What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

There have been times when I have edited a post, left no comments, yet I have made mistakes that were pointed out simply as @comments. That's ok, but unless I actually come back to the post, I will never see that comment. Would it be possible to extend the comment reply functionality to also include the post editor? This might prove useful for some.

share|improve this question
3  
Especially if you've been on an edit spree and lose track of all your fine quality edits but happened to tag or typo just one of 25 of the posts. –  random Jan 18 '10 at 6:20
4  
@random I've seen a few questions that were edited beyond recognition, completely changing their meaning. People that notice these mistakes don't always have edit rights; notifying the original editor might prove useful. –  alex Jan 18 '10 at 6:59
    
In the duplicate "@comment notification and Editing" at meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41101/… @Koper takes it even one step further: It would be nice if it worked with every person who has been active in the question; including posting another answer, casting a close vote, editing, etc. (However, I don't think it should be taken that far.) –  Arjan Mar 4 '10 at 10:42
1  
@arjan that would be a little nuts. Talking to editors via comment is clearly useful in the case of bad retags or weird edits, however. –  Jeff Atwood May 7 '10 at 9:46

2 Answers 2

up vote 15 down vote accepted

edit: this is now implemented.

We do a simple reverse chronological walk of the latest "action" by any user with a valid displayname in the post -- where "action" is defined by any sort of edit or comment.

So you can now @reply to editors of a post even if they haven't commented.

(and just as a gentle reminder, you don't need to @reply to the post author as they are ALWAYS notified of any comments on their post.)

share|improve this answer
    
Sure, this feature request started while actually using the site, it's not just a bullet-point feature I want done. One example: superuser.com/questions/71569/… (Sathia changed the tags, yet when I added a tag, I meant something different. I wanted to let him know). Another: superuser.com/questions/85061/… (Diago completely changed the meaning. I added a comment to let him know. Fortunately he rechecked the question) –  alex Jan 18 '10 at 8:14
1  
I see that quite often. Right now I can only provide an example for Meta. Æther told me in a comment that she didn't like my edit: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/35670/… –  Ladybug Killer Jan 18 '10 at 8:33
    
You can't just edit everything in sight, especially if it's already been edited by another high-rep user. You might be wrong, they might be wrong. If you could notify them, at least you could amiably work it out. Just inform the last editor, it should be more than enough. If you could check all the editors, all the better, but I don't think it's the case. –  alex Jan 18 '10 at 8:56
    
Here's an example from SO - an editor linked jQuery to its Wikipedia page: stackoverflow.com/questions/2176986/… –  Kobi Feb 3 '10 at 6:42
1  
Another example: comment addressed to @Craig at stackoverflow.com/questions/2376915/… (example taken from the duplicate meta.stackexchange.com/questions/41101/…) –  Arjan Mar 4 '10 at 10:39
1  
Since comments don't currently notify editors, there will be fewer examples than represent the benefit this feature could bring, too. –  Gnome Mar 15 '10 at 5:43
    
Also this one, even before we had @comments: stackoverflow.com/questions/1327844/… –  Kobi Mar 16 '10 at 6:40
    
Thank you, Jeff! –  alex May 7 '10 at 9:01

A bit long for a comment, so here's my thoughts on specific ways this feature would be useful.

Most of these comments will be "correcting" a previous editor, such as "tag vandalism" (popular examples being [belongs-on-*], [possible-homework], etc.). When I see that, I rollback myself, but it would be nice to just leave a cordial remark and perhaps a link to meta about why their action is generally frowned upon. But they might also be correcting content of the question as John's example shows, which is less meta.

There are also worse cases. For example, JoshJordan's edit went far beyond removing offensive text in order to make a joke at the OP's expense, and no one has any way of mentioning to him why that is counter-productive. (And it's especially heinous given the frustration that user was already experiencing.)

Some of these comments will be simply asking an editor why they did something. For example, a user, especially a new user (but then they'd have to already understand @user), might not understand an edit, and I'd certainly reply to them if they asked, in the interest of improving the SO community (if only a little bit). But I'd have to find their comment towards me first.

Both of these types of uses are meta-discussion, but I am not suggesting to keep meta-discussion on SO: a comment seems the appropriate way to include a link to meta and complete the circle as appropriate. In other cases, a short note.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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