"Modify" Button not appearing

[themeandvariation]

My modify button is not appearing ….I was curious if anyone else is experiencing this as well.. Or, if anyone knows of a reason why it would not appear...

[8_octaves]

My modify button is not appearing ….I was curious if anyone else is experiencing this as well.. Or, if anyone knows of a reason why it would not appear...

Hi themeandvariation,

cannot see it either, at the moment (have checked at other postings).

cordially, 8_octaves.

MODIFICATION: Ah, now, having just posted, I can see it. Perhaps one can only modify within a limited timespan? Don't know.

[8_octaves]

Now, after ca. 30 min, it has disappeared from my former posting,...

MODIFICATION: but here, in this one, it's visible - for now. If one could confirm, it would be nice.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[themeandvariation]

Hi 8_Octaves.
Thank you for your observations regarding this…  (It seems then that one may not be able to retract a recording they posted either….  ) It didn't seem to be operating this way a few days ago…

[8_octaves]

Hi 8_Octaves.
Thank you for your observations regarding this…  (It seems then that one may not be able to retract a recording they posted either….  ) It didn't seem to be operating this way a few days ago…

Rehi, theme!

I think, if it was planned, then that's all ok. Because of another reason not only concerning deleting of recordings:

I spotted ( of course accidentally ), that there were some forum-members, who, e.g. after they had written 35909090177 postings, they decided (for what reason ever, I cannot imagine) to do the super-nonsense-action of deleting their posts THEMSELVES (as I could understand by the comments made on such threads), and then, these people leave only a "-" in the area where there posting once was.

To act like this, is in my opinion crap, because it makes, unless the former, now deleted, posting was quoted by someone, a discussion very difficult to be continued, because one has often to GUESS what such people had written. To prevent such childish activities, a limited timespan for editing may be VERY GOOD, I think.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[themeandvariation]

Yes, I know what you mean….so that there is coherence to the conversation…. On one of my comments, i just wanted to modify it so that it would make more sense… in fact, i wanted to add to it… 
Thanks again for your thoughts..

[quantum]

Hope this is temporary issue.  Mass deletions are unfortunate, but generally do not represent the actions of most people on this forum.  There are valid reasons to modify old posts, such as to fix typos or update attachments.  People posting in the audition room may also have reasons to remove old recordings from public view.  The index threads would be difficult to maintain in an orderly fashion if not for the modify function.  One would hope that posters have the decency not to abuse the function.

Any input on this Nils?

[quantum]

Modify button disappears after 30 mins, confirmed here.  Time is counted from the original post date stamp.

[8_octaves]

Modify button disappears after 30 mins, confirmed here.  Time is counted from the original post date stamp.

Thank you, quantum!

Cordially, 8_oct!

[themeandvariation]

Thank you for responding,  Quantum.  I agree with your reasoning - that there could be valid reasons….
I noticed the time allotment as 30 minutes, as well….  so i am guessing that this is a deliberate change from last week...

[nilsjohan]

Since yesterday we are trying out this new setting.
The main disadvantage would be the difficulty to update "index threads" but there are many other reasons to prevent modification of posts after a certain time.
If changing the content of a post, after such time limit is passed, is of great importance for some reason it could always be done by asking me in a PM.
What do you all think would be a reasonable time limit?

[stoat_king]

I post in a number of forums and modify my posts very often.
However, I am only ever changing the grammar / spelling / phrasing, never the meaning.
So, from my point of view, anything from half an hour upwards would be fine.
Maybe an hour would be better.
If I havent spotted a mistake by then, then its my bad.

[j_menz]

Uncorrected grammar/spelling we can probably live with.

Additional comments could no doubt be included in a new post.

Most changes I make, not covered above, are fixing the [ IMG ] cursor position problem and the https://  issue with the youtube embed one. If they could be fixed it would go a long way to eradicating the need for edits.

[8_octaves]

Since yesterday we are trying out this new setting.
The main disadvantage would be the difficulty to update "index threads" but there are many other reasons to prevent modification of posts after a certain time.
If changing the content of a post, after such time limit is passed, is of great importance for some reason it could always be done by asking me in a PM.
What do you all think would be a reasonable time limit?

Hi nilsjohan,

at first, thank you for running this forum!

I think, too, (as I wrote before), that modification after a certain time should be prevented. But to the reasonable time limit, it seems to depend on each users views. As stoat_king pointed out,

[...]
Maybe an hour would be better.
[...]

that perhaps would be an idea, but others may not agree, saying "only 5 minutes", "one day", "2 hours" or so. Thus, perhaps one idea might not satisfy all other opinions, so that perhaps it should be simply - without discussion - defined by the admin (you).  

