Post Editing Options: Explaining Intent

  • Thread starter Thread starter Danger
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion highlights the absence of a feature to explain post edits after a format change, which users find frustrating, particularly when correcting typos. Users primarily edit to clarify or add information rather than alter the original intent, and they seek a way to reinstate the explanation function. In the absence of this feature, some users suggest manually indicating edits by adding "edit:" in the post. Others prefer to mention their edits in a new post if someone has already responded. Overall, the conversation revolves around the need for clearer communication regarding post edits.
Danger
Gold Member
Messages
9,793
Reaction score
251
This is just a minor thorn in my side, not something that really needs to be changed. I couldn't help noticing that after the new format was instituted there no longer seems to be an option to explain the reason for editing my posts. The only reason that it irritates me a bit is that I do it primarily to correct typos as opposed to altering the content or intent of the original and I would like that to be known. (Sometimes there are content reasons, but it's usually just to add information or clarify an explanation rather than change the direction of the post.)
Is there some way to reinstate that function?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
It's okay. Fact is, if I'm doing it to change anything or add anything significant, I space down a couple of lines and type "edit:" before whatever I add. If I don't do that, it was a typo. (And yes, I do have a spell-checker, but it isn't context sensitive and so won't pick up if I put something like "it's" when I mean the possessive "its", or "reed" instead of "read".)
 
  • Like
Likes Greg Bernhardt
I would just briefly mention in your post the editing you've done.
 
StevieTNZ said:
I would just briefly mention in your post the editing you've done.
I prefer this method because I think it's less likely to be missed. i.e. more visible
 
Stevie and digoff, I agree with what you're saying except that it doesn't apply to any time that I've done it. It's only before someone else posts to my knowledge. If I finish an edit and then notice that someone else has responded, I make a new post explaining that I changed it.
 
I want to thank those members who interacted with me a couple of years ago in two Optics Forum threads. They were @Drakkith, @hutchphd, @Gleb1964, and @KAHR-Alpha. I had something I wanted the scientific community to know and slipped a new idea in against the rules. Thank you also to @berkeman for suggesting paths to meet with academia. Anyway, I finally got a paper on the same matter as discussed in those forum threads, the fat lens model, got it peer-reviewed, and IJRAP...
This came up in my job today (UXP). Never thought to raise it here on PF till now. Hyperlinks really should be underlined at all times. PF only underlines them when they are rolled over. Colour alone (especially dark blue/purple) makes it difficult to spot a hyperlink in a large block of text (or even a small one). Not everyone can see perfectly. Even if they don't suffer from colour deficiency, not everyone has the visual acuity to distinguish two very close shades of text. Hover actions...
About 20 years ago, in my mid-30s (and with a BA in economics and a master's in business), I started taking night classes in physics hoping to eventually earn the science degree I'd always wanted but never pursued. I found physics forums and used it to ask questions I was unable to get answered from my textbooks or class lectures. Unfortunately, work and life got in the way and I never got further the freshman courses. Well, here it is 20 years later. I'm in my mid-50s now, and in a...

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
11K
Replies
15
Views
2K
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
Back
Top