I was unable to edit after an hour yesterday...

Yesterday, I was into an edit after 29 minutes, and got rejected because 30 minutes had passed before I hit save. :p I have found you usually get longer than that.

Good excuse for post-whoring, says I.

Hai, I has edit powrz nau.

Does that mean I'm official?

That just happened to me. I like to be able to edit longer in...often I go back and tweak the wording a lot, usually to refine the language, rather than change the substance.

It means you're being drawn in by the cellar.....One of us...one of us...

i blame jinx

I don't care... in fact I'm all for it... doesn't take even 1/2 an hour to figure out to spell something.

i tend to agree. editing after longer than that is more often used for chickening out of saying something, and erasing it.

There's a difference between chickening out of saying something...and realising you've been over harsh and modifying your tone in order not to hurt someone, or inflame a situation. I rarely do that unless it's within a minute or so, usually at my first rereading.

Jinx, it's not just about spelling. If you enjoy language, then the changes are often more to do with sentence structure, or better, possibly more accurate wording. I post, then I read after I post. I do this because I simply do not pick up on most of the changes it 'needs' until I see it on the board. I then reread it, and make minor changes and alterations, or add something with an [eta]usually to clarify or mitigate a comment, or add some fresh detail that I have recalled (when posting an anecdote). I post it again and read from the screen, spotting odd things and going back in to edit this word, or add that extra adjective. I jump about between the edit screen and the board screen until I feel I am happy with my words. I am usually very careful with language and part of that comes from this refining process. That process can easily take me half hour or more. Even for simple changes, there are many times I've been editing when the phone's rang, or mum's turned up for a visit...I leave the screen there, til I've dealt with whatever and return to it as a work in progress.

Half an hour isn't long enough to me. Just my opinion...but it will mean i need to change my posting habits and behaviour and I didn't feel they needed to change.

This has, presumably been changed in order to prevent the more dubious use of editing, but I do feel it also limits those who do not engage in that behaviour. Certainly I would prefer the old system. I can live with the idea of a few pricks deliberately abusing that editing function, in order to have a very practical and useful function for others to use.

Would it not be better, if such a thing is possible, to let the moderators impose edit limits on people if they are regularly using the function in ways which people consider to be malicious or unfair?

Hey..there's nothing wrong with changing your mind about calling someone a filthy word is there? ;)

There's no setting for individuals. I figured that the edit feature was clearly meant to fine-tune or edit posts for a short while. If 30 minutes is too short, maybe 45? Any longer than that and we are certainly talking about changing actual content of posts and everybody has taken advantage of that.

Can we not have a two hour limit and encourage people not to abuse it? Very few people, in my experience, edit to the point it's a problem; most if they've done so accidentally will, when its pointed out apologise for it and be more careful in future. I would say there are less than 5 people in this enire community who actually use it with such intent, except for the odd spate of joke editing between a couple of the (mainly) lads.

When I mentioned taking a phone call, I am often called by people with complicated and difficult to explain issues, whch take some time to get straight, and are followed by a phone call (s) or email (s) to someone else.

Hell sometimes I have the post back up in the edit box and end up going to make a cup of tea or take the dog out whilst ii mull over a bit of wording. Not so often, but often enough. I don't think (?) I've much of a history of pissing people off with those edits...I may be wrong :P Half the time, it's not even going to be re-read by people, but that doesn't mean I don't want to get the wording right...or improve it.

Why impose stricter limits when the problem you seek to solve seems (to me) such a minor one?

IMO, 30 minutes is enough time. I almost wish there was a setting that once someone's replied to a post, it can no longer be edited.

Personally I'd prefer it to go back to what it was before. I think that worked reasonably well, was rarely abused and didn't need to change. But I haven't had to deal with any malicious editing...is this something a lot of people are unhappy about?