Other chance would, perhaps, be, to start a poll with 5 or 6 choices, and then democratically apply the most popular time limit.-

And btw.: Thanks for the offer to PN you, nilsjohan, if really important reasons exist to modify a posting even after the time limit has expired!

_______

Uncorrected grammar/spelling we can probably live with.

Additional comments could no doubt be included in a new post.

Most changes I make, not covered above, are fixing the [ IMG ] cursor position problem and the https://  issue with the youtube embed one. If they could be fixed it would go a long way to eradicating the need for edits.

Hi j_menz,

I'm no way an expert in SMF-forums (I spotted that this forum is powerd by smf, at the bottom of the pages. )

What I noticed, was, that when I tried to link / embed YT-videos as a "visible frame" here on the forum, it said "Invalid Youtube Link", always. (But maybe I just had forgotten to use the "embed" code, then, OR, it's connected to the YT-feature, which "doesn't allow" sometimes to embed vids.

I found this page, some minutes ago, but I don't know whether it's helpful or not:

https://www.xptsp.com/board/index.php?topic=50.0;wap2

And I won't test 7 or 8 ways whether a linked vid would show up correctly embedded and visible.

For TESTS, I would strongly recommend a separate board in the "non piano-board"-section, where each user can make Test-threads, to test options, linking, embedding, or other interesting but tricky things. In other forums such test-areas are very popular.

__________

All in all, I would say the following: A forum should be orientated on the future, to be able to compete with other forums. I've seen, for example, that on some forums YT-embedding is no problem at all, and each one works fine. Furthermore, there are, today, many real-time-functions available in other forums, for example: "User XXX has just liked your posting in thread YY", OR, which is a very very nice option, I think, especially in more complex dialogues, to "@" users directly, which is in realtime parsed, too, as soon a posting containing "@nilsjohan" , for example, is posted, you would get notified "Nilsjohan, user (XX, the one who posted it ) has just MARKED you in thread (YY)."

The future is now.  

Thinks, with cordial greetings, 8_octaves.

[j_menz]

Hi j_menz,

I'm no way an expert in SMF-forums (I spotted that this forum is powerd by smf, at the bottom of the pages. )

What I noticed, was, that when I tried to link / embed YT-videos as a "visible frame" here on the forum, it said "Invalid Youtube Link", always. (But maybe I just had forgotten to use the "embed" code, then, OR, it's connected to the YT-feature, which "doesn't allow" sometimes to embed vids.

The way to embed YT videos is to use the youtube button around the YT page URL:

[ youtube] [ /youtube ]

The problem is that the default YT URL is now a secure link, https:// not https://, so cutting and pasting creates an error by default.

Thus,

[ youtube ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TUWU_yg4s[ /youtube ]

gives:

Whereas


[ youtube ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TUWU_yg4s[ /youtube ]

(note the "s" has been removed from https://)

gives:

Sometimes I forget. It seems I'm not alone.

[ronde_des_sylphes]

Yes, the youtube embed link is an irritance and easily got wrong. I'd prefer longer than half an hour; it's not uncommon to later feel you should phrase something differently. I'd like the audition room to remain a place where people can retrospectively remove material: it's easy to see situations where copyright or other issues related to performances being made publicly available could change, or be interpreted differently, from when the posting was originally made.

[stoat_king]

that perhaps would be an idea, but others may not agree, saying "only 5 minutes", "one day", "2 hours" or so. Thus, perhaps one idea might not satisfy all other opinions, so that perhaps it should be simply - without discussion - defined by the admin (you).  

Your point that any given time-limit cant suit everyone is spot on, so maybe getting the admin to decide is the right thing to do.
I dont mind whichever way it goes.
I only modify my own posts so much because I'm a fusspot and a grammar-nazi.
If it were a single minute, I'd just have to be more careful about hitting the post button.

[8_octaves]

The way to embed YT videos is to use the youtube button around the YT page URL:

[ youtube] [ /youtube ]

The problem is that the default YT URL is now a secure link, https:// not https://, so cutting and pasting creates an error by default.

Thus,

[ youtube ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TUWU_yg4s[ /youtube ]

gives:

Whereas


[ youtube ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C3TUWU_yg4s[ /youtube ]

(note the "s" has been removed from https://)

gives:

Sometimes I forget. It seems I'm not alone.

Hi j_menz,

thank you very much for the explanation, and I will try that the next time I embed a video.
I think I have tried to delete the "s" before, OR in that single case I had deleted the "s", but only used the "normal" link option. But cannot remember properly, and perhaps just in that one or two  cases maybe embedding wasn't allowed by the Youtuber, so I got into a "dilemma of judging", you know!

Thanks, again, and I'll try it next time!

Cordially, 8_oct!

