Mahmoud mentions an alternative approach that many may find satisfactory.  I have been given feedback, below a document, and separate correspondence for I think another, but my preference for errata and any useful comment(s) I'd like included would be to have them upfront where they might be less likely to be overlooked.  Separate documents are sometimes linked on RG, but they still are separate, as in errata for a hardcopy journal, and I'd like to avoid that, at least for the uses that I have in mind here, but I have taken advantage of an RG feature to link related 'contributions.' 

I think Mahmoud's answer to this question thread is important and useful, and I appreciate all opinions and suggestions.  Thank you all. 

It would be very useful if RG would provide it. I do support your idea, and I would use it, of course dear @James. Separate section is need for such purposes.

Yes, additional comments should be clearly seperated from the original text of the paper. If the paper needs comments to be understood, the paper should be changed. But because we need discussions, please a separate section for this action.

Such section is very useful. I don't think it is needed in RG any more, since separate section is already there!

You can do it in several ways (As I already did):

1- Add any officials Corrigendum, Erratum, etc. as a new publication

2- Use the last item under CONTRIBUTIONS, called RESEARCH FEEDBACK.

I used (1) for adding Corrigendum and Erratum. Also I used (2) to add comments or highlights to some of my publications.

Dear colleagues, I often see this part on RG..."There is one more thing that you must add so that your work may be better understood."  Negative results may be added, Other data/ tables may be added.  But I have to ignore that section.  I have to move to another research work...there is so much that must be done.  (Dear @ James, you can use that section if you wish.  There is no harm at all.  Thanks.)

Dear James,

 I do support your idea that would be very useful if RG would provide it.

All the very best 

Helena

Mahmoud mentions an alternative approach that many may find satisfactory.  I have been given feedback, below a document, and separate correspondence for I think another, but my preference for errata and any useful comment(s) I'd like included would be to have them upfront where they might be less likely to be overlooked.  Separate documents are sometimes linked on RG, but they still are separate, as in errata for a hardcopy journal, and I'd like to avoid that, at least for the uses that I have in mind here, but I have taken advantage of an RG feature to link related 'contributions.' 

I think Mahmoud's answer to this question thread is important and useful, and I appreciate all opinions and suggestions.  Thank you all. 

Of course, it will be useful. If created, I shall use this facility.

James,

In RG, there are already ways to add errata and comments, including as a new publication, as others have replied. However, it does not make much sense to add the extra information as a new publication, if it is short. It may look disconnected too.

One may also think that using the Abstract field for this purpose could be confusing for automation tools (now and in the future).

However, it seems to me  that your suggestion can leverage the benefit of adding the other information "right there" with the paper, without the problems above, if RG adds an "Errata and Comments" section to the Abstract panel itself.

Best regards,

Ed Gerck

Yes, James

I believe that an errata will be useful to all researchers. I have had papers printed with some mistakes in the tipography and many equations. When the author upload the original text to the Researchgate, he could correct these pages.

Walter

Yes I would use it, good idea.

at this platform we can reload the paper with corrections due.

Definitely.

Yes

Yes，I agree。

It's not a bad idea. I think it could find acceptance of many people who place their papers on the RG, Tomasz

Yes

Vilemar, above, provides another possibility: One could withdraw a paper and resubmit it as a new one.  That is possible.  However, for a few minor notes spread out over years, you could end up with several different versions of your paper, and for any one that was first printed in hardcopy, you would need at least two versions active: the original and the latest.  My work was in mathematical statistics, and desired minor changes or corrections are not uncommon.  (Statistics books often collect errata lists, and have new editions, so it seems a good option for papers, as well.) 

I don't think that deleting and resubmitting is the best option for me.  Also, I recall when we had to make corrections to official statistics, so I am cognizant of those messy problems.  -  Also, for RG, it would make the paper read count start over at zero.   :-(  

But I thought I should recognize that Vilemar has noted another option that might be best in some situations.  Actually, I recall using it. 

Thanks.  :-) 

Certainly yes, since, sometimes we create serious typos or other errors.

(Provided that no review is available, we should be able to correct ourselves alone!)

Yes, I would.

Thank you all for your interest.  Please continue to post your responses. 

For your information, I just sent a message to ResearchGate, using the contact webpage.  Here, below, is that message, which I placed under the topic, "Feedback": 

Dear ResearchGate Staff -

A few days ago, I asked the following question of colleagues on ResearchGate:

"Would you use an errata and addendum section if ResearchGate provided one for your uploaded/posted papers?"

It is found at the following location:

 https://www.researchgate.net/post/Would_you_use_an_errata_and_addendum_section_if_ResearchGate_provided_one_for_your_uploaded_posted_papers#56a772a8614325bc3e8b4585

I think you will see that support for this idea appears high enough that you may want to consider this. 

If someone on your staff could also post a reply to this question, it would be much appreciated.

Thank you, and also, thank you for the usefulness of ResearchGate in general, and for all of your efforts, for the advancement of science and research.

Cheers - Jim Knaub

Dear @Jim, please keep us informed via this thread if some response from RG appear. Thanks.

They only confirmed that they received my message. 

James,

I'd use this section, for sure.

Jorge Ortiz

Yes i will

Yes I would.

Dear James, Good initiative/proposal.

Yes I would, despite my wish of  not  needing to use the errata, but the addendum/additional info/data for sure.

Luis

Well, it seems the RG abstract may not be so easily changed now.  I'm not certain.  However, other options responders to this question have noted are still available:  If you have the original file, or a pdf writer ("pro" version of Adobe Acrobat) changes/additions can be made, and substituted at this time without zeroing your 'read' count.  Also, the comment section is available to the author as well as others, and the word "Author" is made prominent when it is an author's comment, say for additional material or errata, as well as responding to others.  ResearchGate has made these options easier to use, and generally more desirable than I anticipated.  I would rather have a separate section for errata and additional material, but i do appreciate what is available ... free to us.   Thanks to all for your responses. -  Cheers.