Input wanted about title-editing, especially by topics' authors
It was a bit of a side topic in the thread last night about giving other people access to some organizational tools for topics, so I wanted to have a more specific discussion about how we should handle title-editing.
Editing titles is definitely a useful ability, both for being able to fix typos/mistakes as well as remove editorialization or misleading phrasing, or even update the title later if the story progresses and the original title is no longer correct. However, it can also be confusing or mis-used—the title is the main way that we (the users on the site) identify a particular topic, and when the title changes it can be difficult to recognize what happened.
So I just want to have a general discussion about how we should handle title-editing, and especially whether we should allow people to edit their own topics' titles, and if there should be any restrictions on that. For example, should a topic's author only be allowed to edit the title in the first 5 minutes? Should they always be able to edit it, like they can always edit the post text itself? Maybe it varies, based on their history/account-age/something-else?
One thing to keep in mind is that this doesn't need to be a system that's immune to abuse. If someone uses the title-editing to change a popular ~music post's title into a Star Wars spoiler or something, we don't just shrug and go, "oh well, they're allowed to edit titles, nothing we can do." We edit the title back, and either take that ability away from them or ban them from the site entirely if it was done maliciously. Trust people, but punish abusers is a good approach in my opinion—we don't need to hobble features constantly to try to make them un-abusable.
Also, whatever we decide to do doesn't necessarily need to be kept forever. We can always try something, and if it obviously isn't working very well, we just change it. Decisions about how the site works don't need to be final, it's very difficult to predict how features will actually be used in practice.
Anyway, let me know what you think. Thanks.
My thoughts would be to have it so you can always edit, but there's also a button next to the title that shows edit history with time stamps.
Edit: As @Amarok pointed out, the history would go in the topic log.
People always want buttons for everything. Go that route and you end up with a website that has so many buttons and widgets that everyone goes into ferret-shock looking at the interface, and it stops being useful (like reddit is now). We've got a topic log already, let's put the edit history and timestamps in there just like we do for tags, and probably for everything else going forward.
Oh, yes. Absolutely. Sorry, I completely forgot that was a thing.
Is this a common consensus? I don't think I've ever felt this way about reddit. In fact, I thought it looked very neat and minimalist before the redesign.
Compare that to @Amarok's statement: "like reddit is now" - i.e. after the redesign. You're right that the old "classic" Reddit was neat and minimalist, but that's not what Reddit is now. The Reddit redesign is crap of the highest order. The user interface is cluttered and difficult to navigate, and prioritises passive reading over active participation.
And, while you've got me started...
commence off-topic rant
Among other things, I used to moderate /r/Help on Reddit, and I closely monitored all the feedback there and in /r/Redesign... and there was (and probably still is) a lot of resistance to this change. Sure, there are lots of people who don't care how they get their daily dose of memes and animal pics and puns, but the people who've actually invested themselves in Reddit (i.e. moderators), or who want something more than shallow content, are mostly against these changes and what they represent. The redesign is making it easier for people to consume shallow content, harder for them to participate in in-depth discussions, and, most importantly, easier for Reddit to serve ads to its readers.
In this context, I'm glad that I found out about Tildes a couple of months ago. After seven years of my being involved in Reddit (sometimes too involved!), the redesign and other recent changes of direction that Reddit has been taking, plus the infestation of Reddit by certain groups, have made me disillusioned with that site. I'm glad Tildes turned up about now. It's good timing for me. I mean... I've always wanted something like Tildes, and the subreddits that I moderate tend to be the ones that are little islands of civility in a sea of barbarity, but I could just stay on with Reddit as long as I ignored the wider trends. However, over the past 6-9 months, my dissatisfaction with Reddit has grown. When Tildes came along, I jumped at it like a drowning man grasping for a rope thrown to him.
end off-topic rant
I should have read more carefully. I agree with the sentiment in your rant 100%.
Whoops. Should have read more carefully. Yeah I hate the redesign as well. The "too many buttons" criticism flew over my head because I couldn't stomach the new design for more than a few minutes before looking for a way to revert. Now I browse old.reddit.com.
Maybe we want to sticky title edits to the top of the topic log, so it's always in one place.
That sounds like it's not a big deal when you look at the tiny topic logs we have here now. Instead, imagine you're dealing with an Obama AMA in /r/iama. Let's build with a large userbase in mind, rather than going for quick fixes that assume Tildes is always going to be a small space. I can imagine a topic log for a massive, long lived topic getting to be very, very long, and therefore confusing. If the title edit happens late (such as with an update to a news story) we don't want it to be five pages down in the logs where it's hard to find.