PS.: But since I spotted on other forums, that, then, seemingly the "s" is deleted automatically, if detected by the parser, (because no matter there, whether an "s" exists or not: the embedding works fine), one could perhaps think of coding the "delete-the-s-if-existing"-routine here additionally, too. )

[8_octaves]

@ "eliminating the "s":

If

( an expression begins on the left side with "https://www.youtube" ) ( ADDITION: this can be achieved by a small recursive routine or / and a "compare-String". Parse: every expression until a space occurs and test if a String of the first 19 chars equals "https://www.youtube" )

then begin

( read the complete expression until its end into a separate String variable. )
The end of the expression may have occured if after a given character a SPACE (ascii-code) appears.
To be correct, change then the content of the String-variable by subtracting the "space", if necessary.

Now we have the complete "https"-expression in this String variable.

Now we count: Approximately like this: We read Left$ (Work$,4) into a new Stringvariable or Edit-field, using for example a "for-" loop. That means as a result: We have "http" in this NEW variable then.

Then, from the OLD variable, in which the complete expression is, we read from (Work$,6), which is the ":" until the end, and APPEND that expression, which should be "://www.youtube.......etc", to the content ("http"), already being in the NEW variable mentioned above.

This way, we have excluded the "s".

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[themeandvariation]

Hi nilsjohan,
Thank you for responding so quickly.
For me, an hour (or more) would be fine for posts…  But for one's recordings, I feel strongly that one should be able to remove them within a much larger time period..  at least a month.. And if the function is being  'abused', why not just  notify the party in question, and take it from there?
Thank you

[quantum]

Since yesterday we are trying out this new setting.
The main disadvantage would be the difficulty to update "index threads" but there are many other reasons to prevent modification of posts after a certain time.
If changing the content of a post, after such time limit is passed, is of great importance for some reason it could always be done by asking me in a PM.
What do you all think would be a reasonable time limit?

I agree with posters above, that one's own recordings in the audition room should indefinitely be available for modification or deletion.  This remains my strongest concern about locking out modifications to posts.  For pianists that may seek recording projects, contracts, and publications in the future, being locked out of modifying one's own attachments could be a significant issue.  Personally, the thought of not having the ability to edit one's own recorded material is very disconcerting. 

If the purpose is to prevent mass deletions, is it possible to send a warning to the admins if a certain user makes a suspiciously unusual amount of modifications in a short time?  Extending from that, instead of a modify timeout for each individual post, is it possible to set a limit on the amount of edits one can make to old posts in a given time.  Say, one to two edits for old posts per day.  This would discourage mass deletions, but still give the option for users to modify old posts when necessary. 

For maintainers of index threads, is it possible to create a user group with special privileges?  Such designated users would be responsible for editing those threads. 

There also comes the inability to lock threads.

In general, I am opposed to a catch-all solution that locks out modifications by a set time period by default.  I understand the intent behind the rule, but think that such solution is too broad and has many disadvantages.  Do we really have an epidemic of deletions and unfavorable modifications of such scale that a site-wide modification timeout is necessary?  IMO, a more preferable solution would allow discouraging unfavorable edits, at the same time not prohibiting the Pianostreet community from sensible modifications.

[themeandvariation]

What about this idea of Quantum's…  "one to two edits for old posts per day"…  To me, this seems  like a very logical approach .. I would be happy with that.   and it certainly would mitigate the mass deletions syndrome.
Thanks, Quantum.

[8_octaves]

What about this idea of Quantum's…  "one to two edits for old posts per day"…  To me, this seems  like a very logical approach .. I would be happy with that.   and it certainly would mitigate the mass deletions syndrome.
Thanks, Quantum.

Sounds like a good idea. But I hope there aren't any problems occuring, in SEPARATING "recent" posts and "old" posts: WHEN exactly does a posting belong to the "old" ?

Think about the VIEW, then. The "modify"-button-visible"-variable (boolean, I presume) will have to be valid then for a while at BOTH kind of postings, and then, somewhen, it has - for SOME postings, to be treated differently...

Beware   ... ( but at least should be solvable. )

Another option would be, to apply the "time limit " ( an hour or so ) only for postings which are NOT in the "audition-room". Whereas for postings in the audition-room other rules may be applied, for example referring to the START-POSTINGS, in which (mostly, unless some extraordinarily intelligent poster only ANNOUNCES a later recording-posting) most of the recordings are uploaded or linked.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

PS.: Ah, before I forget: If OLD postings in the audition room can be deliberately changed, by, e.g., de-appending uploads, or deleting links, and a long and fruitful discussion might have evolved before, then we have the same crappy situation again: Nobody knows what was spoken about. And all the posters who have invested time and fun to comment, would be angry, I could VERY WELL imagine... .

