Add limitation on editing posts?

DPR prevented you from editing a post to which there was a response. That seems to me preferable to the unrestricted editing here.

Sherm

Agree. Especially if there will be a need to prove that poster said so.

I've just edited my OP in this thread which is 2 days old and added 3 images and several paragraphs of text. I found it useful being able to do that. I'm sure that someone reading the thread would find it much easier to read it all at the start of the thread, rather than have to scan through a large number of posts to find the examples and extra information.

Of course, I can see how the facility could be abused. It's not an easy matter to decide.

That makes sense. I was concerned mostly about some of the ongoing endless debate threads, which can become a bit hostile.
Sherm

I agree with all your words, but the conclusion.

I suppose is better to get some abuse and be able to have posts cleared later than to have a deluge of corrections posts to look at.
I don't see the reason to block editing. Quotes will be enough "static" for documentation purposes.

I feel the same way as a poster:
I usually need to correct what I wrote making it better Inglisss and sometimes in better order exposition.
but I'll see it next time I'll read it. And I'll provide amendments.

For me, as it is now it's the best. Abusers can be sanctioned... if needed.

We have no reason to reduce our opportunities ... just "for fear" or because others did that.

( so far---> no proof somebody will abuse of that freedom )

Forum is still optimized for mobile devices and lacking features (e.g. no option to center text, no option to display photos at full size, etc.) so I am already hesitant to post photos here as they are not being displayed the way I want. Now with the possibility of losing the option to re-edit my posts, I will refrain from posting any more photos here. I am also considering pre-emptively re-editing my posts to remove all photos that I have already posted in this forum.

I really like having the opportunity to edit your own posts later than DPR allowed. I think it's a vast improvement over the time-out method. I hope that feature isn't removed out of fear someone would abuse it. Perhaps there are reasons I haven't encountered or thought of other than abuse.

I am assuming there will at some point be moderators who could attend to abuses of the privilege.

I have my own gallery website, so l don't want the forum to become a gallery, but I assume the way that photos are displayed here will improve. Right now the photos are displayed as thumbnails on the left side of the post, with a blank space on the right side, so I use a temporary workaround that allows people to click thumbnail for a full size view in a new tab, but maybe later that will not be needed and even become an interference. If there is an option to center photos and text then I can add title or caption underneath each photo, so it will be good to allow posts to be updated for new features. Just showing the edit history is already enough to deter abuse on other forums I visit.

It can take me a while to spot mistakes and correct them. IMO, posts should become "frozen" at some point, say 1 week, but I really dislike sites that freeze things after 15 minutes or so. Needing evidence in a pissing contest isn't terribly important to me, as I try very hard to avoid those.

I see the primary point of these forums to be a source of information. Not to win a contest of He said… Yes, but he said… first. (Use of the gender-specific pronoun is deliberate.) Despite the risk of abuse by bad actors, I prefer the ability to edit in perpetuity. It allows me to go back to correct typos — sometimes noticed days later. To strike through erroneous information. Replacing it with what I have discovered is correct and current — giving proper credit and reference as is due. To responsibly update, curate and maintain posts so that they remain relevant and contain the best possible information.

This isn't a court of law. The stakes here are low — except for the perpetually argumentative and butt-hurt. Is it genuinely necessary to prove somebody said something? One can always quote the passages they're objecting to, so the original statement will live on anyway. (Or follow what seems to be the more common practice of quoting the conversation in its entirety.)

Don't punish the proletariat for the actions of bad actors.

This has been an issue with web publishing since the earliest of days. Once you publish it online, you lose all control over how it’s displayed. Why worry about justification when half the monitors being used are way out of balance? (And let’s not even think about the ambient lighting — the horror!)

On the other hand when you sell (or gift) a print, you don’t get to control how it’s framed or where it’s hung either. Letting go of our children and letting them fend for themselves is part of the process.

What about the ability to only strikeout existing text and add text that is clearly marked as added, after a certain period of time? IOW, allow people to change what they want people to see now, but without hiding what was originally posted.

One big PITA at DPReview was someone pointing out, in a reply to you, that you had an error, and not being able to fix it, and have people reply to you to correct you years later. So, I am not in love with the suggestion that someone made that editing should stop completely after a post is replied to.

That can get ugly fast if people are just editing for spelling or clarity. I’ll readily admit that seldom is a post made that I don’t revisit to tweak the language, and correct a typo (often spotted just as I hit “Send”). Let’s see if this one survives — the system provides a clear notation that a post has been edited, and how many times.