Ideas for Mudcat 98

Subject: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Max
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 12:43 AM

Would you guys like a spell checker function on the discussion forum? It'll check your messages before you post them.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Susan of DT
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 01:00 AM

Spell checkers have a problem on lyrics, especially Scots and other dialects.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: rastrelnikov
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 01:05 AM

Gud speling iss ownly four they vein att hart. But occasionally I wish these discussions were a moderated USENET group -- for ease of access.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Max
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 01:18 AM

Yeah, your right... no spell checker.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Joe Offer
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 01:54 AM

Max, is there a link to the "links" page for outsiders to access, or is it only we who have registered who can access the links. I know we're the only ones who can post links, but I thought the links were going to be available to everyone.
-Joe-

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Max
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 02:00 PM

Good question, I'll check it out and make sure non-members can get to it too.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Richard Wright
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 06:47 PM

No spellcheck needed. Richard

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Jon W.
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 07:09 PM

A few of us have asked in the past about having some limited edit capability so we could go back and correct our mistakes after posting a message. Pretty please with sugar on top?

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Will
Date: 16 Dec 97 - 09:24 PM

My preference is to keep it as simple as possible. But, of course, elegant, too ...

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Max
Date: 17 Dec 97 - 02:23 PM

Jon, in fact we do have editing available, and a few of us now use it. We have not, however, determined that it is a safe thing to have just anyone using. We are working on the ability to allow you to only change your own messages. Unfortunately non-members will not be able to be identified and the coding necessary to pull this off in the forum will likely disturb the non-member functionality. We have really no limits to what we can do, but with non members we do because nonmembers don't have cookies and don't identify themselves.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Bashful Sam
Date: 17 Dec 97 - 05:33 PM

Max---there is a chatroom I have seen(actually a large set of them) where the chatter can delete their last message with a click of a button.This is not editing, but it might be easier code to write. At least then, one could start over, and also delete those duplicate posts. I have no idea if this is an idea worth pursuing.

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Sheye
Date: 17 Dec 97 - 08:32 PM

As always, it is the excellent company that makes this entree so delectable. Now, if we could only get you Americans to spell properly... we could have our just dessert...:)

Shula: it is so good to have you back!

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Wolfgang Hell
Date: 18 Dec 97 - 10:05 AM

I'm not against editing one's own contributions (I have often wished to be able to do it), but it has two disadvantages:
1. One correction often makes several other corrections necessary (if I make three mistakes in one contribution, three people post corrections, and I say thank you and edit my mistakes, then these three people's corrections look unnecessary, if they are not edited as well. Or imagine someone editing an argument in a longer contribution while you are responding to that argument. Then you have to explain (or edit) your response.
2. Some intercourses (traditional sense of the word) will be much less interesting (imagine, for instance, how much that old thread, in which I learned the words "nubile" and "skundered", would have lost with editing).

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98
From: Jon W.
Date: 18 Dec 97 - 10:36 AM

I was thinking of the editing function more for fixing links that didn't work right and really functional stuff like that. I'm not so concerned about spelling and certainly wouldn't want any of the delightful colloquialisms edited out.

One thing I have seen in another forum was that the editing could only be done in the first 30 minutes after a message was posted and only by the submitter - this prevents wholesale revision of history. I suppose in Mudcat terms this would also mean only registered members could use the edit. That don't bother me none.