Who wants to use a piano forum for his links and uploads to be an "application for very distinguished conservatories", that person can upload NEWER versions at any time, if sometimes an older one doesn't seem to him appropriate. For myself, I would estimate a forum not being an appropriate place to post "application-recordings".

 

 

[themeandvariation]

"the audition-room other rules may be applied" . Yes, that sounds good.  (but i do believe the access to modify/delete recordings shouldn't have a time constraint; or at least, an 'ample' amount of time).
Thanks, 8_octaves.
 Oh, now i see your post script.
Well, I did delete a recording because it had nothing to do with the conversation that followed, beyond the first few comments… And although those few comments were friendly, i thought the recording irrelevant to the body of discussion.  And I was glad to delete it.  
Though, i would perhaps put it back if there was interest, but i can't at this time, due to the 30 minute modify time window. 

[8_octaves]

"the audition-room other rules may be applied" . Yes, that sounds good.  (but i do believe the access to modify/delete recordings shouldn't have a time constraint; or at least, an 'ample' amount of time).
Thanks, 8_octaves.
 Oh, now i see your post script.
Well, I did delete a recording because it had nothing to do with the conversation that followed, beyond the first few comments… And although those few comments were friendly, i thought the recording irrelevant to the body of discussion.  And I was glad to delete it.  
Though, i would perhaps put it back if there was interest, but i can't at this time, due to the 30 minute modify time window. 

Rehi theme,

if in such single cases, when we, e.g. spot the discussion hasn't anything to do with the recording, we want to delete it, let's remember Nilsjohan's offer to write a PN to him in such cases.

So, there shouldn't be a problem, I think.

Cordially, 8_oct!

[themeandvariation]

Hi.  "shouldn't be a problem"… Yes that does sound reasonable...
But, for me, if there is not a definite assurance of my ability to have a recording deleted/updated …  or at least a larger time window, then, I would probably be deterred in submitting recordings…
Thank you for your thoughts on this.

[quantum]

Sounds like a good idea. But I hope there aren't any problems occuring, in SEPARATING "recent" posts and "old" posts: WHEN exactly does a posting belong to the "old" ?

Could be something around 1 to 2 hours being considered recent, everything else falls into the old category.

[...] for example referring to the START-POSTINGS, in which (mostly, unless some extraordinarily intelligent poster only ANNOUNCES a later recording-posting) most of the recordings are uploaded or linked.

It is more common then you may think.  The Audition room has a current limit of 4 attachments per post.  Some people who like to group multi-movement works in a single thread need to may multiple posts to do so.  Updated recordings in response to critique can also appear mid-thread.  We have also had projects in the Improvisation forum in which posters reply with a recording to a previous reply - where an idea is passed on and reformed with each post.  

PS.: Ah, before I forget: If OLD postings in the audition room can be deliberately changed, by, e.g., de-appending uploads, or deleting links, and a long and fruitful discussion might have evolved before, then we have the same crappy situation again: Nobody knows what was spoken about. And all the posters who have invested time and fun to comment, would be angry, I could VERY WELL imagine... .

A lot of activity in the audition room focuses on current material, as opposed to digging up old recordings and continuing discussions started years in the past.  Personally, I feel that in this particular part of PS the importance of a poster sharing recordings to indefinitely retain modification ability outweighs the want for historical discussions to remain completely intact as was the case at the time.  I have taken time to craft responses in the audition room, but would not be angry if a poster wanted a recording several years old to be removed.  

Who wants to use a piano forum for his links and uploads to be an "application for very distinguished conservatories", that person can upload NEWER versions at any time, if sometimes an older one doesn't seem to him appropriate. For myself, I would estimate a forum not being an appropriate place to post "application-recordings".

It is easy to say in the present tense, but one is not always sure of the path a career in music will take them.   One could be posting what at the time one thinks is unimportant material, that which years later turns into material of great interest to various communities.  There are original works being posted in the audition room, not just selections from the canon.

[j_menz]

Well, the Youtube issue seems to have been solved, and possibly the [ IMG ] ^ [ /IMG ] one too. 

[8_octaves]

Well, the Youtube issue seems to have been solved, and possibly the [ IMG ] ^ [ /IMG ] one too.  

Hi j_menz,

I'll check it! Would be super!

First one: I use the "Youtube"- Button and the normal expression WITH the "s":

Addition: Very nice, j_menz! It works!! Thank you very much!! 

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[j_menz]

Very nice, j_menz! It works!! Thank you very much!!  

Much as I'd like to steal the credit, thanks go to nilsjoihan.

[8_octaves]

Much as I'd like to steal the credit, thanks go to nilsjoihan.

