I'm questioning this edit. I'm used to emphasizing updates, such that people know what's new. I've seen this practice since I'm a member on SO, and used it myself quite often - and it's being edited out for the first time.

I personally believe that it is a good practice, especially in a very long question where it is difficult to find the updates. German newspapers also follow this practice online (but they rather use em than bold).

Is this not a practice on CR?

Some additional information (see how I do not emphasize this update to see whether you pay attention):

  • The edit was at the end of the question from a question point of view. The update was only followed by code, which I rather saw as an attachment than (text) question itself.
  • I was going to refer to the update commenting the answer given in that post, so that was supposed to help that.
  • I agree that the edit history could reveal this - I just hadn't been using that personally, so I hadn't thought of that as a potential to find the edit.

Stack Exchange sites are not forums.

Avoid adding headings like Update and Edit when you edit a post; edited posts automatically get bumped by the system, and reappear onto the front page - that's enough to tell everybody that a post was modified. The revision history contains all the details anyone interested in the post's edit history would want to see.

Instead, blend it in, make it as seamless as possible: readers seeing your post for the first time, don't need to see which part was in the original post, and which parts were added.


I personally believe that it is a good practice, especially in a very long question where it is difficult to find the updates.

I think it would be harder to follow update after update on a long question, although yours isn't too long. It's not necessary established practice on CR or any other site, but marking edits in the middle of a post may look messy. Most edit notes can be kept in the edit summary for an edit, which is why it's there. Otherwise, the edited content can just be added by itself, in such a way that it disrupt the flow of the post. As for the un-bolding, I felt that that particular paragraph wasn't in vital need for emphasis. Only the third sentence seemed important, and I suppose I could've left the bolding on that.


The most important things IMO to note is:

  • Avoid emphasizing an entire paragraph. A meaning here and there is OK, but not an entire paragraph.

  • Avoid numbering your updates. Numbering updates leads to even more confusion.

  • Keep updates together, if possible. I find it hard to understand "I pasted code from different parts in my first update, in order to make the code reproducable" when that text is actually before your "first update". I would have preferred appending that "Update 2" somewhere at the bottom and stating that you wanted reviews on your interpolateV method.

A suggestion is that you try to structure your questions in different sections, such as:

  • Description: Describe what your code is doing
  • Class/Method Summary: Describe what each part of your code does and how it fits together.
  • Code: Wall of codes
  • Test/Usage: How your code can be used and/or easily tested
  • Questions: Describe your primary concerns (if any), what you want to have reviewed, any limitations that causes some potential suggestions to be thrown out the window.

Each of these sections can get it's own #Heading

As an example of such a structured question, see one of my earlier questions.

Note that not all these sections are required for all types of questions, but it is something to think about.

When I look at your edit, it seems like "Update 2" was the "Questions" section, and "Update" was "Test/Usage" section. Marking them as such helps a lot instead of simply writing "Update X".


I am also going to throw in my opinion on this. There's a few things to keep in mind when editing.

As mentioned by @Mat's Mug: the SE-sites are not forums, updates don't need special marking in edits. I used to do this with my stackoverflow posts, and in hindsight I am not proud of it.

As mentioned by @Jamal: The edit is irrelevant in the respect of being an edit. It is relevant in being information. As such he should fit into the post as seamless as possible. Bolded headings saying "edit", "update" or similar are mostly noise.

But when writing a question / answer, you may forget things. If someone now makes a comment on that I personally feel it's good style to give attribution. For an example see this answer of mine

A user there requested clarification on a special point in my answer. That point in fact was a leftover from my initial approach at solving the problem. I thusly removed it, and made no further mention of it.
see this revision

Then the very same user pointed out a mistake in my answer. What followed was, that I had to reenact my initial approach. You can see that, even if the comment were removed, the answer reads as a whole. the flow is not interrupted, and that is IMO a very important point of an edit. And that is even though I added more than half of the final answer!

When someone reads the post he doesn't see that though. And I think it's desirable it is this way ;)

  • \$\begingroup\$ "The edit is irrelevant in the respect of being an edit. It is relevant in being information." Excellent quote. \$\endgroup\$ – Simon Forsberg Jul 24 '14 at 16:51

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .