pull down to refresh
176 sats \ 5 replies \ @elvismercury OP 6 Nov 2023 \ parent \ on: Feature idea: perpetually-editable SN posts meta
It's for a different type of utterance, that is meant to capture a bigger and more evolving topic, not just small changes to wording or syntax, which is what the edit window currently affords. If I say something about topic x now, and then learn about it for the next month and evolve my perspective, there is still a thing called topic x, but the concept is now different. That's conceptually distinct from a post t1 followed later by t2.
The point isn't that you can't post t1 and then t2, where t2 reflects all the current information; and perhaps later, a t3. The point is that this evolving-info-about-a-topic construct is viewed differently by people than a post is, and so perhaps it should be treated differently than a post, just as a comment is a different kind of thing than a post, and there is a fundamental abstraction in the system that recognizes that.
I agree that would be great. It would foster much more in depth conversation. How would you deal with the evergreen issue? How would it get visibility? Obviously you couldn't piggyback off of the original sats to achieve a top post position.
reply
Evergreen-ness is the main aspect that I'm trying to unlock here, but you raise a good point about discovery. Not sure what the right thing to do on that one would be. There's been some talk about lists in previous Saloon discussions, that might be an aspect of it.
Or just have a "ranking window" where only sats earned since the last update (or an update milestone, e.g., once a day or something) are considered for ranking purposes. But you're right, it's non-trivial.
reply
Stackers could individually subscribe to this new type post, but then of course the audience would be limited.
reply
i get you..
makes sense, but does one have to check a changelog just to follow your evolution?
saying shit happens and one evolves, but does one have to worry about change the posted oppinion on the interwebs just to justify his own ignorance in the past?
too much hassle i guess
reply
I figured the changelog was more a hedge vs bad actors, e.g., someone who says a bunch of stuff including controversial statement c and then edits it out later. I don't imagine that, in practice, people would use the changelog for anything real, just like they don't on Wikipedia.
Actually, the Wikipedia model is kind of the right vibe. You can see how tortured this gets on Twitter, where accumulating knowledge about something can only happen in a thread, because Twitter doesn't support an abstraction that gets at the use case people are trying to express. Twitter doesn't care, bc it's not trying to be a place where real discussion can happen, or knowledge can grow.
Whether this is the right thing for SN or not is an open question. I think I would use it, and I think it would let interesting new forms of community emerge. But who can say for sure without trying it.
reply