Forum > Other

Forum thought

(1/5) > >>

440bx:
Hello,

if you've been to stackoverflow, you've probably noticed that there are non-administrator users that have the capability to edit posts - usually to improve formatting.

I don't know how the current forum software breaks down user capabilities but, it would be nice if some long time users could be given enough rights to edit "newbie" posts that are missing code tags. 

Just a thought...

MarkMLl:
I don't necessarily disagree with you, but I think it would be important to limit that to /only/ inserting [code] tags... and I'm not sure that degree of privilege exists.

If it did, I'd hope that it also allowed compiler version etc. information to be moved out of the sig into the body of a message, since particularly when a question or observation is specific to a particular compiler version or OS as soon as the poster changes his sig that information is lost.

Apart from that, I'd note that I find areas of StackOverflow spectacularly hostile, and try to resist spending time there. As a specific example, the last few times I've asked a question in the Electrical Engineering section (which covers most electronics) I've been given useful answers in the first few minutes... then had somebody close it due to some infraction of implied policy, demand that I make changes to it, or take it upon themselves to "clarify" my question in broken English.

I'm sure none of us want to go that way here, just as none of us want to end up with Discord rather than SMF.

MarkMLl

dbannon:

--- Quote from: 440bx on November 06, 2022, 10:29:16 am ---...
I don't know how the current forum software breaks down user capabilities but, it would be nice if some long time users could be given enough rights to edit "newbie" posts that are missing code tags. 

--- End quote ---

I am not sure we need it to be honest. Any forum member can post a comment suggesting the OP format code correctly, even, if its really important, can copy the OP's code into a new, correctly formatted message. But an admin-ish person editing an OP's message is, as Mark suggested, just a touch aggressive IMHO. Overall, here, people are friendly and tolerant, I like that !

Davo

MarkMLl:

--- Quote from: dbannon on November 06, 2022, 11:45:28 am ---I am not sure we need it to be honest. Any forum member can post a comment suggesting the OP format code correctly, even, if its really important, can copy the OP's code into a new, correctly formatted message. But an admin-ish person editing an OP's message is, as Mark suggested, just a touch aggressive IMHO. Overall, here, people are friendly and tolerant, I like that !

--- End quote ---

I like it, but I would highlight https://forum.lazarus.freepascal.org/index.php/topic,61149.msg459207.html in particular where the poster has affronted our eyes with selective use of a coloured typeface (so can't claim ignorance of the forum software's capabilities) but hasn't bothered to tag his excerpts as code.

MarkMLl

Martin_fr:
In some/many (I don't keep count...) cases existing moderators place the codetags, and add a note.
So the question is, if we have enough moderators.

A low-level moderator can be created, who could just edit (and maybe move to the correct board) other peoples posts. But would not have the right to delete posts, ban users, etc.
It would still be by appointment.
And there is no limit to what can be edited (the entire message can be changed), nor are old texts be kept. There is a log of all the edits, so it will be documented even if the "last edited by" is lost by further edits of the user themself.

It is also a task that in addition to trust, requires some level of attention. The forum design is flawed, as it has the "modify" button right next to the "quote" button (you can see that if you look at your own post, which you are allowed to modify). It is very easy to accidentality hit the modify button instead of the quote button when you try to reply.... So one needs to be alert (or use grease monkey or similar to block it)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version