What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 133 Stack Exchange communities.

Looking at an answer that was "bumped" by a recent edit, I saw that a user with full editing privileges attempted to work around the 30 character minimum by adding the following text:

Body must be at least 30 characters

What a horrible edit! We would be better off just having the short, likely low-quality answer than adding in noise like this. So I removed this line and added in some additional text to lengthen the answer. You can see the full revision history here.

Then I started looking at that user's edit history, and I found that this isn't the first time he's done this. Within the past 2 days, I found the following edits:

Obviously I could go through and edit them out, but that doesn't stop the problem from occurring. There are several issues that spring immediately to mind:

  1. How do we stop this particular user from doing this? And more generally, how do we stop any user who is trusted with full editing privileges from continuing to make obviously bad edits?

    I could leave a non-authoritative comment using the @-reply system to inform him, but this just adds even more noise to someone else's post (and their inbox). It also may not persuade him, since I don't have one of those diamond thingies after my user name.

    Or I could flag one of the edits for a moderator's attention, describe the problem as I have here, and ask one of them to deal with it.

  2. If we're going to enforce character minimums for posts (which, by the way, I think is a fantastic idea), then we need to make it more difficult to trivially work around. We already seem to ignore characters inside of HTML comments, but maybe we also need to block self-referential mentions of the 30 character minimum.

    I'm not actually sure if this is possible, though. If not, we might need to reconsider ignoring HTML comments. That's how people used to work around the minimum length, and it seems to me like it was preferable to adding noise that appears in the body of the post itself.

  3. Why is this user finding these old posts and making these edits in the first place? He's not changing anything else, so he's not hitting the character minimum when he goes to submit an edit. I suppose he's finding them using one of the Review pages. If that's the case, we seriously need to improve the Review interface. There needs to be an obvious way to indicate that a post is OK and make it disappear from the Review page without forcing a useless edit.

share|improve this question
    
Have you left a comment already? From my previous experience with this user he might just acknowledge it and stop doing these edits. Although that doesn't solve the root cause of these edits, whatever it may be... –  slhck May 11 '13 at 8:42
1  
@slhck I haven't. You're probably right, he seems like a reasonable guy. Gives off good vibes. I'm asking somewhat more generally here, just giving a specific example for context. –  Cody Gray May 11 '13 at 8:56
6  
Am I missing something, was his edit was to only add "Body must be..." comment, why?? (on first reading I'd assumed this was on top of a small edit, rather than the edit) –  hayd May 11 '13 at 9:02
    
@hayden Nope, that's exactly what happened. Hence my confusion. –  Cody Gray May 11 '13 at 9:28
5  
Given @hayden's (true) comment, I'm confused: what is THIS question about? I'd say its title should probably be "User abusing posts by ONLY adding 'Body must be at least 30 characters' to them". And if so, though a very nice find, that's simply just flag-for-moderator material? (Maybe the user doesn't even know they're somehow making those edits.) –  Arjan May 11 '13 at 10:20
7  
I think this guy is trying to tell the authors that their posts are too short and is just going about it the wrong way. He's not trying to do anything 'bad' and probably doesn't deserve any sanctions, just some guidance. –  vascowhite May 11 '13 at 11:44

1 Answer 1

While this is certainly a terrible edit that at best is a passive-aggressive (and therefore wasted) attempt to show other users the error of their ways... I think putting in an actual block for the exact phrase "Body must be at least 30 characters" is rather silly.

What next? Blocking "please make your answer longer"? Or any other possible way to say the same thing?

This is just one user who made a less-than-noble attempt at vandalizing a few posts. The edits have been reverted. The system, such as it is, is working exactly as intended where one person is unable to do a lot of harm without getting noticed.

How do we stop this particular user from doing this?

Flag for moderator attention. I sent the user a message telling him to stop. If he persists, a suspension would not be out of line.

And more generally, how do we stop any user who is trusted with full editing privileges from continuing to make obviously bad edits?

You can't. This is the risk we take by granting certain privileges to users based on reputation. There are major pros to this such as enabling the community to police and govern itself, but there are also cons - such as sometimes people who shouldn't have the power end up having it.

The best we can do make sure there is oversight on as many of these actions as possible. Every edit bumps the question, or other users will just come across the posts organically. Other users can revert edits. Moderators can be summoned to deal with particularly egregious cases.

Why is this user finding these old posts and making these edits in the first place?

Beats me. Far as I can tell, these were not in any review queues when the edits were made. Maybe he did a search for "use sed" or something like that? Still not sure about the motivation for that, but hey, stranger things have happened. :)

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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