There have been cases where I've rated a review only to see it completely re-written and so unrecognizable that I'd like to withdraw my rating. Unfortunately, we can only choose to switch, not delete.

It is irritating when your opinion  changes on something, and you are unable to change your review. This is a common problem for me, as I often wish to edit some of my older (more primitive?) comments, but am unable to, as I don't want to lose the helpful votes I obtained. This is a vital problem to fix.

Update: It's been fixed? Excellent! Time to take out the trash...

You can now retain your helpful votes when you repost.

I agree with the others. I hate losing helpfuls when you update a comment. One bug I do not see listed is getting emails notifying me that someone has posted a comment on a topic when I did not request to be notified. It fills up your email inbox and is annoying.

Sometimes it's nice to know that already earned "helpful" marks will stick after the update of a comment. Sometimes I can see something I've rated in a different light than what I did before. For instance, I rated Denny's Restaurant with a low mark to begin with, and a recent visit to the eatery made me change my mind, calling for a change of rating. Fortunately, at that time, the helpful marks remained intact. To my knowledge, this bug hasn't been fixed yet, but actually, it isn't all that important.

It also keeps people from posting any kind of updates because they would lose their helpfuls.

My displeasure with this "bug" is not for the same reason indicated by most of the other responders to this item. My own complaint is that once I've indicated that someone's comment was helpful I would like my "helpful" to stand. As it is now once a person changes their review in some way my "helpful" is deleted... and much more importantly, I'm unable to resubmit it.

After reading the prior comments, I can't determine if this issue is actually a bug or an intentional limitation imposed by RIA. If memory serves, since I discovered this site a few years back, first comments would lose the "helpfuls" if revised, then they wouldn't, and currently they're lost again. I have to admit that during the interim period, I took advantage and updated a good number of prior comments to clean up spelling, correct grammar, and bring the review current due to subsequent events or changes of opinion. (I will also acknowledge the windfall of additional helpfuls and renewed attention to my weblists.) Assuming for the moment that this restriction is intentional, I suppose I can understand RIA's interest in curbing this type of behavior (i.e. helpful vote fishing), but are there so many members changing a comment in bad faith (e.g. "Hitler sucks" to "Hitler's peachy") that RIA must hamstring the vast majority of the members? Does vote fishing materially impair the integrity of the site? My guess is "no" to either question. Assuming that this is an unintentional bug, then this bug irritates me the most of any on this list.

I would like to correct a review and keep the helpful/nonhelpful votes. If you drastically change the content then in my oppinion you are changing the review....lose the votes, but making a spelling correction, no.

Who. . .bleepin'. . .cares? I have changed a few due to the discovery of a spelling or grammatical error and I don't care a whit for 'who likes or dislikes' the comment. . .

Whew..take that on both sides of the jaw, you bad RIA management types. Seems one of your finest is in quite a snit...and he's probably a little on the right side, here. Of all the "bugs", "upgrades" and "suggestions" over the past few months a Spell Check gimmick is really needed the most. Like Flick, I cringe when I write a comment, post it, and then see some stupid typo. I also really hate trying to decipher another guy's perfectly unintentive writing prose in order to gain a point.

On the flip side, I would really hate to give a, "Hitler sucked because..." comment a helpful, only to have the original poster go back in and change it to "Hitler was great because...". Yeah, my helpful is anonymous, but that's beside the point; I belive Hitler sucked, and that is what I rated.

But, let's not split hairs, here. I say give the masses a spell check so we can all feel good about how we write, but don't open the flood gates for abuse. I think that should make at least Flick happy, and if Flick is happy we should all be gratyfied...or is it gratified...damn it...

This has been a very sore point with me and has put me at odds against the management of RIA. As my friend Genghis has pointed out, should you repost a comment, you lose all of the helpfuls and unhelpfuls associated with that review which nullifies those people who read your comment and felt that it deserved a vote one way or the other. I suppose that this "policy" was put into place to prevent people from reposting the same comment over and over in order to gain more helpfuls. In the past I have pointed out to RIA management that there are legitimate reasons for reposting a comment and one should not be "punished" for doing so, but my plea for a change has fallen upon deaf ears. For the purpose of this review I will list them here. First, I do not have a spell check program which is compatable with RIA and sometimes I discover a misspelled word, a misplaced comma, or some other grammatical error after a review has been posted. I cannot correct these mistakes without losing the helpful / unhelpful votes so I have to leave the reviews with the mistakes intact. That makes me look like a careless writer and some folks might interpret it as not being well educated. If I am writing about a critical subject such as my faith or political affiliation, the last thing that I want is to have my comments look as if they were written by someone who does not have his act together at the keyboard. After all, RIA is about WORDS and if I cannot present a well written and correctly spelled explanation of my views how can I expect anyone else to respect my opinion and possibly rethink their own stand on an issue? Second, there have been times, such as my tribute to the late talk show host Jack Paar, when further research caused me to discover some facts about his life which should be included in my comment. Under the current circumstances I cannot resubmit a more complete or accurate review without sacrificing the votes associated with that comment. It seems that RIA management is more interested in how many ads they can cram on a page, how many people you trust and can invite to the site, while past contributors like myself are given the cold shoulder and a curt "Sorry." Until this problem and others which I have mentioned in other reviews are given the priority which they deserve, and management comes to realize that there are some things which are more important than the size of the font or how many people you can recruit, I will not be the active contributor to RIA that I once was.

I understand the reason behind adopting this standard. It hurts, however, to see a review with glaring errors and not being able to repost without losing everyone's action that demonstrates, at least, they took the time to read it in the first place.