This question already has an answer here:

Generally when I want to make an edit to my question, if it is not something essential to the question itself, I add it denoting that it is an edit. Just like this:

Edit: Extra information.

I am asking this because of the conversation that I got into with Robert Harvey after he edited my question and someone else's answer because we denoted our edits with "Edit:". He deleted all the comments after explaining his perspective in more than one comment, so I can't point you to that conversation, that's another story (in the end he was nice enough to supply the deleted comments though.)

Rober Harvey's perspective:

  1. Everything is contained in Edit History, so no need to denote edits.
  2. If you consider all your questions and answers as small blog-posts, then you wouldn't add "Edit:" to the end.

My perspective:

  1. Question sentences should be in the end of the question text. If you add an edit and do not denote it, then it will be ambiguous what exactly the main question is.
  2. I like seeing how the question evolved. Most of the time the edits are not essential to the question.
  3. Against his blog example, I would use that in a blog post too. For example, if I have written about a certain version of a technology and there are some changes in a newer version, I'd rather just add an "Edit" to tell the reader how it changed and keep the original post.

I can understand if that is not ok for everyone, but I feel this is a personal preference and shouldn't be edited.

What is your take on the matter? How do you handle your edits?

And is this something that begs for an edit?

share|improve this question
1  
I will use Edit when it is necessary to inform there is some new content (I only do this when the addition is important). After a while, I might go back and make the edit blends along with the rest of the post. –  nhahtdh Jun 6 '13 at 0:01
add comment

marked as duplicate by animuson, Shog9 Jun 6 '13 at 0:05

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

1 Answer

No. It is better to edit something like

I am trying to foo a bar, but it is throwing a foobar error.

Into

I am trying to foo a bar with a baz, but it is throwing a foobar error.

Instead of

I am trying to foo a bar, but it is throwing a foobar error.

EDIT: I am using a baz.

Isn't the first example (without the EDIT) much more fluid and easy to read?

Here are my counterpoints to your points:

  1. Question sentences should be in the end of the question text. If you add an edit and do not denote it, then it will be ambiguous what exactly the main question is.
    • Just add the edit into the post, not at the end, like my example.
  2. I like seeing how the question evolved. Most of the time the edits are not essential to the question.
    • Sometimes they are (again, see my example) and you can always look at the revision history. Extra "EDIT"s are noise and make the post harder to read.
  3. Against his blog example, I would use that in a blog post too. For example, if I have written about a certain version of a technology and there are some changes in a newer version, I'd rather just add an "Edit" to tell the reader how it changed and keep the original post.
    • Yes, that's because your blog would probably not contain a revision history. Stack Overflow does.
share|improve this answer
 
So should one edit questions containing "Edit"? –  hattenn Jun 6 '13 at 0:04
1  
@hattenn: It is OK to do so on a post that is not edited recently (e.g just edited within 1-2 hours), but fix other things on the way. –  nhahtdh Jun 6 '13 at 0:05
1  
@hattenn Yes, but don't just edit "Edit" and ignore the rest. There are probably some other things you can fix while you're at it. Also, I see that you have less than 2k rep; this makes it even more important to fix something else because otherwise your edit may be rejected as "Too Minor." –  Doorknob Jun 6 '13 at 0:05
 
I don't want to edit it. My question was edited and the reason was given as "using Edit is horrible", so I wanted to see if it is a general rule. –  hattenn Jun 6 '13 at 0:08
 
I use the first form as default and add EDIT if it happened due to discussion that will likely stay. Just rewriting the text would kill its context. And preserving the incorrect version marking correction has its value, if the mistake is easy to make. –  Balog Pal Jun 6 '13 at 1:59
add comment

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/183267/should-you-denote-your-edits-with-edit
meta.stackoverflow.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2014-10
64044
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:M4INRDSMKUC6YFUOGXRKJI6MWV3YLDBB
<urn:uuid:50c24a55-63b1-436b-895f-ff067daf2cff>
2014-03-10T11:43:59Z
198.252.206.140
sha1:5DT6KU6C5YODTLUT4LXQFF57VWTPMKZD
<urn:uuid:1842f0f9-5028-466e-a90d-36c546701fb3>
http://meta.stackoverflow.com/questions/183267/should-you-denote-your-edits-with-edit
response
<urn:uuid:362671ed-0881-4af9-b362-1ad968c38509>
robots: classic
hostname: ip-10-183-142-35.ec2.internal
software: Nutch 1.6 (CC)/CC WarcExport 1.0
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2014-10
operator: CommonCrawl Admin
description: Wide crawl of the web with URLs provided by Blekko for March 2014
publisher: CommonCrawl
format: WARC File Format 1.0
conformsTo: http://bibnum.bnf.fr/WARC/WARC_ISO_28500_version1_latestdraft.pdf