Hi,
If a post is edited at a later time or date, are there any notifications to followers?
Camerart.

 

Not that I know of. That subject was discussed a long time ago, and the main problem was how does one balance important notifications with too many notifications. In other words, if someone corrects spelling of "yo" to "you," do you want a notification? Can one rely on the poster to decide what's an important edit versus unimportant?

Many posters will show important edits on separate lines, e.g., EDIT: xxxxxx But that practice hardly seems to be followed by a majority.

One might propose that forum software could highlight any changes made after a certain period. But that could also lead to distracting posts.

 

Not that I know of. That subject was discussed a long time ago, and the main problem was how does one balance important notifications with too many notifications. In other words, if someone corrects spelling of "yo" to "you," do you want a notification? Can one rely on the poster to decide what's an important edit versus unimportant?

Many posters will show important edits on separate lines, e.g., EDIT: xxxxxx But that practice hardly seems to be followed by a majority.

One might propose that forum software could highlight any changes made after a certain period. But that could also lead to distracting posts.

Hi J2,
Ok, thanks. I suspected that. I'll stop using them for updating, and only use them for corrections.
C

 

Hi J2,
Ok, thanks. I suspected that. I'll stop using them for updating, and only use them for corrections.
C

I do both. As a general rule, if there are no subsequent posts, I just edit. with an "EDIT" line. If there are intervening posts, then I will either post the additional information separately or post with a pointer back to the edited original. An example of the latter is when I have posted code and made a correction to it. Rather than have people try code that doesn't work, I feel it's better to fix the code, and point out the change in a post that does create a notification.

 

I do both. As a general rule, if there are no subsequent posts, I just edit. with an "EDIT" line. If there are intervening posts, then I will either post the additional information separately or post with a pointer back to the edited original. An example of the latter is when I have posted code and made a correction to it. Rather than have people try code that doesn't work, I feel it's better to fix the code, and point out the change in a post that does create a notification.

Hi J2, Ok, I'll do the same. C

 

Plus when editing earlier posts, many of the succeeding comments no longer make sense. This puts the integrity of the entire thread in question.

Many others have provided their excellent suggestions as to how they approach this problem. I’m going to add mine.

I copy the content in question to another post and make corrections there. I document the updates in the text and often highlight the changes somehow.

I also copy the link to the latest, corrected post and insert a comment in the original post, noting that something was corrected in post (and I link to the new post).

This keeps the thread flow, acknowledges that something was wrong and let’s the reader skip to the corrected information.

 

Plus when editing earlier posts, many of the succeeding comments no longer make sense. This puts the integrity of the entire thread in question.

Many others have provided their excellent suggestions as to how they approach this problem. I’m going to add mine.

I copy the content in question to another post and make corrections there. I document the updates in the text and often highlight the changes somehow.

I also copy the link to the latest, corrected post and insert a comment in the original post, noting that something was corrected in post (and I link to the new post).

This keeps the thread flow, acknowledges that something was wrong and let’s the reader skip to the corrected information.

Hi D,
Ok, thanks.
C