1

I was browsing a certain gaming forum when I noticed this:

What you can see is a heavy edited forum post - a thread opener one. The actual content is the very last line, but every edit and plus information were added above the matter.

I guess (but fix me if I'm wrong) this brings that additional info to the focus of reader since that's the first they bump into while reading; though it covers the matter of the post and people may even miss that.

What decides, which is the better choice? Should new info put above the original content, or below that?

Does it matter at all?

2

I think the other answers are misinterpreting the question as 'where should new posts be placed'. I believe the question is about editing the initial forum/blog post or article after new information came in to view.

Is it being updated live?

If you're covering an event realtime (ish), like a political debate, or CES presentations, people are likely to stay on your page and hit F5, or to check in occasionally. In this case, you don't want to make them scroll time and time again, so put the updates at the top.

Are you correcting or extending the content?

If you're extending the content, but not correcting any old content, put the new content at the bottom.

Original:

Pluto, discovered in 1930 is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt.

Correction:

Pluto, discovered in 1930 is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt. note: Pluto lost its status as planet in 2015.

If you're correcting, are you editing or amending??

If you're correcting the content, then a note at the bottom should suffice. If you want to keep the original content intact for transparency's sake, put any corrections up front, so people don't miss them if they stop reading halfway. Example:

Original:

Venus, discovered in 1930 is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt.

Editing:

Pluto, discovered in 1930 is a dwarf planet in the Kuiper belt.

note: We originally incorrectly listed Venus instead of Pluto

Amending:

note: We incorrectly listed Venus. The planet name should be Pluto, instead.

The planet Venus was discovered in 1930, but lost its status as planet in 2015.

| improve this answer | |
  • "I believe the question is about editing" You're perfectly right; I tend to mark this answer as accepted, but gonna wait some days for other answers anyway. – Zoltán Schmidt Mar 8 '16 at 21:24
1

We just had a similar discussion at the office today... the consensus is to do what users are familiar with... if you think about how Stack Exchange works, the threaded discussion is below. I feel that people know to scroll at this point... It makes more sense to have users get through the content they are commenting on vs making them easy for them to comment.

NOTE: there is a difference between threaded discussions and commenting...

| improve this answer | |
1

In this particular case, it should be below original content. Users will start reading from top, so if you add corrections or additional info above original content, there will be no context to infer what the correction is for.

Further corrections should be added below previous ones as well. Like this:

Original Content

First comment made

Second comment made

...

Las comment made

Keep in mind that this approach doesn't apply to all cases. In your particular case, it's text and comments by users, so they need to be in "first to last" order. A different story would be if you were dealing with a new active version of a process or application, which is not your case

| improve this answer | |
0

I looked in to this for a comments module I was designing for site I was working on. My research brought up the following:

Forums - Latest is at the bottom. It reads like a thread which people can follow a discussion.

Comments - Latest is at the top. But people can nest replies, chat etc.

I think this makes sense as they have different functions to the user. It looks like you are talking about the forum idea with your screenshot. If you want to have something which builds a discussion, then you should keep to the way that is familiar to a user.

| improve this answer | |

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.
https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/91150/should-new-content-be-added-above-or-below-the-actual-content
ux.stackexchange.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2020-40
170195
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:IIYRGL3XJDVHOKH62DVDZ7EXQJS3SKLA
<urn:uuid:0ee4229e-e832-40ce-87cd-99050581752b>
2020-09-30T07:21:19Z
151.101.65.69
text/html
sha1:YLG3MIIOTZN6AHEEULWN2YCWHE6HR7VR
<urn:uuid:a596f470-851b-4364-bd6b-78537b5ff1b2>
https://ux.stackexchange.com/questions/91150/should-new-content-be-added-above-or-below-the-actual-content
response
<urn:uuid:7e80941e-edbe-4834-9ab3-ea41cbbab872>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2020-40
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for September 2020
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-217.ec2.internal
software: Apache Nutch 1.17 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.2-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: http://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/