Thanks. That seems logical but I was thinking that updating might be preferred because UI-wise the shortest route to get back to a thread seems to be through Nodes You Wrote, where the update form is prominent and inviting. Also I frequently see Update: sections in the nodes of others. From that and other context clues I guessed there might be an argument in favor of having fewer but more complete/concise/accurate nodes, and being new, I don't want to assert my way of doing things over what might be considered proper forum etiquette. The [id://PerlMonks FAQ] is clear on most things but I didn't see this sort of thing addressed there. Actually, on the whole, the FAQ seems to encourage sensible use of the update form. It doesn't really contradict an assertion of “use the power of threads”, but neither does it actually say this that I could see.
| [reply] |
It really depends.
Within the same day or so, it’s usually sufficiently to update in situ. Your update will be seen anyway. If you specifically want someone who has replied to you prior to the update to see the changes, simply /msg them.
If you want to update a long dormant node, the best approach is probably:
- Add <del></del> tags to the mistaken/obsolete parts of the node.
- Post a reply with your update.
- For root nodes, reply to yourself.
- For non-root nodes, reply to the node your old node was in reply to, so that the author of that node will be notified of your new reply, should they have chosen that site option.
- For the benefit of future visitors, add a notice to the old note, pointing to the new reply.
Makeshifts last the longest.
| [reply] |