[Neil Jones]

While I appreciate that the edit limits were brought in to deal with abuse by users who presumably are no longer members of this site, they now impact on actual users in various ways. For example, I posted something in a thread and now want to redact its contents by striking it out [as I was informed that I was incorrect in what I wrote], however I cannot do so because the post is several hours old and the edit limit is apparently tiny. Could the admins please review this policy, and perhaps add in a role or user group that grants unlimited access to editing messages to trusted users that haven't abused the feature?

So you posted some incorrect information.
Join the club. We all do that (by accident or otherwise). I've been doing it for nearly 22 years across three incarnations of TV presentation forum discussion...

[Frappé]

Even if we are to review the edit policy in the future, the time limit itself would remain short and the request here actually shows one the reasons why. The editing is only really there for immediate minor corrections (eg spelling, grammar, missed a quick thought, need to delete an accidental double post etc) and not for substantially changing something later. A few users think that it's fine to change posts hours later based on subsequent discussion, or (another frequent one) to just use them to throw anything up without any real initial thought or considerations to effectively 'phish' for interest in something and then delete them a few hours later if not enough people immediately responded the way they wanted them to. Sometimes you even see people delete huge swathes of posts weeks later if one comment elsewhere upsets them. All of these massively disrupt the flow of a discussion forum and has never been what the editing function was meant for, nor would we consider changing this.

We will also not habitually get into editing users posts on their behalf for this reason either, regardless of the amounts of reports or PMs they send, as people are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of their own posts and part of being a responsible adult is to learn to own mistakes and move on from them too as we all make them! The only time we would usually see a need to step in is if something rule-breaking is in there in the first place, or if a mistake has been pointed out in replies already but other people continue repeatedly pointing out that same error needlessly. Though even then we'd usually tell people to cease rather than edit the original post.

[SuperSajuuk]

It's a factual error that was corrected in discussion, so what's the need to edit the original post?

So you posted some incorrect information.
Join the club.  We all do that (by accident or otherwise).  I've been doing it for nearly 22 years across three incarnations of TV presentation forum discussion...

I prefer that if I post something that is later deemed to be inaccurate, that I edit my comment to make it clear to other readers that they shouldn't read what I wrote because its wrong. Not everyone is going to read a forum thread from start to finish and may just repeat comments that contain wrong information without looking to see that it was actually wrong.

Even if we are to review the edit policy in the future, the time limit itself would remain short and the request here actually shows one the reasons why. The editing is only really there for immediate minor corrections (eg spelling, grammar, missed a quick thought, need to delete an accidental double post etc) and not for substantially changing something later. A few users think that it's fine to change posts hours later based on subsequent discussion, or (another frequent one) to just use them to throw anything up without any real initial thought or considerations to effectively 'phish' for interest in something and then delete them a few hours later if not enough people immediately responded the way they wanted them to. Sometimes you even see people delete huge swathes of posts weeks later if one comment elsewhere upsets them. All of these massively disrupt the flow of a discussion forum and has never been what the editing function was meant for, nor would we consider changing this.

We will also not habitually get into editing users posts on their behalf for this reason either, regardless of the amounts of reports or PMs they send, as people are ultimately responsible for the accuracy of their own posts and part of being a responsible adult is to learn to own mistakes and move on from them too as we all make them! The only time we would usually see a need to step in is if something rule-breaking is in there in the first place, or if a mistake has been pointed out in replies already but other people continue repeatedly pointing out that same error needlessly. Though even then we'd usually tell people to cease rather than edit the original post.

Without meaning to sound rude, this comes across as extremely "stand-off"'ish and uncaring. Sure, a few users abuse the system [there's always going to be people who do that], so punish them on an individual basis by removing their right to edit posts, instead of punishing the majority that don't abuse a feature iin any way at all? And if people are abusing the edit post feature on old posts..... does it matter? If someone wants to go and redact what they wrote weeks later and disrupt the flow of a conversation, then let them instead of placing an arbitrary site-wide restriction on a whole load of users who.... never abused it? I feel there are better things to care about than whether some random user edited old messages that probably no one is going to read.

Also I think its a bit rude of you to accuse someone of "not being a responsible adult" and for "not posting accurate statements" when you have no idea of the person behind a username. I'm actually very responsible and just wanted to correct a message I wrote on this forum because I was deemed to have posted something wrong after I had posted the comment. I don't see how wanting to correct a factually incorrect message makes me "irresponsible". If I was on any other platform, I'd be able to edit or delete my comment to clarify the situation to other readers: here, I seem to be unable to do that, hence my suggestion to provide lengthier edit times to those who are clearly not abusing this feature.

I don't post here all that much, but the continual "restrictions" that get randomly imposed, make it very difficult for me to want to actually post on this site. First it was the "need to get everything approved by a moderator" that dissuaded me from making comments [due to the long delay in posts being approved]; now its a case of "I can't correct any messages I write after an extremely short time period" that makes it unlikely I'll do much more than read posts on this site than contribute messages, since I won't be able to correct errors if I don't do them "immediately".

[Neil Jones]

I prefer that if I post something that is later deemed to be inaccurate, that I edit my comment to make it clear to other readers that they shouldn't read what I wrote because its wrong. Not everyone is going to read a forum thread from start to finish and may just repeat comments that contain wrong information without looking to see that it was actually wrong.

I think with all due respect you're worrying about nothing.
The whole point of a web discussion forum is to discuss things. Any user generated forum content is going to be wrong to a large extent, social media is full of inaccurate crap that nobody ever corrects or edits years down the line, even though they could.

In any event it says in the T&Cs for the forum - " all messages posted on Pres Café express the views and opinions of the original message author and are not necessarily the views of Pres Café. Therefore Pres Café takes no responsibility and cannot be held liable for any messages posted. Pres Café does not vouch for or warrant the accuracy and completeness of every message. "

So in other words if you were to post some fabricated drivel and somebody else takes that at face value and they end up with egg on their face, that's their problem. Not yours or the forum's problem. Theirs.

All I would suggest is if you think you're going to be posting something wrong and you don't post it, then you probably won't be posting very much at all.

[Brekkie]

The edit limit is fine - the admin have been open about it's purpose and it seems pretty generous compared to other places (though clarification on exactly how long it is would be appreciated, but it seems to be hours rather than minutes).

Sods law is if you make a mistake in your post somebody will have quoted it anyway (as happened in this case) so amending it is somewhat redundant. The thread flows absolutely fine - indeed it would disrupt the flow if you did change it, making your post correct but the ones that follow make little sense. It really isn't something to get worked up about. It's just one you need to let go - the discussion has moved on anyway.

[rick]

Are the images for each thread auto generated or pulled from a database somewhere? The one for Sky Mix isn't displaying properly, so not sure what needs corrected to make it display properly. If it's pulling the image from the thread itself, it seems to be broken.

[strollfan]

Are the images for each thread auto generated or pulled from a database somewhere? The one for Sky Mix isn't displaying properly, so not sure what needs corrected to make it display properly. If it's pulling the image from the thread itself, it seems to be broken.

I believe they are default pulled from the last image in the thread, unless admins add a permanent one to the thread which tends to happen with the busier threads on the site.

[JAS84]

Isn't the problem with the Sky Mix logo that it's the wrong shape, so the left and right extremes get cut off? The solution would be to use an image that has empty space above and below the logo.

[Cappuccino]

This will be corrected in an upcoming update.

[telleyhead]

Seems to be issues with post approved threads not loading pages?