pull down to refresh
147 sats \ 4 replies \ @ek 8 Mar freebie \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
I forgot to reply to the thread where the usual suspects were talking about this
oh, I was even mentioned, didn't notice, I thought I read this thread while driving by
Regarding #449228:
The issue isn't necessarily creating a special use post, but perpetual edits are probably more generally useful (without breaking too much existing UX) and just implementing a special use post would be quite limiting and less worth the time and effort to implement it (and maybe even more complex, special cases are in general (lol) more complex).
However, if we have general perpetual edits, we need transparency via edit history which you didn't like but it doesn't have to be "in your face". So I think it's possible to get maximum value out of perpetual edits and fit your needs. Imo, an edit history would even be useful in your use case so it's easy to see what you added to the index so we don't have to read everything again to find what changed? I am assuming here that you don't want to be limited to append-only edits but actually want to edit everything.
Essentially, we try to prioritize features that aren't "limited" but basically are something that can be used for all kinds of things, in the best case even things that we can't imagine yet.
If we just add a specific post type, people wouldn't get creative with it, I believe.
@k00b and me talked about perpetual edits last week (?) and I mentioned I like companies that send diffs of what they changed in their policies instead of just "hey we updated some stuff" and then send you all 748014 pages again and you can figure out yourself what they actually changed.
But we'll keep your use case in mind, too. I think they are actually very similar. 👀
Yes. Just two things from my perspective:
- I like discussion posts as they are. We need an edit limit or it will fuck up the flow of discussion. You could be replying about something that is later edited by the OP. Confusion
- For what I'm talking about, having an edit history will cause clutter and be unnecessary.
Maybe @DarthCoin has some input here? The radentor posts are an example of what I'm talking about.
reply
We need an edit limit or it will fuck up the flow of discussion. You could be replying about something that is later edited by the OP. Confusion
Yes, this is the greatest concern we have next to straight up abuse (completely rewriting something) but I think it's solvable. We just need to figure something out. At least I don't want to not try at least.
For what I'm talking about, having an edit history will clutter up the kind of posts I'm talking about.
How exactly? You mean because you would edit a lot, like multiple edits per hour? Or because you think the edit history will be immediately visible when you visit a post?
A solution for the former would be to group edits in a specific time period together (like every edit within the same hour shows up as the same edit in the history) and a solution for the latter would be to be show if you click on something like
edit history in the context menu:- Agreed, discussion posts remain as it is, with the 10m window (in case you want to correct errors and stuff like that).
- Main posts, like long posts, guides, essays, lists etc I would like to have them fully editable. I would not be so crazy to change the whole text, will be just small updates maybe, in time, if something became obsolete or were some mistakes that other readers point them out etc.
Is it nice to have like a small footnote with history changes? Maybe, but that could clutter more the SN database I think. And for what? Just for few readers that will click it for curiosity?
Keep it simple.
reply