Compulsive Post Editing

I've never actually kept a close eye on it until recently, but there's a lot of you who can't seem to stop editing your posts. You keep adding content to your posts after the fact--content which would affect how I reply to the post--so that by the time I've replied to it (or am ready to click the button), you've rendered my response nearly irrelevant or completely out-of-context.

Some of you do it to get your post on the first page of the thread, in full Starwhore glory. You knock out a quick paragraph and get that up first, which contains one theme. Then you edit that post multiple times, sometimes expanding the original theme, but more often than not, piling up all of your thoughts into that one post so everything be up front and your beloved Karma score doesn't take a hit from having multiple posts that may or may not get starred as heavily as if you had it all in one. I personally could care less, but one can only be around here for so long without learning how the popularity contest is (generally) calculated. It makes the maneuvering I'm talking about completely obvious.

If you want to expand your thoughts on the theme of the post, fine. If you need to correct your spelling, grammar or phrasing, fine (of course). But if you're going to completely alter the tone, direction, focus, and overall content of the post... make a new post. Even if it has to be on the (oh no!) second page.

Anyway, in sum:

Editing a post in such a manner after it's been starred or replied to by another member is, frankly, bulls#. Make a new post.

"Marking your territory" on the front page of a thread and then going back and adding everything else you wanted to say (but didn't have time, because you wanted to make sure it all got placed front-and-center) is also bulls#. Make a new post.

Using the frequency of your posts to manipulate your stupid stats is beyond bulls#. Make a new post.

Removing the edit coding from your post to conceal how many times you've actually changed the content of it is bulls#. Make a new post.

I've probably forgot a point or two. If I remember them, I'll make a new post.


Get my drift? When it really comes down to it, honor and respect are the things I'm talking about here. Don't be devious, self-motivated and manipulative.

How's everyone else's day going? End rant.

a reply to: NthOther

I reply to the post--so that by the time I've replied to it (or am ready to click the button), you've rendered my response nearly irrelevant or completely out-of-context.

It's an old trick.

Does get tiresome sometimes.

a reply to: NthOther

90 percent of the time i edit for spelling or to make my reply flow a bit more . No matter how many times i read what i have written when i post i see something that needs attention . That and my sometimes ongoing story about little red riding hood and goldilocks in the edit box .

a reply to: NthOther

Well I do see what you are saying. BUT, I can tell you that in my case for example, I post a thought, raw and unedited as it rolls off the mind, then proof read it, edit wording, spelling etcetera, and then consider it finished when I AM DONE. I really dont care who is replying to me, since in all honesty, if they cant wait a couple minutes to respond then in most cases its a knee jerk reaction to something I said that is not well thought out or even worth reading in most cases.

I try to put "EDIT TO ADD:" Followed by new content or a supporting argument....not always though. Not when I have edited the core comment at least.

You should take a couple minutes to reply to someone in most cases. That entails some consideration to your posts readers that includes spelling, grammar, and thought articulation. If you are replying in under a minute to a complex thought or a loaded issue, then you are doing something wrong.

a reply to: NthOther

While I can understand your ire, I think it is only reasonable to expect people to edit a post where possible, rather than add further posts in many circumstances.

Let's say that I have formulated a post, and intend to add sources, video, and so on. And let us suppose that I have even queued up the video and sources in another window, or tab. Let us also assume that during the point between finishing the written body of my post, and adding the source material links, someone interrupts me with some mundane nonsense. I hit post, having brain farted, and come back half an hour later to find that my post is sans the requisite support.

I have to edit, to make the damned thing complete. Now, in an ideal world, where all members are free, both in terms of time, and intellectual space, to do nothing all day but post to ATS and research points and data, that simply would not happen. Ever. But we all have lives to live, and they do get in the way sometimes. We have to allow for that.

Sometimes, I will realise that something I have posted which is of the opinion related sort, rather than the fact based sort, will require clarification, and upon first re-read, and second re-read, I will miss that fact, having been sure of my intention, but having ballsed up the communication, and will have to edit the post accordingly.

There is nothing wrong with that.

