|
16 Dec 97 - 12:43 AM (#17650) Subject: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Max Would you guys like a spell checker function on the discussion forum? It'll check your messages before you post them. |
|
16 Dec 97 - 01:00 AM (#17654) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Susan of DT Spell checkers have a problem on lyrics, especially Scots and other dialects. |
|
16 Dec 97 - 01:05 AM (#17655) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: rastrelnikov Gud speling iss ownly four they vein att hart. But occasionally I wish these discussions were a moderated USENET group -- for ease of access. |
|
16 Dec 97 - 01:18 AM (#17658) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Max Yeah, your right... no spell checker. |
|
16 Dec 97 - 01:54 AM (#17663) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Joe Offer 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- |
|
16 Dec 97 - 02:00 PM (#17690) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Max Good question, I'll check it out and make sure non-members can get to it too. |
|
16 Dec 97 - 06:47 PM (#17705) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Richard Wright No spellcheck needed. Richard |
|
16 Dec 97 - 07:09 PM (#17709) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Jon W. 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? |
|
16 Dec 97 - 09:24 PM (#17718) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Will My preference is to keep it as simple as possible. But, of course, elegant, too ... |
|
17 Dec 97 - 02:23 PM (#17764) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Max 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. |
|
17 Dec 97 - 05:33 PM (#17776) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Bashful Sam 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. |
|
17 Dec 97 - 08:32 PM (#17786) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Sheye 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! |
|
18 Dec 97 - 10:05 AM (#17825) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Wolfgang Hell 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 |
|
18 Dec 97 - 10:36 AM (#17829) Subject: RE: Ideas for Mudcat 98 From: Jon W. 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. |