Facebook No Longer Clearly Labels Edited Posts (mashable.com) 53
An anonymous reader quotes a report from Mashable: Have you ever made a cringeworthy mistake in a Facebook post? Don't lie, the answer is yes. If you have a sense of shame, Facebook at least allows you to go back and correct your gaffe by editing the post, a feature that certain other social media networks still haven't added. But evidence of your slip-up lived on with the tiny "Edited" label on the bottom of the post, signaling to your followers that you cared just enough to correct yourself on the internet. Sad. Apparently, however, that's no longer the case. It seems that Facebook has removed the on-post edited label, making it much more difficult to know when someone actually took the time to fix their mistake. In order to actually know whether or not your eyes were playing tricks on you when a friend's rant no longer has 15 spelling errors the second time you see it, you'll need to do some digging. Here's how the new editing looks, courtesy of my colleague Raymond Wong and his doubts about how cool the upcoming Nintendo Switch actually is. I noticed that he added a comment about the Switch, so I checked out the post information, via the drop-down menu. To see what happened, I have to view the edit history. When I look at his edit history, I can see all the changes that were made. In most cases, this type of editing isn't a big deal, but the move to hide post edit labels takes away one of the few features that provided any transparency for our online behavior.
Clearly Slashdot is Suprier. [eom] (Score:4, Funny)
[eom]
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, Slashdot's editors can be even worse!
Take this story [slashdot.org] from a few days ago.
In the summary it now uses "[...]", but originally those were "[sic]".
That's why there are a number of comments like the ones linked to below, which mention "sic" or "[sic]" or some variation on that theme:
Re: (Score:1)
No.
Re: (Score:1)
No.
The story of my life...so close, and yet so far. :(
Re: (Score:1)
No but you are quick enough to point it out (almost like a sense of pride), guess what no one cares...
Re: (Score:1)
No but you are quick enough to point it out (almost like a sense of pride), guess what no one cares...
I can't reply to you because I'm too busy crying. Maybe later.
Re: (Score:2)
Because sometimes important people post on facebook.
https://www.facebook.com/Steph... [facebook.com]
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are consider
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Don't you wish you could go back and edit that?
Oh believe me, lots of people including myself have suggested this innovative yet impossible-to-implement feature on slashdot.
Apparently this remarkable "edit-after-posting" feature has been attempted by software engineers for decades but alas, no one has ever managed to get it working.
Re: (Score:1)
The reason why no editing is gaming the system. Early on people were writing bait posts, to get people to respond and than alter the post to make the responders look foolish and targeted them with a response. This then creating the ludicrous situation of continuous altering comments. Why do Facebook want it, to force people to monitor comments, keep them checking, hook them in to watch more ads and corporate fake news propaganda. Drop Facebook like all social fads, that network has run it's had it's moment
Re: (Score:2)
The reason why no editing is gaming the system. Early on people were writing bait posts, to get people to respond and than alter the post to make the responders look foolish and targeted them with a response.
Then just quote the parent post in your reply, problem solved. Or put in a 2-minute "grace" period when a post can be edited and then lock it.
Literally millions of other forums and comment sections do this and the world is still spinning...there's no legitimate reason that slashdot couldn't do it as well.
Eastasia (Score:4, Insightful)
We've always been at war with Eastasia.
Re: (Score:1)
+click+ +click+ +click+ +click+
Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:07
We've always been at war with Oceana
Re: (Score:1)
+click+ +click+ +click+ +click+
Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday January 13, 2017 @05:07
We've always been allies with Eastasia
There are Pros and Cons (Score:2)
I've thought about this issue over years as I use both /. and Reddit.
There are pros and cons of not having an edit button:
= Pros of Edit =
* I don't have to worry about spelling or grammar mistakes -- since I can fix them later
* I can expand to include additional thoughts post submit (I use this feature all the time on Reddit.)
= Cons of Edit =
* I can be lazy and just type stuff up not worrying about grammar and flow knowing that I can fix it "later"
* Posts can be redacted after the initial submit making it h
Re: (Score:1)
The problem with the edit button is you can change entire posts after a long discussion has had about what you originally said. This is extremely damaging to open discussion because the second someone starts to "lose" and argument one of the first things they might think about doing is editing the original and subsequent posts to remove errors in logic or completely change the meaning. This can make the "correct" respondents look like the idiots or assholes when they were actually correct.
The edit button
Re: (Score:2)
The solution is simple: don't allow changes once the post has been replied to (or if a reply is pending).
You made a typo and spotted it straight away - go for it.
You made a typo but were too slow spotting it - tough titty.
You want to post "kittens are cute", and then change it to "systemd cures cancer" after people have agreed with you - fuck off.
Re: (Score:2)
hence why ./ disallows, afterall we all know systemd causes cancer.
