Reputation and Mod approval - user edit abuse

[CnCNet]

Problem: I just posted a response to one of >IPB's presale questions. It got approved, however immediately after I'm now able to write anything.

Question: Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of moderator approval? You are approving the CURRENT post! Further edits to a post have no safety net, no further approval process.

Possible solution: Approve the post and thats the final post, no further edits allowed. Or moderator approval again for a further edit?

Same logic with the reputation I posted a while back. You like a post, someone edits the post, and you've now found you liked a post 'VB5 is amazing', and makes you want to cut off your fingers.

What's everyones opinion on this? Could this be improved?

[AndyF]

Approval for an edit would be an idea although (the same could be said with IDM really) moderators would probably not appreciate the extra workload apart from smaller forums.

I'm assuming you mean the 'approval' would only apply to forum areas where posts are initially moderated yes ?

I do see what you are saying though and its a valid point to discuss. :)

Enforcing the 'edited' line is one small step but the reputation would have to show when it was given I expect for this to be much use.

[Makoto]

I personally don't think it's really necessary. Just set an edit time restriction (or don't allow the user to edit their posts at all).

If someone really needs to change something in a post they made, they could always contact a staff member about it directly. That's what I do on my forum at least.

(I also do force the "edit" line for all non-administrators)

The only thing I've been concerned with is >post edit history, which hopefully we can expect in 4.0

[CnCNet]

Approval for an edit would be an idea although (the same could be said with IDM really) moderators would probably not appreciate the extra workload apart from smaller forums.

I'm assuming you mean the 'approval' would only apply to forum areas where posts are initially moderated yes ?

I do see what you are saying though and its a valid point to discuss. :smile:

Enforcing the 'edited' line is one small step but the reputation would have to show when it was given I expect for this to be much use.

That's true.

Yes that's correct.

Forcing an 'edited' line for approval posts wouldn't be a bad idea either. Perhaps with an extra line to the message beneath, "This post content may have changed since being approved by a moderator". (Or something better explained along those lines).

[AndyF]

Perhaps another reason to have a post editing history...

[CnCNet]

Ha yes, a public dropdown of the post history wouldn't be a bad move!

[Makoto]

For what it's worth, I use this hook from the marketplace and it still seems to work:

You can already force an edit line when users edit posts too,

[CnCNet]

Would prefer to see it native personally. Quite a nice feature to have if it was implemented in 4.0 or above.

[Makoto]

Yes, I completely agree, and the hook likely won't work after 4.0.

But 4.0 might still be a ways away, just posting it in-case someone wanted it now :P

[Nimdock]

In my forum it is kind of a big deal to quote old posts to rub in something someone said... Or when someone submits a post and says something somewhat dumb the fun starts immediately.

This led me to completely disable edit capabilities even for one minute (they wanted it that way). Which means my users can't correct grammar errors or formatting errors. So having something like this (post history) built in would be pretty awesome.

[mbron]

For what it's worth, I use this hook from the marketplace and it still seems to work:

You can already force an edit line when users edit posts too,

But that is under a group edit not an individual in the current version of the software. I don't want to have to create a specific group to prevent edits or have to remove the user from the group. I have a group with hundreds of users in it that I do allow to edit posts, but one person in it has become abusive so I want to stop them from editing their posts and not affect the other users, and not take him out of the group. Currently I'd have to create a specific group just for that user in order to prevent them from editing. Would like to be able to change the users own profile to prevent it as an override.

[rmbettencourt]

I personally don't think it's really necessary. Just set an edit time restriction (or don't allow the user to edit their posts at all).

If someone really needs to change something in a post they made, they could always contact a staff member about it directly. That's what I do on my forum at least.

(I also do force the "edit" line for all non-administrators)

The only thing I've been concerned with is >post edit history, which hopefully we can expect in 4.0

I LOVE and agree with the later statement. On my board, I too have the forced option to non-admins. But when someone reports someone for inappropriate or offensive posts and an admin reviews it, it shows that the post was edited, but does not show what it was before. This leaves for an unsatisfactory outcome for the member who reported the post.