But this becomes nonsensical when replies are also named (updated) because it's inherited.
Actually, I use the "(updated)" tag in the title slightly differently: Since I only add it for updates that I consider "significant" to the OP, I think it's useful to see for myself (and hopefully for others) whether someone is replying to my original node or my updated node. So in that sense it would actually be a disadvantage to have the tag removed, since I'd think the responder may not have seen my significant update, so I'd have to /msg them or something. What does happen occasionally is that when I then reply to a reply, I forget to remove the "(updated)" tag from my new node's title. So I'd probably agree with jdporter that titles are just unreliable.
Just spitballing, and this is probably not a good idea, but a theoretical solution to this would be to do s{ \(updated \K (?:\^(\d+))? (?= \) \s* $ ) }{ "^".(($1//0) + 1) }xei to the titles ("(updated)" → "(updated^1)" → "(updated^2)" ...). With that, to mark my node as updated, I can remove the ^\d+ part.
In reply to Re: Proposal: Truncating trailing '(update)' from node-titles in replies
by haukex
in thread Proposal: Truncating trailing '(update)' from node-titles in replies
by LanX
| For: | Use: | ||
| & | & | ||
| < | < | ||
| > | > | ||
| [ | [ | ||
| ] | ] |