Re:Proposal: Truncating trailing '(update)' from node-titles in replies

[jdporter]

I am sorry that you're having this issue. However -- my opinion, is that title fields are not reliable. That is to say, they're not under enough control that you should rely on them for any given purpose. Ultimately, node titles are essentially just keyword lists. They are what gets searched when one does a simple search. Anything aside from that, any rules we might try to impose (such as "OP") are just conventions and hacks. Even the "threadingness" of titles is not reliable.

[LanX]

> Even the "threadingness" of titles is not reliable.

Well, I know ... I've seen the code.

> are just conventions and hacks.

it has become a tradition to expect from posters to mark important updates in their titles.*

IMHO will my proposal do more good than harm.

Granted, it's a hack, but regexing Re: into Re^2: isn't much better.

This mechanism could be used till we have a proper last-updated-field or updated-count in place, which might honestly never happen.

my 2 centimes...

YMMV of course! :)

*) and that's not a keyword.

[jdporter]

it has become a tradition to expect from posters to mark important updates in their titles.*

I don't believe that's true. A tradition for you personally, maybe. Anyway, my whole point was, traditions, conventions, kludges - they're unreliable. You're asking for something which assumes, or imposes, a reliability/consistency which simply isn't there, and won't be without a significant change to our architecture.

[marto]

I seem to recall a node explaining why this should not be done. Not a rule, more of a guideline.

[LanX]

> I don't believe that's true

Indeed does the help...

How do I change/delete my post?

...not mention the title.

I picked that practice from earlier monks and later monks copied me. I call that a "tradition".