
If all the work has been done so that edits can be checked by admins, why not everyone?
posted by Chuckles at 8:07 PM on January 22, 2009 [1 favorite]
Chuckles, I'm afraid that opening up all edits to everyone would add a new level to reading the site that would take away from the primary conversations. Threads would start to have comments about past edits and they would creep into the conversation instead of acting as a way to clean up typos. We have MetaTalk to handle issues outside of threads and that works ok to keep threads on topic rather than about the site itself. But an editing history is kind of like having a MetaTalk-like space within the thread itself and I don't think that would go very well.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:14 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 8:14 PM on January 22, 2009
I don't much care one way or the other about this feature, but.. The more information hidden in the back end, the less "self-policing" and the more top down control.
Threads would start to have comments about past edits and they would creep into the conversation instead of acting as a way to clean up typos.
Only if edits that go beyond cleaning up typos exist to comment on, I'd think.
Well, that and the inevitable pointless digressions that already show up from time to time in MetaFilter, and all the time in MetaTalk. That won't be any different than it is now though. I mean, a given pointless digression happens to center on an edit, but without the edit it would have centered on the typo, so what difference does it make?
posted by Chuckles at 8:40 PM on January 22, 2009
Threads would start to have comments about past edits and they would creep into the conversation instead of acting as a way to clean up typos.
Only if edits that go beyond cleaning up typos exist to comment on, I'd think.
Well, that and the inevitable pointless digressions that already show up from time to time in MetaFilter, and all the time in MetaTalk. That won't be any different than it is now though. I mean, a given pointless digression happens to center on an edit, but without the edit it would have centered on the typo, so what difference does it make?
posted by Chuckles at 8:40 PM on January 22, 2009
I think the difference is that an edit history becomes another space for conversation that detracts from the main thread. I could see entire sub-conversations happening within edit histories on purpose. And while amusing, I think it could pose a serious problem for the site. In any implementation I can think of, edit histories would need to be in a separate "space", either a separate page, window, or modal window because the edits need to be hidden from view. And that act of breaking out of the space of the thread to have the complete conversation hurts the site, I think.
posted by pb (staff) at 8:57 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by pb (staff) at 8:57 PM on January 22, 2009
pb, do you ever feel bad that matt doesn't invite you to the podcasts?
posted by boo_radley at 9:35 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by boo_radley at 9:35 PM on January 22, 2009
yes
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 10:32 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 10:32 PM on January 22, 2009
no
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 10:33 PM on January 22, 2009
posted by Fuzzy Skinner at 10:33 PM on January 22, 2009
"Things are more or less finalized with the feature, we're just waiting for the perfect moment to launch it. We know there's going to be some initial confusion so we need to choose our time carefully when we can all be around to keep an eye on how it goes."
In other words, when all the Obama madness dies down and there's less moderation to worry about.
posted by Eideteker at 11:45 PM on January 22, 2009
In other words, when all the Obama madness dies down and there's less moderation to worry about.
posted by Eideteker at 11:45 PM on January 22, 2009
This is a bod idea.
posted by brundlefly at 2:03 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by brundlefly at 2:03 AM on January 23, 2009
I think it is a bod idea too.
The immutability forces consideration before posting. Many threads move so fast I struggle to keep up now, why take away the stick of permanence that forces a little consideration?
posted by bystander at 2:15 AM on January 23, 2009
The immutability forces consideration before posting. Many threads move so fast I struggle to keep up now, why take away the stick of permanence that forces a little consideration?
posted by bystander at 2:15 AM on January 23, 2009
Bod, bod, if only I had three minutes to edit
-not really-
posted by bystander at 2:16 AM on January 23, 2009
-not really-
posted by bystander at 2:16 AM on January 23, 2009
we're just waiting for the perfect moment to launch it
I believe we're scheduled to pass into the Tretā Yuga in 4100 AD. That seems like an auspicious time.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:30 AM on January 23, 2009
I believe we're scheduled to pass into the Tretā Yuga in 4100 AD. That seems like an auspicious time.
posted by Wolfdog at 4:30 AM on January 23, 2009
Just do it pb. Otherwise it will be another TravelFilter.
posted by smackfu at 6:55 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by smackfu at 6:55 AM on January 23, 2009
popechunk, what do you think the worst case scenario is for the feature as it stands now? The feature now had unlimited editing in a three minute window, and no history available to the public.
I don't think that's necessarily bad, and it might work better than my idea if attention-whores can only reach an audience of mods with quickly de-fanged comments.
My concern was that people with axes to grind would routinely publish over-the-line comments that they let soak in the thread for a minute or two, and then elided the bad parts, and claimed to anyone who called them on it that they had a change of heart, realized the error of their ways, and quickly fixed their comment.
In other words, I think it lets you say things that you can quickly un-say, meaning you have to be enough of a pest to come to the attention of the mods before you get called on it. Whereas if anyone can view these kinds of things, they become part of your comment history here (part of your reputation), and some of our more sharp-eyed contributors will surely catch you.
The flaw with my idea, I guess, is that people will make this comment first:
"Actually, I think the poster is a fool."
And then quickly edit it to be:
"Hey, nice post."
and only members used to the edit history feature will know about the sub rosa subtext.
So your idea is probably better.
posted by popechunk at 7:06 AM on January 23, 2009
I don't think that's necessarily bad, and it might work better than my idea if attention-whores can only reach an audience of mods with quickly de-fanged comments.
My concern was that people with axes to grind would routinely publish over-the-line comments that they let soak in the thread for a minute or two, and then elided the bad parts, and claimed to anyone who called them on it that they had a change of heart, realized the error of their ways, and quickly fixed their comment.
