Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 157 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

Possible Duplicate:
Is there a way to edit a question without bumping it to the front page?

How feasible and desirable would it be to allow users with some minimal rep—say, 2K? 5K?—to edit their own posts without bumping them?

Often times after reading and responding to a comment on an hour-old answer I'll, being an anal retentive person, re-read my post and correct some defective some grammar or punctuation. Before clicking the save button I sometimes get a queasy feeling that the eyes of the internet are upon me, judging me as a dirty little rep whore for bumping an old post to get some new eyes on it.

How much sense would it make to put in a little check box allowing you to make the edit "silently"—without bumping?

I know there are some odd edge cases where users can potentially write inappropriate things in their own stale posts and then save them without anyone seeing, but surely requiring at least 2K rep would ameliorate that?

share|improve this question

marked as duplicate by Shog9 Dec 28 '11 at 18:05

This question has been asked before and already has an answer. If those answers do not fully address your question, please ask a new question.

surely requiring at least 2K rep would ameliorate that? You'd think that, but unfortunately rep is not a guarantee that someone won't do crazy things. – Adam Dec 28 '11 at 17:38
3 different schools of thought: 1) Make your edits during offpeak hours so nobody is around to make judgments. 2) Make your edits during peak hours so they rapidly fall off the front page due to other activitiy. – Anthony Pegram Dec 28 '11 at 17:40
@AnthonyPegram That's only 2 =) – jadarnel27 Dec 28 '11 at 17:41
@AnthonyPegram Both are a moot point on a smaller site that doesn't see a lot of activity. – Adam Dec 28 '11 at 17:42
@jadarnel27 The third is a school of thought that 3==2 :) – Lorem Ipsum Dec 28 '11 at 17:45
At least once I've seen a user over 10K vandalize his posts before rage-quitting. They would have taken forever to spot unless they were bumped by the edit. – Wesley Murch Dec 28 '11 at 17:49
@jadarnel27, oops. And Anna, I concede that point. I think the argument over a concern that the user could be perceived as a "rep whore" is a non-sequitur. If the edits are legitimate, it's not our problem if someone else perceives them differently. The argument over perhaps not flooding the front page of a slow-moving site, thereby crowding out newer questions, is perhaps legitimate. But then there's the issue of "trusted" users getting away with terrible or even malicious edits, as your comment points out. – Anthony Pegram Dec 28 '11 at 17:50
@AnthonyPegram - non sequitur is a bit strong, isn't it? Perceptions can be important. But I recognize the validity of Shog's answer. I guess I assumed too much about human nature—a rare error for me :) – Adam Rackis Dec 28 '11 at 17:52
I have edited over 900 questions in the past two days. Although I feel somewhat weird having bumped 900+ questions, I haven't received any complaints. I would fancy a feature to allow editing without bumping, but the arguments at this page are stronger ;) – Rob W Dec 28 '11 at 17:56
@Adam, nothing strong intended by it, but the point remains. If illogical conclusions are drawn from legitimate edits, then that's the other person's hangup, you should feel no guilt or uneasiness over it. – Anthony Pegram Dec 28 '11 at 17:57
@AnthonyPegram - fair enough. – Adam Rackis Dec 28 '11 at 18:02
@RobW It's not that big a deal on SO since the front page functions differently than on other sites. You did bump 900 questions to the top of the active questions list, though. :) – Adam Dec 28 '11 at 19:00
@AnthonyPegram In my experience on a smaller site, it's rarely an issue that someone will go through and edit a ton of their own posts. Most edits happen as part of an effort to clean up some part of the site and moderators can warn the editor if they do too much at a time. The whole "flooding the front page" thing is annoying and in some ways an unfortunate limitation, but on the flip side, throttling the number of edits one can do in a short amount of time before they overtake the front page also helps increase the chances that those edits get reviewed. – Adam Dec 28 '11 at 19:03
@RobW Which feature? SO's front page? – Adam Dec 28 '11 at 23:09
up vote 11 down vote accepted

surely requiring at least 2K rep would ameliorate that?

Oh, how I wish that was true...

Here's a scenario I've seen entirely too often: someone says something mean to Ye Olde User, YOU decides that any site on which he might be criticized without due respect isn't the site for him OR HIS AWESOME POSTS, and embarks on a campaign to "remove" them by editing out the text and replacing it with something unhelpful ("screw you guys, I'm going home").

This usually gets caught sooner or later, someone notifies a moderator, the user gets suspended to cool down a bit, and his edits get rolled back. Everyone feels sad and dirty. Life goes on, minus the time wasted by insta-drama-queen...

Disabling bumping means making this harder to detect. Making it harder to detect means more posts vandalized. More vandalized posts, more wasted time cleaning up.

share|improve this answer
+1 - ok. I was wrong. So you mods really get to see a lot of ugly crap, eh? – Adam Rackis Dec 28 '11 at 17:45
poor YOU – Lorem Ipsum Dec 28 '11 at 17:46
Yikes. I had never even considered this case. Gross. – jadarnel27 Dec 28 '11 at 17:55
@Yoda - is there a meme there that I'm not familiar with? – Adam Rackis Dec 28 '11 at 18:01
No reference to ol' SMark intended! – Shog9 Dec 28 '11 at 18:09

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .