I’ve thought about things in that space but not that particular implementation, which is interesting. One problem is that an author might intend a different use of a given jargon term (esp. since some jargon is actually just “regular english words”, such as “focusing.”)
A couple other options are:
The author receives a prompt to consider adding a link to a jargon word as they use it (which they can ignore)
At the bottom of the post, there’s a collection of jargon-links that the author can decide whether they match the author’s use.
Both of those run the risk of being annoying for the writer.
I’ve thought about things in that space but not that particular implementation, which is interesting. One problem is that an author might intend a different use of a given jargon term (esp. since some jargon is actually just “regular english words”, such as “focusing.”)
A couple other options are:
The author receives a prompt to consider adding a link to a jargon word as they use it (which they can ignore)
At the bottom of the post, there’s a collection of jargon-links that the author can decide whether they match the author’s use.
Both of those run the risk of being annoying for the writer.