In other words, I think it lets you say things that you can quickly un-say, meaning you have to be enough of a pest to come to the attention of the mods before you get called on it. Whereas if anyone can view these kinds of things, they become part of your comment history here (part of your reputation), and some of our more sharp-eyed contributors will surely catch you.
The flaw with my idea, I guess, is that people will make this comment first:
"Actually, I think the poster is a fool."
And then quickly edit it to be:
"Hey, nice post."
and only members used to the edit history feature will know about the sub rosa subtext.
So your idea is probably better.
posted by popechunk at 7:06 AM on January 23, 2009
I think at a few years and many threads into the back-and-forth on it we're pretty far through the whether-or-not-this-should-happen conversation: Matt's finally decided to go for it, we've talked about it a bunch lately both in metatalk and behind the scenes in the Mod Room to try and iron out the details, and we're going to give it a try.
It could turn out to be a disaster, but I really don't think it's going to be, and I'm saying that as possibly the most historically skeptical person on the team toward this idea. I expect it to basically be a non-issue administratively and a nice improvement for users and that's about it, and we'll be watching what goes down behind the scenes pretty darned carefully to make sure anybody who tries to abuse it will get brought up short.
And I'm 100% with pb on the behind-the-scenes edit history thing. As it stands, we generlaly don't notify the world when we fix someone's minor typo on request, so there's no informational loss on that front; and if someone does something blatantly irresponsible with their editing window, we'll definitely catch it and folks in the thread may very well catch it too and call it out or (if it makes more sense in context, and it may just) let us know about it so we can look into it.
I can dig the "open edit history = community policing" argument in spirit, but in practice it's sounds more like "hey, wikipedia's social scene is pretty awesome, let's try and inject some of that into metafilter". We're trying to avoid throwing a wrench in the gears of the site's current conversational flow, by going the trust-but-verify route on the admin side and keeping the user view the way it has historically been.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:23 AM on January 23, 2009
It could turn out to be a disaster, but I really don't think it's going to be, and I'm saying that as possibly the most historically skeptical person on the team toward this idea. I expect it to basically be a non-issue administratively and a nice improvement for users and that's about it, and we'll be watching what goes down behind the scenes pretty darned carefully to make sure anybody who tries to abuse it will get brought up short.
And I'm 100% with pb on the behind-the-scenes edit history thing. As it stands, we generlaly don't notify the world when we fix someone's minor typo on request, so there's no informational loss on that front; and if someone does something blatantly irresponsible with their editing window, we'll definitely catch it and folks in the thread may very well catch it too and call it out or (if it makes more sense in context, and it may just) let us know about it so we can look into it.
I can dig the "open edit history = community policing" argument in spirit, but in practice it's sounds more like "hey, wikipedia's social scene is pretty awesome, let's try and inject some of that into metafilter". We're trying to avoid throwing a wrench in the gears of the site's current conversational flow, by going the trust-but-verify route on the admin side and keeping the user view the way it has historically been.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:23 AM on January 23, 2009
My concern was that people with axes to grind would routinely publish over-the-line comments that they let soak in the thread for a minute or two, and then elided the bad parts, and claimed to anyone who called them on it that they had a change of heart, realized the error of their ways, and quickly fixed their comment.
Yeah, we'll be monitoring the user edit history page (one of the tools pb has built to support this) with keen interest, and anyone pulling that shit will be hearing from us.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 AM on January 23, 2009
Yeah, we'll be monitoring the user edit history page (one of the tools pb has built to support this) with keen interest, and anyone pulling that shit will be hearing from us.
posted by cortex (staff) at 7:32 AM on January 23, 2009
the Mod Room
I don't see Obama in there. WHY ARE YOU RACIST?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:30 AM on January 23, 2009
I don't see Obama in there. WHY ARE YOU RACIST?!
posted by Brandon Blatcher at 8:30 AM on January 23, 2009
I like to run around in nothing but a banana-hammock when no one is around.
posted by cortex at 10:32 AM on January 23 [+] [!]
Way to edit your comment there, before anyone caught on. I saw it though.
And I'm totally with you.
posted by Grither at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
posted by cortex at 10:32 AM on January 23 [+] [!]
Way to edit your comment there, before anyone caught on. I saw it though.
And I'm totally with you.
posted by Grither at 8:53 AM on January 23, 2009 [1 favorite]
Otherwise it will be another TravelFilter.
Ouch, that stings. Nah, sometimes it's good to let ideas percolate for a while. I felt like there were some unresolved concerns about editing from the last thread, and I think it's good to give any major change time for vetting before we add it.
Thanks for elaborating, popechunk, I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some nightmare case. Monitoring edits on the admin side will definitely be an important part of the feature.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:07 AM on January 23, 2009
Ouch, that stings. Nah, sometimes it's good to let ideas percolate for a while. I felt like there were some unresolved concerns about editing from the last thread, and I think it's good to give any major change time for vetting before we add it.
Thanks for elaborating, popechunk, I wanted to make sure I hadn't missed some nightmare case. Monitoring edits on the admin side will definitely be an important part of the feature.
posted by pb (staff) at 9:07 AM on January 23, 2009
If digg can handle the edit feature without rampant abuse, I think metafilter can.
posted by empath at 11:07 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by empath at 11:07 AM on January 23, 2009
Like MetaFilter for its qualities, but love MetaFilter for its flews.
posted by steef at 11:24 AM on January 23, 2009
posted by steef at 11:24 AM on January 23, 2009
Ouch, that stings.
Sorry, but I really wanted TravelFilter. :(
posted by smackfu at 11:28 AM on January 23, 2009
Sorry, but I really wanted TravelFilter. :(
posted by smackfu at 11:28 AM on January 23, 2009
You are not logged in, either login or create an account to post comments
posted by gman at 6:39 PM on January 22, 2009