i think a big take away from this thread is that people have different perceptions of the meaning and purpose of preprints. Would be curious to understand better what people think in general!

maybe! if the result of this thread is that i am reading arxiv papers wrong i can accept that

i have learned from this thread that this was a hotter take than i was expecting!

i would have regretted saying to anyone on arxiv, in effect: hey look at this work its ready to go and the results are complete

that's true you can version, but by putting it online you are also saying this is ready to now be cited in whatever form its in, which sort of betrays the R&R format

yea that's fair, that seems like a good use case for post publication adjustment

this adds to the more familiar take that early posting risks breaking anonymity, and more significantly, risks biasing reviewers. like if an eminent person (say alan kay) was a co author on something, can you be sure that wouldn't change your opinion of it?

given that CS/HCI is paper-volume happy, why not just do follow up papers? Like, I'd be delighted to see more "we were slightly wrong, here is some updated work"

subjectively, i have gotten some nice feedback that led to genuine improvements at CHI—but i also recognize this is not necessarily the norm

i don't necessarily disagree in general! my commentary is particularly CHI-centric, as CHI now has a required r&r cycle. a reasonable take away here would be that r&r is unnecessary exactly bc of this proclivity.