This time frame should be also related to the rank as the cool down time for the PMs and the other limitations are.
Brand new and newbies no need to have this "feature" as they don't have enough post history.
The time can increase with the rank if it is necessary at all.
Theymos will not be happy with more restriction to the newbies put most of the problems with the spam and plagiarism are there and this is a way to harm the good users.
If the forum has a way to record those changes, it's gonna be easy to catch a cheater.
Topic: Editing posts (Read 508 times)
So this can't be changed to become visible almost instantly?
Honestly, I don't know much about the back-end of SMF software but based on what "theymos" said (TryNinja's post) regarding its previous state (5 minute window) and how it is at the moment (10 minute window), then it can be altered.Maybe we should use TM or watermarks instead? 
Maybe (a transparent sign/letter might work as well)...You have made 3435 posts until now. If you would have added 38 seconds to each post, it would have consumed 36 hours extra. That's an aweful amount of time for something this unlikely.
You're right but since it's not a one time task, an extra step (after each post) shouldn't be that much of a problem. 
Did you scrape the original of that? It's been edited so I'm sure marlboroza is up to no good here.
Of course 
Nothing spectacular though:Code:
marlboroza
787736
47089069
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
I don't remember anyone complained about this, I was curious, that's all. Many times I have tried to post something and while typing 4-5 new posts have been posted, so my thought was if that even happen there is no way to prove it, just like TryNinja said.
I honestly think you are AI
787736
47089069
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
I don't remember anyone complained about this, I was curious, that's all. Many times I have tried to post something and while typing 4-5 new posts have been posted, so my thought was if that even happen there is no way to prove it, just like TryNinja said.
I honestly think you are AI
I created my post on "12:39:32 PM" and archived it at "12:40:10 PM" (it took "only" 38 seconds" and the odds of someone copying your post [before you archive it], is close to "zero").
You have made 3435 posts until now. If you would have added 38 seconds to each post, it would have consumed 36 hours extra. That's an aweful amount of time for something this unlikely.or we can just stop giving the 10(maybe 7 or 5 Minute) window to edit the post. Once you edit, timestamp update with new edit timestamp.
Those 10 minutes are based on the assumption that quick edits only fix small mistakes, so the forum assumes that post is what you wanted to post in the first place.Quote
I do not know if Mods has ability to see Drafts, because draft contain every version of your edit unless you have created /modified 100 times.
I don't think they can: Mods can't even see edits, only Admins can. 
How many minutes before it become visible that post was edited:
https://i.imgur.com/kKw6SuJ.png
For example, if 2 posts are posted back to back in very short time and someone edit first post using content of second post(blatant copy/paste) how will anyone prove first post was plagiarism and second post is good?
edited http://prntscr.com/l8bgsc*
https://i.imgur.com/kKw6SuJ.png
For example, if 2 posts are posted back to back in very short time and someone edit first post using content of second post(blatant copy/paste) how will anyone prove first post was plagiarism and second post is good?
edited http://prntscr.com/l8bgsc*
You can be sure everything is saved. Only thing is, does moderators have access to that?
or we can just stop giving the 10(maybe 7 or 5 Minute) window to edit the post. Once you edit, timestamp update with new edit timestamp.
I do not know if Mods has ability to see Drafts, because draft contain every version of your edit unless you have created /modified 100 times.
I do not know if Mods has ability to see Drafts, because draft contain every version of your edit unless you have created /modified 100 times.
Did you scrape the original of that? It's been edited so I'm sure marlboroza is up to no good here.
Hey, what the...? Your avatar jumped out of screen and almost bit me.Users should simply archive their own posts right after creating/posting them (earlier this week, I started archiving my own posts [for the most part].
I don't think I will run around a forum and archive every single post I make like I encourage others to do it as well).
Maybe we should use TM or watermarks instead? Also, you won't be able to prove if someone after you copied your post - not necessary in the same thread(at least not without contacting someone first)
There's a workaround (apart from contacting/bothering "LoyceV"):- Users should simply archive their own posts right after creating/posting them (earlier this week, I started archiving my own posts [for the most part]. I encourage others to do it as well).
- E.g. This one:
- I created my post on "12:39:32 PM" and archived it at "12:40:10 PM" (it took "only" 38 seconds" and the odds of someone copying your post [before you archive it], is close to "zero").
Did you scrape the original of that? It's been edited so I'm sure marlboroza is up to no good here.
My point is, if it happens in 7 minutes you won't be able to check it.
I haven't seen this problem yet. Usually plagiarism happens by taking an older post. It's easy to get caught if someone is copying the post under his.Although there is no direct evidence which one of the two posts is the copy, both accounts will be on the radar. It is something to keep in mind though, if plagiarism happens within 10 minutes.