There's something to be said for holding off on building features like that which could delay testing the idea of title changes. It's a closed alpha, let things be tried and tested and then worry about scaling it up before a full release.
Eh, positioning the title edit at the top shouldn't be a difficult code problem. I get where you're coming from, though - if doing a feature takes a certain amount of work, and doing a big/bad/full version takes five times that amount of work, let's not hold back on it just because we can't realize the final form with the initial release.
Eh, maybe. I think it makes sense to have tags and comments at the top. Of course, this could just be because I'm used to it and don't have a real reason for this.
Edit: Oh, and also, I think that the edits should still have to be expanded, even though they're in your face. So it could look like:
>5:15:43 title edited by @GenericUser15 (op).
Or:
>5:15:43 title edited by @GenericUser15 (mod).
And then you would click it and it would expand to show you how exactly it was changed.
You don't need to identify "op" versus "mod" when you're looking at the thread and can see who the poster is. If the username that edited the title is the same as the username that posted the topic, then you know it's the original poster. Anyone else is... not the original poster. :)
I really like this. I often catch something in my submissions immediately after submitting. I'm guessing this will cover the majority of edits required.
Do you think a more obvious indication that there's been an edit would help with this problem? Something that stands out without checking the log?
I was thinking about this too, but not sure if my use cases are strong enough.
Especially after a post has been up for a while, it would be really useful to see that something's been edited. However, if people are just fixed typos or otherwise minor corrections, it might become distracting. Guess it'll ultimately depend on how often this feature is actually used.
I'm currently thinking, it'll be nice to leave this until some reasonable period after implementing this feature, to see how the community generally uses and responses to it.
When you catch people doing that sort of thing, that's a paddlin'. Let's all hope the trolls are that stupid. It'll make them very easy to discover and excise.
This is already something that's been given to a group of people to be able to do. The difference is that the higher-permission users have more to lose from doing so.
Ahhh, I understand now. Gotcha!
Then only allow something like mods or more trust people to do so. For example to remove affiliate amazon links (is that against the rules here? If it were, in any case), or if the article is just a really shitty rewording of another article (company posts blog announcing <thing>, NewsAboutTechThings.org makes an "article" that is mostly quotes from the blog with no added value) I would be very much for changing the article URL. It happens on HN periodically already, and I think it's well worth it. I agree that it shouldn't be up to the OP, but if higher up mods/janitors/whatevers decided it's worth it they should have the power (but clearly put in the topic log, with a reason/blurb or something)
That'd be a link-editing feature.
We are going to want that to combat freebooters eventually. Being able to add more links to an existing topic would be an interesting experiment. That's getting into reddit megathread territory. I'm all for trying that out and making it easier to collaborate on updating information in the original post, there are many use cases that reddit handles with mega and live threads.
I like the thought experiment of letting people add multiple links and then letting them vote on the link ranking. That could get fun. ;)
That's another lengthy discussion, though, not a simple title edit.
Can confirm that as the author of the comment which you linked to, I would have definitely edited that link to the one Amarok provided.
However, I am not entirely sure that feature would be a good thing all around.
I definitely think allowing editing for 5 minutes after posting should be fine, typos in titles are the worse, and I often only catch them right after posting.
I’m not sure about always behind able to edit titles - it could be a bit confusing if the title of a post changes too much, and I feel like there’s a limit to what can be considered bad behaviour when you allow people to edit them.
I think, at least for now, having a short grace-period, then having to ask a mod/admin to change it after that.
Can we display the original/previous title as a comment attributed whenever it is edited? This should provide a measure of transparency.
Which would require a specific search on the part of each reader to determine the previous title.
The alternative is advertising the edit blatantly somehow, which people will abuse to draw attention to submissions.
I wouldn't go any further than the basic asterisk applied at the end of an edited title, just like reddit does when a self post is updated. That's sufficient to let people know it's been edited without making it into a cheap way to bump a topic. A lot of people are already used to seeing an asterisk used that way on many sites. It's almost become a convention now.
If they care, they can check the topic log. It's a simple click.
If we put the original title in as a comment, it's going to get lost in the comments.
Thanks.
For the OP, five minute grace period to change their own title just like comments. After that If the title changes, it's logged in the topic log at the right and by whom exactly like tags. I'm not in favor of visual indicators of a title edit as they'll likely promote editing just to get noticed in the long run. If we do have such indicators it should be very simple and not eye-catching, like adding an asterisk at the end of the title.
We're going to need good policy to govern when it is appropriate to edit a title. Clarity, updates, correcting false information, that's acceptable. Changing titles based on opinions and personal preferences aren't.