Rehi j_menz,

that sounds nice of you! Thus: Thanks to nilsjohan AND to you!

My final test is this:

Using the Youtube-button:

[8_octaves]

Rehi j_menz,

that sounds nice of you! Thus: Thanks to nilsjohan AND to you!

My final test is this:

Using the Youtube-button:

Addition:

As I "suspected" in my brain, perhaps we should use an "OR"-query, adding the "short-URLs" to the significant recognizing routine, too? (Modification: And then, of course, split up the actions taking place when the conditions have occured, in the further routine, by using the techniques already given: This time, in the case of ".be", ADDING and / or REPLACING missing elements in the Stringvariables, but without (=subtracting) the "s", (if it exists), as given, to the parsed expression. )  

[Steffen Fahl]

I just found this discussion now and want to consent all those, who want at least for the attached recordings to keep the ability for modifications unlimited.

There are as I see many and only good reasons to keep the ability open to change attached recordings.

Since I do produce very much typos which I hate to see later, I would like to keep at least a little chance to correct spelling or wording.

My favorite solution therefore would be as other already proposed, to allow just a very little amount of modificattions per day to prevent destructive mass modifications, but to keep the personal right of all users who are posting here their own recordings intact to decide what others shall be able to listen and what they shall not, no matter whenever one has personal or whatever reason to withdraw or exchange a recording.

To ask the service for each typo one would like to change later seems to me no solution at all, since this would produce a lot nasty work for the service, of which I honestly since I am registered here never became any answer at all for any of my two or three support request I posed in the last 5 years. Thats why I would expect, that this would not make the service reacting more often.

Alltogether: I just want to give another vote for a reasonable and carefully sized limitation of the ability of modification if ever this really is necessary.

I personally think that one has to check once again, if the reason for limitation do really occur that often, to justify that massive disadvantages for all other users here. Perhaps I am not reading regulary enough all what is written here, but I personally have not seen any concrete reason yet at all for a restriction like that.

Thats why at least to me this discussion sounds more or less theoretical, which seems to me not reason enough to bother the in my eyes large majority of well behaving users, who simply have no Idea how one can "abuse" a modification-function at all.

[8_octaves]

[...]
To ask the service for each typo one would like to change later seems to me no solution at all, since this would produce a lot nasty work for the service, of which I honestly since I am registered here never became any answer at all for any of my two or three support request I posed in the last 5 years. Thats why I would expect, that this would not make the service reacting more often.

[...]

Hi Steffen, to your other reasons: Why not. Sounds not too unreasonable. But the problem will remain though, even - and especially - if users delete or even change the attachments in the audition room:

Someone posts a recording. After 29000 friendly answers of wisdom and knowledge he deletes it by un-attaching the attachment..: When reasonable people read, then, and get concious of the deleting, they would think we are in a kindergarten.  

And think about that there aren't only attachments, but also video-links.

__________

But typos, as someone wrote before, aren't a problem, I think. Even if there are typos, one could understand the main points of such texts. And referring to the quotation above:

I don't think a ) a typo is too important, so a normal modification-timespan would be OK, in my opinion, as stated by others before ( 1, or 2 hours, or as defined by the admin. ) And b ) : I think in no way someone would contact an admin for correcting a typo, unless it's of such importance like life or death. And nobody, I think, has made such a suggestion ( = the idea of "admin, pls. correct my typo" ) you seem to refer to.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[Steffen Fahl]

But the problem will remain though, even - and especially - if users delete or even change the attachments in the audition room:

Someone posts a recording. After 29000 friendly answers of wisdom and knowledge he deletes it by un-attaching the attachment..: When reasonable people read, then, and get concious of the deleting, they would think we are in a kindergarten.  

And think about that there aren't only attachments, but also video-links.

_________

However if this occurs one or another time... so what?!
Here are masses of threads and masses of uploads, should really all users suffer becouse a few  decide to change or remove a recording they dont want to share any longer.

Has there really anwhere been any signifcant "abuse" compared to the amount of tons of "correct" handled and kept upload?

In my opinion at least, if someone produces a recording, he still should have the right, to decide if others are allowed to listen to or not.

I expect that many users will hesitate to post recordings here any longer, if they know that they are not allowed to exchange or remove anything what they uploaded once.

[8_octaves]

Rehi Steffen,

I think it's a relatively easy thing:

You mentioned it yourself:

[...]

Has there really anwhere been any signifcant "abuse" compared to the amount of tons of "correct" handled and kept upload?

If in such rare cases someone wishes to delete an uploading even AFTER a given timelimit, he can contact Nilsjohan, as he himself had pointed out clearly.

