3

I am confused about how to mark edits in the current Question or Answer. It seems to me that using EDIT: is a generally accepted standard, but I was not able to find anything "official" about it, as it is impossible to search for these terms.

1
  • I know :-) But seriously, try searching for it :-) Dec 13 '15 at 22:55
3

Is it ok to add [UPDATE] to a question's title after a major revision is applicable not just to titles, but to post bodies. Stack Exchange uses revision histories instead of edit/update/revised marks within the text. Such marks should not be included, and should be edited out to make the text flow properly whenever seen.

The goal of Stack Exchange is to make questions and answers that are timeless. Adding "EDIT 2:" does not help with that goal at all.

3
  • 2
    Thank you for clearing that up. I will act accordingly :-) Nov 25 '15 at 18:30
  • 1
    No it's not. It's applicable only to titles, at least my answer. IMO it's totally fine to add "Edit:" into a post body to make it clear it was added after the post was originally written. It's only four letters. It's not intrusive. It does not change or clutter the front page when bumping, and it should not be edited out. I see many SE employees using it too. Nov 25 '15 at 18:54
  • 1
    I am very critical towards the inline usage of edit "markup". Of course, it can make the reading much more clear, but in the end, I think the "timeless" argument should win. It sureley is a lot or work to properly include an update, but I will try to avoid these markings whenever possible and instead clean up the text. Nov 25 '15 at 19:47

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