I got confused yesterday when I saw a new topic that looked like a repost of a previous topic - but was actually the previous topic with an edited title (edited by Deimos). I'd like to see some indication that a title has been edited - like we have for topics and comments that are edited.
I'm not sure how I feel about title editing. But I do know that it's likely a bad idea to let anyone edit other people's titles. That's the sort of thing that needs to be done by a "trusted user" approaching the OP with a request, and only overruling and editing anyway if theres no other option.
I'm very uncomfortable with the thought of someone deciding their title is better than the one I've used and just changing it before any discussion/request or explanation of why they think it needs changing.
Of course, anyone being able to edit anyone's titles would destroy a site before it even began.
Would it be too much overhead for if the OP were able to request changing the title? Something like a two-step process where they request it be changed via a button, and possibly a canned list of reasons (ie, Title changed on target website, typo). The admin can grant a one off title change the op can action.
Any changes like this should probably be logged , I assume in the same place we see tag changes.
That's going to eat up a lot of moderator time. Generally, that's a bad thing - and it's grunt work, which means most mods will hate it, and so automate or avoid it or do it rather callously and grudgingly.
Far better imo to just let the OP edit his title, and only involve the mods if the OP abuses that power, which most probably won't. That's far less work for the mods, and instead of grunt work, if you tap them for abuse that's troll hunting, which is much more fun.
The parent was proposing involving mods/admins with every single title edit even from the OP. That's far too much.
I'm not. :P
If someone's abusing their title edit powers, they can lose them. Solves the problem for the bad guys, doesn't bother the good guys, and it wastes no one's time. Much better for efficiency.
I think a lot of people in this thread are thinking of Tildes as it is now - which wouldn't be much work. I'm thinking of modding /r/askreddit volume, which is when this becomes much much harder to manage. The amount of work required for approval of every title edit sitewide would burn up man-years of mod time better spent on other activities like curation if Tildes becomes successful.
Only problem with this is that it puts more work on Deimos, when we're just starting to see some of that work be spread out among users.
It can be automated in some cases too. For example, if we detect that it's modifying say < three characters or if it's by a trusted user, the change can just be pushed through.
Definitely true. It wouldn't be fool proof, but might be enough for the general case. I am a strong supporter of the trust-but-punish.
That's a good idea. Puts the burden and responsibility on the people who've volunteered and been selected for it.
I don't think a notification is a good idea, a central page listing all the requests would be better so people can browse it when they have spare time to moderate rather than be swarmed with notifications.
My thought was to find a way that stops easy, frequent, 'free' editing of the title, but not to make it burdensome. I would imagine if mods see the same poster constantly changing titles, or someone becomes known for abusing it - that would be the only time they'd not just allow the OP to change it.
There was a topic a couple of days ago about triggering. I'd read through the thread a while after it was posted, then left it alone. I came back later and saw a new post about triggering, with a different title. I assumed the original poster had deleted their old topic, due to some negative feedback, and re-submitted it. It then confused me when I opened this new topic to find all the old comments still there.
So, I think that editing a title should produce a flag that the title has been edited - just like when the text of a topic or a comment are edited. That lets readers know the title has been changed and, if they want to see what it was before, they'll find that information in the Topic Log.
Editing someone else's title should be a very restricted ability - moreso than changing tags or moving topics. If someone has carefully crafted a title without intent to editorialise, but only to contextualise or to present a topic in a certain way, that's their prerogative. So, while some people should be able to edit bad titles, that ability should be restricted, because changing a title means you're basically changing the intent of someone's topic.
Editing should be allowed depending on the thread activity, so for example if a thread gets some reports for misleading title the OP should be able to get the title edited (i don't see what prevents the OP from creating multiple accounts just to change the title), but maybe after some time/lots of activity the title should be locked
It seems that most people are for this feature, even if it's in a limited capacity. I think we should just trust people and readjust based on abuse, the site is in alpha for a reason.
I'm generally in support of being allowed to edit your own titles in some limited fashion. However, when I'm submitting and verifying it's not a duplicate, I rely heavily on titles also. Not saying this will be a show stopping issue, just that I believe we might see more reposts in general, since a lot of people tend to keep the title of the original article.
What do we think about unlocking features such as these with account age? Not a crazy amount of time, but for arguments sake, let's say accounts less than a week old can't edit topic titles. That might deter malicious users from turning around and doing it over and over again. And if new users see a mistake in their title they can make an edit or a comment and a mod can update the title for them.
I don't really think this is necessary. Personally, not a huge fan of creating probation users to begin with, but beyond that I believe it'll be confusing for new users. Consistent UI is important. Title editing is also not something I would associate with age of account, as in there's no real learning curve. My two-cents, I would rather not hobble a feature for the sake of some new user possibility abusing it.