But all of us know that there are other ways, too. For example, on many forums I spotted that people / users do outsource the mp3-recordings to an mp3-hoster in the web or an own homepage, and then link the file... . ( Which finally enables the users' full control over own recorded content ( if not the hoster itself works in a "grey zone", of course, and internally makes copies, renames the files, distributes them etc., which I won't hope. )

Some forums do WANT that especially, which we can see exactly from the fact that there are very modern, but smaller (than PS) regional-forums who allow only a length of 1 MB per attached UPLOADED (to the forum) file, no matter whether it's an mp3 or other stuff.

Would be nice on the one hand, but bad on the other hand, if people just for fun "post-and-after-a-longer-time-delete-or-disable-the-linked-content".

Of course that would even reduce the very rare cases AGAIN in which the admin would be contacted directly after a timespan has expired, and asked to delete a YOUTUBE-LINK, for example. ( Addition: and thinking further, it reduces the questions concerning YT-vids to the admin to zero, since users could easily disable vids directly at YT, by deleting them there. )

Freedom is a very good thing, and if everybody is reasonable, I won't have anything against total freedom of modifying.

But there's the technical side, too, and there may be additional reasons of technical relevance which play a role, too. They might be very substantial. As I already pointed out, I could, for example, easily imagine that OTHER rules (than in the normal postings' areas the given time-limit) applied for the modify-button in the audition-room ( or "attach"- button, which btw. exists in the normal areas, too ) may be not too easily realizable.

Everything has more than one side - only a sheet of paper...has roughly exactly two.  

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[Steffen Fahl]

I am sorry to be frank, but i read always "if..."-constructed theoretical reasons, but I can not see any real, concret and substantial reason at all for limiting the modifation ability, but many concrete and substantial problems for all caused by this limit.

I personally would expect, that the audition room and the Pianostreet in total will loose substantially attractiveness, if the users will be bossed around more and more by theoretical founded substantial limitations for all like that.

sincerly fahl5

[Steffen Fahl]

Oops I missed the modify button and created unwillingly a Quote of my own last posting I only intended to correct for a typo, could someone delete this posting here

[8_octaves]

I am sorry to be frank, but i read always "if..."-constructed theoretical reasons,

Yes,  

I personally would expect, that the audition room and the Pianostreet in total will loose substantially attractiveness, if the users will be bossed around more and more by theoretical founded substantial limitations for all like that.

..as do I.  

And the reason is easy: Here are theoretical discussions and IDEAS given room to be discussed, as far as I understood the description of this section of the forum. So, "if"s and "theoretical reasons" of course are to be found here, I think.

Oops I missed the modify button and created unwillingly a Quote of my own last posting I only intended to correct for a typo, could someone delete this posting here

I don't think that would be necessary, in such cases, Steffen. Because the world won't go vers la flamme, by one erroneously quoting an own posting, and people are reasonable enough to ignore such actions, too. And then there's, additionally, the importance of a posting, which could influence its popularity ( = the chance that one reads it or finds it interesting, which is seemingly sometimes not given... ) , and its re-quoting by others. It won't help you deleting a quote whilest others already have read and quoted it.

Moreover, we are in the field of typos and normal postings, again, it seems to me. But a reasonable timelimit had already been brought into the discussion. And I think that's good.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[Steffen Fahl]

As far I understand, this is defenitly not a Forum for "theoratical" discussions, but the Forum to discuss Issue concerning "the PS-Website". (I can't find any hint that this is theoretically meant in any way)

The Problem of the strongly restricted modification-ability is aswell in no way theoretical, but a very concrete and real problem, wich is discussed here only because it is real and bothers real users however friendly and cooperative they do express their doubts about this real problem.

The only thing that seems to me "theoretically" are the pretexts given as alledged reason. I am sure we are able to discuss constructively a real reason, but therefore it must be shown, so evrybody knows what we are talking about. This is simply impossible with those "if-sentense" pretexts.

That why I simply would say. As long as there is no concrete, real and good reason for any restriction, than one should keep hands of limitations for all like that.

[8_octaves]

As far I understand, this is defenitly not a Forum for "theoretical" discussions, but the Forum to discuss Issue concerning "the PS-Website". (I can't find any hint that this is theoretically meant in any way)
[...]

Rehi Steffen, I found this. Look:

Ideas and suggestions for the development of the Piano Forum website are welcome here.

An idea is..an idea. And an apple is an apple ( perhaps we all will get to know an "ideal apple" in the future. ) The difference is:

An apple is concrete, and an idea is abstract, conceptional and theoretical.

Cordially, 8_octaves.

[Steffen Fahl]

.... and a "suggestion" is no theory but relates especially in this case to the real and concrete problem  ("Modify" Button not appearing) caused by a seemingly reason- and sensless restriction of the ability to modify a posting. Even the explanation of a theory depends on concrete observations.

