It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Can we get rid of the "edit on MM/DD/YY," relic?

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:41 PM
link   
Surely having an "edit on MM/DD/YY" is no longer useful, since people only have hours to edit their remarks? In earlier days when everyone had editing flexibility at any time, this may have been useful, but today it is a dinosaur.

See below the relic:


[edit on 4-8-2006 by SkipShipman]




posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 06:56 PM
link   
And this is what the Complaints/ideas is for


For making suggestions,


Its something that would have to be looked into when SO has a moment,

Thanks for bringing it up and please next time use the lil tab at the top,

Thanks


Asala



posted on Aug, 4 2006 @ 07:00 PM
link   
I don't think it should be removed. Moderators can edit posts also and with no time limit. It's important to see who edited a post and when it was edited. My 2 cents.



edit:


[edit on 2006/8/4 by Hellmutt]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 05:03 AM
link   
Well the solution might be to make an exception for moderator edits only then you go for "edit on MM/DD/YY."

I wanted to continue a discussion on this, so I hope it is okay to continue. Of course next time I might make a "suggestion/comment." Nonetheless input might be helpful, and seeing how people here feel about the idea. Although if you want to keep your post "clean," so to speak, you could put it in a word processor first. I like to do that from time to time to spellcheck. Yet even afterwards, you just see a better way to express yourself when reading it in ATS format. Thanks....

Here we go again:


[edit on 5-8-2006 by SkipShipman]



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 06:41 AM
link   
What does it matter if it's there or not?

It's not like you would view a post that has an edit tag as 'inferior' and not worth reading or something . . . right?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:25 AM
link   
It should probably stay for the reasons Hellmutt suggests, but I would like to suggest that the date format is consistent with the message post date. A minor complaint, but it has always slightly annoyed me that the post date and edit date are in different formats...



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by IronDogg

it has always slightly annoyed me that the post date and edit date are in different formats...

Look at my edit. It looks like this:
[edit on 2006/8/4 by Hellmutt]

And then you look at SkipShipman's edit.
[edit on 5-8-2006 by SkipShipman]

Two different formats. The format is set by the settings for the person who did the edit and not by the settings for the person who is viewing it afterwards.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 12:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by watch_the_rocks
What does it matter if it's there or not?

It's not like you would view a post that has an edit tag as 'inferior' and not worth reading or something . . . right?


It really does not matter but it had a purpose when people had editing flexibility, you could distinguish when something was edited. But the function is redundant, since today you will not see anything different in the date from that of the the original post. Given only a few hours for editing, you only see a difference for that time only. The point is that life has enough clutter these days, and counting up all the times "MM/DD/YY by author," presents itself, it adds us to wasted bytes and bandwidth. Just my two cents again, or its all about unknown dollars ATS could save by letting Jurrasic Park go, ahem I mean the redundant dinosour. The argument is the same as for limited 8000 characters in your post, but on a small scale that includes all members who edit their comments. Little things can add up, so why not simplify and streamline?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:14 PM
link   
SkipShipman, there is still much use for it.

On debates, which can happen on real time. It is nice to have such a thing.

Say for example, I make a statement. Someone quotes it and the statement is rather racist in nature or something else like that. I then edit it and put something else in and accuse the other member of lying.

The edit time stamp, limits the ability for this to happen.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by Odium
SkipShipman, there is still much use for it.

On debates, which can happen on real time. It is nice to have such a thing.

Say for example, I make a statement. Someone quotes it and the statement is rather racist in nature or something else like that. I then edit it and put something else in and accuse the other member of lying.

The edit time stamp, limits the ability for this to happen.


Comment: But there is no timestamp on "MM/DD/YY by author," only the redundant date as to the original post. For most purposes this is superfluous. Maybe adding a timestamp might help debates, but almost every other process is different, since people edit if I am correct, mostly to care for a spelling issue. As stated before, streamlining might include exceptions, but probably rarely in a proposed zapping of the "MM/DD/YY by author," inclusion. The idea is not only about keeping posts pristine after a few hours, but also about saving bytes, bandwidth, and helping the board do better. Perhaps "MM/DD/YY by author," could be optional during editing with a checkbox, with exceptions when it is rarely justified as mandatory?



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:06 PM
link   
This "Edit" tag is quite important. Don't forget, while members have limited editing functionality this does not apply to staff.

On pages such as in the Board Information, this tag can give a reader the indication of how up-to-date the info is...

Stating this tag is redundant and pointless is far from true.



posted on Aug, 5 2006 @ 07:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by SimonGray
This "Edit" tag is quite important. Don't forget, while members have limited editing functionality this does not apply to staff.

On pages such as in the Board Information, this tag can give a reader the indication of how up-to-date the info is...

Stating this tag is redundant and pointless is far from true.


Comment:

Dear Simon,

That makes sense for the staff, but the average member only wants to correct spelling and write better when viewing things in ATS format. So if we had a checkbox to choose, then it would apply when people want it to apply. Administrators also have unlimited editing, as everyone did previously when that option was available.

If you insist it is helpful, even when there is no timestamp on the "MM/DD/YYYY by author," and which could read as the top of each post "MM/DD/YYYY at TT:TT AM/PM by author," okay. A timestamp adding TT:TT AM/PM would distinguish itself from the top listing, with the only exception being an edit within the same minute as the original posting. Maybe changing things is a bother, all right, or for whatever reason you deem fit. Thank you for your ideas. Also thanks for a great board here!

Aloha,

Skip Shipman



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join