Apart from the ‘rip it up and start again‘ reset, this blog follows these conventions regarding changes to published blog posts.
Corrections to spelling mistakes and typos are made without any signifier (unless a pedant has pointed out the error in the comments, in which case the commenter be credited).
Corrections that alter the meaning or the facts of a published post will always be sign-posted with a footnote.
The convention, as far as one exists, is to strike out deleted text but I prefer the elegance of a footnote.
Generally, these are avoided, partly for self-discipline – I shouldn’t be putting up blog posts that haven’t been through a modicum of editorial rigour – and partly as an act of self-preservation – every day I look at something I’ve written, I can usually think of something that could be rephrased more elegantly, and if I got into the habit of rewriting blog posts, I wouldn’t have a life off the keyboard.
However, where I can rephrase something to reduce or remove ambiguity, I’ll do so, and place a footnote in the post to record the change.
Corrections to grammar will be highlighted only if made for disambiguation purposes.
Open door: The readers’ editor asks: ‘Whose content is it anyway?’ – The Guardian’s readers’ editor post about The Guardian’s own policy on changes to web content.