| Msg # |
User |
Message |
Date |
1
|
Drooler (Disabled)
|
Thanks, Pinche, for getting this question up.
It has been a problem when
1. I forget to add something essential to a message
2. I make errors that are too late to correct
3. the system (including network) becomes slow and I wind up posting the same thing twice (then the webmaster has another little job -- deleting my duplication)
It's probably fair to say that I'm as much a problem as the limit is. I do try to avoid 1-3 above.
I don't think I'd want to change the 10-min limit time, though. I think it's reasonable. And if I see that someone else has "just" posted (not often), I wait 10 min for them.
I now have 10 minutes to edit this message ...
|
02-03-08 02:11am
Reply To Message
|
2
|
nygiants03 (0)
|
For me it has only happen one time. I forgot to add something that I wanted to say, but that's rare. I feel 10 minutes is adequate enough to make a change if needed.
|
02-03-08 07:53am
Reply To Message
|
3
|
pat362 (0)
|
I've never had a problem
|
02-03-08 05:55pm
Reply To Message
|
4
|
ace of aces (0)
|
i made a few mistakes but within 10 minutes it was no problem to solve them.
|
02-04-08 12:16am
Reply To Message
|
5
|
Toadsith (0)
|
Generally if 10 minutes have gone by, other people have responded to the topic or reply and if I need to add anything I'll also be making some remark relating to the new replies as well, so a new reply of my own is reasonable. Most of the time, errors aren't an issue as I'm pretty careful about reading my reply before posting it. All in all, I think the 10 minute expiration is a good idea and keeps the posts fresh.
|
02-04-08 12:20am
Reply To Message
|
6
|
Denner (0)
|
Agree with Drooler - not supprised, aeh?
Well, for one thing I find it better and more accurate to be able to alter/edit your input - rather than placing a new reply/reply or whatever those lawyers call in legal terms.
But this is not a courtroom, but a place for fun and helping fellow PUs.
So yes: 10 minuttes is not enough time for edit - a 1/2 hour would be better.
|
02-04-08 07:26am
Reply To Message
|
7
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #6 - Denner :
err ... Denner ... you've left me confused.
You said you agree with Drooler but he said 10 minutes was ok while you say it should be raised to 30 minutes.
|
02-04-08 08:42am
Reply To Message
|
8
|
Denner (0)
|
REPLY TO #7 - Khan :
Well, my mistake...
I agree with Droolers arguments about being able to edit the comments.
But, ok...I'd like a little more time (english language and all) -If you see my reviews - I edit them a lot of times because of misspelling my english - but then again, no big deal - I go with the herd...
|
02-04-08 08:56am
Reply To Message
|
9
|
Khan (Suspended)
|
REPLY TO #8 - Denner :
|
02-04-08 09:30am
Reply To Message
|
10
|
Davit (0)
|
I have found the 10 minute limit a bit annoying on a couple of occasions. Admittedly, it's always been my own fault - missing a glaring spelling error, or writing something in the heat of the moment and regretting it half an hour later!
I think 10 minutes is just a little bit stingy, if I may be so bold! Half and hour would be nice.
(Yes, I'm still talking about the subject of post edits, in case you're wondering!)
|
02-04-08 03:58pm
Reply To Message
|
11
|
SnowDude (0)
|
I usually read my comments right away, so that's plenty of time to edit any mistakes. However, I think it could be a bit longer than 10 minutes.
|
02-09-08 07:30pm
Reply To Message
|
