Add limitation on editing posts?

absolutely - there are some FAQ-styled topics that NEED to be edited (top posts) !

Click or tap on „X edits” note next to posts timestamp. This will open post’s edits history and will let you see what was changed in it over time, and by who.

That is how it should be IMO as well. It stops people from changing the original text to suit themselves after someone has replied.

Yes, totally agree and that is the way I would prefer it as well..........but........here on dprevived we can see all the edits the post author has made by clicking the "edited N times" link near the center top of a post. I can live with that in the unlikely event a dispute arises over what was/wasn't said.

On another related point. What I didn't like on dpreview, and it's the same here, is that people can edit posts after the post has been 'Liked'. Posts can be edited to something the member who 'liked' the post now doesn't like 🤔

In any case, if we all play nicely together the editing of posts should not be an issue 😊

Thanks for pointing out the location of the edit history link. That's a big help figuring out what went on if people can edit after a response.

No problem but it was actually the Misago software developer, Rafal, who originally pointed it out in his earlier post this thread.

I am also hoping the enabling of CSS styles in the currently available '[img]' BBcode tags is on his to-do list but that was brought up in another thread 🙂

Just make only the likes since the last edit visible.

Hmm... Should I edit my article to make it better, and cause all the likes to disappear, or should I just leave it as it is. Tough choice :-)

Oh my. 🫢

Is a like really so valuable, or is the cost to the liker so great, that it's worth bothering over (hypothetical) occasional and minor inconsistencies? Bad actors will be recognized through their misdeeds. If not, does it matter? Is an accurate scoreboard more important than an accurate post?

"Likes are life." : )

We can solve that dilemma by disabling edits not only after a reply has been made, but after a like has been cast. Then you can just retype your post again to correct the spelling errors that people liked. : )

I was thinking more along the lines of using such an approach in lieu of prohibiting editing at all after some period of time, not as a way that all posts are edited.

If we want to get really fancy, any post that one has "liked" could cause an optional notification to the "liker" so they can re-read and re-evaluate their "like". I've always thought that maybe "read" posts should become "unread" when they are edited. That way, anyone subscribed would read all the edits. I just don't know how much extra reading that might cause, though.

Well, on DPReview, posts could be edited after other people replied. Just not by the original author - unless they were a moderator.

It was possible for a moderator to silently - at least from the user side - gaslight users by changing their posts.

I had a problem with this on the Studio & Lighting forum, with Ellis Vener. Now Ellis Vener is knowledgeable, and generally helpful, but he's rather partisan about a flash trigger (Raven) apparently made by some mates of his. And apparently sometimes he edited comments to make these comments - in his opinion - read better, or make more sense.

He made some false - physically impossible - claims about a new version of this Raven trigger, which I briefly contradicted. As it happens, the Raven thing sounds quite good to me, but I don't need what it does.

Two people replied to my post: Ellis Vener, and a UK-based photography journalist. Evidently at nearly the same time.

In Vener's reply, I was surprised to see a quote of my post slightly different from what I had written. He generally agreed with my comments. I checked my post, and found that it did not match what I thought I had written. Which I found quite disturbing.

However, in a post that appeared a moment later, a second post quoted my post without modification.

Here's what I posted, on DPReview (quoted): www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66710572

Here's Ellis Vener's reply to my post (with edited quote): www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66710433

Here's my post (edited by Ellis Vener): www.dpreview.com/forums/post/66710209

Now, in this case, Vener's editing is trivial, if a bit petty.

But in another case, if I said that I didn't write what was in a post with my name on it, most folk would call me a liar.

So:

I believe it is essential that the last editor of a post be publicly visible, including in the case that the editor was a moderator.

Some forum software allows a reason for edit to be entered, and displayed below a post.

If edits by moderators are allowed, they need to be logged, and the moderators of the moderators should review them - such edits should be very infrequent.

In the case of those subscribed to one of my posts… a lot. Particularly if you read them shortly after the initial posting. I fiddle with language. (And I just did here.)

I think the concerns about misuse and likes are much ado. I’m at risk of beating a dead horse here, so I’m stepping back. Alan has already provided assurances that my preference for unlimited edits isn’t at risk.

Is this a real problem, or a theoretical problem?

To me, the totally transparent edit history feature is enough to invalidate any argument for restricting edits. When this forum does attract the occasional bad actor who changes their posts after the fact in a manipulative fashion, the receipts will be auto-generated and fully public. Under these rules, I don't see how it could ever come to such utterly catastrophic forum drama where restricting the freedom of anyone posting with no ill intent would be the lesser evil.

I totally agree. There is also another practical advantage. As long as "Edit" works we have a way of copying and reusing links to our pictures if we want to put the same picture in two different threads, rather than uploading the same image twice.

The pedant in me would edit that to another practical advantage. 😉

Done.