62

I often see questions which are of the form:

Title

Example question what is x?

Edit:

Here's some more information that bob asked for ...

Edit:

I did some more poking around and discovered ...

Edit:

Actually the problem is y blah blah

Answers also have this editing pattern here's an example (not mine), which prompted me to ask this question.

Sometimes it's important to call out a change to the content of the question/answer but all too often I find reading content written in this style to be tiresome/disjointed. I much prefer to see a question/answer which makes sense to new readers, immediately - after all the purpose of the question/answer is to hang around for years to come helping future readers.

Is there any guidance/rule/precedent users should follow when editing their questions/answers? When is it appropriate to rewrite the question/answer, and when should users only append to the existing content?

10
  • 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.
    – talegna
    May 21, 2014 at 11:13
  • 9
    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".
    – sloth
    May 21, 2014 at 11:44
  • 3
    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.
    – Wooble
    May 21, 2014 at 12:28
  • @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 13:37
  • @secretformula does the text "Edit: fixed a typo" serve a long term purpose? (randomly found example)
    – AD7six
    May 21, 2014 at 13:40
  • @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 13:54
  • 13
    @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.
    – sloth
    May 21, 2014 at 14:02
  • 2
  • 2
  • 1
    So, I searched ineffectively before posting :P - thanks for the xrefs Arjan/Peter.
    – AD7six
    May 22, 2014 at 9:58

4 Answers 4

71

Don't put EDIT or other similar monikers in your posts. Every post on Stack Overflow has a detailed, time-stamped edit history that anyone can review, so EDIT is just unnecessary noise.


If you really want to visually indicate that additional material was added, use a separator line, like the one I put above. This is done by putting three dashes at the beginning of a blank line.

5
  • 5
    Or just add the info to the post and tweak the existing question as needed. Much of the time, edits that happen early in the post life never need a separator or an "Edit" because virtually everyone who will read it will not care that there is new info. May 21, 2014 at 16:04
  • 21
    How is --- any more or less noise than edit:? It is different noise, but it takes the same space. While it is probably a good idea to clean up a post with lots of --- or edit: into one coherent whole, replacing edit: with --- seems pretty neutral? The problem is lack of coherency, not edit: as far as I can tell. May 23, 2014 at 12:33
  • 1
    @RobertHarvey Would refactoring the post and writing a comment to your post stating you updated your answer be considered good practice in your opinion?
    – Tonio
    Jul 31, 2014 at 10:42
  • 3
    @Tonio: Yes, it would. Aug 8, 2014 at 0:09
  • 7
    @Yakk: Naturally, I'd prefer that the edits be naturally integrated into the post, rather than tacked onto the end. But if you absolutely must do this, using a line is the preferred way to do it. It at least gives the illusion that the post is coherent. Aug 8, 2014 at 0:10
16

I would say yes, "Edit" edits should be discouraged along with other things like "Update". These edits are in actuality just appending to the answer. In that case, I don't see the point of explicitly labeling the added content with an EDIT header. If the point is to track the history of new, newer, and newest edited information, well that is wrong because it trumps the purpose of the editing system (SO's editing already keeps track of historical edits).

In a lot of cases, they will also say something like this:

EDIT: After reading comments from bla bla bla, I found more unicorns.

...which results in, as you say, a disjointed reading flow. Readers then have to go through the comments and understand the context of the comments/conversation to understand part of the answer. If the comments are deleted over time, the context is lost.

If there really is a need to segment your answer, you can do a blank line as Robert suggested, or better yet, just change EDIT into something more useful like a title that describes the section.

8

Notations like these can indeed be a problem, since they can disrupt the flow of the question or answer.

There are however cases where they can be tolerated, even some where they're almost necessary.

  • Firstly, the cases where I would definitely recommend to use such a notation: if you add a note that can change the meaning of the answer which is not one of yours. The typical use cases are version-dependent answers and highly upvoted (or accepted) answers that present a security flaw.

    By coming back to edit someone else's answer in such a way that the advice it gives changes, please do leave a note such as "[Editor's note: ...]" to indicate that this additional content (possibly contradicting the initial answer) does not come from the answerer. Remember that the main name at the bottom of the answer is the answerer's. Whether the content was edited and who changed what is only secondary. Not all readers (especially those who are not even registered members) might not even know they can check the edit history. In addition, not all third party sources quoting an answer somewhere else will go through all the revisions (even if they quote their sources properly).

