Editing And The Internet

(With the Top 100 thing I have hit on a way that I can satisfy my revisionist urges without revising anything, and still giving people something new to read. So this thread isn't meant to be specifically about that.)

DEAR GOD, YES. I've been on the web for almost 5 years (August being the start of year #6), and I've spent way too much time reorganizing / editing / formatting old HTML files. And then I go read them - "Dear God, this isn't too good; what the hell am I doing?"

Someone teach me fancy SQL/Java tricks so's I can just simplify my dilemma. (Josh, I LUST after your website script files.)

Couldn't you have an "old" version archived, and also have a revised version? That way if people don't like Greedo shooting first, they can go back to the old version and see what you originally thought.

i think the 'keeping it as it was' is the best way. temptation to edit yes, but best resisted. for example, that 100 you did was a snapshot *at that time*, changing it seems a bad idea. why not do an article revisiting the original list, and going through what you'ld change, and why.

often, the things that i like reading, listening to, whatever, they might go back and edit that and change it now, because they've changed, and what was good about something may be lost. i think its like those endless best albums ever lists that come out, its interesting to see older ones that have definitely maybe and ok computer and urban hymns on, records that have dropped down. those lists were trying to show a 'best ever!', but showed a 'best ever!' as perceived at a certain amount in time

however, on the other hand, the internet is different to print media, maybe the rules should be different

Well OK here would be my plan - I want to reformat the old entries cos they look horrible. So I would reprint them as is but then pair each one on a two-column page with a new review of another single (probably non-90s), reflecting on or expanding on or disagreeing with the stuff I was talking about in the original entry, and maybe being a bit more honest sometimes about why I said what I did. Does that make sense?

doesn't the internet archive fuck with yr plans to permantly erase?

Hmm I see what you mean Tom, but I think if you were going to change articles in any way that it would need to be A New Article. Something like Tom Looks Back And Comments, rather than Tom Changes The Whole Slant Of Things. I don't think that is the way forward for writing new things though. A new article spinning off from old ideas and how they have changed it good - constantly um, addenuems (? Oh I wish I wasn't thick) uh.. oh forget it I am too thick to even use English, but you know what I mean.

It's a noble goal there, Tom (I'd make a variety of adjustments on my own list), but think of it as a snapshot of where you're at at the time. Opinions can change -- and consider our dear lord and patron saint. C. Eddy, who even in the first edition of _Stairway to Hell_ talked in the afterword about changes he realized he would have made with another revision.

I'm thinking Nicole and Sarah have it right -- don't delete/revise/hide away, but prep up another wholly new series of THORTS. Which will be entertaining and groovy. :-)

I have, I admit, long since wondered about doing a 'best of' *eighties* albums -- but that would be about 1000 discs long, I bet.

I wish I could edit some stuff that I have forgotton the password to.