I often see users making multiple successive posts to add additional information to a post, or to try again to post a photo. It's not necessary to post multiple times, because everyone can edit their own posts.

If you've added the wrong link, or your photo post didn't work out because of wrong syntax, or you'd like to stick your foot in your mouth, or you need to hide evidence from the feds, you can edit your post to save face.

Just above the message area for your post, there's a little row of buttons. One looks like a pencil. Click that.



The post edit screen will appear and you can edit, fix, change, whatever you need to do. When you're done, click Submit just as if you were posting for the first time. To change the title of a thread you've started, change the subject of the first post.

Some philosphy on editing posts
If you're editing to "fix" your opinion, it can be slippery. On the one hand, it might be wise to correct data you've learned after the post, however posting something then backpedaling and editing it constantly is kinda weak. You can't delete your post, just edit it, so it will be obvious that you said something and then retracted it. But, it's all up to you.

If someone corrects me in the forum, I take my medicine. Being corrected can be interesting too. It's nice to know the original statement that was in question.

A bump to help any new guys learning the forum.

I've seen people edit their posts nine times and still have foot-in-mouth syndrome. You have to wonder if they should have just stayed with version 1.

Hammer wrote:I've seen people edit their posts nine times and still have foot-in-mouth syndrome. You have to wonder if they should have just stayed with version 1.

While I don't edit my posts indiscriminately, I have a tendency to write and re-write things ad nauseum, before hitting "submit". So here's a little story as an example:

Years ago, when I still did criminal defense, I represented a kid on a drug distribution charge in Rawlins, WY. The investigators had done a truly lousy job, trammeling all over the kid's constitutional rights in many ways--details are unimportant here. We lost at trial, and lost again on an appeal to the Wyoming Supreme Court. But he and his parents insisted on attempting to get the US Supreme Court to overrule the Wyoming courts.

It's extraordinarily rare for any attorney to have the opportunity to argue a case at the US Supreme Court. Part of the reason is that to get there, the Supreme Court has to issue a Writ of Certiorari, which is essentially their permission to file the case. So the first step in most cases is to file a Motion for Writ of Certiorari. Out of thousands of cases in which such a motion is filed, only about 4000 are granted certiorari annually. So it's essential that the brief accompanying the Motion for Writ of Certiorari is well written, cogent, states an important constitutional issue, etc.

So you can bet that I wrote and re-wrote that brief, let it sit, had others read it, rewrote it again some more, so that I could be sure that it was absolutely perfect before having it printed (which incidentally is done by only two printers in the whole US, who have to follow very strict Court requirements when they do it). The printing is expensive, and it results in an attractive booklet in paperback form, which the printers send in multiple copies to the Supreme Court, the attorneys for both sides, and the lower courts.

When I got my copy of the booklet, of course I had to read it, to see what I'd actually sent to the Supreme Court. To my horror, I found at least half a dozen glaring errors, in spite of all my efforts. I sorely wanted to blame the printer, but when I looked at the drafts I'd sent them, all those errors were there. Ack! And some of those errors were not in the original draft I'd done several weeks earlier!

So yeah, sometimes the first go at it is best, although a little clean-up will benefit a lot of posts which have little resemblance to the grammar and punctuation that the posters were taught in grade school.

Cary

I was just poking fun at a recent 3-post wunder who edited her posts 9 times and still served up lengthy diatribes dripping with venom, assumptions, entitlements, and inaccuracies.

I can't help but wonder what posts 1 through 8 looked like...

I have not only simply edited, but often deleted my entire post. On several occasions I have even deleted an entire discussion topic I had started because on second examination the topic struck me as trite, dorky, not sufficiently aviation-related, etc.

Posting to correct typos or errors is something else I find my self doing a lot. Also, if I find an image later that helps to clarify a point, I'll edit and add it to the original post rather than waste bandwidth with a second separate posting.