Re: (Score:2)
Doesn't fully fix the problem as the edit could happen while someone is preparing a response to the original. I would prefer a note at the bottom saying it had been edited along with access to the edit history.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem with the edit button is you can change entire posts after a long discussion has had about what you originally said. This is extremely damaging to open discussion because the second someone starts to "lose" and argument one of the first things they might think about doing is editing the original and subsequent posts to remove errors in logic or completely change the meaning. This can make the "correct" respondents look like the idiots or assholes when they were actually correct.
The edit button also helps power users be who go back and check on their posts be "louder" while harming the voice occasional posters who don't go back and edit.
Anything you are needed to edit can be done in a subsequent post or if the information needs to be removed - remove the entire post. There is little justification for an un-tracked editing feature other than to allow minor to major abuses.
Mercifully we have been given a "Quote Parent" button here at /.
It's supposed to be pretty rare for a post to go away, much less be edited here, but things can happen...
Re: (Score:2)
However the quote parent button allows you to edit the quoted text, making it unreliable as evidence.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, for me at least, having edit capability within, say 10 minutes of hitting the post button would be an acceptable compromise.
After that 10 minutes is up, you can't edit it any longer. That gives you enough time to fix stupid markdown/markup tag problems, typos and other stuff... or just to delete it within that window. Yes, yes, I know, you need to proof read your post before hitting the submit button... but sometimes you miss stuff even if you are trying to be careful.
Re: (Score:3)
Agreed.
Here are the things that if an edit button is included that should also be done:
* Allow a "grace period" of ~15 minutes to edit the post
* Optionally, if someone posts a reply, disable editing
* Clearly show a post has been edited
* Allow the viewer to see the _first_ original version AND with the _current_ version.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the last two would be sufficient, though on a site like /. you should also include undoing any positive moderation.
Re: (Score:2)
I think, for me at least, having edit capability within, say 10 minutes of hitting the post button would be an acceptable compromise.
I'd be fine with that, even as a default option, but only if your post didn't appear to anybody else until the grace period expired. If being able to edit your fuckups is that important to you, then you should be willing to wait, right?
Personally, I'm glad Slashdot has maintained its no-edit policy. Now unicode, on the other hand...
Re: (Score:2)
The one issue with an edit button is I find it really common to edit a FB post within 5 minutes of making it. Either because I noticed a typo, I decided to change my wording or tone, or I forgot that enter == submit.
But afterwards when a lot of people have read and even replied to it... I think edits should be labelled. Otherwise you just end up confusing people who clearly remember "a" but are now seeing "b".
Re: (Score:2)
I've thought about this issue over years as I use both /. and Reddit.
Nice straw?
Haveing an edit button is not hte issue -- marking edits as EDITED where they are, in context, IS.
Perhaps a "Reading Comprehension" button would be great for places like Facebook.
They shouldn't have it at all. (Score:1)
People should be free to change their mind, correct themselves, regret what they have done, ..
It's stupid the old content is shown at all. If I wanted it left I could had kept it.
Editing and removing posts (Score:3, Interesting)
The whole "non-permanent" status of posts has been a long-term source of amusement for me. Even when it showed posts as "edited", deleted posts would just disappear.
So an ex of mine had a post about her big drooly bulldog. I can't remember my exact post, but I essentially posted something about my dog. Her husband - who rather dislikes me - pops up and posts something to the effect of
"well, you're probably just as stupid and ugly as that dog"
So I delete my post, and suddenly all that's left is her original post, and him replying "you're as ugly and stupid as that dog"
Good times :-)
Re: (Score:1)
That's fucking awesome, I never noticed it worked that way, I'm gonna do some of these on purpose.
- Alice posts some Breichbart garbage fake news propaganda
- Bob comments "I love Trump!"
- I comment "What do you think about Joe Biden?"
- Alice comments "He's a weak pathetic old loser!"
- I delete my comment and watch hilarity unfold
Re: (Score:2)
Sometimes important people post to facebook. (Score:2)
https://www.facebook.com/Steph... [facebook.com]
This is a post by Stephen Crab - who was at the time the person in charge of UK disability allowances, complaining about an incident of vandalism at his office.
The edited post is " A decision was taken by MPs to change the benefit awarded to a specific group of people who receive Employment Support Allowance. These people are in the Work Related Activity Group (WRAG) and they do have a disability or illness but are considered able to work with support in the future."
The orig
...takes away one of the few features... (Score:2)
Which we need because ...
So write a browser fake-news detector (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Um, no. (Score:2)
The whole editing history thing is stupid. I never use the editing function unless it's to fix simple typos. Anything other than that I delete and repost.
There is nothing to be gained by being able to see someone's editing history other than to use it against them.
i edit almost all my posts at (Score:2)
least once something wong with post?