Quote:
Originally Posted by JSWolf
If there is too much time gone by or enough replies, don't edit the original post. Make a new one to cover the errors in the original post.
|
Here are some of the problems with that idea:
1. Continuity. Someone rereads their post a few days later and realizes it's abysmally written. Do they edit said post to keep the edits relevant or do we really want them to post the corrections in the middle of a developing conversation a few pages later?
2. Redundancy. If we want people to multi-quote in one post instead of posting several times to answer each quote, that implies we're trying to avoid redundant posting. If someone posts, realizes their post is questionably written, contains misspellings or acronyms, and wants to correct these, should they really post a detailed errata below the first post, forcing the casual reader to do three times as much work?
3. Redundancy, pt. 2: Explaining edits is what the Reason footer field is for.
4. Relevance. How likely is it that the casual reader will be interested in the masturbatory minutiae of an edit? And if there turn out to be several edits noticed after the first is commented on, who is going to find four posts detailing these to be relevant to the general conversation?
5. Inconsistency. Many writers edit their own work endlessly, Virginia Woolf ten to twenty times per story by her own estimation. Robert Lowell famously said that "All my thoughts are second thoughts," meaning that he always revised. Why should writers who post here drop their standards to adhere to some rigid idea that assures someone else they haven't altered a thought or an opinion?
6. Tact. If someone realizes they've said something cruel or thoughtless, or which violates Mobile Read policy, what moderator
wouldn't want them to revise their statements? Isn't that in fact one of the main reasons moderators step in to change members' posts -- because they didn't think to change them first?