Furthermore, spelling and punctuation might not matter a damn to some, and God knows there are bigger issues in the world, but they matter to me. You will note that plenty of my posts come with edit tags saying things like "Grammatical error removed" or "Grammatical improvements". In those tired moments, in the small wee hours of the morning, I may even create an edit tag saying "I sincerely apologise for the hideous state of the first draft of this post.". I am not insisting that everyone take the time to be as anal as I can be about these things, but it is just the way I like to operate.

Now, as for making post, after post, after post to get a point across, I can see why members would rather add their "and another thing" elements to their original posts. For a start, bandwidth does not grow on trees, and members who edit their posts rather than filling up board space with multiple posts which should have been in a single one, are helping preserve that commodity so that it can be used by as many members per bit of available dataspace as possible.

In addition to the last paragraph, but on a related note, I hate, and I do mean HATE reading a series of posts which are disjointed from the chronological progression of the conversation, and that cluster posting you are recommending often making threads harder to follow than they need to be.

a reply to: NthOther

There is one newly returned member that goes about it a different way.

He waits till you reply to his assinine statement and then goes back and changes the content you were replying to, to make it seem like you are off on a tangent. He has even gone on to criticise you for what it looks like.


The only thing that stops him is when you quote his reply when posting. I don't like having to do that when there isn't a few posts or page break in between where reference would be apreciated. I have to do it with him though to keep him from playing games it just looks redundant to those reading.

originally posted by: hutch622

90 percent of the time i edit for spelling or to make my reply flow a bit more . No matter how many times i read what i have written when i post i see something that needs attention . That and my sometimes ongoing story about little red riding hood and goldilocks in the edit box .

And that's perfectly fine. We're all our own worst critics, and nothing is ever as good as it could be. Editing your phrasing is a good thing, if it makes your post more "readable".

Editing meaning is not ok.

a reply to: NthOther

That's right. Let's attack people who add more information to their posts after the fact. Screw those people.

Oh no, I've gone and edited this post.

Jokes aside, my reason for doing this is the same as other posters have stated. Generally I'll type up a quick response to an article, and then slowly (sometimes even days after) as things surface in my mind, I'll go back and edit the post to make it more relevant.

originally posted by: TrueBrit

Let's say that I have formulated a post, and intend to add sources, video, and so on. And let us suppose that I have even queued up the video and sources in another window, or tab. Let us also assume that during the point between finishing the written body of my post, and adding the source material links, someone interrupts me with some mundane nonsense. I hit post, having brain farted, and come back half an hour later to find that my post is sans the requisite support.

I have to edit, to make the damned thing complete. Now, in an ideal world, where all members are free, both in terms of time, and intellectual space, to do nothing all day but post to ATS and research points and data, that simply would not happen. Ever. But we all have lives to live, and they do get in the way sometimes. We have to allow for that.

Of course. But one can quickly disclose that the post is not complete and come back later to finish it (or disclose the edit after the fact, whatever). That's cool. As long as you're not trying to mislead, hide or manipulate anyone/thing.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the edit function. I use it all the time. What I don't do is change/add/delete things from a post when in so doing it would substantively change the overall theme of it. Nor do I cram apples and oranges into the same post to manipulate the numbers. You get the point.

a reply to: NthOther

Well, now that is a whole other kettle of fish.

Basically, there can be no justification for editing to deliberately mislead a poster, or other members, into arguing a point which no longer appears to be being made by the post to which you are responding. That is bad form, and decidedly sneaky, underhanded no less.

originally posted by: SpongeBeard
Generally I'll type up a quick response to an article, and then slowly (sometimes even days after) as things surface in my mind, I'll go back and edit the post to make it more relevant.

I call *shenanigans, as the time allowable to edit a post is around 2 hours, so you won't ever be doing so "days later".

*Note - If the time to edit a thread is longer than for a post, then I humbly retract my shenanigans.


As for the OP, I believe their rant is about changing the tone of one's post - so much so, that a reply to it does not seem to fit. I have noticed this a time or two, and yes it's disingenuous to be sure.

I will edit for spelling, as well as to add more thoughts, but I will always state exactly what I am editing for; whereas many tend to leave that part blank. I will refrain from editing, should I notice that someone has already starred my post, because I feel that may be unfair to the reader's interpretation of what was already there.

originally posted by: MoonBlossom

I will refrain from editing, should I notice that someone has already starred my post, because I feel that may be unfair to the reader's interpretation of what was already there.

