15 replies to this topic 4 votes

[warwagon]

Post version numbers based on how many times the post gets edited.

This is something I was thinking about the other night. It's just something more fun than anything else. What I was thinking about was adding version numbers to posts which would vary by how many times the posts get edited. For instances.

When someone first makes a post the post would be Version 1.0.

The next part could happen 1 of 2 ways. Either every time they click "Save changes" button after editing a post the version number then gets changed to 1.1, 1.2, 1.3 and so on.

Or (and I think this better) it would look at how much of the post the user actually changed. If the user replaces every word in the post and starts again, the version number would go from 1.0 to 2.0. If the user only changed half of what was said before, it would go from 1.0 to 1.5.

If the user only changed 1 word in the post it would go from 1.0 to 1.01, you get the idea.

Just something I was thinking about. I just thought it would be cute.

Note: Or it could use the Firefox version numbering system, when the user changes just 1 word the version number goes from 1.0 to 2.0 <------- That was a Firefox joke and not a serious suggestion.

[-Alex-]

When I saw 'warwagon', I shouldn't've carried on reading

[morphen]

uh.


v1.1

eh...

[+Phouchg]

Quite limiting. There should be known ways to also denote public betas (for those cases when Post button moves in front of the cursor), RCs (when you think it's done but it's not) and, down the road, service packs (where you come later and actually read your own post or as a response to general community outrage). And most definitely day-one DLCs.

And Patch Tuesdays as a subscriber-exclusive feature - allowing to edit any posts that one still wants to "support" on the second Tuesday of each month!

[Glassed Silver]

cralias, on 12 February 2012 - 23:40, said:

Quite limiting. There should be known ways to also denote public betas (for those cases when Post button moves in front of the cursor), RCs (when you think it's done but it's not) and, down the road, service packs (where you come later and actually read your own post or as a response to general community outrage). And most definitely day-one DLCs.

And Patch Tuesdays as a subscriber-exclusive feature - allowing to edit any posts that one still wants to "support" on the second Tuesday of each month!

Cool... super extended support xp-style!!!

You trolled so hard and got me laughing so much, thank you for that.

That joking aside, I find warwagon's idea actually really cool...

Glassed Silver:mac

[deactivated_]

I kind of liked the idea.

[scaramonga]

Bored? are we?

[Marshall]

It seems your ideas are just as bad as your jokes.

[warwagon]

While I was editing my front page comment over and over, adding and fixing some things, this came to mind again.

I was thinking about how, if this was implemented, my first post in the "Windows passwords easily guessed by 25-GPU server" front page article would be at v2.5 by now

If I ever get my own forum, i'm totally going to try to figure out how to do this!

[qdave]

Interesting idea but not really useful. Let say if you see someones post @ 2.0 or 1.5, how would that matter if you havent seen his 1.0 version.

[warwagon]

qdave, on 10 December 2012 - 02:53, said:

Interesting idea but not really useful. Let say if you see someones post @ 2.0 or 1.5, how would that matter if you havent seen his 1.0 version.

It would (In a fun and geeky way, only a tech site could appreciate) tell you how many times that person has edited the original post (Regardless if you saw the original or not)

Oh and here would be another great feature.

If the name of the thread has "Chrome" or "Firefox" in the title, then any small edit made to a post inside the thread would result in a major version number increase!

[Andrew Lyle]

Or have a link to a list of edits for which time, and maybe a record of the original post before the edit? That would work better than version numbers.

[warwagon]

I think this would be more for the person who actually read the first post. Right now it's kind of hard to tell if someone edited a post. But if you read version 1.0 and came back later and the post said 1.5 then there might be something he added that you want to re read.

[Growled]

Marshall, on 13 February 2012 - 00:44, said:

It seems your ideas are just as bad as your jokes.

At least he is consistent.

[wrack]

I quite like the idea but I think to keep it simple just a simple increment would do rather than matching how close to the previous post, the new post is.