Timeline for Should "Edit:" in edits be discouraged?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
22 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 18, 2023 at 19:15 | answer | added | Stéphane Laurent | timeline score: -18 | |
| Sep 21, 2022 at 7:16 | history | edited | AD7six | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
grammar
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:38 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 6, 2014 at 3:47 | history | edited | AstroCB | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Sep 5, 2014 at 22:54 | answer | added | Bruno | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 24, 2014 at 15:21 | vote | accept | AD7six | ||
| May 22, 2014 at 9:58 | comment | added | AD7six | So, I searched ineffectively before posting :P - thanks for the xrefs Arjan/Peter. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 20:05 | comment | added | Arjan | ...and: When is “EDIT”/“UPDATE” appropriate in a post? | |
| May 21, 2014 at 18:48 | comment | added | Peter Mortensen | Cross-site duplicate: Is it recommended to notify the answer “Edits” with an heading followed by the edit content? | |
| May 21, 2014 at 17:15 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
minor wordsmithing
|
| May 21, 2014 at 16:41 | history | edited | gnat | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| May 21, 2014 at 16:23 | answer | added | gitsitgo | timeline score: 17 | |
| May 21, 2014 at 16:00 | answer | added | Robert HarveyMod | timeline score: 69 | |
| May 21, 2014 at 14:02 | comment | added | sloth | @secretformula When you edit a post, there's a field called Edit Summary where you can and should "briefly explain your changes". This text is then displayed clearly in the edit history, right next to the revision number. So there's zero need to cluter up the post with such comments (which add no value). That's my point. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 13:54 | comment | added | secretformula | @AD7six I was refering to sloth talking about other people's edits on your posts. Re: that text, oh hell no, that was not needed at all and should be removed. I do very much agree thats bad practice. Edited posts need to still flow as ONE post not like a thread of progress as this isn't a forum. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 13:40 | comment | added | AD7six | @secretformula does the text "Edit: fixed a typo" serve a long term purpose? (randomly found example) | |
| May 21, 2014 at 13:37 | comment | added | secretformula | @sloth why does this bug you? These edits are usually made to make people more likely to find/answer your question and to keep the sites clarity standard | |
| May 21, 2014 at 12:28 | comment | added | Wooble | I don't mind these so much while there's active discussion of the question going on, but IMO the posts should be refactored to stand on its own after a while if this style is used, to make the question more useful to future visitors who don't care about how the question evolved. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 11:44 | comment | added | sloth | Those edits can be OK. What really bugs me are such edits from other people editing the question, like: "Edit: added some tags" or "Edit: fixed a typo". | |
| May 21, 2014 at 11:13 | comment | added | talegna | Not sure on the official policy but I reckon it's dependent on the question; sometimes if a comment or answer refers to something specific an edit might render the answer/comment not applicable. Where it is telling the story and adding information regarding their personal investigation I would say that it is appropriate; but I agree it does make things quite confusing especially when subsequent edits render previous notes pointless. | |
| May 21, 2014 at 10:42 | history | edited | AD7six | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1 character in body
|
| May 21, 2014 at 10:15 | history | asked | AD7six | CC BY-SA 3.0 |