Note that my records can't prove who posted what. You'll have to take my word for it.
Example: for LoyceMobile, I have this:
Code:
Clearly, LoyceMobile edited his post at least once.Coolcryptovator started with this before his edit (I don't keep quotes):
Code:
Coolcryptovator
1980983
47086562
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
Good point. I don't think like this before. So now we need to check also post edited or not before submit plagiarism report. Perhaps clever people's are doing that to avoid ban. I don't know about how many minutes need to reflect on post. I will check in practical.
1980983
47086562
Other / Meta / Re: Editing posts
Good point. I don't think like this before. So now we need to check also post edited or not before submit plagiarism report. Perhaps clever people's are doing that to avoid ban. I don't know about how many minutes need to reflect on post. I will check in practical.
I honestly think you are AI
You're not the only one! I don't remember anyone complained about this
Now I am quite confused. Something fishy is there, IMO.From now, before making a plagiarism report, we should check the edited time too.
My point is, if it happens in 7 minutes you won't be able to check it. Also, you won't be able to prove if someone after you copied your post - not necessary in the same thread(at least not without contacting someone first) 
It'd be great if the new forum implemented Stackexchange-esque comment edits.
Not in the sense that everyone can edit your comments, but that there's some kind of changelog containing all the edits you made to a post, visible for everyone who's interested in it.
Is this actually a feature in the new forum?.
Not in the sense that everyone can edit your comments, but that there's some kind of changelog containing all the edits you made to a post, visible for everyone who's interested in it.
Is this actually a feature in the new forum?.
Yes, I read a couple years ago that all edits will be tracked in the new forum software.
It'd be great if the new forum implemented Stackexchange-esque comment edits.
Not in the sense that everyone can edit your comments, but that there's some kind of changelog containing all the edits you made to a post, visible for everyone who's interested in it.
Is this actually a feature in the new forum?.
Not in the sense that everyone can edit your comments, but that there's some kind of changelog containing all the edits you made to a post, visible for everyone who's interested in it.
Is this actually a feature in the new forum?.
I don't think you can prove it. IIRC, theymos (or an admin/mod) said that the "edit history" only shows up after the 5 minutes, so they can't see what was the post if the user edits it before that time.
That's pretty shocking if that's actually the case. Shows how outdated some of the parts of this forum are, and how lacking some admin features are...
I don't remember anyone complained about this,
Now I am quite confused. Something fishy is there, IMO.See here-
I found new kind of post bursting recently from some of the high ranked members,they are just doing comments typing reserved will add comment later or just typing some one lines in the good interval of time period but later they come here and fill with some spam of about 300 characters in one day (the day before payment day on their signature campaign) what kind of action will be taken against them? Permaban? if I can able to provide archieves.
I think this can be related to the copy/paste too. From now, before making a plagiarism report, we should check the edited time too. So now we need to check also post edited or not before submit plagiarism report. Perhaps clever people's are doing that to avoid ban.
I don't remember anyone complained about this, I was curious, that's all. Many times I have tried to post something and while typing 4-5 new posts have been posted, so my thought was if that ever happen there is no way to prove it, just like TryNinja said. Quote
If it's a recent case: I have over a month of all new posts stored on my computer. I scrape and store the unedited version as it's first posted.
I honestly think you are AI
Good point. I don't think like this before. So now we need to check also post edited or not before submit plagiarism report. Perhaps clever people's are doing that to avoid ban. I don't know about how many minutes need to reflect on post. I will check in practical.
I think it's 10 minutes.
If it's a recent case: I have over a month of all new posts stored on my computer. I scrape and store the unedited version as it's first posted.
Update: edit after 7 minutes.
If it's a recent case: I have over a month of all new posts stored on my computer. I scrape and store the unedited version as it's first posted.
Update: edit after 7 minutes.
How many minutes before it become visible that post was edited:
5 minutes.For example, if 2 posts are posted back to back in very short time and someone edit first post using content of second post(blatant copy/paste) how will anyone prove first post was plagiarism and second post is good?
I don't think you can prove it. IIRC, theymos (or an admin/mod) said that the "edit history" only shows up after the 5 minutes, so they can't see what was the post if the user edits it before that time.Source:
Edits aren't recorded when they occur within 5 minutes of the post time. (This has always been the case.)
How many minutes before it become visible that post was edited:
For example, if 2 posts are posted back to back in very short time and someone edit first post using content of second post(blatant copy/paste) how will anyone prove first post was plagiarism and second post is good?
edited http://prntscr.com/l8bgsc*
For example, if 2 posts are posted back to back in very short time and someone edit first post using content of second post(blatant copy/paste) how will anyone prove first post was plagiarism and second post is good?
edited http://prntscr.com/l8bgsc*
Jump to: