Discourses Limited Post Edit Window

Continuing the discussion from [OG] The Old Guard (109 members - Waiting for reply from the remaining nominees):

As this came up over and over I think it deserved his own thread.

During our adventure with our white slated Discourse forums we stumbled upon a feature that hindered us doing certain things that we usually like to do.

Having hubs of information in our post. For things like community servers, clan threads, collections of known informations, community projects and so forth we stumbled over the problem that discourse has a build in feature that blocks the user from editing his post after a set amount of time. I think here it is set to 6 months. This is to hinder vandalism from users as they may retroactively insert links into all their older post for advertisement reasons or just delete their posts, creating holes in the discussion.

This on the other hand creates the problem for users that maintain a thread of the further up stated purpose. If the IP of my server, the members of my group, the website of my fansite or in others such cases change after the 6 months I, and all others, created a post, we can’t go back and correct that, rendering the whole topic outdated and useless.

One solution would be to allow users with the “Regular” rank edit their posts.
Another would be to increase the overall edit window for everyone …

Here’s a discussion on the meta forums:

Here are some posts from the community prior to the creation of this thread:

1 Like

Why have a limit at all, really? To prevent abuse? Archival? The cases of where edits are abused are so rare as to be nonexistant compared to the instances where people actually have a good reason to edit old stuff, and discource saves a log of all edits, so archival isnt a great reason either.


Well, there was a forum game a while ago that sort-of abused editing… :wink:


shhhhh dont speak of such things

those were within 48 hours anyways


It’s to prevent abuse - the levels of which will vary between communities - so making it customisable makes sense.

For the purposes of this forum, @INovaeKeith might as well set it to years, but as the whole point of a limit is to prevent abuse, it would seem to make sense to make it customisable per trust level.

Why not voice your opinion over on meta.discourse.org?

1 Like

I don’t think we have any Leaders, the requirements are insane, probably impossible for a small community like ours ATM.

The impossible requirements being manual promotion by Inovae? :stuck_out_tongue:

That’s not that impossible, thought there was a 20+ likes on a single post requirement.

Leader (4)

Leaders are regulars who have been around forever and seen everything. They set a positive example for the community through their actions and their posts. If you need advice, these are the folks you turn to first.

They can get to trust level 4 by…

Manual promotion only at the moment!

In the future, look closely at quality?

ExplicitQuality = min(1.0,
contributionValue(LikesRecievedCnt) * LikesWeight +
contributionValue(BookmarksRecievedCnt) * BookmarksWeight +
contributionValue(FavoritesRecievedCnt) * FavoritesWeight +
contributionValue(RepliesCnt) * RepliesWeight +
contributionValue(AvgTopicRepliesCnt) * TopicRepliesWeight)
Look also at site and topic promotion: invites, accepted invites, external links followed?

Yes, I checked that after your previous post. :wink:

1 Like


Not entirely sure how you can abuse old edits in any context, especially when there are public edit logs.

I guess you are saying that because the topic on meta that I linked to says Leaders… Note it also says trust level 3.

Since that topic was started over a year ago, the trust levels have been renamed. ‘Leader’ is now the label for trust level 4 which is by manual assignment only.

We have a bunch of trust level 3 users which are now called ‘Regular’.

Trust level 3 users do not get the nofollow attribute set on links that they post.
The nofollow attribute effects search engine ranking. Users could abuse this by going back and editing old posts to include links to sites that they want to improve the ranking of.
Because they’re old, no one will notice. If they put the links in new or recent posts, they’re more likely to be spotted.

Any new development on this issue?

We should ping @INovaeKeith about this…

Ringeding ding ringe ding ding ding.

Yeah, he probabaly doesn’t know how to solve this issue without backslasch in the future … just rather decided to play some more Battlescape Prototype.
Anyway this topic must be the leading cause for Keith pinging by now.

1 Like

For now, any threads that require an edited OP we should just remake after 6 months. Many forums (usually much bigger) provide a post limit before a thread is locked, in our case we’ll need to do it based on time passed. though this will mean things get spammy for corporation threads.

Let’s wait for some answer from Keith before starting to make all those duplicate threads. I would prefer the old ones to be editable.

I think Keith is just too busy to answer to this issue atm (although not busy enough to not comment on Dwarf Fortress :wink: )


Priorities, Lucas, Priorities!

1 Like

We should bump the We’re looking for a full-stack web developer to join the team! thread. :wink:

Web upgrade is scheduled for next month. I’ll address it then.