I don't buy into that whole 'consistent UI' argument. We see that being tossed around a lot in modern web development, yet the sites following those practices are bloated dinosaurs with terrible design. Simple, efficient, elegant is far better than consistent.
I think it's wiser to ease people in to a complicated UI. Hide the elements they haven't earned access to yet. Once they do get access, that's when you ask them if they are interested and if they opt-in, give them a short explanation, and turn it on.
I'm sure most people won't faint if Tildes shows them a few new controls once they've earned some trust. It's better than having those controls there and disabled/greyed out somehow just for the sake of consistency.
Account age is just one very basic metric. By itself it's not good enough for making these kinds of decisions, but it should be taken into account. All you can really do with the age is use it to assume that young accounts are users without experience, or are spammers and trolls coming in after a ban. Once you're talking about time periods past a couple months, it stops being very useful.
Consistent UI is not mutually exclusive of other UI designs.
For the purpose of this specific topic, I don't see enough benefit in complicating the process, not that I believe anyone going to "faint" at the notion of seeing new unknown buttons...I'm not even sure why you seem to be attacking my comment.
Guess, I'm simply not sold on the need to "earn" the ability to edit your own title.
Oh, OP should be able to edit his own title. I'm more concerned with what happens when other users acquire that power, and how we present it to them once they've earned it. That'll apply to a lot more than title editing in the long run. As people earn trust, they'll earn access to different systems over time. It's hard to do that inside a 'consistent UI' framework unless we want to show them a ton of greyed out options, which seems like it'll just cause confusion.
Ah, fair enough.
Title editing is such a minor thing to me, assuming it's limited and logged, so I honestly didn't give it as much weight. I agree a lot of other functions will require sort of trust associated. However, I also don't really agree with join date being a good metric.
For consistent UI, I more of mean common functions should be common. For example being able to edit all your own things (logged or not) more so than placement of buttons. Though I can see how my comment was vague.
Ah, you're thinking more consistency in the way we distribute abilities. That I can fully agree with. I thought you were talking about making the UI the same for everyone all the time regardless of what systems they'd unlocked. Turns out we agree and just had one of those oh so wonderful semantics problems. Sorry about that. <3
Looks like we are in agreement :)
No worries, and thanks for clarifying your stance!
It's not about a tilder's join date, it's about the amount of experience they have reading and using Tildes. People tend to learn more about a site after being on it for a week than for a day. Time-since-joining probably shouldn't be the only criterion for determining who gets what abilities, but I think it should certainly be taken into account. Maybe in conjunction with "number of votes applied", and "number of comments posted" - and suddenly I'm reinventing the concept of "trusted user". :)
But, time-since-joining is still a useful metric, when used in conjunction with other metrics.
That's sort of my point. There are so many better metrics that we should just use though. Of course, being on the site longer may naturally lead to other metrics such as number of votes going up too.
You make a good point. I just spotted that in the post and had the idea as a way to take some weight off of site moderators. In general I disagree with probation as well, but I figured editing topic titles might be something that would happen so infrequently for new users, most wouldn't even notice it. Appreciate the input.
I believe this will honestly be the case in general too.
As I said on the previous discussion, I think a good solution would be to only allow certain edits (depending on trust and time, of course). The easiest would be only allowing appending to the title, perhaps with a separating character. One use of this could be if the headline of a news article changes. Another option would be showing any new text differently (different color, italicized, etc.) and only allowing original text to be stroked-through. This way, any edits would be immediately visible and correcting typos would still be possible.
Not sure if this already considered, but a somewhat-related feature could be to have the search function include past titles when searching by title.
I say let trusted users do it like admins or mods. OP should be able to do it within a set time frame. As far as them completely swapping the title to read a different way, I don't know how to handle it. Maybe if so many characters are changed it triggers something?
And in your example, "military postpones parade" is, and should be, a different topic than "Trump cancels parade." They would be two different source links, which should be two different topics. I can see way too many avenues for abuse, with the OP later editing it to read "Parade delayed until some time in 2019" to keep the topic alive. Five minutes for fixing typos, with a small explanation below the "submit" box that says "Be sure to proof-read your topic title. It is only editable for five minutes after you click 'submit'" is how I'd like to see it done.
malicious edits fall heavily into "trust users/punish abusers" territory though, so i don't think it's really worth thinking about too much. If someone said something hateful/inciting like that, or off-topic enough (like spoilers) then that's already grounds for punishment. Even if it wasn't an edit but just part of a comment. (and i think that's a good rule of thumb: would this be allowed anyways?)