I would like to hear your take on this topic: do you work on updating old posts?
While writing the review of “Homegoing” by Yaa Gyasi I realized that my style of writing book reviews changed a lot compared to my first year of blogging – “The Circle” by Dave Eggers was my first book review.
In the past I slightly updated some book reviews (changed the cover image, added sub-titles), but I did not work on a full transformation (text, images, formatting).
There was a case when I considered updating a post to add information about a new book from the series. In that situation I chose to work on a bigger update of the post and I re-posted it.
(+) the pros
On the one hand, I see the utility of updating posts and increasing their quality. When someone reads a book review, (s)he does not care whether it was written at the beginning of your blogging journey or after having a lot of experience. If the quality of the post is not satisfying, there are chances that the reader will just close the window.
Also, it might happen that your opinion on the topic / book changes. If a book was great at a certain moment in the past and now you feel “meh” about it, should you update the book review to reflect your current view?
(-) the cons
On the other hand, I see blogging as a way of documenting a journey – in my case, a reading journey. Therefore it is normal to have different levels of quality of the blog posts, it provides insights into how the person grew as blogger.
In addition to that, I consider that a review written while the book is still fresh in your mind offers a more genuine opinion than a review written few months / years after reading the book. And in case of re-reading the book and having a different feeling about it, you can write a new review – I can imagine reviews written for the same book, for example one by a fresh M.Sc. graduate (2015) and another by a senior manager (2025).
What’s your take on this topic? Do you update only some types of posts?
‘Till next time … happy blogging!
Cover image by Eiko Ojala