It's getting epidemic. I'd like to politely petition our beloved admin to do something, perhaps making the first post in a thread impossible to edit after an hour or so, but before making such requests I thought I'd check how everyone else felt about it.

How does everyone else feel about it?

I think the first post should be the only post in a thread to have a full history to see all previous versions. If a user gets rapid help they can blank their posts within the hour, which is bad.

Rather than forbidding edits, which is a bit extreme, perhaps only allowing making additions, or rejecting edits that change too much the amount of information (e.g. DEFLATE the post and compare sizes).

The culprits seem to be all one-time posters. So the simplest solution here is probably to only allow edits if your post count is over X (maybe 20?)

@Disch: Actually that's a pretty good idea. Probably just use the same number as when your links automagically get turned to hyperlinks.

+1 Disch/firedraco

+1

+1
(the number is 50 posts, btw)

Posters post for themselves, to get a fix for their own problem.

If they feel privacy is more important than possibly helping Snoopy, their choice should still be respected.

Snoopy's better off starting his own thread.

If they want privacy, they can PM someone. For example, except for Catfish, everyone who's posted in this thread accepts PMs.
Logging the progress of their solution in the (vain) hope that we don't have to answer the same question again is the price we take for having more eyes look at their problem.

If they feel privacy is more important than possibly helping Snoopy, their choice should still be respected. Snoopy's better off starting his own thread.

Which means we end up answering the same few questions over and over and over and over. I have given up explaining why
while ( a != 1 || a!= 2)
will run forever, and now just point at the existing threads. Likewise pointers, and a whole bunch of other things.

When you come to a public forum and make a public post that you hope and want lots of people to come and look at, it seems churlish and a breaking of the unspoken bargain to then remove it from public view.

+1 Moschops & helios

Alas, the world may be against common sense.
http://www.npr.org/2011/11/30/142714568/interpreting-the-constitution-in-the-digital-era

If they want privacy, they can PM someone.

I guess they don't want exposure, answers and privacy all at the same time, how could they?

I have given up explaining why ... and now just point at the existing threads.

New members can help others just as much, unless you're into postcount cred.
I myself try to give newbies a genuine reply no matter how trite, or how tempting it is to divert them, because a genuine reply is what they're here for.

When you come to a public forum and make a public post that you hope and want lots of people to come and look at, it seems churlish and a breaking of the unspoken bargain to then remove it from public view.

It doesn't matter how it seems and what you think of it. It's their choice.
They own their posts and their threads, and as such they must have the right to change them, no matter what discomfort it causes anyone.

To be honest, the deal is simple: we provide you with the answers you seek and in return we expect you not to delete your posts so we can use the topic as a reference for new questions.

We don't except a thank-you card, we simply expect you not to delete your post. Is that so much to ask? If it is, that's their choice, but don't go expecting an answer from us.

[Note: I say "we"/"us", but I fully realize I'm not nearly as affected as the actual core members of this forum. The topics I answer to are generally quite easy and don't require much effort.]

My personal opinion on the editing of posts:
once a post has been replied to it should be un-editable.
(I don't like reading posts only to find that replies make no sense because the original has been modified).

Guess that's an option as well. Personally, I would prefer if the OP updated his code in the first post each time. It often gets very confusing when several versions of the same code are included in a topic. Plus, having oat most one large chunk of code per topic will make it much easier when I got bored and decide to print out the internet.

I guess they don't want exposure, answers and privacy all at the same time, how could they?

Exposure and privacy are opposites. How can you possibly want both at the same time? You're agreeing with me. Just which view are you in favour of?

I take it as read that you actually don't care either way, and you're just presenting counter-arguments for the sake of it, so unless you specify otherwise, I assume we can all ignore your views. I added this piece in a edit. As you say yourself, I can do whatever I want here and you're in favour of it.

They own their posts and their threads

Posts maybe; thread no.

@ Mosc:

First part: I was responding to helios and his PM idea, and without sarcasm.
I do not understand your first question. I only stated that a poster might not want the same exposure after he gets the answers he needs.
As for your second question, I thought I was clear: I'd like no changes, and to continue letting OPs trash their own threads if they want to.
It's their freedom to do the wrong things.

Second part:
Why not the thread, too? Because of the contributed posts? Which are often useless without the context of the first post, which the OP has and must have the right to nuke if he so chooses?

As for your second question, I thought I was clear: I'd like no changes, and to continue letting OPs trash their own threads if they want to. It's their freedom to do the wrong things.

As we're saying, that's a breach of the implicit deal we have. The point of a forum is that it's not a volatile medium, like IRC or speech. A dialog is supposed to be searchable and useful long after it's been had.
Fora are merely web-based versions of mailing lists and Usenet. Being able to make edits to your posts is a privilege allowed, for example, so someone reading an old thread looking for help doesn't see an incorrect datum. Many of us when corrected explicitly strikeout the original text so the corrections are clear and the thread doesn't lose context. Edits aren't meant to be used to rewrite or erase history so you don't look like an idiot later on from something you've said, or so your professor doesn't realize you've been cheating.

Edits aren't meant to be used to rewrite or erase history so you don't look like an idiot later ...

It's not up to non-OP's to decide if an edit is good or bad, or what's it used for.

As for the "implicit deal", maybe the subject of this thread should become making it explicit, as part of the ToS when signing up? If you really want this new rule.