Timeline for Should there be a limit on the number of edits a single post generates?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
24 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:32 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:07 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @DanBron no sweat. 10 edits even 20 edits is OK over one or two days, it's when you have users who edit 30 or more times in a restricted space of time, or last night's tug of war, a spectacle which I had never witnessed before on EL&U. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 17:03 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @Mari-LouA Let me think about it. I personally worry because I'm one of the most prolific post-editors here. I won't link to it because the "edit summary roll-up" will hide the details I need to make my point, but yesterday I ended up editing a post 10 times in like an hour, which was specifically designed to be a throw-away post used to illustrate a different point. But I think I can make an attempt at an answer here anyway. Give me some time. | |
| Mar 21, 2016 at 16:53 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @DanBron what do you think? Should I revamp/edit this post. Or maybe you could answer it? There should be a realistic limit imposed. The debacle of last night was ridiculous. A total of 34 rollbacks, we even had users/mods from different sites. No effect whatsoever. | |
| Mar 11, 2016 at 16:45 | answer | added | Adam Hayes | timeline score: 4 | |
| Mar 5, 2016 at 19:05 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | And the user in question has deleted the post because....? It's a shame because there were some good valid points but they all got swamped by reels of reflections and exceptions. | |
| Mar 4, 2016 at 22:43 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @BiscuitBoy 62 edits... | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 19:03 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @Mari-LouA Oh good, I'm glad. I was sweating a bit thinking about how I'd have to modify my editorial process! | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 19:01 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @DanBron if the first one had been a question I think I would have felt bemusement. As it is, I don't remember being annoyed at all by that post, it's well-presented and very readable. The second answer has a piffling 8 edits and I really liked it. But perhaps most importantly, they both answer the questions. They don't lose focus. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 18:50 | comment | added | Dan Bron | @Mari-LouA Hmm. Take a look at the edit history of this old answer of mine, or this one, and let me know if my overzealous editing would have annoyed you, or if you remember being annoyed at the time. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 18:48 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @DanBron of course if there are typos, or you see after a day or after a week that something you wrote could be better rewritten then that's perfectly fine. I repeat, when a post is edited forty times in one day, and chunks of text is continually added, or deleted, or completely revised then maybe... maybe there should be a limit to the number of edits any post can be submitted to. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 18:48 | answer | added | anongoodnurse | timeline score: 6 | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 18:44 | comment | added | Dan Bron | But just to be clear, I answer because I find the subject matter interesting; I don't care about rep at all. I like to know that people have seen my work, but the number next to my name means nothing to me. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 18:43 | comment | added | Dan Bron | I'm one of the offending users, I think. If it helps in any way, I can share my own motivations. In short, when I come across a question I find interesting, I post a short answer just to get it up, but then I kind of fall down a rabbit hole of research, and as link leads to link, I keep finding more and more interesting stuff which I think is pertinent and would make the answer more comprehensive. I'm not a laconic man. And then, of course, I'm also the worst proof-reader in the world, so on top of that there's copy-editing to rectify embarrassing gaffes, and wordsmithing to improve flow... | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 17:56 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @terdon well it keeps bumping up the question for one thing. But... if the majority do not find it irksome, or even slightly annoying then that's fine by me. I'll just have to refrain myself from commenting on their post. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 15:43 | comment | added | BiscuitBoy | I think I just found out what this is all about! And oh my word, the post in question (the answer with 58 edits and counting!) could be converted to an e-book! :O | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 15:39 | comment | added | terdon | What problem are you trying to solve? I mean, what does it matter if they edit their questions incessantly? Do you object to these edits spamming the front page? Could you add the reasons you dislike these edits to your question? | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 15:04 | comment | added | Mitch | It sounds to me like the editor has a fear of the system not backing up, so they save constantly. Just comment on the OP that SE saves constantly so there's no need to keep pressing save, just press save when you're mostly finished. (that is, I don't think we should burden the SE developers with this as a change request). | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 12:59 | answer | added | user140086 | timeline score: -2 | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 11:52 | answer | added | Lawrence | timeline score: 7 | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 11:43 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | @Josh61 did I moan about this already? Must be some time ago. Agreed that edits should not change the essence of a question, but that is a different matter. A person can make a single edit and change a question completely, I'm specifically referring to an excessive number of edits. Endless edits describes this perfectly, by the way. :) | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 11:37 | comment | added | user66974 | I've not noticed these endless edits , but I remember you already complained about it somewhere, some time ago. I don't know if there should be a limit, but I guess that, as far as questions are concerned, their real nature should not be changed drastically to avoid existing answers appear unrelated. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 10:41 | comment | added | Mari-Lou A | Please don't ask me to name and shame anyone. If you haven't noticed then obviously you're not bothered by it. The users in question are not trolls or in any way abusive. They're just users who care about their posts. | |
| Mar 3, 2016 at 10:26 | history | asked | Mari-Lou A | CC BY-SA 3.0 |