Add "Reason for editing" field on edit entry page

[zaluzianskya]

Title:
Add "Reason for editing" field on edit entry page

Area:
entries

Summary:
You know that "reason for editing" field we have when we edit comments? It's awesome! I think it would be even awesomer if we had it for entries, also.

Description:
This idea came to me when editing a list in another journal I share with someone; every time one of us edits the entry, we also include the date it was edited and the reason at the bottom of the post. But, well, I am a ditz and sometimes I forget. I think it would be a lot easier to remember if there were a separate field where a reason could be put in for editing the post.

Poll #4643 Add "Reason for editing" field on edit entry page

Open to: Registered Users, detailed results viewable to: All, participants: 76

View Respondents

This suggestion:

View Answers

Should be implemented as-is.
23 (30.3%)

Should be implemented with changes. (please comment)
34 (44.7%)

Shouldn't be implemented.
9 (11.8%)

(I have no opinion)
9 (11.8%)

(Other: please comment)
1 (1.3%)

Comments

[0jack]

I would like it if something like this were opt-in. Some of my journals, I don't care if I edit, because it's for my own benefit. Others, where I provide information to people, it's important to note if I've made a mistake and changed it. If I have posted and then find out that I've written in the wrong herb, in spite of my error checking, I'd like people to know that I made a mistake. I would love some form of errata notification and documentation.

[ratcreature]

I'd be okay with this if it wasn't the same as the comment editing field, i.e. as long as the editing of entries can also be invisible, so that there was no editing notice with an editing date like with comments when you edit them. I want to be able to fix typos and such without a date notice in entries.

[kahtyasofia]

I agree that it needs to be an opt-in feature. If I edit for a typo, I don't care to advertise that, nor do I want journals I read cluttered by distractions like that. It's a useful feature, though, when need-to-know info is affected or the status of something from the original post has changed.

I really hate the editing field in comments. It's far too 'in-your-face'. Or more accurately, it seems to be frighteningly prominent in certain journal styles, while perhaps not quite as much in others.

[travelingmonkey]

I agree with ratcreature, as long as we can choose whether we want to use it, and whether we went it to display, then yeah, not a bad idea.

[pauamma]

How many should be kept, if not just the last as for comments? (You sound like you want/need more than that.)

Would they appear inside the text of the entry (in which case there's no limit to how many are kept, other than the entry size limit) or as metadata, like they are for comments? (The "edited on" and "reason for edit" field labels are only translatable if the history is stored as metadata, so the "inside entry text" option also has downsides.)