A "theory" not founded on any concrete verifieable observation is simply nonsens but definitly no "theory" at all. Thats the reason why it sounds to me so much more like just a faint not very good reflected pretext.

I really can't see any help from logomachies like your apple-theories, if the problem caused by the seemlingly arbitrary restriction is clear, evident and bothering for all users here.

To sum up: As long such woozily logomachy is the only answer to the question for any convincing concrete reason, than there obviously seem to be no real good and convincing reason.

As long admins act without being able to give any clear and concrete reason such restriction seem to me nothing but an arbitrary disturbance of the Forumlife.

When you ask me for my "suggestion" for your theoretical arguments:
It would be very helpful, to think theoretically (what means explaning founded on concrete and real observations) before acting concrete, not giving faint pseudo-"theoretical" pretext after having already caused problems without any valuable good and concrete reason.

[8_octaves]

Rehi Steffen,

I have the feeling that you want to quarrel about things already discussed aeons ago.

And I saw, that ASIDE of the "modify"-topic another problem was mainly - and very quickly - solved ( correct automatical embedding and parsing of the mainstream-YT-links ( and the other linked forms should be no problem either. ).

And as mentioned long ago, too, the "ideal apple", meaning, of course, the "ideal way to treat the modify-issue", in THIS case, depends on each user's views and finally on the decision of the admins. And not only on yours.

Btw.: the "ideal apple" isn't a thing you should quarrel about (with me). There are so many opinions! Look: This

[...]Imagine that you read the printed word "APPLE". It immediately evokes the image of an apple in your mind. You can smell its fragrance, you can feel the texture of its skin, you can feel its weight in your hand, and you can taste it. I call your attention to the fact that you are imagining an IDEAL APPLE. It is better than a real apple, which may disappoint you. [...]

can be easily transferred to the "modify"-topic, can't it? ( Addition: And especially to you, who may be disappointed by the momentan real status. But others may not be disappointed! For them, it may be much closer to their imagination of a good status quo. )

______________

As long admins act without being able to give any clear and concrete reason such restriction seem to me nothing but an arbitrary disturbance of the Forumlife.

Admins, disturbing their own forums' life ?   May happen. But here ? I don't feel disturbed in any way.

And we shouldn't forget, that a current status quo may be only testwise. Until it has been evaluated as good, or as bad. In the case it be "good", it will remain. In the case it be "bad", it might be replaced by a change and another period of test.

So, as far as I'm a normal forum member, I will of course write exactly then theoretical ideas or practical hints into this forum. They might be helpful, or not.

And unless I made a double-post, or too many typos, I won't EVER delete one of my postings completely or detach attachments. So, basically, it doesn't matter too much to me WHAT, in the end, will be decided. And I'm indifferent to your ideas, too, Steffen. I'm only an unemotional observer.

Cordially, 8_octaves!  

[Steffen Fahl]

Rehi Steffen,

I have the feeling that you want to quarrel about things already discussed aeons ago.

Oh, please dont feel personally offended, from a more exact definition of "theory" than your apple-idealism.
BTW The thread just started a few day ago the 16.April 2015, that seems to me at least not exactly an 'aeon' "used in reference to a period of a billion years" (Wikipedia "Aeon").

And I saw, that ASIDE of the "modify"-topic another problem was mainly - and very quickly - solved ( correct automatical embedding and parsing of the mainstream-YT-links ( and the other linked forms should be no problem either. ).

This is neither the proper subject of this thread nor anything I refered to anywhere.

And as mentioned long ago, too, the "ideal apple", meaning, of course, the "ideal way to treat the modify-issue", in THIS case, depends on each user's views and finally on the decision of the admins. And not only on yours.

As far I am a "user" than "my" view count nothing more and nothing less than the view of any other user who would like to discuss this subject here. Did you really think you have to decide whose view is allowed to be expressed here and whose not???

Btw.: the "ideal apple" isn't a thing you should quarrel about (with me).

I do not quarrel about at all if I just remind you that this is neither a fruit- or vegetable-philosophy-thread but one about the very concrete problem ("Modify" Button not appearing)

And especially to you, who may be disappointed by the momentan real status. But others may not be disappointed! For them, it may be much closer to their imagination of a good status quo. )

That the missing "modify" Button problem is neither my personal "special" Issue, nor have I started this thread a few day ago. I just consented all those who expressed their well founded concerns about this new restriction. To keep the discussion here constructiv please try to keep more objective and avoid personalisations when you run out of better founded arguments.

Like completly speculative "If"-sentence, "may"-sentences really dont help in my eyes anything at all to clearify. The concerns about the restriction which are expressed in this thread by several users are statet concrete an clear enough. It is nothing what just "may" be. It is real and concrete.

