in reply to Marking replies to updated nodes

The problem it addresses is when an author updates a node with replies such that the replies are invalid or don't make sense. This way, at least readers would be warned that they should think before assuming that the replier is an idiot, and perhaps wonder instead about the original poster.
One way to CYA is to include the text you are replying to in indented italics. This serves to document what you were commenting on. Could be annoying if overdone, but I thought I'd mention it here anyway.


Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: Marking replies to updated nodes
by f00li5h (Chaplain) on Jan 06, 2007 at 11:21 UTC

    Update: removed the actual quoting of the what bassplayer said about what g0n said, because it was far too silly.

    This idea could very quickly get out of controll, particularly for people who may end up with the whole thread in <blockquote> tags in each of their posts in an attempt to make it clear what exactly it was that they're commenting on.

    ...ofcourse, I'm fairly sure that nobody will take it beyond one level of quoting, unless they're being deliberately silly. (not that I'd know anything about that)

    Another option would be to track revisions of posts... and stash a rcs file in the database, and allow people to browse the patches to the node (and have the replies patch up/down to match the time).Even though the infrastructure would kill this, I thought I'd mention it here anyway.

    but then again, a commit message on a forum post may be just a tad over the top...

    Revision Controll is a serious thing to play with, and you really have to do all, or nothing...

    @_=qw; ask f00li5h to appear and remain for a moment of pretend better than a lifetime;;s;;@_[map hex,split'',B204316D8C2A4516DE];;y/05/os/&print;