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.

Those of you who both edit and upvote: do you ever upvote a question after you have edited it, voting up your "work" of clarifying/improving the post?

What do you think of this? Positive or negative action?

Personally, I view voting as a way to help other users on the Stack Exchange network and to encourage them...And that someone out there actually read their post and appreciated/noticed it...

Related: Editing others' posts - general etiquette

share|improve this question

5 Answers 5

up vote 5 down vote accepted

Practically speaking, I see no difference between upvoting then editing vs. editing then upvoting. Either way you are saying "this is a good post but needs a little work."

I don't do it, personally; usually if I'm editing a question it's because I think the original had some serious problems, which means that even the revised question isn't going to be great.

I have, however, edited answers to my questions immediately before accepting them, and I recommend this to anybody who receives incomplete answers and who has the privileges to do so. It's better than a self-answer in most respects, since you're giving proper credit to the one who helped you but also helping to make the answer more authoritative.

share|improve this answer
    
That final paragraph is very useful, thanks! –  The Unhandled Exception Oct 14 '10 at 1:40
  1. If it's a question I'm interested in, I'll up-vote it.

  2. If it needs work in order to be answerable, I'll edit it. And then up-vote, if #1 applies.

  3. If, after editing according to #2, the OP rolls back my edits or otherwise screws with the text such that it's inappropriate or no longer answerable, I'll down-vote.

So really, editing doesn't affect my votes, other than forestalling down-votes in cases where the author was lazy or otherwise unable to communicate effectively.

share|improve this answer

I was going to ask this myself! Since you asked first I'll answer with what I do: If I edit a post, I only upvote it if I feel the author's original intent deserves to be upvoted. I try not to edit to change meaning, so I upvote after my edits, and my upvote means "This is a good point, question, or answer". I don't upvote (if I edited) to mean "This is (now) well written)"

I will very often upvote a question which I edited to clean up if I feel it was downvoted because the author was very unclear, for example, if they don't speak English well.

share|improve this answer

I'm sure I've done this at some point or another, but I don't remember specific instances where I have or haven't done it. Actually, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Edits shouldn't change the content or meaning of a post, and upvotes aren't about the OP's spelling/grammar skills. (Well, except on English SE, if the spelling/grammar is the content, but special cases are special.) In other words, when done right, voting and editing should be independent of each other.

share|improve this answer
1  
+1: Good to know as I highly value your opinion on subjects like this. –  The Unhandled Exception Oct 14 '10 at 1:42
2  
Well, if the language was so incredibly poor at the outset and editing makes it legible, I could see this having significance. Of course I agree that most edits are and should be minor and therefore it's largely arbitrary and unimportant whether the upvote comes before or after the edit. –  Aarobot Oct 14 '10 at 1:43

I've edited plenty of crappy posts that I wouldn't vote for, but I left them in better shape than when I found them.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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