Edit Perms For Higher Post Counts

Sheepings

Senior Programmer
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
166
Location
UK
Programming Experience
10+
Forum suggestion :

Would you consider allowing a post based group with a user post count of 200 posts under their belt to avail of edit permissions for only their own posts. The restriction as it stands doesn't provide enough time for people like myself who regularly answer questions to edit out a possible mistake, if one is made.

An evil example of this would be posting a tiny snippets of code without code tags. When I posted this line as text row.Cells[i].Value it became this : row.Cells.Value - it strips the square brackets. I believe this is also a problem with the posting templates parser in this forums as the text after it becomes italic. Anyway... of course frequent posters with higher post counts shouldn't be restricted editing permissions because of a small minority of new comers who may have that intention; to edit and remove their post content once they get an answer they want or rather don't want.

If this is something you would be willing to allow, 3 to 5 days editing time would suffice nicely.

Thanks.
 

Neal

Forum Admin
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
51
Location
VA
Programming Experience
10+
Thank you for the suggestion, we're continually tweaking the forum'ware to improve. It was unlimited until recently someone deleted their post content once answered. I don't want to over-react to one user's poor judgment but there are a lot of options available. Per your scenario rather than maintaining your original post of code you can simply add a reply with a code update and I'm sure everyone will refer to that revision as well. Thanks again, your feedback is well received.
 

Sheepings

Senior Programmer
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
166
Location
UK
Programming Experience
10+
Thank you for your response. I look forward to seeing what you come up with.

I actually recall the user you refer too and in which topic it was which also sparked your latest actions of restrictive editing rights for everyone. Surely it is understandable, but I am also sure most people who are around here long enough to post 200 posts; likely would not edit and remove their posted material. Of course a good way to deal with those pesky ones, would be to dump them into a restrictive member group where they have no editorial rights. I've used boards like these for many years both front and back-end, should you need any advice. I'd be happy to help if needed.
 

Neal

Forum Admin
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
51
Location
VA
Programming Experience
10+
Active users will have the ability to change thread titles at any time now.
 

Sheepings

Senior Programmer
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
166
Location
UK
Programming Experience
10+
Thank you, as an aside note, It appears I am unable to start new private message conversations with people. Even though they allow PM's. Is this something you are deciding to prevent or is this a miss-configuration?
 

Neal

Forum Admin
Staff member
Joined
Apr 15, 2011
Messages
51
Location
VA
Programming Experience
10+
We encourage all dialog on the forums and protect developers from being inundated with private messaging questions.
 

Sheepings

Senior Programmer
Joined
Sep 5, 2018
Messages
166
Location
UK
Programming Experience
10+
I'm not sure what to make of your answer...

Protecting devs from spam messages asking for help in PM is a good thing, but there is an option in all profile sections to restrict PM from all members, only those we follow can PM us. Thus prevents what you said from happening above.


Since I can be in control of whom PM's me by setting this option in my own profile, I don't see how its relevant to restrict members from starting personal messaging conversations with each other. Rather than redacting standard forum functionality, developers can restrict messages from all members, except those they either open dialog with or those they follow.

The option to start a new personal chat dialog is now gone completely.

Edited to add more clarity. Was running tight on time
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom