Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks Russ
The stupid question is the question not asked
 
PerlMonks  

Hidden updates ;-(

by liz (Monsignor)
on Nov 21, 2003 at 12:41 UTC ( #308867=monkdiscuss: print w/ replies, xml ) Need Help??

The past weeks I've noticed that some monks are changing their reply nodes without acknowledging that they made significant changes. Sometimes this doesn't matter. Sometimes it just makes monks replying to such a node look foolish. In any case, it reminds me of cheating.

It's probably impossible to show the "last updated" state of a node, because the database isn't keeping it. I know such a "last updated" feature has been more or less discussed over the years (e.g. Knowing when nodes are updated and (crazyinsomniac) Re: Node updates).

It's a shame that you can't know when a node was last changed (as compared to when it was created), because it could expose those monks "guilty" of these acts.

So, unless you're just fixing a typo, please acknowledge that you made a change to a node when you make a change to a node. It's a little more work, but it shows the process of the building of the contents of the node, which can be a valuable learning experience by itself for yourself as well as any other monk reading your contribution.

Liz

Comment on Hidden updates ;-(
Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by barrd (Vicar) on Nov 21, 2003 at 13:25 UTC
    I noticed this in a recent node when an Anonymous Monk "had a go" at another Monk for doing same (names removed to protect the guilty).

    I've been bitten in the ass a couple of times by this and yes it is bloody annoying, especially when as you say there is a chance that a post can make you look foolish or just a complete and utter pratt (and I certainly don't need any more help with that ;)

    So yes I would second that people add an update, I do, it's not a big task and shows the development of the post.

    ++liz

Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by adrianh (Chancellor) on Nov 21, 2003 at 13:28 UTC
Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by Abigail-II (Bishop) on Nov 21, 2003 at 13:38 UTC
    There is another thing that I find annoying about nodes that are modified, and that isn't at all solved by plastering update in big bold letters in the posting.

    If I read a note, and then you update it, I will never see the update. I can't smell the node was updated, and it won't re-appear on the newest node list. What's even worse, sometimes people update their list, to reflect the issues mentioned in a followup. But the person doing the followup won't be notified!

    I only update my nodes to fix spelling or grammar errors, nitpicks in code, or to add a line or two for clarification (but I do the latter only right after posting the original). Otherwise, I just followup to my node.

    (Of course, this discussion about updated nodes has happened before.)

    Abigail

      If I had the spare tuits what I would really love to implement for perlmonks would be decent RSS feeds, including comments and updates on changes. That way I'd get a pretty view of the changes differences as they appear in my RSS browser.

      (why do I have the feeling that abigail is going to bring up the superiority of NNTP sometime soon :-)

        why do I have the feeling that abigail is going to bring up the superiority of NNTP sometime soon

        Since you just did, I don't have to.

        Abigail

        NNTP as a protocol is sort of braindead too, though certainly better than most webbased solutions. But that's a rant for another day..

        Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by eric256 (Parson) on Nov 21, 2003 at 19:57 UTC

    That would be nice it could even just add and updated on "Jan 5, 2003" blurb to then end of the edit (or something like that). A history of node changes would be cool toom, but I understand that would be kinda a major update. It would be cool though.


    ___________
    Eric Hodges
Quote your source
by allolex (Curate) on Nov 21, 2003 at 21:08 UTC

    I guess one way around this problem is to quote the bits of whichever node you are replying to. They'll have a hard time changing your node contents and making your remarks seem strange. And yes, I know it should be unnecessary in a threaded discussion.

      I guess one way around this problem is to quote the bits of whichever node you are replying to.

      Bingo and ++. That's how I do it.

      And yes, I know it should be unnecessary in a threaded discussion.

      Au contraire! I think it makes perfect sense even in a threaded discussion. For instance, I also prefer to reply to email and newsgroup posts inline, paragraph by paragraph (or sentence by sentence when necessary.) It is, I think, always worthwhile to provide the context and save your readers the effort of finding it.

      -sauoq
      "My two cents aren't worth a dime.";
      
        For instance, I also prefer to reply to email and newsgroup posts inline, paragraph by paragraph (or sentence by sentence when necessary.) It is, I think, always worthwhile to provide the context and save your readers the effort of finding it.

        I think increasing text cohesion is a Good Thing, but I still think that adding context via quotes in an uneditable threaded discussion context is optional. As suggested by your post, the level of cohesion and coherence can be established in several ways: by quote, summarization, or dependence on structure. :)

        Coherence in Text Linguistics

        --
        Allolex

        Perl and Linguistics
        http://www.linuxjournal.com/article.php?sid=3394

      Quoting is only unnecessary for replies to very short posts or replies to the general sentiment of a post that don't address any specific part of it. Particularly when you're replying to a long post and specifically addressing two or more different concerns of it, it is not sensibly possible to avoid quoting.

      Makeshifts last the longest.

Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by vacant (Monk) on Nov 22, 2003 at 09:19 UTC
    In modest defense of updating a node:

    It makes sense (after a fashion), in a chatty discussion engine (like, say, NNTP, or fark.com) to disallow the editing of postings after they are committed, for the reasons discussed here. But it often occurs, particularly on USENET, that the thread degenerates into a mob attacking some hapless poster who is unable to change what he wrote.

    But is it not more to the purpose of the Monastery that we build a collection of the most useful nodes possible? That end would seem to be better served by correcting and improving the original node in response to the discussion. Of course the editing will always reflect the judgment of the editor, with which there will be, naturally, disagreement. Careful composition of each post so that it stands on its own, and can be understood and judged on its own, will alleviate the dependence upon other posts, reduce the appearance of contentiousness, and create a better, more useful node, all at the same time.

Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by Roger (Parson) on Nov 22, 2003 at 20:51 UTC
    Just a thought: Can we add sort options selection to the newest nodes view, so the user can choose whether to sort by node creation time, or by last modification time. A monk may set his/her default sort option in the homenode settings, but can select a different sort order. When a node gets updated, it will go to the top of the list in the sort by last modification time view.
Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by vacant (Monk) on Nov 22, 2003 at 21:13 UTC
    Suppose...

    The original node in each discussion thread were updateable. If it is updated, the original would be automatically copied and made the "root" node of the (presumable existing) discussion. The edited version would be presented at the top of the page, as the original node is now. That way, continuity would be maintained within the discussion, but the root node could be edited to become more accurate and useful, sort of a summary of the accumulated contributions to the discussion.

Re: Hidden updates ;-(
by danb (Friar) on Nov 24, 2003 at 09:36 UTC

    Nice try, Liz, but I read your post *before* you changed it to the whole "Hidden updates ;-(" thing. Before, it was some question about why you liked COBOL better than Perl! You were just trying to make the rebuttal I had planned look silly by changing your post. But you didn't fool me. ;-)

    -Dan

Log In?
Username:
Password:

What's my password?
Create A New User
Node Status?
node history
Node Type: monkdiscuss [id://308867]
Approved by broquaint
Front-paged by mandog
help
Chatterbox?
and the web crawler heard nothing...

How do I use this? | Other CB clients
Other Users?
Others examining the Monastery: (15)
As of 2014-04-23 11:22 GMT
Sections?
Information?
Find Nodes?
Leftovers?
    Voting Booth?

    April first is:







    Results (541 votes), past polls