New time limit on editing of posts

Brendan Burgess

Founder
Messages
54,789
We have had to restrict the editing of posts to one day. In other words, if you make a typo, you can edit your post within one day. If you find a typo a week later, you will not be able to edit the post.

We have introduced this as were guessing people's passwords and editing their old posts to incorporate links to their own websites.

Please check your old posts to see if there are such spam links and report a sample post.

Brendan
 
Can I ask how many members were affected by this reported spamming - two so far?
If one of them was an IT person (who we assume knows security protocols) it may be the AAM site that's been hacked, not them.

If OTOH this isn't an epidemic of spam posts then the announced strategy may be an overreaction, which may have unintended consequences.
I have cause for concern because of the professional nature of most of the advice I've post to AAM and from the first you allowed me a right to modify or delete my posts.

That having been said I'm sure there are ways around the above problem, but I'm wary of introducing far reaching changes which may not address the core problem which may be site security.
Even with this new rule its still a lot better on AAM than over on www.archiseek.com, where you can find the post you're editing has been locked within a very short time, something like sixty minutes.
 
I agree with onq here as one often has additional thoughts ideas on different issues raised here and its always nice to be able to add in additional material or correct errors
 
I also agree 1 day is too short for editing.....it is sacrificing usability.

I don't have access to aam server logs, but I would be fairly sure it was a simple brute force password attack on my account. The usernames are already public information.

I don't have "secure" information on AAM, so I didn't use a very secure password.

If you read the research on the passwords that are typically used on forum type sites you will see it is not at all difficult to compromise an account.

I have not administered vbulletin, so I dont know what options are available off the shelf with this package, but there are other strategies we could imagine to make it more difficult for spammers.

You could force users to use secure password (this would make it harder to compromise an account, but would also frustrate/limit users).

You could put in a captcha as part of the edit post function, to ensure the editing cannot easily be automated, by a script/bot, and also would slow down a user trying to update posts.

You could put in an edit limit "e.g. only 1 edit per user per day"

I would suggest at minimum, limiting editing to a longer time period e.g. 1 week.
 
SPC100 said:
I don't have "secure" information on AAM, so I didn't use a very secure password.
Click to expand...
For what it's worth ... these days I have so many credentials for different (work and personal) systems that I use LastPass to manage them for me and I can then use secure passwords for everything.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LastPass

There are also other similar secure password management services out there that might be worth checking out:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Password_managers
[broken link removed]
 
Thanks Clubman! Nice to hear from you.

I have heard about that class of solution before, but have not yet tried one.

I agree that following best practices of a different secure pin and password for every system is a nightmare at this stage.



edit
I just tried lastpass for a few site, and I agree it is really excellent. A great time saver once you have your sites setup.
 
Last edited:
Okay, here is an example of what I refer to above.

Recently I posted a response which I referred to an EPA guide published in 2000 for single houses.

This morning I discovered there is a subsequent 2009 guide (still looking for it).

I cannot go back and edit my earlier post, which I could previously.

I suppose I can post an update to the thread, but I don't want to fall foul of the no-bumping rule.

Equally an update might be the best way to do this in the future, since merely editing the old post may not "bump" the thread to offer adequate notice.

Hmmm. Could be a positive there in terms of giving notice as long as the Mods don't mind the updates.

Okay. Thought about it - doesn't work for Key Posts requiring an update. Creating an update thread for a Key post misses the point of a Key post.


ONQ.
 
jhegarty said:
An edit should only be to correct something you miss typed or miss speled.

So 1 day is more than enough.
Click to expand...

Agreed.

AAM is an internet forum, people get things wrong, readers are here for general guidance not professional advice. They have to accept inaccuracies.

We as posters/advice givers also have to accept that we are not going to be right 100% of the time.
 
jhegarty said:
An edit should only be to correct something you miss typed or miss speled.

So 1 day is more than enough.
Click to expand...

No, that's what the spell-checker is for.

People who have "miss speled" words who obviously don't use the spell checker on the day are unlikely they to return to correct their mistake.

People who have "misspelled" words on AAM get the Americanized or general English dictionary to assist them.

Those of us raised in Ireland and who have "misspelt" words will try to spell words the correct spelling.

However I accept that some posters do check their spelling even a simple typo can carry a liability.
 

You may not have been aware of it before, but I have offered professional level advice for two years and more on AAM.

Perhaps you could read the Sites, Planning, Self-Builds and Extensions Forum and in particular my posts there like this one.

Are you suggesting that this isn't advice offered at a professional level?

If so perhaps you could clarify what you consider would be professional.

Either ways, my requirement to edit is not made lightly nor is it based on wishing to correct typos or misspellings per se.
 
onq said:
This is i-dotting and t-crossing stuff and carries no liability in general.
Click to expand...
I would have assumed that somebody worried about liability when posting free "professional level" advice on an internet discussion forum should probably consider limiting their advice to paid private clients instead?
 
onq said:
Perhaps you could read the Sites, Planning, Self-Builds and Extensions Forum and in particular my posts there like this one.
Click to expand...