Admins, disturbing their own forums' life ?   May happen. But here ? I don't feel disturbed in any way.

Obviously there "are" enough users here that felt disturbed enough by this restriction, to discuss this issue here

And we shouldn't forget, that a current status quo may be only testwise. Until it has been evaluated as good, or as bad. In the case it be "good", it will remain. In the case it be "bad", it might be replaced by a change and another period of test.

That is simply the reason, why I as a "normal forum member" do express here my personal feedback.

So, as far as I'm a normal forum member, I will of course write exactly then theoretical ideas or practical hints into this forum. They might be helpful, or not.

Of course you are likewise allowed to write apples or "theoretical" intended speculations or what ever you want as I am to answer with my impression about how "helpful" they are. And yes, in my eyes some of your arguments seem to me better suited for a forum like this: "https://fruitforum.wordpress.com/"  

And unless I made a double-post, or too many typos, I won't EVER delete one of my postings completely or detach attachments. So, basically, it doesn't matter too much to me WHAT, in the end, will be decided. And I'm indifferent to your ideas, too, Steffen. I'm only an unemotional observer.

And a astonishingly busy writing "observer" if indeed this all "doesn't matter too much"
___________________
BTW and completly offtopic: I really like your T.Carreno/Gottschalk quotation in your bottomline. I think there are at least some (other) members here who could learn a lot from this wonderful Words which are able to substantially raise the level of discussion in a forum like this here. great! keep them
best fahl5

[Steffen Fahl]

Oops again I chose Quotation insted of modify sorry please delete this here...

[8_octaves]

[...] Obviously there "are" enough users here that felt disturbed enough by this restriction, to discuss this issue here.[...]

I spotted, at the beginning of this thread, that themeandvariation asked why the modify-button didn't appear. In that posting, I read neither critique, nor estimations. The reasons for an invisible button can be of technical nature (changes are being made by the admins), but they also can be of dangerous nature (hack). So in any case it was a GOOD start-posting, by a very attent user. The other elements of discussion came later ( wishes, opinions, ideas, solutions of smaller other issues aside ).

And a astonishingly busy writing "observer"

Of course. And that's what other observers do, too! Observers observe, and then write their ideas and opinions. Look at this Observer, from Gambia: As a newspaper, he writes daily, and very many articles, which are informative by nature!

https://wp.observer.gm/

Cordially, 8_octaves.

PS.: And btw.: please let's wait for other people's opinions, ideas, etc.
Both you and me have made their standpoints clear, as do have others. Frequent upcooking of already discussed stuff is boring and wastes time and place, I think. So for me this means, I won't write anything until new opinions of other people appear here.

 

[Steffen Fahl]

Oh sorry I did'nt knew that You are a Newspaper. Of course I am very honored that my humble privat opinions about a certain Forum Issue are regarded important enough to be that intensivly commented by a newspaper.

But you are right let us wait for "news"

with whishes for a further happy observing and tasty apples
fahl5

[ahinton]

Since yesterday we are trying out this new setting.
The main disadvantage would be the difficulty to update "index threads" but there are many other reasons to prevent modification of posts after a certain time.
If changing the content of a post, after such time limit is passed, is of great importance for some reason it could always be done by asking me in a PM.
What do you all think would be a reasonable time limit?

Dear Nils,

Speaking for myself (and possibly also for others) I would prefer if the modify button could be used without time limit in order to allow for corrections or errors in posts such as misuse of ther quote facility to which I fall foul on occasion; if that could be done, I for one would be most appreciative.

Very many thanks in advance.

Best,

Alistair

[8_octaves]

1. ) Speaking for myself (and possibly also for others)

2. ) I would prefer if the modify button could be used without time limit [...]

Hi Alistair,

speaking for others is an ambivalent thing, as we should know. How easily can a person suddenly deviate from an opinion and then share another!

Ah, but to the actual relevancies: Recently my probability-detector has spotted postings, which are designedly containing very many typos, or quotation-"unabilities"... .

....to gain weight to arguments like " an infinite timespan is nice, for to help my / our insufficient abilities to type postings correctly within a given LIMITED SHORTER timespan". :

I don't think we should follow such argumentation-tricks. Even if posters are mentally too slow to correct that what they have written just a second ago,   , Alistair,   , the effect of such minor flaws would be not too important to readers of reasonable mind...

So: A time limit is useful and OK, I think, but...all in all, as I said, I'm indifferent to all of that. We'll have to take, what comes.

Cordially, 8_octaves!

[themeandvariation]

Hi Nils,
Is this idea of changing (extending) the modify button still being considered?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this..
Thank you.