11 votes

Let us post a link *and* text

Posted by DavidGA

One of the biggest limitations of Reddit is that if you want to post a link, and comment on it yourself, you have to go make a comment on your own post after you've made it.

It would be really useful to be able to fill in both the Link and the Text box, and have your text displayed under the link while you are viewing the comments.

(Also, we should be able to edit posts after making them.)

11 comments

  1. [5]
    cfabbro
    Link
    This has already been discussed: https://tildes.net/~tildes/3s/why_do_we_need_link_or_test_and_not_both @deimos response (which I agree with): That is definitely coming... we just need a...

    This has already been discussed: https://tildes.net/~tildes/3s/why_do_we_need_link_or_test_and_not_both

    @deimos response (which I agree with):

    This is something that I've thought a decent amount about, because I was originally planning on just combining the two types as well. I've talked with others about it multiple times too, and I eventually ended up being convinced that it was better to keep them separated.

    I think, for me, the main argument against it is that it basically gives the submitter an unfair advantage in adding their own commentary to a link—they get a "soapbox" that they can use to comment on the link, and everyone looking at the post is basically forced to read what they think, even though they probably don't have any more authority to talk about that link than anyone else would if they submitted it. If the submitter wants to comment on the link, it should probably be... in the form of a comment, just like it is for everyone else.

    Also, if you combine them, it muddles the voting (and some other mechanics) a bit. As a voter, now I have to try to decide how to account for the submitter's commentary as well, instead of just the link on its own. What if I think it's a good link that should be posted in the group, but their commentary on it is wrong? Do I have to upvote it anyway, and give that wrong commentary more exposure? You also end up with a lot of the top-level comments being responses to the submitter's commentary, instead of to the link itself.

    Because of reasons like that, I think keeping them separated makes more sense than combining. The error on reddit of people filling in both is more of a UI issue than anything (tabs are the wrong element to use). The Tildes interface is currently terrible too, but at least it tells people not to fill in both, and won't let them submit if they do.

    (Also, we should be able to edit posts after making them.)

    That is definitely coming... we just need a changelog/audit system in place beforehand so we can make sure people aren't abusing the ability. This is the very early days of an alpha, remember. ;)

    11 votes
    1. Whom
      Link Parent
      I hate (love) when I enter a thread ready to heavily argue my point and I get completely flipped right away. ...just happened on this.

      I hate (love) when I enter a thread ready to heavily argue my point and I get completely flipped right away.

      ...just happened on this.

      9 votes
    2. [3]
      Amarok
      Link Parent
      While reading Deimos' rebuttal, I find I'm in agreement... but what if we play with this idea a bit? There's a value here. A lot of posters who wouldn't otherwise comment just might start talking...

      While reading Deimos' rebuttal, I find I'm in agreement... but what if we play with this idea a bit?

      There's a value here. A lot of posters who wouldn't otherwise comment just might start talking if the box is right there on the submit page.

      The issue is, as you said, tying the text to the submission. Well, we don't have to do that. We can just drop the text into a new comment by that user that goes up along with the thread.

      This way, people can more easily comment on their submissions (and are almost incentivized to do so) - but whatever commentary they share is not tied in any way to the link itself. Really, we're just making it easier to leave the first comment on a thread.

      We are giving the OP the chance to write out a big comment that will appear before ye random shitposter arrives with the meme of the day, too.

      Sound like it might be worth trying?

      6 votes
      1. [2]
        cfabbro
        Link Parent
        I am still wary of an auto-comment in the submission area... but it's not the worst idea I have ever heard and is definitely worth considering. It may even have the added benefit of reducing...

        I am still wary of an auto-comment in the submission area... but it's not the worst idea I have ever heard and is definitely worth considering. It may even have the added benefit of reducing editorialized headlines since users wont feel they have to do that since they have an outlet in the auto-comment box.

        2 votes
        1. Amarok
          Link Parent
          Anything that cuts down on rampant editorialization is a good thing in my book. I hope it works out like that.

          Anything that cuts down on rampant editorialization is a good thing in my book. I hope it works out like that.

          3 votes
  2. ras
    Link
    "Also, we should be able to edit posts after making them." Been saying this about Twitter for almost ten years. As to your main point, I think I prefer the link to stand on it's own. That way the...

    "Also, we should be able to edit posts after making them."

    Been saying this about Twitter for almost ten years.

    As to your main point, I think I prefer the link to stand on it's own. That way the votes on the link are purely based on the communities response to the link itself.

    2 votes
  3. [4]
    blitz
    Link
    Allowing post edits is tricky because it can completely mess with the flow of the conversation. I'm actually kind of in favor of an immutable post history.

    Allowing post edits is tricky because it can completely mess with the flow of the conversation. I'm actually kind of in favor of an immutable post history.

    1 vote
    1. [2]
      27thPW
      Link Parent
      I think letting users make edits but also for those edits to be visible is a good solution. Something similar to how Facebook handles edits. Although as someone who makes a fair number of typos, I...

      I think letting users make edits but also for those edits to be visible is a good solution. Something similar to how Facebook handles edits. Although as someone who makes a fair number of typos, I do appreciate reddit's ninja edit system where edits made within 5 minutes aren't marked as such.

      6 votes
      1. crius
        Link Parent
        With some analysis we could even detect when it's worth to keep an history of the changes or not. Example: A comment with only few letters changed in the words is probably just typo fixing. Not...

        With some analysis we could even detect when it's worth to keep an history of the changes or not.

        Example: A comment with only few letters changed in the words is probably just typo fixing. Not worth to waste storage space, saving the history log.

        It's goddamn 4.30 am here and I can't sleep but am not lucid enough to think about it. Will try tomorrow :)

        2 votes
    2. Sargon
      Link Parent
      Having a visible edit history a la Facebook would be wonderful.

      Having a visible edit history a la Facebook would be wonderful.

      2 votes
  4. Deimos
    Link
    Posts are definitely editable, though currently you can't edit the title of a topic, or its link. I'd like to make both of those editable eventually, but it definitely needs to be logged so that...

    (Also, we should be able to edit posts after making them.)

    Posts are definitely editable, though currently you can't edit the title of a topic, or its link. I'd like to make both of those editable eventually, but it definitely needs to be logged so that the changes are accountable (and we may need to be able to stop people from using this ability if they abuse it).

    1 vote