this is a good point. as of right now that functionality is not available.

i have thought about adding it, but there are a lot of things to consider (revisions, permissions, etc), so i haven’t done it yet. basically the functionality you would expect would be as follows (please revise if you see fit):

you can ‘edit’ one of the travel entries created by another user and add images, when you submit it gets updated.

i am assuming that images are the only thing you can edit? i was also considering allowing members to update the pin placement on the map. if the original author is like ‘i think its about here’, but another member ‘knows its on this corner’, should they be able to update it?

i also considered working in the Eurotrip Points. once you get to say 200 points you get bumped up to another role that allows you to edit more content. (obviously this is just an idea)

it would be good to get feedback on this because i was considering opening it up a bit, but i wasnt sure what would be wanted/needed and what would be too much.

I’ve been thinking pretty much along the same lines. I’d like to have a feature letting users to edit content created by others, but I don’t want it to lead to vandalism and/or edit wars like in Wikipedia.

See, if I find (for example) a tag for Notre Dame placed around Place Concorde with the picture of Tour Eiffel, what do I do? Do I move it and change the picture, or do I create another one at the right spot? IMHO the second solution is better, but this sort of functionality may, potentially, lead to abuses.

How about this: you can have all edits to go through approval by editors, provided we have enough editors. Or you could limit edits to members of high enough seniority and let others request edits if they wish so.

ya we are pretty much on the same page. we want to make sure that we don’t “loose” good content, so we have to worry about revisions etc. this obviously introduces a whole other level of complexity, but it may be worth it.

pardon my ignorance in regard to your example, i don’t know the area well enough to follow exactly what you mean. basically, we should have the following correction features available for members.

• the content is right, but the marker placement is wrong -> member can move the marker to the correct location.
• the marker is right and most of the content is right, some is wrong -> member should be able to correct the incorrect data.

the best way to integrate this is totally up for discussion.

right now all of the creation and edits are going through an editor (being mim and myself right now), and we can give more people access to this if we feel it is necessary. it currently does not have revisions though, so as soon as we open it up we have to consider this fact. “someone changes the info and saves. it goes to the editor, but the person has destroyed the content.” at this point the editor does not have the correct information available to him because he does not have access to the old data via a revision.

you have brought up a good point about a ‘request edit’ feature. basically it would be something similar to ‘flag content’, but it also has a little description field that allows you to describe why you are requesting to edit the content. i dont think this is as good of a solution personally, but it is an option. we are introducing a lot more manual labor overhead which i don’t think is the best approach.

as a quick work around, if you see content that is incorrect or need updates you can ‘flag’ it and just send me a private message to fix it.

i will look into setting up revisions on everything. if we have that then we can safely open up as much edit functionality as we feel is needed.

No, I did not mean to have editors actually make changes submitted by members. What I mean is this. Say I see content that I want to change in some way: move marker, update details, add a photo. With the current system the best I can do (presumably) is to send this request to the original poster over PM.

What can be done is to implement one of the following methods.
1. I modify the content, just like the original poster would, and when I submit it, it goes to an editor for approval. The editor has an option to approve the changes, to keep the original content, or if (s)he really has nothing better to do, to combine two versions.
2. Do it Wikipedia – style, everyone can modify anything, but with an option to revert to any prior version.
3. Have a combination of the two, that is those with high seniority would have their requests approved automatically, those with lower would go through editors.

In any case, IMHO, it’s best to keep track of prior edits, if not perpetually (if storage is a concern) then at least for some length of time.

i agree that those are the best options. the problem is that right now i am not doing revisions for the content, so none of those options are currently possible.

i am looking into doing revisions so that any of those would be possible. we would/will most likely do a combination of 1 and 3.

all i was trying to say is that because i do not have revisions right now, opening it up is very dangerous.