Why people on HN disclaim “EDIT: ” even for the smallest edits?

So, should I really make an "EDIT" disclaimer all the time here on HN?

IMHO, no.

Personally, I only add an EDIT disclaimer if I'm substantially altering the original post. For me that usually means adding additional explanation / context / citations / etc. below the original content. I'd say I rarely change a post in a way that radically alters the meaning of something I already said. But if I do, I'll add an EDIT marker.

I definitely don't bother with that for fixing typos, simple grammatical errors, punctuation, etc.

> So, should I really make an "EDIT" disclaimer all the time here on HN?

no

edit: yes if it's significant.

So, should I really make an "EDIT" disclaimer all the time here on HN?

Yes, you should. It's a matter of maintaining intellectual honesty. If there's any chance of your post having diverged from the post that someone is replying to, even if the divergence is as small as a single-letter spelling error, you should call that out.

Sometimes I edit so fast after I published that I doubt anyone has read it before I edit.

Why don't you write your posts out in a text editor? That way you don't have to constantly edit and revise in a browser text box.

It's a habit carried over from Reddit users.

Comments edited after they've been read get flagged, and people tend to explain the flag to remove suspicion of nefarious backediting.

IMHO, No.

The only time I would do a disclaimer like that is if an edit made a substantive change to the meaning of the post. For example, if I included a quote from a source that was subsequently shown to be out of context.

Personally I edit so much that I might as well write EDIT the first time. No matter how often I get accused of it, I never do it to make people who reply look stupid. I see that kind of complaining as right up there with people who are indignant that comments can get down voted.

I edit all the time and I almost never make an edit disclaimer. I don't feel any need to disclaim that I'm editing something, I'm not a professional broadcasting service or anything. I'm simply a person writing stuff. I can write whatever I want and how I want it. Everything I write is well intended (IMO), editing is servicing to communicate whatever I want to say better. If whatever I write is too out of line, I'll see it in the amount of down votes.

And yes, that editing includes this comment. I've edited it as well (9 times now, I think, could you imagine me writing 4 to 5 edit disclaimers every comment? I know I can't). What I simply can't stand is a blinking cursor and then needing to read my text. I like to read my text in the presentation as others see it, which is why I edit so much. It's a quirk I have, I don't see any issues with it. And even if others see issues with it, I don't think I'm going to change the way I write comments.

After an hour you can't edit anyway, so I always view comments over an hour ago as "canon".

With that said, sometimes it can be useful to indicate that you've edited. This is especially the case when someone quotes you and you've deleted that text, stuff like that.

It depends, but I tend to do so since:

- Simple typos or a dropped word can significantly alter the meaning of a post. I once wrote a post where I said one thing, yet a single sentence appeared to say the exact opposite (either due to a typo or dropped word). I doubt that many people noticed it or, if they did, they would recognize the error for what it is. Still, you never know.

- Something similar can be said of grammatical errors. Grammar conveys meaning and ambiguous/incorrect grammar leads to ambiguous/incorrect meaning. Again, edits will alter the meaning of what is said even if most people would have interpreted what you said as what you meant.

I have noticed some edits as an acknowledgement to someone who noticed an obvious error, that is just a courteous thank-you. There's nothing wrong with that.

Also, quoting is common here. Editing the original without noting the edit leads to confusion as to who made the change. Usually it won't matter, but it is good to point out the edits in case it does end up being significant.

Folks may not be aware of HN’s delay feature:

> In my profile, what is delay?

> It gives you time to edit your comments before they appear to others. Set it to the number of minutes you'd like. The maximum is 10.

Many people presumably don't add "EDIT" for the smallest edits -- but then there's nothing to see.

Force of habit to be honest

I used to do it wayyyy more, but now try to restrain to important edit notes like "turns out I'm wrong as the reply mentions, don't believe this comment, leaving original below for posterity"

Don't forget if people don't add edits, you wont know. I think on average I edit a comment 5-10 times to get the wording right, my first drafts are usually far worse than the guff I actually leave up :)

Pro tip to edit types: HN lets you delay your post becoming visible, get all your edits in before it goes live. It's controlled by the 'delay' option in your profile and is measured in minutes

I totally get erring on the side of caution, but IMHO no. The main problem with stealth edits is if they make replies look out of context, but that's not a problem for many edits (and can always be acknowledged if it happens so it's clear what happened). But I also don't mind people doing it, if they are more comfortable with their writing that way that's their decision.

The replies are listing a lot of tangential rules like "major/minor", "typo", "punctuation", "[in]significant change", but all that really matters is: Does your change add, remove, or alter meaning or even tone in your post, even implicitly? If so, somebody may have written a reply that no longer makes complete sense in relation to your post (or they may currently be writing it! "Nobody has probably even read it yet" is not a good thing to assume on an internet where the page remains static until they refresh).

