There's now a "topic log" shown in the sidebar of topics when changes have been made to it
As I mentioned in a couple recent posts (about standardizing tags as well as starting some more moderation), I'm going to start re-tagging and making some other changes to posts now.
So that you can see when changes are made (either by me, the post's author, or someone else), topics now have a "Topic Log" that's only shown in the sidebar when changes have been made. It's collapsed by default, and you'll see a title like "Topic Log (3)" that you can click on to see the log of changes. I've added and removed a tag in this post so you can see what it looks like.
For now, this only shows tag changes and lock/unlock, but I'll add title changes and moving between groups shortly. Edit: This does not include edits to the post, you can already see when a post was last edited (if it was), but I don't intend to add more detail or a log for that.
Is there a log free period for post authors, like 5 minutes where they are free to edit their submission?
In that respect, you should also increase the timer for comments, also to at least 4 minutes. Especially on mobile, it's still an uncomfortable experience as you have to check your post after submitting and it takes longer to fix the mistakes; and on desktop the posts are sometimes so long it takes more than 2mins to re-read it.
Tag changes always go in the log right now, even if they're made right away. The edit "grace period" is set to 2 minutes for both topics and comments right now, but I could probably increase it.
5 mins is probably a more appropriate grace window, I know it would benefit me, after a min or so I start putting "Edit:" so that people don't see I edited it and think I'm hiding something. I should reread and edit more before submitting but I think it's just human nature to 'smash that post button'.
Should the grace period be immediately turned off if a response (comment) is entered? Especially in the case where we extend the grace period, there's a decent chance someone can already comment before an author's changes are logged.
Expanding on that, what if:
No votes= unlimited grace window
votes = 5 min window
comments = grace window immediately turned off
I don't think it should ever be unlimited. Even if nobody voted, it could have still been read by a lot of people (especially once the site is publicly visible for people without accounts too).
Unlimited window seems a bad idea, just because I'm a cynic and can think of a lot of ways trolls (and spammers) could abuse that. Especially spammers. I've seen it on other forums where today's rambling off-topic copypasta, left unchecked and ignored, suddenly becomes "Cheap Best Quality Genuine Imitation Rolex Timepieces" or "Get 10,000 Real Instagram Followers Today" SEO BS ads next week, and everyone wonders "how the heck did nobody flag that?", when the answer is it was benign when it was on the front page...
I wonder if it's possible to set it as 2 minutes if someone replies or votes, 5 minutes if they don't. I think that might be the ideal way to deal with it - give more grace to people to correct grammar and spelling so long as it hasn't already spurred additional discussion (to avoid ninja edits which change tone or direction).
I believe reddit's is 3min or 2 votes, whichever comes first.
I admit I am terrible for this, but I will sometimes submit a comment, re-read it, make edits to it for grammar, styling, clarification, etc., and then I'll keep doing it a few times until I'm satisfied. Honestly, the best thing is to just read my goddamn message over before submitting.
I'm super bad for this too. My log will probably read as its > it's, too > to, have > had...
And no matter how much I reread it before submitting, I find it makes no difference.
Edit: Still I love the idea of the log, even if I look a little stupid.
Oh, the log doesn't include edits to the post itself, just tags.
Could it include edits?
I kind of like the idea, there would be no more "what did OP say, I don't see what you guys are commenting on ?", it would stop a lot of dishonest tomfoolery that people sometimes do during internet arguments.
I can think of a few arguments against tracking edits like that:
Oops misread. Thanks for clarifying.
If anything, it'll prove that we're pretty conscious of our contributions to discussion.
What's the point of not logging?
I think I asked this elsewhere, but I'm still curious: any plans on being able to change what it links to? (e.g. someone links a site that's just a summary or copy of the actual thing). this is sometimes done on HN and can be really useful, especially if there's already some discussion going on
thanks for this, by the way, really useful! Another question: provided you're not a mod or author and can't change the tags, will there be a way to suggest tags?
Yes, I'll add (and log) link editing as well. That's a really good example of something that I think has a lot of potential but other sites have been scared to allow because of the possible malicious uses. But if someone misuses it, they can either lose their ability to edit links, or be banned if it was a particularly malicious use.
I think, in case of link editing it is of even more significance to require an explanatory note.
Tags offer at least some semantic context, but theoretically, misunderstandings or even editing wars could still occur--although, less likely as long as tildes remains small.
For example I made this post and am unsure where it should've gone
As @SaucedButLeaking I was confused about what the log actually shows so I did a test before seeing your clarification's comment.
So, yeah, I'm not sure I see the big utility in showing which tags has been added/removed in a topic... but maybe I'm missing the perfect use-case here?
Eventually trusted users will be able to edit the tags of other people's posts, so logs are necessary to catch and punish abusers.
I still fails to see how that could be important for the users to see a change made.
Tag change should work like this as far as I imagine the trust system being in place:
It's not useful to the reader to see the tag change history log imho.
Catch abuser should be something crawlers do. Like again, imagine a tag has changed as per request.
Another trusted user stumble upon the topic and see the tags and open a new request for a tag change. If the request if for the tag that has been changed by the other user previously, that should make a bell ring somewhere as someone there could be forcing it's own view instead of simply curating the content.
Edit: Apparently I cannot write anymore
AFAIK that is basically how it will be done once the trust system is in place and if/when the meta-moderation idea gets implemented (i.e. user proposes change, trusted user/s vote on it, change made or not depending on votes, trust +/- for all involved depending on vote... high enough trust users changes are implemented immediately... multiple mid-low level trust users propose the same change it gets made automatically, etc). But even with that a log is important to monitor for abuse and this basic one is just the first step so tag editing can be put in place before all that get implemented.
Bravo. Also, I was going to come in here and ask for an example, but you had that covered.
Will the log also show comment changes? If not, is that planned?
No, maybe I was unclear but the log doesn't include edits to the actual post text, just tags. You can already see if comments are edited, but I don't intend to add more detail about that.
I see you added an "ask" tag to my topic which has caused me to ponder the purpose of the "ask" tag. My question was open-ended. There's not really a correct answer; it was intended to spark discussion. But here you describe the "ask" tag as being for survey-style questions. So what is the intended use of the "ask" tag, then? Anything that even remotely resembles a question?
I'm still kind of trying to figure it out (mostly through trying to tag actual posts), and have a "tagging guidelines" doc started that I'm trying to fill out as I work through it. In that post you linked, @Algernon_Asimov pointed out that "survey" is probably better for that specific type.
The way I'm thinking of "ask" currently is that the purpose of the post is looking for answers/information from Tildes users, instead of the post itself containing information.
I'd argue you can bucket any post which is ostensibly a question into three broad categories:
Good points, thanks. I think there's also a bit of a cultural aspect to the "ask" name, between AskReddit, Ask HN, Ask MetaFilter and several others, it's just something people are used to for "questions", whether there's a correct answer or not.
I've also been trying to use "ask" far more generally and then also applying other ones like "survey" on top of it in those specific cases. The reason for this is mostly from a filtering/searching perspective. If people want to only see the "inherently informational" posts, they can filter out "ask", instead of needing to filter out 3 or more tags for different types of questions.
Just add 'query', 'inquiry', or 'question' beside 'ask' when it's a very specific question.
You should also use a 'ask','recommendation' and a 'ask', 'reviews' combination.
The recommendations tag should represent requests for examples, not queries for advice.
Example of requests for recommendations: one, two, three
reviews: one, two, three, four
survey: one, two