Yes I also find the curation tagline to be awkward. The first few times I saw it I assumed that the original author had edited their post to include the curation comment at the start. I only discovered this was not the case by reading the comments here. Seems that editing another user’s post is bad form. Adding your own comment to the start of their post is especially obtrusive, but in this case obtrusive is way better than non-obtrusive so that’s a plus . The current curated tag should be enough for the website itself. Maybe the subscription e-mail can retain the curation notice while the original post remains unedited.
Unless the original authors are contacted and agreed to the curation notice being included at the top of their posts. Then everything is fine as it is.
I contacted the authors the first couple of times while trying this new thing and neither objected, nor had anyone else yet, so I didn’t check with Kaj (sorry Kaj).
It’s good now that people have spoken about and we’ll think about how to get the good without the bad. As Habryka mentioned, the thing we’re trying to achieve is giving people context on the curation. I’ve wanted to avoid putting something prominently in front of people’s faces without them knowing why. Not all curated posts require this, but sometimes we curated weird ones, or ones where it’s being curated for the comments rather than the post itself, or ones that are irregular (e.g. important Covid updates). In all those cases, it feels important to provide an explanation that gets seen.
As Habryka mentioned, if we keep doing this, we’ll build a way to do that doesn’t involve editing. This was just the quick test version.
You’re doing good work with the curation and it’s very effective at bringing important posts back into the reader’s eye so thanks for that! I would probably have never seen this post otherwise. I’m glad you’re working on the system to iron out the kinks.
Yes I also find the curation tagline to be awkward. The first few times I saw it I assumed that the original author had edited their post to include the curation comment at the start. I only discovered this was not the case by reading the comments here. Seems that editing another user’s post is bad form. Adding your own comment to the start of their post is especially obtrusive, but in this case obtrusive is way better than non-obtrusive so that’s a plus . The current curated tag should be enough for the website itself. Maybe the subscription e-mail can retain the curation notice while the original post remains unedited.
Unless the original authors are contacted and agreed to the curation notice being included at the top of their posts. Then everything is fine as it is.
I contacted the authors the first couple of times while trying this new thing and neither objected, nor had anyone else yet, so I didn’t check with Kaj (sorry Kaj).
It’s good now that people have spoken about and we’ll think about how to get the good without the bad. As Habryka mentioned, the thing we’re trying to achieve is giving people context on the curation. I’ve wanted to avoid putting something prominently in front of people’s faces without them knowing why. Not all curated posts require this, but sometimes we curated weird ones, or ones where it’s being curated for the comments rather than the post itself, or ones that are irregular (e.g. important Covid updates). In all those cases, it feels important to provide an explanation that gets seen.
As Habryka mentioned, if we keep doing this, we’ll build a way to do that doesn’t involve editing. This was just the quick test version.
Thanks again though for the feedback!
No worries. :) Getting it into the curation e-mail was probably good.
You’re doing good work with the curation and it’s very effective at bringing important posts back into the reader’s eye so thanks for that! I would probably have never seen this post otherwise. I’m glad you’re working on the system to iron out the kinks.