To amplify the bullet from here:

Stop using the "Edit:" syntax of forums. We have explicit revision histories on everything, so everything should read as if the best version was the first version. if you see Edit: X hanging around, edit it out to make the content flow more smoothly.

Specifically, we have a revision history. We have a great revision history. Signalling edits is for sites that don't have a revision history. Make your edits flow cleanly in your original post, such that a first time visitor who reads it (the majority of our traffic) doesn't have to apply errata to a post.

Sometimes, Nota Bene (N.B.) instructions to answerers are necessary in a question. But "Addendum" is just a longer word for "edit." At the end of the day, just tacking text onto the bottom of the post is a lazy excuse for not improving a post.

Return to FAQ Index


3 Answers 3


People come here with questions (often from Google) to find answers. They shouldn't have to sort through a pile of "Edit", "Edit 2" amendments to work out what the answer is. There should be a straightforward question, and a straightforward answer.

Consider the case of an answer saying something like this:

The answer is A.

Edit: Considering your edited version of the question, the answer is B.

This is... bad. So we should just edit it to say:

The answer is B.

Remember, we're supposed to be accessible Wikipedia style, so that people can just get these straightforward answers. That's why we can edit, or suggest edits, for every answer and question.

That's why we have this classic diagram, too, where Stack Exchange is the * in the middle:

a Venn Diagram where we're the overlap of a Wiki, Digg/Reddit, a Blog and a Forum


No really, we mean it.

When, in the course of natural events (i.e. not searching specifically for it) you see signs of a poorly edited-in edit, correct it.

And regarding d7's claim about the flamethrower squad being called to deal with threads...

enter image description here
I can only allude to the Dragonriders of Pern, burning Thread.

  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Ha ha we're old \$\endgroup\$
    – mxyzplk
    Commented Feb 5, 2015 at 13:26

I'll check the highest scoring posts containing "edit:" once in a while and do a couple of quick edits...

  • \$\begingroup\$ Only 586 results! Woop \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 12:25
  • \$\begingroup\$ Yeah... This often happens in the course of helping a new asker clarify their question (since new askers are more likely to use "edit:" syntax), and there's a natural tendency to avoid minor edits when it's already being edited a lot. And then it falls off the front page and gets forgotten about. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 15:42
  • \$\begingroup\$ I think taking high-scoring, older and/or traffic-generating posts should be given priority in this little cleanup. The above search-and-sorts was the quickest method of getting a list like that. If you have any other priority lists please add them. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 15:44
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ No, I have no objections! You're doing good work already, I can see from the review queue. :) That was just a comment on the sheer quantity; I hadn't realised it was so out of hand. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 15:45
  • \$\begingroup\$ Where can I find this review queue? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 15:47
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ When you suggest an edit it enters a queue for suggested edits review that 2k+ rep users can access. (There's also a couple of queues you get access to at 500 rep.) \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 16:02
  • 4
    \$\begingroup\$ Oh, a request: when you're editing out the "edit:" notes, can you take a few extra seconds to glance over the comments and see if they're obsolete (now answered by the question, etc.)? If so, flagging the first now-obsolete comment is plenty to signal a mod that they can all be cleaned up. Obsolete comments and old "edit:" notes co-occur a lot. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 16:07
  • \$\begingroup\$ It's like you read my mind. I just asked this question. \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 16:09
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ If deleting a comment poiting out something which was then added as an edit to the question, maybe add a note in the answer: "as pointed out by [thatuser]", or just "(credits to [thatuser])". Making it seem like it was the answerer original idea somehow doesn't seem right \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 11, 2014 at 17:20
  • \$\begingroup\$ Great work, but in the future try not to do too many at once; it can push actual new content off the "active" page. Spacing it out over a longer time is more onerous, but helps keep new content visible. \$\endgroup\$
    – BESW
    Commented Apr 12, 2014 at 0:53
  • \$\begingroup\$ If you need to see new content, can't you use the newest-sorting instead? \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 12, 2014 at 7:09
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ that works for new questions but not for new answers to old questions \$\endgroup\$
    – Wibbs
    Commented Apr 13, 2014 at 11:01
  • \$\begingroup\$ That makes sense. I understand \$\endgroup\$ Commented Apr 13, 2014 at 13:55

You must log in to answer this question.

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