The big thing is: It's hard to imagine all the ways a change can conflict with replies, and the HN crowd is probably more likely than most to "know what they don't know" (i.e. more likely to play it safe).

I see adding "EDIT" as a nice way to show what was changed, even if it was just a typo (though if I'm fast enough at catching a typo I won't always add "EDIT"). It helps people that already read your comment so they can see what changed and prevents confusion. For example if someone edits in a link to what they were talking about or adds context I really appreciate the "EDIT" because without it I might skim over their comment without noticing the change if I've already read it pre-edit. People who make big changes to their comments without mentioning what was changed are being somewhat disingenuous in my opinion. Especially if they change their viewpoint significantly without calling it out. It's a bit of an asshole-move especially if people have already replied to your original comment.

> My impression is sometimes we could just edit typos and small stuff, without the need to make a disclosure at the bottom.

Yes, I would generally agree with this.

> Some would even keep the original text intact and state corrections at the bottom, which renders a worse reading experience, in my opinion.

This is a grey area for me. It's somewhat hard with HN's formatting to transparently and clearly fix the original text sometimes. Example: "I do agree" -> "I do not agree", do you put "I do (EDIT: not) agree", "I do not agree (EDIT: previously typo'd that I do agree)", "I do agree \n\n EDIT: I actually do /not/ agree, that was a typo", etc. I think people that leave the original text and then add a disclaimer/correction at the bottom are attempting to be open and transparent and I respect that. There used to be an HN plugin years ago that did edit diffs on comments (displayed them kind of like git diffs) and I do kind of wish HN would show edit history. I've been burned by replying to a comment that gets edited out from under me such that by the time I comment they are no longer making the point I'm rebutting or they've softened/changed their argument. Because of this I often will quote what I'm replying to in these cases to protect against the author changing their comment and making mine look odd/out-of-place.

> Sometimes I edit so fast after I published that I doubt anyone has read it before I edit.

I think this is fine, as long as you aren't changing the spirt of the comment. Typos, link adding (if fast enough), and similar are fine to do without calling out the edit.

I had read a news article about a topic and inferred some harsh undertone about a topic. I was using that as a basis for an argument I was having. But the person said they didn't infer from the article what I was inferring. I went back to find the context and I couldn't find it. I would have thought I was crazy but I also noticed that a typo had been fixed. But there was no mention of an edit. What I hope is that they made some changes without mentioning it and it's not some weird brain thing where my bias kicked in till someone challenged it.

Should every minor little thing that has been edited by mentioned? Maybe not. Would different people consider minor to mean different things? Maybe.

I will only add it if the edit changes my comment substantially. For example if I was wrong on something, or if I figured out my question or if a typo I made changes the meaning of my comment completely.

That's a "web issue", for instance personally I follow HN via feeds, sometimes with nnhackernews (Emacs/Gnus backend) witch makes seen edits difficult. In classic discussion system (like Usenet) to ease read there is no edit, just a timeline.

Also edit potentially "vary" posts leaving old answers untouched underneath making the conversation potentially hard to read for someone coming late.

No. Except for the case when you already have a comment answering yours and the edit you are making invalidates some of the comment to yours.

If sometime in your thread identifies the typo/minor issue and you edit, then it is common courtesy to call out the edit.

> Why people on HN disclaim “EDIT: ” even for the smallest edits?

Mostly, I’m sure, they don't.

But you only notice the people that do.

I think it's a habit i got from ol' phpBB forums. I did the same with reddit. Should you? No, i think its personnal preference. I won't downvote if there is no edit disclaimer, i don't think anyone would.

I only put a notice - not a disclaimer - in a message if and when I edited it to add something to it which substantially changes the meaning. Typo's, completions and such don't necessitate any explanation.

Another approach is an edit counter, as used by the Nim forum: https://forum.nim-lang.org/

Sample bias: you only see the tiny minority that edits for the smallest reasons and not the majority that might even let major changes go unmarked.

Edit: I am in the former camp

pointless pageantry to make us feel as if we arent all procrastinating some type of work. We can't ALL be waiting on a build to finish.

I don't add "edit: " to unimportant things. If I give a statement and later I change my statement, I will. Otherwise, no.

> Why people on HN disclaim “EDIT: ” even for the smallest edits?

People vastly overestimate how much other people care about what they have to say.

On a related note, why do so many people on HN use "disclaimer" when they mean "disclosure"?

Many people who read HN are also redditors.

If I edit punctuation or spelling, I don't usually add a disclaimer. If I add or remove whole words or sentences, I add a disclaimer.