Jump to content

The site-generated text at the bottom of posts


GreysonWulffe

Recommended Posts

The site-generated text at the bottom of the post can be rather confusing.

  • They are of the default text size, so they are usually the same text size as the rest of the post.
  • They follow the text of the post immediately, so they look like part of the post.

 

To illustrate, this is an example of how it might look like if I edited a post:

Edited Post

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis pharetra vestibulum porttitor. Integer placerat, metus a mattis blandit, ligula felis aliquam felis, at tincidunt sem libero ac nulla. Ut eget justo a nulla rutrum scelerisque. Nullam iaculis odio vel ipsum auctor lacinia vitae sed ante. Ut ut vulputate leo. Quisque a quam nisi. Sed ut vehicula erat. Integer volutpat eu dolor vel viverra. Suspendisse sollicitudin hendrerit odio nec convallis.

Edited some time ago by GreysonWulffe

 

 

My suggestion is to introduce some separation between the text of the post and the site-generated text at the bottom. This might make the overall aesthetic tidier and more organized, certainly easier to understand at a glance.

 

To illustrate, this is how I'm imagining an edited post might look like:

Edited Post

Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Duis pharetra vestibulum porttitor. Integer placerat, metus a mattis blandit, ligula felis aliquam felis, at tincidunt sem libero ac nulla. Ut eget justo a nulla rutrum scelerisque. Nullam iaculis odio vel ipsum auctor lacinia vitae sed ante. Ut ut vulputate leo. Quisque a quam nisi. Sed ut vehicula erat. Integer volutpat eu dolor vel viverra. Suspendisse sollicitudin hendrerit odio nec convallis.

 


Edited some time ago by GreysonWulffe

 

Thanks a lot for your development efforts and your consideration. 😊

Link to comment
Share on other sites

yes, we just need 1 alert saying the post has been edited. not 1 at the top and 1 at the bottom of our post.

People are going to Edit, this is a given, we dont need to be yelled at when we do 🤣

  • having it at the top, IMO, is the best place, 

Posted September 16 - Edited September 16 by Tsunami1768 (reason.....)

 

bam, i know i read from the top to the bottom, lol.. jk 🤪🤣😁

Edited by Tsunami1768 (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...
  • 1 month later...

I think the edit notice is still too big, too eye-catching, too close to the post content, and too bold. In PlotDevice's post two posts up, the edit notice with the edit reason takes up almost as much space as the actual post and is far more bold and eye-catching.

 

There is already edit information in the mouse-over. If I had my wish, I'd push all the edit info (editor, time, date, and reason) into the mouse-over pop-up and just have a as-tiny-as-is-readable "Edited" at the very bottom of the post.

Edited by Butchern (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Butchern said:

I think the edit notice is still too big, too eye-catching, too close to the post content, and too bold. In PlotDevice's post two posts up, the edit notice with the edit reason takes up almost as much space as the actual post and is far more bold and eye-catching.

 

There is already edit information in the mouse-over, if I had my wish, I'd push all the edit info (editor, time, date, and reason) into the mouse-over pop-up and just have as tiny as is readable "Edited" at the very bottom of the post.

I'm not going to settle on mouseover being a solution because it doesn't support mobile. However, I am curious: what mouseover are you speaking of that contains "edit information"? The only mouseover I see is the one that provides the actual datetime for the relative-time "x days/hours ago".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Quote

I'm not going to settle on mouseover being a solution because it doesn't support mobile. However, I am curious: what mouseover are you speaking of that contains "edit information"? The only mouseover I see is the one that provides the actual datetime for the relative-time "x days/hours ago".

That would be it, yes.

Edited by Butchern
broken quote (see edit history)
Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...