Users cannot edit their posts
Printed From: Web Wiz Forums
Category: Web Wiz Web App Support Forums
Forum Name: Web Wiz Forums
Forum Description: Support forum for Web Wiz Forums application.
URL: https://forums.webwiz.net/forum_posts.asp?TID=29531
Printed Date: 01 April 2026 at 4:40am
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 12.08 - https://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Users cannot edit their posts
Posted By: RadioActiveLamb
Subject: Users cannot edit their posts
Date Posted: 13 July 2011 at 3:54am
|
I've upgraded my v9 forum to v10.01. People seem to really like the changes, as-do I. However, some of my most experienced users report that they can no-longer edit their own posts. I've checked the permissions for all the ladder groups, and "edit post" is checked in all the forums. I've also tried creating a new user, and I'm able to edit my own posts as that user. Trying to determine what's going on here. Does anyone else have this problem? As an admin, my editing capabilities are working fine.
|
Replies:
Posted By: WebWiz-Bruce
Date Posted: 13 July 2011 at 7:53am
|
You can set a time limit on how long members have in which to edit their
posts. If you do not wish to use this feature then make sure it is
turned off in the admin area. The Editor Topic Time frame is found on the Post and Topics settings page in the admin area ------------- https://www.webwiz.net/web-wiz-forums/forum-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - Web Wiz Forums Hosting https://www.webwiz.net/web-hosting/windows-web-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - ASP.NET Web Hosting |
Posted By: yandr
Date Posted: 26 July 2011 at 8:09am
|
I was wondering if it is possible to include an option to make a post un-editable if it has received one or more replies (from the user, not the moderators of course). I have already done this modification in my forum, because I found out that some people delete their posts or change the contents of their posts when they 'loose' in a conversation. |
Posted By: billd3
Date Posted: 26 July 2011 at 2:39pm
|
AMEN - I'd use that feature - and for that very reason. "oh, I never said that at all" or "that isn't what I said" or they'll talk trash, then go in and edit it out once the intended victim has read it - before we mods can see it. ------------- BillD http://theamcpages.com http://theamcforum.com |
Posted By: WebWiz-Bruce
Date Posted: 26 July 2011 at 6:30pm
|
There is not an option to disable editing a post after a reply is made, but you can use the Edit Time Settings to do much the same thing. Just set the Editing Time to 15 minutes or less and then members will not be able to go back and edit posts except for quick edits after posting to correct spelling or punctuation.
------------- https://www.webwiz.net/web-wiz-forums/forum-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - Web Wiz Forums Hosting https://www.webwiz.net/web-hosting/windows-web-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - ASP.NET Web Hosting |
Posted By: Paul_T
Date Posted: 27 July 2011 at 7:13pm
|
I have gave my users 48 hours to edit their posts, due to reasons of slander in the high court. Have you ever drank to much beer/wine etc and woke up wishing you never made that post? I think any high court judge would find 15 mins unreasonable for people to edit! Google: Smith v ADFVN |
Posted By: WebWiz-Bruce
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 8:00am
|
I think you mean libel as slander is spoken word and libel written. In the UK the service provider and the site owner are seen in the eyes of the law as the 'publisher' of any content on their network or website, so we get allot of solicitor letters here at Web Wiz threatening court action for liable due to someone taking offence to a post in one of the 1,000's of forums hosted on our network. The president in England and Wales was set with a high court case in 2008 where the judge said that as along as the views were the persons own opinion, even if written in anger at the time, then this was fine. Obviously if you make an untrue claim then it could be liable, in which case you just need to make sure you remove it as soon as your are made aware of it. I don't think the amount of time someone has to edit a post really comes in to it, but 12 to 24 hours is good if you wake up the next morning after a skin full the night before and realise that what you posted in the drunk state online was not exactly what you wanted to say. ------------- https://www.webwiz.net/web-wiz-forums/forum-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - Web Wiz Forums Hosting https://www.webwiz.net/web-hosting/windows-web-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - ASP.NET Web Hosting |
Posted By: Paul_T
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 11:19am
|
Bruce, In the case of Smith vs Advfn, Lord Justice Eady of the High court in London stated that on a forum it was actually "Slander" and not liable or defamation of character. |
Posted By: WebWiz-Bruce
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 12:05pm
What Lord Justice Eady said was :-
He said forums are more like slander than libel, but didn't actually say they are slander. The definition of the word slander is still verbal and not written. Slander 1. (Law) Law a. defamation in some transient form, as by spoken words, gestures, etc. b. a slanderous statement, etc. 2. any false or defamatory words spoken about a person; calumny Libel 1. a. A false publication, as in writing, print, signs, or pictures, that damages a person's reputation. b. The act of presenting such material to the public. 2. The written claims presented by a plaintiff in an action at admiralty law or to an ecclesiastical court. Many people get slander and libel mixed up, but generally find that people send us letters about slander while solicitors get it right and send letters to us about libel for posts in forums. ------------- https://www.webwiz.net/web-wiz-forums/forum-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - Web Wiz Forums Hosting https://www.webwiz.net/web-hosting/windows-web-hosting.htm" rel="nofollow - ASP.NET Web Hosting |
Lord Justice Eady wrote:Posted By: Nick-V
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 1:04pm
| ...so its better to phone them and tell them they are a dick-head directly to their face?!? |
Posted By: billd3
Date Posted: 28 July 2011 at 6:02pm
|
Yes. LOL - I've found that most folks are more concerned about removing the content and making sure few others see it than a legal path that can end up with everything stated becoming even more public. I tell our members "if you can PROVE it, post away, otherwise shut your yap as it's strictly your opinion and we probably won't care" ------------- BillD http://theamcpages.com http://theamcforum.com |
Posted By: Paul_T
Date Posted: 30 July 2011 at 11:00am
Hi Bruce, Yes you are correct and many barristers would agree that it is actually libel. I'm not trying to get into any argument here with you Bruce, but considering Lord Justice Eady stated that, i think he is correct and was trying to sway it towards slander and i would agree with him on that. What is your opinion on version 10 with the "live chat" would this be considered libel too? i still think it would be considered "slander" as it's in live chat mode. Lord Justice Eady BTW is considered the top man regarding this field (slander,libel & defamation) in the High court of London. Regards Paul. |
Posted By: RadioActiveLamb
Date Posted: 30 July 2011 at 3:06pm
| My issue has been resolved. Can we have the debate in another topic? |