Yes, but thanks to the half-life of facts most post will eventually be outdated. If people who come to this site (or your page) have to wade through a bunch of posts that are outdated before they come to the quality posts it eats up their time unnecessarily. Again these issues are small, but preventing clutter will speed up the learning process and make the site more ‘clean’.
One important question here is “do people actually have to wade through outdated posts?”.
I think the answer is basically no – the frontpage shows posts which are new and/or highly upvoted. If you start reading through a user’s archives, you’ll be starting in reverse-chronological order (newer posts first), or probably reading through their highest-karma posts.
So, the problem here is when there’s a very high karma post, which nonetheless turns out to be wrong. I think in that case, since many people read it the first time and already learned the “wrong” information, it’s actually more helpful if they see the post again, with the title edited say [Edit: This is wrong] or [Note: this is outdated], and that it begins with either a clear explanation of the update, or a link to a new post.
Otherwise, they might search for the old post, fail to find it, and then shrug and go “huh”, without realizing that the reason they couldn’t find it was that it was intentionally hidden. (And then, they’d continue believing The False Thing)
I agree with you about the feature being useful (though I think the mode you describe should be an something users can toggle on/off in settings if it is implemented), I was explaining how it’s handled now absent such a feature.
I agree with other commenters that this is a non-issue unless a post is high-karma or curated, in which case unlisting it would be a bad idea and it should get a disclaimer instead. I’m pretty strongly opposed to “editing the record” in the way you describe in the OP.
(Less opposed to suggestions 2 and 3, though they don’t seem terribly useful.)
I think the standard is usually editting the post to include something like:
‘Edit: This made a bunch of mistakes. An improved version of these ideas can be found at (link to next post).’
(The next post could address the old one, or that could go in a comment. The edit could also link to the comments that pointed out issues, etc.)
Yes, but thanks to the half-life of facts most post will eventually be outdated. If people who come to this site (or your page) have to wade through a bunch of posts that are outdated before they come to the quality posts it eats up their time unnecessarily. Again these issues are small, but preventing clutter will speed up the learning process and make the site more ‘clean’.
One important question here is “do people actually have to wade through outdated posts?”.
I think the answer is basically no – the frontpage shows posts which are new and/or highly upvoted. If you start reading through a user’s archives, you’ll be starting in reverse-chronological order (newer posts first), or probably reading through their highest-karma posts.
So, the problem here is when there’s a very high karma post, which nonetheless turns out to be wrong. I think in that case, since many people read it the first time and already learned the “wrong” information, it’s actually more helpful if they see the post again, with the title edited say [Edit: This is wrong] or [Note: this is outdated], and that it begins with either a clear explanation of the update, or a link to a new post.
Otherwise, they might search for the old post, fail to find it, and then shrug and go “huh”, without realizing that the reason they couldn’t find it was that it was intentionally hidden. (And then, they’d continue believing The False Thing)
I agree with you about the feature being useful (though I think the mode you describe should be an something users can toggle on/off in settings if it is implemented), I was explaining how it’s handled now absent such a feature.
I agree with other commenters that this is a non-issue unless a post is high-karma or curated, in which case unlisting it would be a bad idea and it should get a disclaimer instead. I’m pretty strongly opposed to “editing the record” in the way you describe in the OP.
(Less opposed to suggestions 2 and 3, though they don’t seem terribly useful.)