4 ms·
> If you design a personal site with HTML and then decide to make a change to your site's template, you have to make changes to every single page of your site.
by cxr 3y ago
> If you design a personal site with HTML and then decide to make a change to your site's template, you have to make changes to every single page of your site.
Unpopular opinion: not only do you not have to do that, you probably shouldn't do that. It's only an unfortunate consequence of déformation professionnelle that people feel compelled to. People treat the Web like it's a sui generis medium. It doesn't have to be.
If you wrote a book (or a pamphlet) and decided to go in a different direction, stylistically, from the house style that was applied in one of your earlier works, would you insist that your entire back catalogue be reissued in the new style (not to mention insist on denying access to the first edition to interested patrons)? If you wouldn't do that, and you wouldn't be happy with an author you admire whose productivity were hampered similarly by an unfortunate decision to focus their attention and efforts on one of the most irrational yak-shaving exercises for a writer to undertake, then you should really reconsider whether you really do need to reissue all your old blog posts in a style that conforms to the fashion of the era in which the newer ones are being published.
PS:
> chronological like a blog to an algorithm designed to maximize engagement or push the platform's agenda
No such algorithm exists. The problem is fundamentally heuristic and not guaranteed to deliver the desired results. It's more appropriate to refer to a (reverse) chronological sorting procedure as an algorithm (because it is one) than it is to use that word when talking about fuzzy recommender systems.
In technical forums, let's not adopt regressive language changes that leak in from popular culture following trends of journalists latching on to words (like "algorithm") just because they sound cool.
- karaterobot 3y ago> would you insist that your entire back catalogue be reissued in the new style That's an interesting point! But I think that many publishers might do that IF it were feasible, which it isn't in print. But it is feasible on the web—feasible, if annoying in those days—and that's why they did it. It's not that the web is sui generis (although...) but rather that it is distinct from print in a few ways, and editability is one of them.
- cxr 3y ago> I think that many publishers might do that IF it were feasible, which it isn't in print. But it is feasible on the web The feasibility for print and the Web are approximately equivalent. > [The Web] is distinct from print in a few ways, and editability is one of them Print doesn't lack editability. Professional editors—people paid to edit things—exist, even. That's what they do: edit—which is something they can do precisely because written material that makes its way to print is editable. I realize at this point you're probably thinking, "Hey, that's not the type of editability I had in mind. You're equivocating. When I said editability, what I was referring to—and what is widely understood, so I'm not sure why we're having trouble here—is [...]"* The Web's editability is a fiction. It's imagined, not real.** If you install a document at example.com/resume in 2022, and then change your server to make sure example.com/resume says something different now in 2023, you haven't "edited" anything.*** What you did is make a new thing. It kind of looks like the first, but it's a new thing. And then you put the new thing up, but you're calling them the same thing. You can also do that in print—you can do a print run of a first edition work, make a bunch of corrections to the material and then call the second print run "Memoirs (1st ed)" rather than "2nd". The difference between print and the Web? People just don't do that. That's it. * I'd like you to think about how you'd actually complete the sentence. Maybe you don't have to think about it—I'm certain that you know exactly what you meant. Then again, even feeling like you know it doesn't mean you actually have words for it (cf. <http://www.paulgraham.com/words.html http://www.paulgraham.com/words.html>). ** at least to the extent that it differs from the kind of editing that we mean when we're talking about written material for print *** again: at least not to the extent that there is a type of "editing" going on here that is precluded by print