Exactly. You're showing a little respect for the member who starred you. If I star you because you like apples and I like them too, then change your post to be about oranges... well, what if I hate oranges? Now you've stolen my star.

I know it sounds a little funny and stupid to put it that way (what does it really matter, right?), but it is nonetheless disrespectful to get acknowledgement from someone for saying one thing, then changing what you said but still retaining the acknowledgement.

Sounds a lot like cheating, come to think of it.

a reply to: NthOther

I misspell alot of words. I always read over my post before posting,but I guess my eyes see what they thought I said instead of what is should be. So I have to go back and fix misspelled words.'sigh' One I always seem to mess up is here with hear. Have no idea why I keep doing that. As far as adding stuff,once in a while yes I do,I get lost in what I'm doing because I get interrupted at home,and lose track of what I wanted to post. Then no sooner than I hit it,I remember what else I had wanted to put in there. Now at this time no one else has answered so I go ahead.

As far as trying to make it the most popular, why should I care? Those that are interested will read it and maybe respond,those that aren't interested will pass it up. That is life. I really wouldn't want someone that had no interest in my posts replying anyway. They won't really add anything,and more likely than not will say something derogatory for being bothered with it. Star and flags and popular,oh my. Just those that have an interest,read if you like. I don't care about the rest. Thats my rant for the night.

Did I make it to the first page?

Awesome made the first page

Now I gotta think of something cool to get a lot of stars

Still thinking


Oh man, I'm tired & had a few too many...nevermind

But at least I"M ON THE FIRST PAGE!!!

Seriously...it's annoying especially when the entire post morphs into something it wasn't originally.
I have to admit though that I am sometimes guilty of excessive editing though.
Usually it's just to edit syntax or grammar or compress a rambling thought though - I don't ever change the point of the post if I can help it.

I always try to make sure I read through my post before posting it. I usually try to make sure there are no spelling errors. The biggest problem I have is grammar errors. I tend to be more wordy when I write, so sometimes after I post I notice I can be more concise and to the point. So I end up restructuring a sentence or two. The use of "their, they're and there" can sometimes slip my thinking when I post. (The English language has so many words that sound the same, but mean something different). In my haste to writing a reply, I have to make sure I don't use the wrong one! I think in my case, my age has a tendency to make me miss things I normally wouldn't miss during my younger days.

My question is- How do you know what the intent is behind someones decision to edit??

The problem I find is that when writing, I sometimes start to sort of get carried away in my thought process... asking myself questions, having the answer arise... The process of writing stimulates thought.

It facilitates organized thinking, so that once I post, my thinking continues to form more clearly, and I come back minutes later and see that I was disorganized, I approached the same idea from every angle possible, I now see a way I can shorten it or sum it up better, with less words.

So I edit and do so. A few minutes later, by looking at it, I start to see an even MORE simple and concise way I could have said it, and I edit again.

In some ways, I am lucky because the majority of the posters are on the other side of the world, so not even awake while I am trying to whittle down my thoughts this way- I don't get many that jump on it while I am in that process.

But I put myself in the shoes of someone doing the same thing on the other side, while others are reading and responding promptly, and I guess that could be misunderstood to be done with the intention of confusing others, or making them look like they are off topic or something. -Though actually, if they used the quote option, that is sort of impossible, as it becomes clear what you had written before the edit and what they are responding to...

There is a time limit on editing the posts.

The idea of posting another post seems rather thread consuming and ends up monopolizing... I admit, when passionate about a topic and interested in a discussion I am having with another, I post a lot anyway and risk that, I surely don't want to increase that effect!

But I did it here to conform to the actual demand in question and perhaps illustrate my point. If I come up with another thought on the subject, should I post again separately?
I suspect I could use up a whole page that way. Is that better?

Maybe you are an expert in posting from your electronic devices, but I fat finger my posts all the time, not to mention I can hardly read those tiny screens. I edit about half of my posts after I am finished to correct myself. Sometimes I think of something else I want to post or edit it for clarity when I get back in there.

If it becomes too much of a problem for you then give people five minutes before responding. After all, you have control over waiting five minutes, but none over if someone is going to edit their post or not.