|Girge doesn't actually have anything to do with this post, I just like him and he has a pretty face.|
Okay, so first some background. For those of you who aren't bloggers and don't really have any idea what I'm talking about, there's this handy little "Edit Post" option accessible from pretty much everywhere. This let's you go back to the drawing board, so to speak, to revise, add to, update, or delete content from your posts. This is a really handy feature for news or rumor blogs especially, because it allows them to update a post with new information, without having to make a whole new post. There are those, however, that argue this feature shouldn't be used because it allows writers to change the meaning and purpose of their post. Let's say a writer made an argument in a post, then got a comment that destroyed one of his supports. They might then say, "Oh dang, I got owned. I need to change my argument." Then they proceed to use the edit feature and change their argument around so it is no longer made useless by that counter argument.
|The same strike force that kills Russian ultranationalists also hunts down those who post spoilers and, more recently, those who edit excessively.|
The second reason is that it means two readers will be seeing different things. The first reader, the one who saw the unedited story, will have one view of the post. Going back to the first example, they saw the original argument. The second reader, however, will have a different view. They saw the edited, revised argument, and now have different thoughts on the author's argument, and beyond that the post itself and the author's capabilities. Perhaps a better example would be if someone posted an original poem on their blog. Poems are extremely condensed writing forms; every word matters. Suppose the author changed around a few words in the poem. The poem's meaning would then be drastically changed. Then different readers would get significantly different things out of the poem. The problem is that this is not because of different viewpoints, but because of different viewing material. If two people have disagreeing views on the author's points, that disagreement may arise from the author editing the points, and not from the two people actually disagreeing with each other.
There are those that promote editing, however. There are a few reasons for this. The first is that, obviously, editing allows you to fix grammar and sentence structure. I am a writing tutor, so it should come as no surprise to you that I find good & proper grammar attractive in an article. I will sometimes post a comment on another site, find out that I misspelled a word, and I'll be depressed about it for days because I can't fix it. This also applies very much to me because I have very iffy internet settings, so I often write my posts in a bit of a hurry in an attempt to get them done before my own personal online cataclysm (i.e. losing a post) happens. And when you write in a hurry, chances are your grammar suffers. Another reason people like editing is that it sort of takes the pressure off. (Some) people don't feel like they have to labor over a post for hours upon hours to make sure it's absolutely perfect in every way and will never need revisions. Yet another reason people may appreciate the edit feature is that they view posts sort of like writing papers for school. You start with a draft, get some feedback, and make revisions. Using the argument example, the author views the destruction of their argument as feedback, and changes the post to make it better with revision suggestions under their belt.
|Some people view the edit feature as a peaceful garden paradise which makes blogging easier all around.|
So, in which case do you think using the edit feature is acceptable? Do you think it should be reserved only for minor grammar adjustments, and unused otherwise? Should we be willing to view it like an essay, and revise & change things as much as we feel it necessary? Or should we never edit what we've written, leaving as it was when it was first posted for the greatest "purity" (or whatever other reason)?