I was just visiting collegeboard.org, and now you can rank how important choices are in picking a college. (I used it pick the colleges) Using the new system, I get totally different schools for my characters. Should I use the new system, or stick to my original plan?
I’m sorry, what now?
My attempt at interpolation:
etv78 is writing a story. Some characters are or have been students at various colleges, and he used an online tool to determine which schools each character would have gone to, based on filling out a questionnaire from that character’s perspective. The tool has since been upgraded, and now gives different recommendations, so he’s trying to decide whether to make the new results the rule (canon) of the story.
Assuming that’s a correct read of the question, etv, I’d say the answer depends on how the characters, in character, chose their schools. Did they actually use an online tool themselves? If so, they would have gotten the same results you originally got for them, and followed those recommendations. In that case, I would leave their backgrounds unchanged. If, on the other hand, you’re just using it as a shortcut to represent the characters researching the various schools and picking the best fit, I’d suggest retconning their choices.
Thanks balance. Both for translating my post into coherence, and your advice. They didn’t cannonically use the site, but their choices reflect the site.
Still, the confusion is what made an old First Edition 6th-level assassin/cleric I once played so awesome.
“If I can’t stab you in the back, I’ll cannonize you”.
School of Artillery in Nashik, India.
That’s the ticket.
“Consult the book of Armaments!”
I was trying to hint gently, but perhaps a shot across the bow is more appropriate.
Apparently this is a common error suddenly – see this recent, rival Naval Canons post.
Twitch indeed. No offense intended to particular posters, but the general prevalence of this error on the Internet makes me feel like delivering a broadside.
broadside
noun
[ul]
[li]the simultaneous firing of all the guns on one side of a warship[/li][li]a vigorous or abusive attack in words, esp. in a newspaper[/li][li]a large sheet of paper printed on one side, as with a political message [/li][/ul]
The broadside of a barn! Who knew barns had cannons!? I like this alot.
Went to collegeboard, did some finagling, may end up changing canon. Could be interesting.
(Points to notes) This is my canon.
(Points to schlong) This is my cannon.
(Points to notes) This is for book writing,
(Points to schlong) This is for . . .
Damn it, nothing good rhymes with cannon.
[hijack continued]Blame it on “canon”'s latinate pronunciation, where an English speaker may expect short-“a” to be followed by a double consonant.
Y’know, IMO the rise of online communication is going to eventually lead to the next great reshuffling of how the languages are spelled and punctuated, perhaps comparable to the grammatical standardization that came after the development of printing. As people increasingly publish directly to the world at large, with no editorial filter (or at best blindly relying on autocorrect/spellcheck), words written the way they think they’re written, acceptability of common practice may eventually overwhelm prescriptivists. We may be just a few years away before “hypocracy” becomes an acceptable alternative to “hypocrisy”, and not much farther from when “to”, “two” and “too” will all meld.
[/hijack]
Anyone whose story has a cannon needs a different caliber of editors, IMO. 
Closed at request of OP.