Discussion
When you edit your own post there is a window of time where the "edited by" footer is not added.
However, this window also applies to moderators editing other people's posts, resulting in posts that do not give any indication that they are not what the poster originally wrote.
When editing other people's posts as a moderator, the footer should really always be added (ie. the window of time be zero)
However, this window also applies to moderators editing other people's posts, resulting in posts that do not give any indication that they are not what the poster originally wrote.
When editing other people's posts as a moderator, the footer should really always be added (ie. the window of time be zero)
I'm not entirely sure what you mean....but I'll have a go anyway 
Some mods (not all) can edit anonymously, but we tend not to use that function as a rule. As we only edit for a reason, showing that we have edited serves to educate members why we have edited in the first place, as such we add in Mod edit or leave it to the default edited by.
Are you saying that a post has been altered somewhere recently? It happens, but only when we think the edit has been done for very obvious reasons.
Some mods (not all) can edit anonymously, but we tend not to use that function as a rule. As we only edit for a reason, showing that we have edited serves to educate members why we have edited in the first place, as such we add in Mod edit or leave it to the default edited by.
Are you saying that a post has been altered somewhere recently? It happens, but only when we think the edit has been done for very obvious reasons.
Garlick said:
I'm not entirely sure what you mean....but I'll have a go anyway
Some mods (not all) can edit anonymously, but we tend not to use that function as a rule. As we only edit for a reason, showing that we have edited serves to educate members why we have edited in the first place, as such we add in Mod edit or leave it to the default edited by.
What I was meaning is that, until fairly recently, as soon as you edited one of your own posts, the edited version would always have a footer added in small text like so:Some mods (not all) can edit anonymously, but we tend not to use that function as a rule. As we only edit for a reason, showing that we have edited serves to educate members why we have edited in the first place, as such we add in Mod edit or leave it to the default edited by.
Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 7th March 15:44
This was changed so that, if you edited your post within a certain amount of time (or possibly when there are no other posts since yours, I'm not sure) then the footer is not added.
What I believe may be happening is that if a moderator makes an edit on someone else's post, that footer is also not added by the same rules.
I think that when a moderator edits someone else's post, a footer should always be added to say the post has been edited. As you say, either an anonymous mod edit or by naming the moderator in the same format as above.
The fix might be as simple as a conditional around the code that decides whether or not to create the footer such that it is only exercised if the editor is the same username as the poster.
I did understand you then 
Well we do add that we have edited already, so as long as we continue to do that it should be OK? The times an anon edit may take place is only when a 'BINNED' image is posted, but it certainly doesn't happen very often.
If there is a specific case to investigate we will, but I think that if we carry on clearly editing then it is always transparent.
Slinky : For reference, I have added this to Garlick's post
Well we do add that we have edited already, so as long as we continue to do that it should be OK? The times an anon edit may take place is only when a 'BINNED' image is posted, but it certainly doesn't happen very often.
If there is a specific case to investigate we will, but I think that if we carry on clearly editing then it is always transparent.
Slinky : For reference, I have added this to Garlick's post
Edited by slinky on Wednesday 7th March 16:12
The specific instance that alerted me was in the "Things that annoy you beyond reason...? [Vol 2]" thread.
We had this post:
Followed shortly by
Usually an edited by footer would have made it clear it had been edited (regardless of whether or not the moderator was named). And I think you and I are in agreement here, Paul, because you mentioned educating users. What I'm trying to highlight is that I think the code that suppresses footers for minor edits is also suppressing them for mod edits and I don't think that was the intent of the code.
Please don't read any of this as a complaint; I'm trying to highlight what I think is unintentional behaviour / unintended ramifications on the recent code changes that suppress footers. Hope that makes sense!
We had this post:
Cock Womble 7 said:
If you were to order a kitchen from a well known supplier of such, in the information pack you get sent there is a blue balloon and a length of string.
On the day of delivery, inflate the balloon and attach it to your front door/garden gate/servant's quarters - this gives the delivery crew a clear indication of exactly where you are.
Not absolutely necessary on a terraced street of numbered houses, or some council estate, but an absolute boon on a dark country lane at 0700 in the morning when you're looking for "Dunroamin" or whatever.
Simple but effective. Much like me.
(note: no footer text)On the day of delivery, inflate the balloon and attach it to your front door/garden gate/servant's quarters - this gives the delivery crew a clear indication of exactly where you are.
Not absolutely necessary on a terraced street of numbered houses, or some council estate, but an absolute boon on a dark country lane at 0700 in the morning when you're looking for "Dunroamin" or whatever.
Simple but effective. Much like me.
Followed shortly by
Cock Womble 7 said:
And why has my post been edited?
I was hardly advertising, just stating a fact based on my knowledge of that particular supplier of kitchens.
