What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 134 Stack Exchange communities.

Bronze/Silver/Gold badges awarded for having 10/50/200 questions which have not had any edits. Includes questions at least a week old that are still open.

Encourages people to review their questions before submitting (some people like to submit, then review, but by the time they've submitted the edited version it's halfway down the main page and gets a bump, even within the 5 minute edit window).

share|improve this question
11  
I think any badge that encourages asking so many questions is a bad one. I am so sick of questions. –  XMLbog Jan 18 '10 at 20:15
    
Why do you think that is? –  Adam Davis Jan 18 '10 at 20:22
4  
Now you make me want to modify an Eliza to play SO. –  Tom Hawtin - tackline Jan 18 '10 at 20:24
3  
I like the badge name, but not what it's being awarded for. –  Andrew Grimm Jan 29 '10 at 1:41
    
@AverylaserChristmas If you are sick of questions, then why are you on Stack Overflow? Seriously? It's people like you - those who hate questions - push people off Stack Overflow. –  user175180 Dec 31 '11 at 17:12
1  
@Ozbekov: Good. –  XMLbog Jan 1 '12 at 22:16

5 Answers 5

up vote 29 down vote accepted
+550

I don't like this. I'd love to encourage people to review their questions before posting them, but this sounds like a good way to generate resentment against anyone editing questions...

"You idiot, you've cost me a badge, why couldn't you have left the typos alone!"

Even if you excluded tag and title editing, it's hard to post a question that's perfect in every way - and the last thing we need is something to discourage people from editing questions.

share|improve this answer
8  
+1. Very good point about "Unintended Consequences". –  George Stocker Jan 18 '10 at 20:38

I don't like the implication this creates that editing a question means there is something necessarily wrong with it. I might just be adding more information to someone's post, or adding a link, organizing the tags, or any number of I-can-improve-this additions to a perfectly "perfect" post.

It seems like the system should be encouraging more editing, not attaching a stigma to it.

When I edit a question, I'd like to think I am doing nothing short of helping them and others who come after. Not taking away from their I'm-Perfect image.

share|improve this answer
3  
Exactly! There are already a handful of users whose posts I absolutely refuse to edit, as they've complained loudly about it in the past... Don't need more. –  Shogging through the snow Jan 18 '10 at 21:31
    
@Shog9 For that you'd probably be glad to use a feature such as "Add to my enemies", "Add to evil users", or simple "Add flag to user", then you could create your own flags ("Kind", "Asshole", etc.) and assign them to users. Only you would see them. –  Daniel Daranas Jan 19 '10 at 15:35
2  
@Daniel: I'm really not interested in doing that though. Like I said, there are a handful of users that I keep in mind for this, who I remember because their reactions to edits in the past have been so completely over the top that it's worth remembering them simply to avoid that kind of drama. But that sucks; I'd much rather just encourage users to learn how SO works and get along. –  Shogging through the snow Jan 19 '10 at 15:42
    
@Shog9: (Changing subject) I'm impressed. I got a comment notification for your comment, and the question is not mine! And you didn't even write my full name! –  Daniel Daranas Jan 19 '10 at 15:48
    
@Daniel: Yeah, me too - handy! –  Shogging through the snow Jan 19 '10 at 15:55

I don't understand the thrust of this badge (that is, what good behaviour is it encouraging)?

  1. while the site depends on questions, do we really need to encourage users to ask more questions?
  2. is editing a question bad? Surely not, as we have the Editor and Strunk & White badges. Further, revisiting a question to edit it after its initial post is good (to clarify the question, provide more context and debugging details, etc).

Besides, I've only asked seven questions on SO, so I'd never be eligible for this. sniffle

share|improve this answer

I agree with Shog9's complaints to the idea as it stands, but I think it can be made to work with a few simple tweaks:

  • Your own edits don't count against you.
  • The posts don't have to be consecutive.
  • Use posts, not just questions.

I think this would help encourage people to be more thoughtful with their posts, while reducing the resentment. Of course, you'll still have the edit problem. But I don't think that's really a problem. I'd rather have someone edit their post to be better than leave it just to get a badge, and if the post is so bad you have others editing as well you still don't get the credit.

Change the name, though, now that some edits are allowed.

Also, while I think Welbog was being sarcastic, he does bring up a good point about the number of posts required. I'd maybe lower the standards for the bronze and silver badge and remove the gold altogether.

share|improve this answer
    
Well, then people are going to get mad at me for editing their post. Cause I'm not just going to sit around and ask for the author to fix their post. We give everyone the ability to edit any post for a reason. –  Tyler Carter Jan 18 '10 at 21:25
    
Plus the whole Fastest Gun in the West thing. –  Tyler Carter Jan 18 '10 at 21:26
1  
Might even lead to a bump in serial downvotes. If I edit someone's answer, they don't really have a way to downvote my edit, so they'll want revenge another way for me preventing them from getting a badge. –  Tyler Carter Jan 18 '10 at 21:28
    
No, people won't get mad at you for editing, because it's just one edit. You don't have to have 50 consecutive unedited posts, just that many total. –  Joel Coehoorn Jan 18 '10 at 21:55
    
But what happens when the person is waiting on his last 10, and I edit 3 of them. He is going to get mad because now he has to post another 3 answers. –  Tyler Carter Jan 18 '10 at 22:00
    
With the edit (dropped the number of questions required), this could work. Maybe, 5 questions for bronze, 20 for silver, no gold... Still not entirely sure it's a good idea, but the stakes would be low enough that it might not matter - if folks were a bit obsessive about perfecting 5 or 20 of their questions, that's ok. I absolutely don't think we need users jealously guarding 100+ questions against 3rd-party edits though! –  Shogging through the snow Jan 18 '10 at 22:41

I would be in favor of this, if OP's made it clear the first time around what they want. More often than not I submit an answer, only for the OP to comment on my answer with additional details they failed to include in the question to begin with, causing me to edit or append to my answer a great deal of information.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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