The whole issue with having only 5 minutes to edit our posts is ridiculous

I have done exactly what you have described. I believe that the delete option is available the full 5 minutes of edit time. I agree also that extending the edit time would be disruptive to the flow of the conversation as it may change the original dynamic.

Hmmm maybe now the delete option doesn't linger after the 5 minutes expires like it did before. I haven't tested it after the upgrade.

I don't know Zero as I have not actually timed it. Maybe it does. Miss the old format though but it is what it is.

Oh well I just tested it, and it doesn't outlast the 5 minute edit window anymore.

The administration has posted countless times for years that it is not up for debate. The site owner made his decision years ago and has his reasons. Mods and admins have posted these reasons over and over.

There is no need for a poll because this site has an owner. He decides for everyone how he wants the site he's owned and operated for 20 to be ran and quite frankly it's not our right to tell him otherwise.

The options are be an adult and handle it or don't handle it and stop coming. Seems simple enough.

Again, prideful that you think your preference and voice are so important that you feel it's your place to instruct the owner of the site how he "should" run his site after 20 years.

.
I understand you position and acknowledge that it is the best you can come up with. However, I disagree (with nothing to back me up) with your estimate of how often in might occur. I "speculate" that it would not occur often enough to justify the "inconvenience" of not being able to edit our posts within 15 or 20 minutes.

However, I am not the decision maker on such things and can only comply with what you and the others see fit to do. I simply disagree with the risk/benefits ratio that you and the others have determined. But there is nothing more that I can do about it other than respectfully disagree.

Humph! ;-)
.

On second thought, having a poll on the issue might be a good idea. I assume the owner is concerned about user satisfaction with the site, and that he is generally concerned with meeting user needs within reason. If most site users would prefer more edit time AND if the feared misuse of the edit time is not as great as feared by the owner, then a longer edit time would be justified, would it not?

I understand the fear the leadership has of unlimited edit time and I don't want to discount it. But perhaps with a 15-20 minute edit time, it would not be significantly abused. And, if on rare occasion it is, perhaps even then the inconvenience of dealing with an occasional abuser would not outweigh the benefit to everyone else in having more time to edit their posts.

Just a thought.

Thank you for considering it.

Furthermore, if the abuse of edit time is overwhelming, the time can be set back to five minutes anyway.

The answer is simple: PROOFREAD your posts a few times first. Then decide whether to add to it, delete, or post it.. If you're careful and thorough and spend 5 minutes proofreading, then you won't need 15 minutes edit time AFTER it's posted.

It is; or it is being spoken analytically from experience.
Like was said. He might own the site but it is the people that keep it going.

With that being a fact the issue should be considered through a poll considering this topic comes up a lot. And the out come to that should be the determination.