• BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE!

    You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Is the Edit function limited now? (1 Viewer)

syncrasy

Member
The Edit button is missing on my posts. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the ability to edit one's own posts was unlimited. Have you placed a new time limit on editing? If so, please consider this a request to restore unlimited editing. If editing was always time limited, please consider allowing unlimited editing.
 

Nutcracker

Stop Brexit!
Not sure about the new upgrade, but there certainly used to be a time limit on editing, and it wasn't very long, a few days or something?
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
The Edit button is missing on my posts. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the ability to edit one's own posts was unlimited. Have you placed a new time limit on editing? If so, please consider this a request to restore unlimited editing. If editing was always time limited, please consider allowing unlimited editing.
How long after writing the post are you trying to edit? There was always a time limit on editing posts (I’m not sure how long it is exactly but you can certainly edit unlimited times on the same day as you wrote the original post. After that, as you say, the edit function is no longer visible.
 

Deb Burhinus

Used to be well known! 😎
Europe
It’s 24hrs - I just watched a post at 10.23 pm (just now) still with an edit function that I made at 10.23pm yesterday evening. I waited for a few seconds then refreshed the page - the edit facility had gone 😁
 

delia todd

If I said the wrong thing it was a Senior Moment
Staff member
Opus Editor
Supporter
Scotland
Yes, it's been 24 hours for as long as I can remember. Any edits needing done after that you need to contact a Moderator.
 

syncrasy

Member
Ahh, okay. Thanks for confirming my faulty memory. (I've been away from this forum for over 10 years and only recently began posting again. Another birding forum in the US allowed unlimited editing so I must have conflated the two.) I understand the pros and cons. Still, I consider unlimited editing a more user-friendly policy for variety of reasons: to fix typos and grammar, improve clarity, keep a thread trimmed, and maintain essay-type or resource-focused threads—and of course for making sure bone-headed errors aren't frozen in place for perpetuity (without having to describe the needed edits to a moderator).
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
The Edit button is missing on my posts. Perhaps I'm mistaken, but I thought the ability to edit one's own posts was unlimited. Have you placed a new time limit on editing? If so, please consider this a request to restore unlimited editing. If editing was always time limited, please consider allowing unlimited editing.
The 'edit button' is now located on the bottom LHS of your post next to Report.

(See screenshot below) Click on or hold the three dots next to the down arrow and two boxes appear above each other:

More options
Edit (and)
Delete.

Select Edit and you will be able to make changes for 24 hrs.
Screenshot_2020-11-24-10-30-29.png

Chosun 🙅
 
Last edited:

MacNara

Well-known member
Japan
I have made this point at length elsewhere, but I think I'm going to make it a few more times until someone can explain it to me.

Chosun in the post above has posted his/her image inline in the post, rather than as an attachment, and it's massive on my screen to no purpose - why is this allowed, and why is it a function of the new site?

The old 1000px limit on photos, and the need to post them as attachments meant that posters had to think about the size of their attachments and the relevance.

If anyone can post a huge photo, screenshot or whatever, and force anyone who opens the thread to automatically download it, this seems a massive backward step to me.

The attachment in Chosun's post would have been visible just as an attachment, but anyway a 1000px high photo would have been more than enough (the screengrab is only a small part of Chosun's photo, but the contrast with the normal text size shows, I think, how huge it was). What is the point of the new BF allowing people to post things this size, and then us having to download them?

Chosun Screenshot 201124.jpg Chosun Screenshot 02 201124 .jpg Chosun Screenshot 03 201124.jpg
 

Chosun Juan

Given to Fly
Australia - Aboriginal
@MacNara - Well, apologies if I've committed something of a fopar !
I've just looked at this on my laptop, and it is indeed HUGE !
To be fair, I do 90% of my browsing on my phone and it didn't look nearly as offensive there.
I can't even readily find any resizing controls - there's thumbnail (problematic) and full size.

I am also finding it a bit of a struggle to use the new site, with many issues - some major that I haven't even posted about yet as I'm still trialling /investigating.

