This is a good idea. That way we can also choose to quote the author in case he/she decides to revise it later.

For example:
I could type: "Killfile is an idiot"
and let it stay for 3 minutes so people can see it. Then go back and edit it to say: "Killfile is a sweetheart." If I'm not mistaken, I could wait for 5 min before actually saving my new comment. Which means that for 8 minutes, people woulda seen my first comment.

But, if the markup is there then someone can quote my original comment and then showcase my real feelings to the community even after I've revised to my second comment.

This is an extreme example but there are cases where the ability to know that a comment is still "fresh" and liable to be edited/revised would be useful.

I saw someone say that the comment doesn't show until the 3 minutes expire.

It would make more sense to suspend the time to post, not edit the displayed text until the window for altering is expired. However they've done it, the result is fantastic, thanks. Can you invent a thing to do laundry next?

Can you invent a thing to do laundry next?

Washing machine?

Washing machine?

Manservant.

Robotservant.

But then you have to use 3 laws, and then that gets complicated, then...

Off by one error -- don't forget the Zeroth law.

Wow, an hour and a half after it goes live...

=P

Hey -- I've never once asked for chat after it was cut from the feature list due to non-use, so I figure I get to make this little request as a bonus for that restraint.

Given the limited time that the comment can be edited, I think Killfiles suggestiong makes more sense.

Given the limited time that the comment can be edited, I think Killfiles suggestiong makes more sense.

I agree. Killfile's suggestion is gentler on the Vine.

Some sort of visual indication that a comment has been edited.

That to me reminds me of when the Nazis used to go around marking the houses of Jews back in the 1940's. I don't think we need any permanent marker to see which comments have been edited or not. In 99.99% cases it would just be somethin' simple as fixin' a typo. Why care if someone fixed a typo or not and why have a permanent marker littering up Newsvine? Not to mention storing all that extra useless info would probably slow down loading of the pages.

I'll concede that it wouldn't be necessary all of the time, or even most of the time. That doesn't mean it wouldn't ever serve a purpose. I don't really buy the "it would slow up Newsvine" argument though.

Plus, I think those of us who type better than most would appreciate some sort of visual indication of our superiority.

It won't slow up newsvine at all unless the developers completely missed the point of relational databases (if you did, I'm available at a reasonable rate). What it will do is clutter up the display.

That's why I like the idea of marking comments still in the "editable" window. That markup will go away on its own in time... and even if the devs messed up the database it won't matter, that doesn't even require a join.

It won't slow up newsvine at all unless the developers completely missed the point of relational databases (if you did, I'm available at a reasonable rate). What it will do is clutter up the display.

It won't clutter up the display at all unless the designers completely missed the point of -- uh -- designing interfaces. You people are aware that the entire point of Graphic Design is to solve problems and present functional, useable design, right?

I can think of any number of ways to make a really subtle element that wouldn't get in the way of anything -- so I find it odd that your first impulse is that it would be obtrusive.

Uh oh, looks like we have a rumble between a designer and programmer ;-)

The AoD is open I believe...

Plus, I think those of us who type better than most would appreciate some sort of visual indication of our superiority.

So that was it! Another vanity button. Why not add it to the Leaderboard?

The "real writers don't edit" statistics.

I bet Evan you guys were trying to get it so edited comments wouldn't re-appear in the tracker.

Now that would explain things

Calvin

Here's an idea:

When a user seeds an article that is already seeded (and it gets flagged by Doppelganger) - automatically register a vote to the original seed ( as the second seeder clearly thinks its a worthwhile article).

Cool idea, impossible to implement.

Hell, there are a few papers that, if I try to seed more than one story from them, the new seed takes over the pop-up window from the old one.

Doppleganger simply isn't smart enough to deal with this sort of thing to the level of certainty necessary to assign votes. If it ever gets there, then I think that's a great idea. Right now though, that's a ways off - particularly because lots of publications revise their text.

Doppleganger simply isn't smart enough to deal with this sort of thing to the level of certainty necessary to assign votes. If it ever gets there, then I think that's a great idea. Right now though, that's a ways off - particularly because lots of publications revise their text.

So we need Doppleganger to hang out in Newsvine more so it can "get smarter here."

Doppleganger just told me not to seed a story about a trial regarding Phelps because Calvin already wrote a story about how to seed effectively. I'm starting to think Doppleganger is on crack.

changes

Wow, even with the edit I still mess up

They could just be connected to different servers. It takes time for the servers to all communicate together.

That's a very definite possibility. I made my assumption based on the fact that my post in IE didn't show up until the timer expired and I'd refreshed the page in FF.

It takes time for the servers to all communicate together.

Umm, that doesn't make sense, my friend.

I can send email to my buddy in Afghanistan and it gets to him in 1 second or less. Why should it take any time for servers prolly sitting in the same office so much time?

Dropping into geek speak, I believe they will be using a process called replication. Data is stored on a master server and replicated across secondary servers. It is a reliable way to ensure fast access to the data by all, no matter where they are accessing it. There is always a few secs/mins delay whilst data gets replicated.

Yeah, but I think DamianKD is talking about minutes and not seconds. And even if what you say is true, and DamianKD is being sent to two different servers based on his choice of browser, that's kinda lame.

Eh -- replication, if the servers are configured right and live in the same room -- should happen faster than what we call "human time."

I.E. -- from a user's point of view you should never be able to tell. Now a coder can tell because we see stuff break when we try to do a read based on the return value from a write.

Point being, in human time replication shouldn't matter here.

In theory.

Granted the servers have been better lately, but in the past you'd find "blank" articles all the time, or get an email from a user requesting to join a group but no sign of them requesting it on the group page itself, or the conversation tracker would say a thread has new comments, but when you visited it you found nothing new...

It's a new feature. Newsvine is an hour ahead of the rest of the world. That's how we will scoop every major news agency ;-)

When you have comment editing, what is time?

Edit: I see.

Hey, anybody notice that the time is off on posts? Did you guys forget to patch your servers with the DST changes? :=)

Yep, your right. It's an hour ahead. Like you said they prolly forgot the DST patch. DST woulda happened last weekend going by the old schedule.

Cool catch, my friend.

Please explain this to me, I'm having one of those moments. Shouldn't it be an hour the other way?

Your right, it shoulda shown 5 p.m instead of 6 p.m. if real current time is 6 p.m. and the DST fallback was (mistakenly) applied. Instead, we are seeing 7 p.m. when it's really 6 p.m. So, looks like maybe it's just bad time setting on the servers and prolly nothin' to do with DST.

*smacks forehead*

Good call everyone. I'm S-M-R-T.

From comment 29:

Wow, I'm a lower.

Clearly, you'll still have one up on a few people.

Sorry Viki! =)

Why can't I do it? :( I was going to say Edit: THANKS! but but but.....