I think it would be useful to add a strike through formatting code. Sometimes I make a mistake in my post that someone else corrects in a reply, and it would be handy to acknowledge the error without erasing it (because erasing stuff that is replied to is confusing to read later on).

I don't know how hard this would be to add, although it seems like it ought to be trivial.

Actually, I believe reading stike-throughs would not only be equally confusing, but unprofessional, as well. You can always edit your post, and add "Corrected information" as the reason for editing.

I had in mind using the strike through in addition to saying "corrected information", to more clearly show what the changes are.

I understand what you're suggesting (and clearly, Jeremy has the final say on changes; I'm just another member), but the problem I see is that everyone makes mistakes, and with over 400k members around the globe, if everybody started striking through their mistakes instead of correcting them, LQ would very quickly start looking like a scratch-pad instead of a help forum.

I can see an argument for scratch through:
---
Q: Hey, I'm having problems with Fantastic Program Version 3.0 actually 2.7

A: That's easy, you need to edit the thingamabob.

Q: Woops, that's actually Version 2.7 (I also edited the post.)

A: In that case, change this other thing here.
---

hmm. Best practice would be to update the thread with a new post anyway if it's a major edit. Quote yourself or something.

titanium_geek

Well I don't think it would be that bad. Members can already change the colour, size, and font of their text, but generally this isn't abused all that much.

I'd also like to have strike-through myself. There have been many times when I wanted to "cross out" something I wrote without actually deleting it. The big benefit to using strike-through is that you can make it very clear at a glance exactly which parts of the text have been changed, such as the with version number example above. As it is now, I have to take extra time and care to edit the text in a way that points out the changes clearly.

And to say that such a function would be widely abused in a technical forum like this is certainly an exaggeration. It's definitely preferable to have struck-out text over having parts of posts completely erased or altered without explanation in any case.

It's good HTML, it can make things clearer, why not?

hehehe

It was also just an opinion...

Cheers

The last time I checked a single strike through is the accepted way in a lab notebook to modify information (which is supposed to be entered in ink!). This allows the correct info to be entered while still being able to view the original. Other than minor typos, I have largely tried to follow this same philosophy when editing my posts on LQ. (Assuming the post has been up for a while. I have no qualms about an "immediate" edit to correct something I should have seen before submitting.) Frequently I do this by adding an "EDIT:" section at the bottom of the post, leaving the original intact. But there have been times when it made more sense to me to put the edit inline with the original. Lacking strike-through capability I have done this with a red parenthetical comment. In situations like that I think strike-through would be useful to have. Done correctly, I see nothing unprofessional about it. Of course, each member is responsible for the professional -- or lack thereof -- quality to his/her posts. Addition of this capability would not change that.

(In the above paragraph, I didn't manage to find a way to smoothly fit in the reason for leaving the original post in place. This is to avoid confusion after other people may have already responded to the post, or even if somebody reads the post, leaves and perhaps does not re-read it when they comeback. Leaving the original content in place just seems to me to be both the intellectually honest and courteous thing to do. A thread is a record of a conversation, not a final draft of a published article.)

EDIT: That said, I believe the ability to edit should be kept.

Thanks, blackhole54, for the eloquent statement of of the case for strikethrough. I agree / second the motion.

And that is where the "over 400k members" part comes into play. How many times have we seen posts labeled "HELP!!!" or URGENT!!!", or problems that were nothing more than a rant that included no helpful information, despite the numerous "How to post a question" posts and links found all over LQ? Hell, I've even seen, on several occasions, where the OP completely deleted their question, and replaced it with something similar to "Nevermind- got it fixed" and left no details whatsoever. You and I would know how to use strike-throughs properly, but.....

And I agree. Many times, I too have left the original in place and added the EDIT below. All depends on the individual circumstance of the post.

I'm not actually arguing against strike-through formatting (as if Jeremy needs my permission )- I'm simply providing a counter-opinion concerning how it could be abused, and how LQ will appear in such a case.

Cheers

Damn my eyes! I just figured out what that says!

I'm not saying you're wrong, I'm just saying What if? There are a few things that do get abused here, including Edit...

Cheers

You're not the only one. I still can't see the "s" but I will take it on faith that it is there.

Actually, when I saw something that was difficult to read I just kind of skipped it. At first blush it looked like non-sense so I didn't worry about it. Those people seeking help who post in *highly* non-standard English (I am not talking about those whose first language is not English) might want to take that to heart if they really want to get their problems solved. I suppose some of that usage has a place in text messaging (whatever *that* is ) but, IMHO, it doesn't have a place on forums like LQ. At least not if they want help from those of us who remember punch cards!

A strike BB code has been added:

strikethrough

Thanks for the feedback.

--jeremy