DU idea? Why not allow unlimited updates on original posts?

[Dawgs]

But, with one caveat - Don't allow any edits on original content. Any additions would be after the original content, and they would be placed in their own formatted box.

It would still prevent the original poster from editing what they wrote, but it would allow them to change the message, thank everyone, or update with new information if it became available. That what any additional info would not have to be placed far down among the responses.

It could help keep some from getting so angry. :)

[SidDithers]

1. I really like this idea...

I'd gladly trade reading a few spelling or grammatical errors for permanency of the original content. We've all seen posts where the entire meaning or message has been changed, even after there have been replies.

I'm all for getting people to think a bit more before they post (something I've been guilty of not doing on many occasions).

+1.

Sid

[hlthe2b]

2. Not a bad idea... since

I once participated in an LBN post wherein everyone reacted to the facts known at the time in a way that was responsible-- based on the facts known. Within a few hours, far more information became available, which somewhat dramatically changed the conclusions that would have informed those earlier posts. There was a mass rush to excoriate all who had posted earlier for "jumping to conclusions" or "being stupid" or "failing to google since it would have been obvious their assumptions were wrong (which, of course was not true at the time the original post went up, since there was nothing to google). It became an orgy of mud-slinging towards these earlier posters and not one of the latecomers would even entertain the possibility that they were inappropriately "Monday-morning quarterbacking." And then, it got really nasty, with self-righteous accusations being flung in a way that would make you think the Saints of Saints had descended to judge the "ignorant and wicked." It was "GROUP BULLYING" at its worse.

Other threads began to refer to this as a disgusting example of the worst of DU (again disregarding that information available at that time was not available hours earlier).

I found that whole episode so disgusting that I broke my continuous time on DU (after registering not long following the 2001 inauguration)--leaving for several weeks to regroup.

Had there been the ability to edit the original thread to show WHEN the new information became available and to allow it to become obvious that the "latecomers" were simply exploiting the situation, I think this debacle could have been halted. It is a good idea.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

3. Good idea--but DO allow edits of original content for--say--an hour, to allow

the first few replies to help the thread author correct content errors, misspellings., etc.

After that, your idea allows the original author to respond to subsequent replies in a prominent place where many more readers can see, in a way that doesn't turn earlier replies below into head-scratchers.

But I wouldn't want original posters to attach more than one or two update boxes--things could become very confusing.

[hlthe2b]

4. Yes... and there ought to be prominent time stamps...

that lets you know what the time lag may have been...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

9. The first update box could be published in a different color, as would all replies

posted after the update.

Then it would be clear whether any reply was made before or after the updated OP, without making readers compare many individual timestamps to make that fundamental disctinction between two waves of replies.

[Dawgs]

11. Agree. That's why I suggested a formatted text box that is created automatically.

Good idea. :hi:

[Dawgs]

6. Agree. Keep the original rule of being able to edit the original content for a period of time.

:hi:

[geckosfeet]

5. What is the proposed time limit? One day? One week? A year?

Political events evolve and new information is always becoming available.

How long is an OP open for updating? Why not start a new thread instead of perpetually editing?

I understand your sentiment and agree with it to some extent. Do you think open edits might lead to endless threads? Not sure if that is in itself a bad thing.

[Dawgs]

8. That's fair. I completely agree. I would say at least one day, and probably not longer than two.

Actually, you just gave a perfect example of how I could update the OP with a new idea. Instead, it's buried down in the replies.

:hi:

[geckosfeet]

13. Could also add an 'updated thread' option to the My DU. Or an updated

thread notification kind of like and email/pm notification. That might be overkill though.

[Dawgs]

14. Are you also suggesting that anyone could update it? My thought was only for the original poster.

I don't think I like the idea of anyone updating it.

[geckosfeet]

26. No - just that anyone who posted on the thread be pinged when the OP updates.

[Dr Morbius]

7. I kinda like it. Another idea to go along with it:

When editing a post, a line should pop up first asking "REASON FOR EDIT". Some entry must be made in this field, even if it's a period (.). It would then be displayed at the bottom of the post. Peer pressure should be enough to encourage people to put down their reasons for editing the post, such as "sp" for spelling or "gm" for a grammatical correction. If it's an edit to update with new information, that's the place to put it. Now we have a situation where everyone knows where to look to find reasons for edits or number of edits, and if the OP has admitted a mistake and given in to the group, we can all know by simply reading the first post whether or not this is a dead horse, and beating it does little but tenderize the meat.

[Dawgs]

10. Are you suggesting that anyone should be able to edit the post? If so, I don't agree at all.

This is about letting the original poster update their original content for an extended period of time; to say thanks, provide new info, and to clarify something.

I apologize if I'm wrong.

[Dr Morbius]

20. No need to apologize, but that is not what I am suggesting.

I am suggesting that whenever someone DOES edit a post, it automatically pops up with a request for a reason for the edit.

[madokie]

12. Sounds like a plan to me

but I'm just a 'madokie'

[MineralMan]

15. I don't know about that. I'd rather see something that alerted

the poster of a badly-written, misspelled, ungrammatical, all-caps or no caps OP after one hour, with a message that said,

"Look, you moron: If you don't go back and make your OP more presentable within the next hour, DU will automatically delete it."

[hlthe2b]

16. while we've all been frustrated by those kind of posts...

that is really not the issue being addressed here in this thread, MM... :shrug:

[Dawgs]

17. Right, because grammatical errors are the real problem.

:shrug:

[MineralMan]

19. I was being sarcastic.

[rucky]

18. Early responses would make no sense, plus...

We all need to be talking about the same thing. It's confusing enough when people twist words, intents & bring their own agendas into the discussion. This would lead to more thread meltdowns than it would prevent.

It would also encourage less thought before hitting the "post" button.

[Dawgs]

21. Don't agree. Early responses would still be recognized as responding to OP that can't be edited.

You'd be correct if the original content could be edited, but it can't in this scenario. The updated additions would be formatted so everyone would know that they were added after the original content.

As a matter of fact, DailyKos posts are updated like you're suggesting and I've never heard of anyone being confused.

Myabe I'm wrong, but it could be something worth trying on a temporary basis to see if it was confusing.

[rucky]

22. Okay, I get it now.

I wish there was a way you could've updated that on your OP to clarify, though. ;)

[Dawgs]

24. Exactly.

:fistbump:

[RandomThoughts]

23. Some edits are responses to rebutalls to original comments.

It is part of a conversation in some cases.

You post something, then get a reply, and edit it to reply back.

Edits can be conversational.



Also to say you can not edit, is to claim something is in perfect form from the beginning, I reserve the right to edit in the same phrase that says I am not always correct or completely perfect.


Note that while an original post is occurring, there is also a conflict in the expression as ideas have to make it by blockers, some edits are removing blockers to ideas also.

Is not refining of things part of all things? And is not the conflict part of that?


Unless you say a persons opinions and thoughts can not change.

[Dawgs]

25. That's why you can't edit the original content.

You can only add a new comment, and it gets posted after the original post in its own formatting.

I'm not saying something is in the perfect form from the beginning, I'm saying that sometimes additional information is needed, and it would be better to have it in the original post.