Just this morning I changed some text to the last post about the cartoon. I felt a line or two wasn’t worded properly, so I changed it. Being as that text was of little import, it was just an intro to  a cartoon and no one is likely to quote that particular piece of drivel anyway, I don’t see any harm in revising it.

On the other hand is the case of an article to which I might like to add some corroborating information. It was published a few weeks ago, and I’m considering an addendum since I think sometimes people are hesitant to follow links provided in an article because they are in a hurry or fear their ADHD might take over (like me) and get side tracked from the topic at hand.

While pondering the addendum, I was reminded of a post over at Little Miss Attila’s place last year where she discussed some basic guidelines of blogging, and was wondering if what follows would be an acceptable form of revision rather than a re-write and/or re-publish of the article under another title or an additional piece referencing the original article, which would split them up.

For the sake of this example, I’ll use some Lorem Ipsum text:

——————————-

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Robot blathering on about something or another. Aliquam rhoncus justo in nisl dapibus sed dapibus libero auctor. Curabitur tincidunt posuere augue, ut cursus urna iaculis vel. Blather blather blather. Vestibulum viverra, ligula eget mollis aliquet, arcu orci venenatis dolor, quis aliquet quam nunc tempor felis. Sed bibendum arcu as noted in the article in The American Spectator:

This will be the added quote from the article previously linked but not quoted. Sed porttitor accumsan erat a sodales. Integer luctus dictum posuere. Proin gravida blandit nibh id fringilla. Pellentesque ut cursus nisl. Donec ultrices facilisis imperdiet. Fusce condimentum justo sed dui blandit eleifend.

Article continues verbosely meandering along…

————————–

As in the example above, the previous article is in the original text’s color and the new text will be in some color designated at the end of the article as addendum. No other changes other than whatever verbiage is necessary to include the new quote(s) in a readable manner. As mentioned earlier, the only reasons to include the quote(s) is, I feel it will help the validity of the original arguments and possibly entice some readers to actually follow the links they may not be inclined to do otherwise.

Any thoughts pro or con?

How do you handle such things at your blog?

Oh, and in case your wondering, the post I’m considering adding the quotes to is the one on treason from President’s Day.

UPDATE: Changed the words “This will be the added quote from the article previously referenced.” to “This will be the added quote from the article previously linked but not quoted.” in an attempt to clarify.

Comments
  • Woodsterman March 18, 2011 at 10:28 am

    I’m usually pretty savvy about this stuff, but I can’t for the life of me figure out what your question is.

    • Linda March 18, 2011 at 2:26 pm

      I’m glad it’s not just me Woodster. I couldn’t quite follow. The gist seems to be a worry about making changes post-publishing, which makes me feel kinda guilty.

      Because I make minor changes to my posts after publishing all the daggum time. If it’s due to a comment then I use line drawout or “UPDATE.”

      But if it’s unlinked and the change would not render any comments obsolete, then I just change it without notification. I’m rather OCD about editing after publication–for clarification, smoother rhythm/aesthetics, or second thoughts about snark level.

  • robot March 18, 2011 at 11:03 am

    I’m questioning the proper way of revising or adding quotes to a previously published article.

    Sorry if I’m not clear with my question, Odie. I’m trying to blog and work at the same time and that may make for some incoherent ramblings.

  • Christopher March 18, 2011 at 11:04 am

    Bot,

    If you are speaking about creating or making a quote out of a previously published article where one did not exist there is nothing wrong about that so long as the wording itself remains unaltered.

    Another way to achieve folks to link to the piece in question is to make the entire title of the article in question a hot link. That of course depends on just how catchy or eye-grabbing the title is.

    Just some thoughts,,,

  • Jake_G March 18, 2011 at 1:17 pm

    My concern is that I never really put the thought into this situation, which opens up a whole host of inadequencies that I feel in regards to my blog, and how I should tend to it better.
    I would keep it in the original, and not split up, and avoid a complete revision. You’re still conveying the proper information w/o creating a process that becomes too cumbersome for yourself, ie rewrite of the whole article.
    Did I answer the question? Or am I floating in the same boat as Odie?

  • Martin March 18, 2011 at 1:26 pm

    I’ve used most of the options that you’ve discussed. If there’s enough for a new post, I post a new post as an addendum.

    If it’s a small redaction, I’ll use a strike-through and some new color text to indicate the change.

    If there’s a bit of new information, I’ll put it at the bottom with a bold Addendum: and whatever additional paragraph is needed.

    Finally, when in doubt, I go and visit a really excellent blog like MNR and see what they have done.

  • robot March 18, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    @Christopher, yes, I’m speaking of updating one of my previous posts with quotes from material referenced. As far as others linking to it, I don’t think I can influence that except to put out quality stuff, which thankfully every now and then someone links to me even in the absence of it. 🙂

    @Jake, nope, you got it. That is the direction I’m heading, with an UPDATED headline and an explanation at the end.

    @Martin, You are far too kind. 🙂

    @Linda, You get it even through my obtuse description.

    @All, Thanks for the feedback.

    Sideways from this subject: I can’t imagine what the bigger guys go through when they want to retract something after they drunkenly hit the post button and a bazillion readers get an email with the entire article pasted in the contents. Glad I’m not that guy. Sobriety doesn’t agree with me. *shudder* 🙂

    • Linda March 18, 2011 at 3:56 pm

      I hadn’t thought about how sloppy I am with my editing process. Dang it. Now I gotta straighten up and fly right, as my mother would say.

      I totally agree about the implications: just one click of the enter button and BAM you’ve potentially shared with the whole world. Didn’t Gilbert Gottfried just lose his AFLAC gig that way?

  • Opus #6 March 18, 2011 at 4:23 pm

    I put in an “edited to add:” just before the new stuff.

    • robot March 19, 2011 at 6:15 am

      Sometimes, simplicity is best, Opie.

  • proof March 18, 2011 at 11:13 pm

    I usually do it in the form of an “update” much as you appended to your post. It sets it off as something not a part of the original, either because I wasn’t brilliant enough to think of it the first time, or because I later found more information.

    • robot March 19, 2011 at 6:18 am

      You could put me in the ‘not brilliant’ category fer sure. ala, as bright as a black hole. 🙂

  • Red March 19, 2011 at 7:07 am

    You’re totally overthinking this ‘bot. If it’s a verbose change, make a new post. If it’s an addendum with a new pull quote, make an update. I get that you would want people to notice if it was an updated post rather than create a whole new post (which you make more work for you trying to make a few points with an already established opinion) but folks who read and comprehend will figure this out as well as your followers. You got nothing to sweat here chum!

    • robot March 19, 2011 at 10:05 am

      Thanks Red. “Overthinking.” It’s my specialty! That is, when I’m thinking at all. 🙂
      I just thought it might make an interesting to see how others handled it.

  • Matt March 19, 2011 at 10:30 am

    I would do an update, label it as such, and put the additional content there…

    UPDATE:

    Blah, blah I found this…

    Quote, blah, blah..Matt is right…blah, blah.

    I blather about how the quote proves my point…blah, blah.

  • […] a really good collection this week.We’re comin’ ta take yer IRISH CARD, laddie!Blogging/Publishing QuestionSaturday Morning Links: The 10 Unusual Things About Google EditionSelf-Ownership and the Right to […]

  • Larry March 20, 2011 at 12:22 am

    If I find a better way of saying what I already said (which happens pretty often, in fact) I just change it, but if it’s new information I’ll put an UPDATE: and the new information.
    If it’s something I added in the main body because it flows better, I’ll just add an “Updated to add xxx” at the end.
    Not that anyone reads my scribbles anyway, but there it is.

  • Say it. Don't Spray it!

    Threaded commenting powered by interconnect/it code.

    *

Twitter
Categories
Subscribe via email
September 2019
M T W T F S S
« Mar    
 1
2345678
9101112131415
16171819202122
23242526272829
30