Just did.

onq said:
Are you suggesting that this isn't advice offered at a professional level?
Click to expand...

Nope but I am suggesting (if we can split hairs) that it is professional guidance not advice. In that short piece, you use words like


  • assuming
  • I think
  • Probably
  • I'm not certain
  • may have been
  • the implication is
  • it's possible
  • you might
  • maybe

Professional advice to me would imply charging a fee. If I paid a fee and received such general advice I wouldn't be too happy.

There is also a disclaimer at the end.

With respect onq, I don't think you need to worry about liability.
 
For the record, I regard my contributions to AAM on tax and associated matters purely to be 'informed comment'. In no way, should any of my online comments ever be regarded as 'professional advice'.

That said, I am extremely uncomfortable with the idea that I will no longer be able to amend comments that I have previously made on AAM, even when the comment is incorrect or misleading.

For example I recently mistyped the word 'now' instead of 'not' in the course of making a point about income tax on AAM, and my error meant that I ended up saying the exact opposite of what I intended. Thankfully I spotted my error and corrected it. Now, if I mistype something on a Friday evening, and don't log in again over the weekend, my error stays online forever.
 

With respect NorfBank, I don't think you're in a position to say that.

The issue is professional liability, arising from the duty of care, vicarious liability and fiduciary liability, not just to a private client, but also the wider duty to members of the public.
This doesn't affect some professions to the same extent, but it does mine, because we design buildings and environments used by the general public.

You've pointed out the measures I take to limit my liability online, but if you read T McGibney above, you'll see that a simple typo can give a totally misleading impression.
If instead of a simple typo I post out of date information within a certain timeframe, there is an obligation on me to try to correct the position.

As for the measures I take, the courts nowadays do not rest on legalese, but the common English interpretation of the advice, which they will see as advice.
Hairsplitting doesn't cut it - I come from a profession which has been hammered in the courts over the years.

As for your comment that suggests advice is defined by whether a fee is paid or not - I see where you are coming from but I don't think you are correct.
This isn't the difference between amateur and professional sportsmen we're talking about here, where "professional" means you take payment for playing or competing.

Let me give the example I heard recently of an architect on the way to a meeting who spotted something amiss on a building site.
Stops the car, goes to the site and informs a workman - something later happens - architect sued successfully for not having informed "someone in charge".
That is the kind of liability that can land on my doorstep, if I make an honest mistake in trying to do right by people, a level of responsibility few professions have to shoulder.
My ability to shoulder it has been compromised by the decision to limit editing time on AAM, a site widely read by laypersons.

Also with respect, long term posters stating that AAM is not a place for professional advice is unhelpful.
People read AAM because the quality of advice it offers, although its the site owners prerogative to defend this rather than mine.

To return to the measure taken today -

- if a poster has been hacked, then its that poster's home security problem.
- if this site has been hacked then that's the site owner's website security problem.
- a measure to deal with these shouldn't be multiplied into a posting restriction that's everybody's day-to-day problem.
 
Not sure where the debate between Norfbank and Onq is going.

Not happy about not being able to edit, as I read and type very quickly my spelling is not the best, when old posts come up I correct spelling and also modify when I see that something I posted is unclear (something to do with my style of writing) Maybe long term posters could be allowed edit their posts.

As I haven't a clue about technology and have never managed to use the spell check on here, never mind know where it is, I don't even understand the danger. What danger in plain English not computer speak is there if someone changes one of my posts?
 
onq said:
Also with respect, long term posters stating that AAM is not a place for professional advice is unhelpful.
Click to expand...
I disagree and believe that, notwithstanding the quality of some of the content posted here from professionals or others, it's a good thing to remind people that all content here is subject to the general site disclaimer. If somebody needs/wants professional advice appropriate to their specific circumstances then they should not depend solely (or maybe even mainly) on AAM or any other internet discussion forum for it. They most likely need to pay for it on a private client basis.

Anyway - I too am probably veering a bit off topic now...
 
Bronte said:
Not sure where the debate between Norfbank and Onq is going.

What danger in plain English not computer speak is there if someone changes one of my posts?
Click to expand...

It's not going anywhere (like a lot of debates on AAM) so I'll step away.

There is little danger to you Bronte as you are an anonymous poster. According to onq's reasoning, in his profession there is a danger of being sued if incorrect advice is given here. It's not so much the danger of someone changing a post but onq realising an error and being unable to change it himself.

Anyway, if anyone does try and sue me I'll just say my account was hacked and someone changed the post. *

*not to be relied upon as a defence in a Court of Law.
 
Last edited:
Another worked example.

Because of T.McGibney and Bronte's post I have edited my post 11 to reflect my understanding of their positions.

Some poster's wouldn't but I see no reason to persist with a previous position where it has been shown to be inaccurate.
 
Menu
Log in
Register