I think for this particular issue, if the thumbnail could just be a downsized view of the full size picture - instead of a skewiff window of it, a lot of people will be a lot happier. I will put the issue in the snagging thread (which I seem to be doing a lot - either other people are having no issues, or they're keeping mum about it)





Chosun :ninja:
 

MacNara

Well-known member
Japan
Well, apologies if I've committed something of a fopar !
I've just looked at this on my laptop, and it is indeed HUGE !
To be fair, I do 90% of my browsing on my phone and it didn't look nearly as offensive there.
I can't even readily find any resizing controls - there's thumbnail (problematic) and full size.
I don't think there ever were any resizing controls - if one dimension of the photo was over 1000px, you simply couldn't upload it, and you had to resize it on your own computer and re-upload it.
I am also finding it a bit of a struggle to use the new site, with many issues - some major that I haven't even posted about yet as I'm still trialling /investigating.
Some of my 'niggles' I realise and accept are simply that I've been using the site for a long time and have developed a system - but at the same time, there was nothing about the old site that I thought was broken and needed fixing.
I think for this particular issue, if the thumbnail could just be a downsized view of the full size picture - instead of a skewiff window of it, a lot of people will be a lot happier. I will put the issue in the snagging thread (which I seem to be doing a lot - either other people are having no issues, or they're keeping mum about it)

I think that the old system where photos were automatically uploaded as full-photo thumbnails which required clicking to see the full photo would be much better.

One improvement to the site, however, is that I can now Quote and Reply to you in one go, and reply to parts of your comment without having to reload the rest (it's now like quoting and replying in an e-mail).

EXTRA

Since it seemed bizarre that the new site would have been deliberately designed like this, I checked it out elsewhere than my desktop machine and large screen - i.e. on my iPod and iPad.

I don't have a mobile phone, because I simply don't need one because of the way I live. Many younger people think this means 'old fogey, doesn't know about modern tech'. Which forgets that it was my parents' generation which developed the computer, and my generation which developed modern miniature computers - indeed I used to be astonished at how little current twenty- or even thirty-year-olds who were not themselves engineers knew about the physics of their machines (I've got used to it). I wrote my first programme in Fortran and typed it onto punchcards and then put it into an IBM machine which used magnetic reels and a dot matrix printer. I hand-wrote my wife's business website (simple but all she needs still fifteen years later) in raw HTML (using 'teach-yourself'-type books). And I got my first IBM 'portable' (MS-DOS) in 1987 and my first Mac a few years later. And we have two working Macs and a working Windows machine in the house, and two others that would work if we needed them, plus the three Windows machines at my wife's business (plus the business software which her friend and she wrote as a very complex Excel spreadsheet).

So after Chosun's post above, I looked at and logged on to BF on my iPad Mini and my iPod (the size of the very smallest iPhone). Previously on the iPod the site was unreadable; I've tried a few times on trips, and it was pointless. (The iPad Mini is very recent.)

The old BF site used to be a desktop site which had few allowances for smaller screens. But now, the new BF site is a mobile phone site which has not been optimised for real screens (desktop or laptop). I imagine I could use the site on my iPad, and maybe even on my iPod (it can certainly be read on both of these, which was not the case with the iPod before).

But I won't be using it on these machines, but on my desktop and sometimes my laptop because BF is a 'relaxing at home' activity, and Iike my large screen and ability to see what I want/need at the size I want it.

The square thumbnail of some of the forums reminds me of Instagram (surprise - I don't have an Instagram account but I know what it looks like). If the new format hopes to turn BF into a sort of Instagram for Birds, then I think the owners/operators (who are they?; I don't know) will be disappointed.

So what the developers - 'Ollie' and 'Steve' need to do is to script things so that the pages scale for a large screen and are not just a mobile screen blown up to the size of a desktop if you view it on a desktop or laptop.

So, what they need to do now is to make sure the new site is as nice to use on a desktop or laptop as the old one was, and to keep the progress for small machine users.
 

peterday

Registered User
Opus Editor
Supporter
I don't think there ever were any resizing controls - if one dimension of the photo was over 1000px, you simply couldn't upload it, and you had to resize it on your own computer and re-upload it.

