The use of hyperlinks to simultaneously provide convenient references
Doesn’t work when you link to a discussion comment: you can’t tell from the URL what the link points to, so you have to follow it (thank goodness for tabs), breaking the flow.
I may have to seriously reconsider whatever plans I may have had of top-level posting
No no no. Please keep ’em coming. Just, you know: spend more time revising, most of which effort should consist of deleting stuff. Case in point, if the thread post isn’t about the Knox case, then just delete every para which is a reference to the Knox case. Most of the time ruthless deletion improves your writing to a surprising extent.
Don’t censor yourself in the writing phase, but do delete more in revising. For more on this see Peter Elbow’s Writing With Power.
You can do what I do: save the long version to a local text file, “in case you ever need those words again”.
if the thread post isn’t about the Knox case, then just delete every para which is a reference to the Knox case.
You know, you’re right. I just realized that the whole section can be cut, and the post still flows. It hadn’t occurred to me because the thoughts were linked in my mind—but that doesn’t mean they need to be linked in the post.
Welcome to the club. This is one of the things that makes writing hard; you can never read your own stuff quite as a reader sees it.
The Knox reference in the para starting with “In the vanishingly unlikely event...” is now even more jarring. But the part of that para referencing “the model” continues from the previous para, so rather than delete it I’d try to reword it.
Your “core” para is the one that contains the idea, “we are not stuck with the inferential powers of our ancestors” and goes on to discuss “epistemic technology”.
A typical good-writing suggestion is to find a way to move the key idea from where it is often found, buried in the middle of the article, to the very top. (Memorable quote which has helped me internalize this advice: “Your article is not a mystery novel. Don’t keep the reader guessing until the punchline.”)
I wouldn’t worry about “EDIT” marks, not in top level posts. Just accept that the discussion can reflect past versions, and make the post the best version you can.
Agree with Morendil about the paragraph beginning “In the vanishingly unlikely event...”. Without the earlier references, it’s not good to have your example of something you’re sure of be something that a newcomer or Googler could find so controversial.
I’d suggest you either swap it for something else in which the very probably correct view is also the mainstream one within the pool of possible readers, or failing that, put your first link to your old post here instead of at the paragraph beginning with “Previously...”.
Doesn’t work when you link to a discussion comment: you can’t tell from the URL what the link points to, so you have to follow it (thank goodness for tabs), breaking the flow.
No no no. Please keep ’em coming. Just, you know: spend more time revising, most of which effort should consist of deleting stuff. Case in point, if the thread post isn’t about the Knox case, then just delete every para which is a reference to the Knox case. Most of the time ruthless deletion improves your writing to a surprising extent.
Don’t censor yourself in the writing phase, but do delete more in revising. For more on this see Peter Elbow’s Writing With Power.
You can do what I do: save the long version to a local text file, “in case you ever need those words again”.
You know, you’re right. I just realized that the whole section can be cut, and the post still flows. It hadn’t occurred to me because the thoughts were linked in my mind—but that doesn’t mean they need to be linked in the post.
Welcome to the club. This is one of the things that makes writing hard; you can never read your own stuff quite as a reader sees it.
The Knox reference in the para starting with “In the vanishingly unlikely event...” is now even more jarring. But the part of that para referencing “the model” continues from the previous para, so rather than delete it I’d try to reword it.
Your “core” para is the one that contains the idea, “we are not stuck with the inferential powers of our ancestors” and goes on to discuss “epistemic technology”.
A typical good-writing suggestion is to find a way to move the key idea from where it is often found, buried in the middle of the article, to the very top. (Memorable quote which has helped me internalize this advice: “Your article is not a mystery novel. Don’t keep the reader guessing until the punchline.”)
I wouldn’t worry about “EDIT” marks, not in top level posts. Just accept that the discussion can reflect past versions, and make the post the best version you can.
Agree with Morendil about the paragraph beginning “In the vanishingly unlikely event...”. Without the earlier references, it’s not good to have your example of something you’re sure of be something that a newcomer or Googler could find so controversial.
I’d suggest you either swap it for something else in which the very probably correct view is also the mainstream one within the pool of possible readers, or failing that, put your first link to your old post here instead of at the paragraph beginning with “Previously...”.
Done. (Good catch.)