    An answer should be readable in its current form without having to go through the revision history to understand who changed what. Effectively attributing words (especially controversial ones) to an author that are not in fact theirs could be misrepresenting that author, and that's a definite no-no.

  • Cases where it can be tolerated are a grey area. You always want to minimise the way they disrupt the flow of answer. However, they may be useful if you make the assumptions that many readers would have already seen the answer.

    A number of users seem to complain that being exposed to reading a new question that they feel isn't right (mainly those questions that should be closed) is a waste of their time. This seems to come from regular users who look at certain tags or lists of questions sorted by activity. Having to click on the revision history and trying to figure out what's just a minor edit (typos, formatting, ...) and what's is a change that alters the meaning of the answer significantly, or an addition that mentions an important detail, can be even more of a waste of time.

    While it may seem odd for someone reading the question and answers as they currently are (which they should be able to do, treating them as a snapshot indeed), a quick "EDIT" note might be a reasonable compromise for regular users or when it addresses comments.

    I can also think of a use case where it's useful for questions. I would suspect more close-reviewers don't go through the revision history. So, if a question was flagged as unclear because it's missing some information and comments have asked for details, pointing out that you've added these details might give your question a better chance of not being closed. I'll admit this is very unsatisfactory, and questions should not have any of those in general.

  • One case where it's not OK is the case where it is part of a chameleon question. This being said, the real problem here is the chameleon question, not so much the fact that the asker adds "EDIT" here and there: the cause of the problem should be addressed, blaming its symptom would have little effect. (In fact, an "EDIT" note there might at least give the 3rd-party reader an indication that this is becoming a chameleon question, otherwise, the fact that the question has been altered might not stand out, and a 3rd-party reader might downvote good answers because they no longer match the question.)

-16

I think EDITS¨ facilitate the reading of the lecturers which follow the post from the beginning.

8
  • 2
    What lecturers? What do you mean? Aug 18, 2023 at 23:48
  • Lectures of the post. Wheen you read a post and you read it later, it's more confortable to have an edit, to follow the post. But we should say a "follow-up" rather than an edit. @PeterMortensen Aug 19, 2023 at 0:28
  • 2
    Sorry pardon my English. I wanted to say "readers", not lecturers. Aug 19, 2023 at 0:30
  • 2
    If you're reading a question, whether to answer it or to find a question similar to your own, all you need to see is the full question in its correct, answerable form. How it got there is irrelevant. Having to wade through corrections to piece together the question that is actually to be answered is an unnecessary complication.
    – beaker
    Aug 19, 2023 at 15:38
  • @beaker An edit is not necessarily a correction, it can be a precision, a further development. But I agree the word "Edit" is not appropriate. Aug 21, 2023 at 7:38
  • 1
    The big problem is inline EDIT headers pessimize the experience for many that read a question later on just to optimize it for the very few that are around while creating it, since creating a long-term Q/A database is Stack Overflows goal, that's not acceptable.
    – cafce25
    Aug 21, 2023 at 12:16
  • 1
    @StéphaneLaurent Consider editing your answer to add EDIT: I meant "readers", not lecturers. (sarcasm to prove the point!)
    – ggorlen
    Oct 2, 2023 at 17:41
  • When coming back to a post, do you find an "Edit:" section more helpful than looking at the question's history? (Not just equally helpful, but more helpful -- there are a lot more new readers than old)
    – JaMiT
    May 23 at 0:24

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/255644/should-edit-in-edits-be-discouraged
meta.stackoverflow.com
CC-MAIN-2024-22
177503
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5TQJSKDGFWHOHABBAXDOXZ2E3BKO7XQG
<urn:uuid:48ab22cc-28bf-4025-9086-01f2fecc92e8>
2024-05-27T05:42:26Z
172.64.155.249
text/html
sha1:R6BG6CYDZYPBQKVOE6ZOWWY3XAXCC25R
<urn:uuid:03375f02-cc51-4f41-8659-6420641102f3>
https://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/255644/should-edit-in-edits-be-discouraged
response
<urn:uuid:40a3ad00-8253-47bf-a56b-47fcd8176ee8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-22
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-241
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/