IPB Editing Suggestion

[Eric.]

Has anyone suggested this yet? Basically, board admins want members to be able to edit their post, right? But, some people abuse that by flaming another member, and then editing their post.

Now, I realize that it is possible to disable editing, but this means that members can't correct typos or other errors. I also realize that you can put on an editing limit of lets say 10 minutes, but this is still long enough to be abused.

What I am asking for in the next release is a logged edit system, meaning an admin/mod can view a post's edit history, and see what the post said before and after it was edited. It is always hard when you get two forum members arguing over something, another member saying someone else insulted them, etc. But no proof, all you as an admin can see is "This post was edited by..." but no content! It isn't fair for all of the rest of the members to take away editing just because a few can't get along.

That is one of my biggest wishes, logged post editing, anyone else agree?

[Keith J. Kacin]

The posts table is usually the largest table in a board. If you were to enable logging of this table, it can easily grow 5 times its normal size, causing it to be unmanagable.

If it was stored in a seperate table, it would at least match the posts table size, which again would not be the best.

I personally don't see it as feasible right now. But that is just me -- I do not make the final decisions on anything. :)

[Eric.]

The posts table is usually the largest table in a board. If you were to enable logging of this table, it can easily grow 5 times its normal size, causing it to be unmanagable.

If it was stored in a seperate table, it would at least match the posts table size, which again would not be the best.

I personally don't see it as feasible right now. But that is just me -- I do not make the final decisions on anything. :)

That would be fine with me, we see it all of the time with things like WikiMedia, which chances are is edited more than IPB posts would and there is much more content.

Now, agreed for huge multi-million post forums this may not be doable, but there could always be an option to enable/disable it in the admin CP.

There could even be an option to auto-prune edit logs in the task manager, say every 15 or 30 days?

[Dlf]

What of an ACP option of weather a member can or can't edit there post(s) & how long after they post that they can edit (or can't). -- Could be used for the members that do flame but then seemingly edit there posts.

[Jaggi]

The posts table is usually the largest table in a board. If you were to enable logging of this table, it can easily grow 5 times its normal size, causing it to be unmanagable.

If it was stored in a seperate table, it would at least match the posts table size, which again would not be the best.

I personally don't see it as feasible right now. But that is just me -- I do not make the final decisions on anything. :)

technically that is a possibility but this is going by your assumption that every post on the board is edited once to be the same size as the posts table and edited 5times to be 5x the size of posts table which isn't realistic while its true actual edits made to posts are few they can be made multiple times this is where the bulk would be made up, although very possible i don't think that a edit logging table would grow that big, possible 1/3 the size of the post table and thats being generous. As for the idea its a valid one but even having another table 1/3 the size of the posts table i'm not too thrilled with.

A better idea might be to keep logs for say a week and then wipe em as any dispute is likely to be settled in that time.

[Alex]

Back in the old days I did make a mod for this, but since 2.2 I scrapped it, the logs table gets VERY unmanageable quickly, within hours on large boards...

[Dlf]

Would the database get large® & unmanageable if the edits only came from one or so groups (that you specify)?

Also I think this could tie into a suggestion I read recently -- about the filters - to deny a post to be made if it contains a bad word, or just filter it. How'd this tie into mine? What about if you choose to filter it (like currently) the bad word can't be edited. If a member posts that word they are moved into the group to which edits are logged. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

[Eric.]

Would the database get large