darkoshi: (Default)
[personal profile] darkoshi
When I have something to add in regards to a post I've made previously (a few hours ago, or a few days, or even months), I'm not sure what's the best approach.

Often I simply update the old post, adding an "Update" section to it. That way if anyone finds the post from a websearch, they'll have all the details right there.

Sometimes I create a new post, and put my update there. That way, anyone on my list who read my original post will get the update on their reading page. I don't usually bother to update the old post to link to the new one... so unfortunately, anyone who finds the original post via a search won't get the whole story.

If the post was either very recent (such that maybe no one else read it yet), or a long time ago, I'm more likely to simply update the original post. If it was in-between but had no comments, I'm also likely to take this approach, as I suppose that none of my readers are very interested in the topic and wouldn't be interested in the update anyway.

If the post had comments/discussion, I may choose either option, but if I update the old post, I am more likely to at least mention and link to the update in a new post.

I've been making a lot of updates to recent posts lately.

What approach do the rest of you take?

Date: Saturday, August 26th, 2017 08:54 am (UTC)
marahmarie: my initials (MM) (Default)
From: [personal profile] marahmarie
Trying to catch up on a multi-week backlog on DW...

If the update is material to the post (information already in it that can be expounded upon to add similar, or correction of the original information) then I'll add to the title "Updated 8-26-17" in parentheses (if there's room for it, but given the character limit, sometimes there isn't).

Sometimes I'll leave it at that; others I'll add a bolded ETA or Update to mark off new, edited, or updated information in the post, and/or to strike out what's no longer applicable with an explanation added before or after as to why.

If I create a new post to add new info to the old one, and the information is materially important (you don't understand or can't fully grasp the subject matter of one without the other) then I'll link back to the old post from the new one.

If not (if I want to expound but feel you don't need one post to fully grasp the other) I don't, relying on the fact that both posts should have the same tag(s) to guide anyone so inclined to do the appropriate archive search.

This is a topic online writers have debated for years. Marissa Meyer (while still head of Google search) kind of opened it up when she offered that old posts should be updated with new information because blog posts should be "living", or something like that - like a single post should be a dynamic archive, instead of us constantly creating new posts every time anyone farts in our subject matter's direction.

Which might have been salacious advice in 2006 or '08 or whenever she came out with it, given that even that long ago the web was beginning to get too fast to expect people to ever come back to old posts again, but is even more archaic advice now. Now, with 24/7 twit streams and timelines and so on, if one fact changes or one paragraph needs adding, or anything new happens your best - perhaps only - chance of catching people's eyeballs with it is by making a new post.

But while that's technically correct - it maximizes reader exposure and reactions to latest events - I'm not running a Twitter, and I just don't care, so Marissa Meyer's way is mostly how I go (with the caveat that as with almost anything else, my favorite solution is once again a hybrid of many possible choices, so perhaps not helpful to anyone looking for an absolutely cut and dry, black and white-type answer).
Edited (clarity) Date: Saturday, August 26th, 2017 08:58 am (UTC)