My process for editing questions on Gaming is much the same as how I write documents or code: when I finish with a particular change, I save and then continue editing. I've been doing this on Gaming and I invariably trigger the CAPTCHA check at least once a day. I understand the need for CAPTCHA checks and feel they have a place here under certain conditions.
I also think it'd be a good idea to throttle the CAPTCHA checks back (or remove them completely) once you've hit certain rep levels.
Some reductions in CAPTCHA throttle thresholds, if you have > 10k rep:
- for edits -- reduced by two-thirds
- for post submission times -- min seconds reduced by one half, max minutes increased by 2x
- Assuming you are a logged in user and have >= 200 reputation: After successfully completing one captcha, we now suppress captcha for 5 minutes on your account.
In these questions, people had other suggestions that were not pursued as the above edits were deemed "good enough".
In any case, it would appear that I'm not the only one with so much paranoia in him that he has to save things constantly and it would be nice if the system didn't fight me regularly. Increasing the time between CAPTCHAS at notable milestones (being able to edit other people's posts, for example), seems appropriate. Or, at the very least, increasing the threshold would make it more usable.
Alternatively, I humbly suggest that CAPTCHA would be less annoying if it were more readable. It may seem like a trivial thing to be bugged to enter illegible text every 5 minutes. However, it pulls user out of their workflow, derails concentration, and is generally counter-productive to the editing process (something they've been epermitted to do based on their positive contribution to the site). For someone who saves "early and often", it's quite disruptive.
If you've had issues with people at "editing" levels of reputation abusing the system such that CAPTCHA is required, then perhaps editing shouldn't happen at such a low threshold. If users aren't trusted enough not to 'spam' the system, they probably shouldn't be trusted enough to represent the sites on which they edit. The alternative presents a sort of contradiction that is frustrating to the user at times.