Some of my 'niggles' I realise and accept are simply that I've been using the site for a long time and have developed a system - but at the same time, there was nothing about the old site that I thought was broken and needed fixing.


I think that the old system where photos were automatically uploaded as full-photo thumbnails which required clicking to see the full photo would be much better.

One improvement to the site, however, is that I can now Quote and Reply to you in one go, and reply to parts of your comment without having to reload the rest (it's now like quoting and replying in an e-mail).

EXTRA

Since it seemed bizarre that the new site would have been deliberately designed like this, I checked it out elsewhere than my desktop machine and large screen - i.e. on my iPod and iPad.

I don't have a mobile phone, because I simply don't need one because of the way I live. Many younger people think this means 'old fogey, doesn't know about modern tech'. Which forgets that it was my parents' generation which developed the computer, and my generation which developed modern miniature computers - indeed I used to be astonished at how little current twenty- or even thirty-year-olds who were not themselves engineers knew about the physics of their machines (I've got used to it). I wrote my first programme in Fortran and typed it onto punchcards and then put it into an IBM machine which used magnetic reels and a dot matrix printer. I hand-wrote my wife's business website (simple but all she needs still fifteen years later) in raw HTML (using 'teach-yourself'-type books). And I got my first IBM 'portable' (MS-DOS) in 1987 and my first Mac a few years later. And we have two working Macs and a working Windows machine in the house, and two others that would work if we needed them, plus the three Windows machines at my wife's business (plus the business software which her friend and she wrote as a very complex Excel spreadsheet).

So after Chosun's post above, I looked at and logged on to BF on my iPad Mini and my iPod (the size of the very smallest iPhone). Previously on the iPod the site was unreadable; I've tried a few times on trips, and it was pointless. (The iPad Mini is very recent.)

The old BF site used to be a desktop site which had few allowances for smaller screens. But now, the new BF site is a mobile phone site which has not been optimised for real screens (desktop or laptop). I imagine I could use the site on my iPad, and maybe even on my iPod (it can certainly be read on both of these, which was not the case with the iPod before).

But I won't be using it on these machines, but on my desktop and sometimes my laptop because BF is a 'relaxing at home' activity, and Iike my large screen and ability to see what I want/need at the size I want it.

The square thumbnail of some of the forums reminds me of Instagram (surprise - I don't have an Instagram account but I know what it looks like). If the new format hopes to turn BF into a sort of Instagram for Birds, then I think the owners/operators (who are they?; I don't know) will be disappointed.

So what the developers - 'Ollie' and 'Steve' need to do is to script things so that the pages scale for a large screen and are not just a mobile screen blown up to the size of a desktop if you view it on a desktop or laptop.

So, what they need to do now is to make sure the new site is as nice to use on a desktop or laptop as the old one was, and to keep the progress for small machine users.
I agree. I use a large monitor with my desktop to view images, and I would much prefer the Gallery to fill the screen rather than just being a column down the middle, wasting half my screen. I use a mobile phone but there's no way I'd view Birdforum on it!
 

JohnStinson

New member
United States
I have made this point at length elsewhere, but I think I'm going to make it a few more times until someone can explain it to me.

Chosun in the post above has posted his/her image inline in the post, rather than as an attachment, and it's massive on my screen to no purpose - why is this allowed, and why is it a function of the new site?

The old 1000px limit on photos, and the need to post them as attachments meant that posters had to think about the size of their attachments and the relevance.

If anyone can post a huge photo, screenshot or whatever, and force anyone who opens the thread to automatically download it, this seems a massive backward step to me.

The attachment in Chosun's post would have been visible just as an attachment, but anyway a 1000px high photo would have been more than enough (the screengrab is only a small part of Chosun's photo, but the contrast with the normal text size shows, I think, how huge it was). What is the point of the new BF allowing people to post things this size, and then us having to download them? Our essay editing service https://essayhub.com/essay-editing-service is good if you desire to get a high-quality essay.

View attachment 1356020 View attachment 1356021 View attachment 1356022
Wow! Very informative! Great post. Thanks for the info!
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top