A recent question has gone through an aggressive and almost continuous revision process even though:
- An answer was posted soon after the question was posted
- OP was reminded several times on this question as well as on previous question to not make extensive changes to questions after people begin to post answers.
- OP asked a similar concurrent question to expand the argument, self-deleted it, then again asked yet another question, which was quickly marked as a duplicate.
- OP then expanded the "centrifugal" argument back under my question again.
I feel that in this case this went way too far, and some kind of clear explanation can be made why this activity (which looks like arguing or debating to me) is not the proper way to use Stack Exchange posts.
Questions should not evolve or morph this extensively.
The edit history of the first three days (90 hours) can be seen there. Here I'll just capture the changes in the title of the question. Kudos for the OP to work hard to maintain the title as a reflection of the current question whatever it happens to be, but this many different titles gives insight into how large and frequent the changes were.
Question: Did the editing of this post go way overboard, like "six-sigma" overboard? If so, how can this be explained in a way that the OP can understand?
edit hours title 26. 88.9 Did von Kármán ever say that the centrifugal force could be ignored for his definition? 25. 85.9 Did von Kármán himself ever use the horizontal line for his definition? 24. 76.5 An airplane at the altitude of the Kármán line can't ignore the centrifugal force, can it? 23. 76.1 An airplane at the altitude of the Kármán line can't ignore the centrifugal force, can he? 22. 75.2 An airplane at the altitude of the Kármán line can't ignore the centrifugal force 17. 73.4 Could the definition of the Kármán line be described considering an airplane in orbit? 16. 51.0 Why, at the altitude of the Kármán line, should a plane have to fly in a straight line? 15. 50.5 Could, at the altitude of the Kármán line a plane fly in a circular orbit? 14. 47.7 Why, at the altitude of the Kármán line would a plane have to fly in a straight line? 13. 45.9 Why at the altitude of the Kármán line will a plane have to fly in a straight line? 11. 39.3 Why should the Kármán line not be a realistic, curved one around the Earth? 10. 24.9 Why should the Kármán line not be a realistic, curve band around the Earth? 9. 24.6 Why should the Kármán line not be a realistic, curved line? 7. 18.4 Why not interpret the Kármán line as a realistic, curved line? 3. 14.4 Potential merits for a realistic definition of the Kármán line? 2. 9.9 * Potential merits of different definition for a Kármán-like line? 1. 0.0 Why not choose a more realistic definition of the Kármán line? * my suggested improved titled wording