Perhaps increase the time limit before your post gets tagged as edited?

[LongHopCassidy]

I think the current time limit is 30 seconds.

Generally I'm led to believe the tags are there to stop people covering their arses when they get contradicted or some such. A reasonable time frame for that, even in a thread going at ridiculous pace like an Ashes match thread, would IMO be at least 5 minutes.

Wouldn't be as bothered by this if honest grammar Nazis like me didn't get lumped into the same category as blatant fact-wranglers who then claim they got misquoted. It takes a bit longer than thirty seconds to correct a split infinitive or put a semicolon in place of a comma, specially when posting from a tablet.

Or, at least, add a pithy diss of Broad that you thought of one minute later. It just looks so bad (at least to me) when I have one-sentence posts flagged as 'MESSAGE EDITED' simply because autocorrect felt like being a **** that day.

Thanks for reading.

 

[DJellett]

Agree entirely; the current format makes honest grammatical corrections look somehow revisionist.

 

[Spikey]

oh god yes

 

[GIMH]

It's been discussed before, you sacks of ****

 

[Daemon]

see what GIMH really meant to say was 'you lovely fellows' but now he can't edit it because it would make him look revisionist

 

[grecian]

Meh, I make tons of mistakes when I've first put a post in, because I've a lazy mind, but I really don't care if a bunch of lovely chaps on a message-board think I'm revisioning on their arses. If the mods thought it was bad I'm sure they'd step in, as I believe has happened.

 

[Hurricane]

Why would the mods care if someone was editing their posts. Unless the initial one was offensive.

 

[grecian]

Why would the mods care if someone was editing their posts. Unless the initial one was offensive.

Is that a reply to me?

Yes the initial one could be offensive. AlsoI think in the past people have made statements, then edited them, to make the replies look silly or even like they're making stuff up. Which rather shows you should quote people in replies TBH.

 

[Hurricane]

Is that a reply to me?

Yes the initial one could be offensive. AlsoI think in the past people have made statements, then edited them, to make the replies look silly or even like they're making stuff up. Which rather shows you should quote people in replies TBH.

Cheers

(I will edit my initial reply to quote you)

 

[ankitj]

It takes a bit longer than thirty seconds to correct a split infinitive or put a semicolon in place of a comma, specially when posting from a tablet.

You meant 'especially', Grammar Nazi?

 

[GIMH]

Is that a reply to me?

Yes the initial one could be offensive. AlsoI think in the past people have made statements, then edited them, to make the replies look silly or even like they're making stuff up. Which rather shows you should quote people in replies TBH.

I think Richard got banned for that once.

EDIT - which I suppose your original post alludes to.

 

[sledger]

Edit Schmedit

 

[grecian]

I think Richard got banned for that once.

EDIT - which I suppose your original post alludes to.

Are you suggesting I'm just having a pop at my erstwhile Tesco chum, never

 

[BoyBrumby]

Meh. Should be no limit, IMHO. One always has the option to say why one's editing the post. Often do it myself where I've made a grammar/syntax eff up.

 

[wellAlbidarned]

I think the fabric of the universe will hold together OK either way

 

[Hurricane]

I think the fabric of the universe will hold together OK either way

I disagree I think this is the defining issue on CW. You are either for this proposal or against it - and that is how you are identified atm. Much like the springbok tour - where you were either pro tour or anti tour.