The only indication that it had been edited by a moderator was the fact the edited text had been italicised. In fact, I didn't even realise that was an edit (I thought CW7 was being circumspect for once) until his 2nd post asking why it had been edited. I was hardly advertising, just stating a fact based on my knowledge of that particular supplier of kitchens.
Usually an edited by footer would have made it clear it had been edited (regardless of whether or not the moderator was named). And I think you and I are in agreement here, Paul, because you mentioned educating users. What I'm trying to highlight is that I think the code that suppresses footers for minor edits is also suppressing them for mod edits and I don't think that was the intent of the code.
Please don't read any of this as a complaint; I'm trying to highlight what I think is unintentional behaviour / unintended ramifications on the recent code changes that suppress footers. Hope that makes sense!
LordGrover said:
I think you're missing Jon's point.
I'll complete and post this then return within a minute or so to edit it. There will be no footer.
Jon's saying when a moderator edits in the same time frame their footer is not added either.
++and this is the edit++
Yes, exactly so. I'll complete and post this then return within a minute or so to edit it. There will be no footer.
Jon's saying when a moderator edits in the same time frame their footer is not added either.
++and this is the edit++
The 2 minute grace period should only be applied if the person doing the editing is the same as the person who made the post.
Edit:
i.e. the code that says "IF less then 2 mins has elapsed THEN suppress footer" should be "IF less then 2 mins has elapsed AND the person making the edit is the poster THEN suppress footer"
(I realise that the actual code is more likely to be "if more than 2 mins has elapsed then add footer")
Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 7th March 16:33
I'm not 100% certain that we do have the grace to be honest. More than likely (if anything) it will be an anon edit. No reason to give us the grace period as we don't need it.
An anon-edit can be done at any time by (a few) mods. No need for a grace period, but we'd rather not anon-edit as a rule as I have said before.
An anon-edit can be done at any time by (a few) mods. No need for a grace period, but we'd rather not anon-edit as a rule as I have said before.
Garlick said:
I'm not 100% certain that we do have the grace to be honest. More than likely (if anything) it will be an anon edit. No reason to give us the grace period as we don't need it.
Well, my observation (and quoted posts) suggest you do. But I don't think it is intended behaviour. I'd bet a pint that if you get one of your guys to look at the code he'll find that there is no checking for the username of the person doing the editing, just a check on the time.
Edit: Or are you saying that anon edits are completely invisible? I thought anon edits caused a footer than said the post had been edited by "a moderator" (or words to that effect)?
Edit2 (having seen your edit):
Garlick said:
An anon-edit can be done at any time by (a few) mods. No need for a grace period, but we'd rather not anon-edit as a rule as I have said before.
Ok, that clarifies my Edit1 then. Edited by JonRB on Wednesday 7th March 16:38
There is a valid reason for having the anon edit option as a moderator.
If someone makes an offensive/N&S post which is edited by a mod after it has been quoted 7/8 times. I don't see why having amended the post normally, the quoted posts should each carry an "amended by xxxx moderator etc" script below it.
If you feel moderators have abused this tool at anytime fire in an abuse report.
If someone makes an offensive/N&S post which is edited by a mod after it has been quoted 7/8 times. I don't see why having amended the post normally, the quoted posts should each carry an "amended by xxxx moderator etc" script below it.
If you feel moderators have abused this tool at anytime fire in an abuse report.
JonRB said:
Garlick said:
I'm not 100% certain that we do have the grace to be honest. More than likely (if anything) it will be an anon edit. No reason to give us the grace period as we don't need it.
Well, my observation (and quoted posts) suggest you do. But I don't think it is intended behaviour. I'd bet a pint that if you get one of your guys to look at the code he'll find that there is no checking for the username of the person doing the editing, just a check on the time.
JonRB said:
Edit: Or are you saying that anon edits are completely invisible?
But we tend not to use it, instead we show a note to (attempt to) explain why we have edited. But yes, the fully invisible option is there.
My invisible edit to add- apologies for going around in circles. I think we understand each other now!
dazren said:
If you feel moderators have abused this tool at anytime fire in an abuse report.
As I mentioned earlier, this isn't a complaint. What I *thought* was happening was that the grace period was being applied to poster and mod alike and that this was a bug / unintended behaviour. I was not aware that an anon edit did not generate a footer.
I'm a Software Developer - my job is to notice unexpected behaviour and either fix it or report it. I was just doing the same courtesy to PH.
Clearly what I have been saying has been misinterpreted.
dazren said:
If you feel moderators have abused this tool at anytime fire in an abuse report.
Lookin gin on this I don't think that anyone is looking at this from a "Shoot the Mod" POV. More the fact that a quick (valid) Mod edit can make a post seem a little Daliesque if there is nothing to alert the reader to the fact that it's been Moded.Edit to say how the hell did i miss your post above?
Gassing Station | Website Feedback | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff