The question is: Have the DJ staff considered adding an update feature which would allow the readers at large to know a story has been updated, and/or when it was last updated.
In looking over some of the articles I and other CJ'ers have written, many of them lend themselves to updates on the original story.
The updates might be at random or perhaps only once, but include the newest or just more information for an ongoing story.
The ongoing issue in Zimbabwe is one of those stories which won't be over any time soon.
I can forsee some problems in the process, such as the never ending updates on a story. Limits to the number of updates might bve needed.
The issue of where to place the information, and the list goes on, but updates would allow for a story to progress in a linear stream fashion rather than being a series of separate puddles of information.
Hmmm ... it would be an interesting idea if someone were updating their own article. But I see ongoing events – such as Zimbabwe – more as links in a chain or different viewpoints of the same or different events within the larger crisis.
Some if not all will group an update to their first report.
On your profile page there is at the top in aqua a place that says "Alerts" you can click on there and put in any subject that you want to be informed about when something new is written about that subject.
I do not think so skeptikool. Some of the best discussions came from dissenting opinion. What brings threads to a close is when a person, who happens to dissent, thinks they are more intelligent for thier dissenting opinion, thus finds it imparative to tell everyone how much beneath them they are. In which case I would assert that perhaps too many DJers have problems with twits. =)
Gar I think it is agood idea, just needs tweeking. I am sure the big brains would be able to find a way to put the concept into practice.
It'd be terrific if DJ can implement an "auto-feature" that will add to the post the newest time-date stamp on an update from the article's author. For the sake of the record, I think it's good to have a policy of first displaying the time-date on the original post, followed by
Updated 2008-06-26 08:27 -0400
...or whatever, you get the idea.
