31 sats \ 3 replies \ @siggy47 8 Mar \ parent \ on: Stacker Saloon
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.
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