Timeline for Was this a valid edit that I should have approved?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
11 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 27, 2017 at 9:10 | comment | added | avpaderno | @BrianCampbell I don't buy that argument. That would mean you don't write a perfectly correct answer because there is an half correct answer with 10 up-votes. No, it is useful to new users. If they don't bother to read all the answers is their fault, not the fault of the who added an answer that is more correct, or updated. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 22:01 | comment | added | Brian Campbell | @RobertHarvey Posting a correct answer when there's already an accepted answer with 10 upvotes, on a question with half a dozen answers, isn't very helpful to new visitors. That gets you back to the "forum thread where you have to dig through a bunch of junk" problem that SO was explicitly designed to avoid; the OP will probably not come back and accept a different answer. We have editing precisely so that you can put real fixes in the top answer, so that that one person isn't the only person who can fix an actual mistake in their answer. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 21:57 | comment | added | Brian Campbell | @Servy Yeah, but not everyone is still active. If you come back to a three-year-old answer, you can't assume that the person will ever see your comment or respond to it. I agree that discussing first is probably best; but that doesn't mean you revert a valid change just because someone didn't follow the ideal protocol in making it. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:28 | comment | added | user102937 | @BrianCampbell: In addition, it's perfectly within your right to post the correct answer. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:26 | comment | added | Servy | @BrianCampbell The theory, particularly in this specific case, is that the OP should notice the comment, fix the mistake if they feel it's appropriate or explain the code if it's not. As long as the poster is still active on the site, it's usually best to discuss such changes with them. | |
| Dec 18, 2012 at 20:22 | comment | added | Brian Campbell | Why would you ever revert it to a broken state? The whole point of StackOverflow is to provide useful information. The reason that questions and answers are preferred to comments is that it's a lot easy to just look at a question and the top answer, than look through a long convoluted comment thread to find the answer and the clarification that's necessary to make the answer work. That's the old forum model, that StackOverflow was designed to get away from. Instead, like Wikipedia, if there's an obvious fix that would make the answer correct, you should just do it. | |
| Nov 1, 2012 at 15:31 | comment | added | Shog9 Mod | When editing, always strive to make the author look good. Slavishly preserving obvious mistakes does not accomplish this. Editing mistakes in code is no different than editing mistakes in grammar or spelling in this regard. | |
| Nov 1, 2012 at 13:56 | comment | added | Servy | @Arjan Sure, see this relevant FAQ post. In particular the section "What should I not do?" | |
| Oct 31, 2012 at 21:30 | comment | added | Arjan | I know one of the rejection reasons is "This edit changes too much in the original post; the original meaning or intent of the post would be lost". And I tend to agree with what you're writing. But on the other hand: Other people can edit my posts?! claims "this site is collaboratively edited, like Wikipedia. If you see something that needs improvement, click edit and help us make it so!" So, is there any reference to support the statement "Edits (from anyone other than the author) shouldn't change the actual content"? | |
| Oct 31, 2012 at 19:55 | vote | accept | asawyer | ||
| Oct 31, 2012 at 23:38 | |||||
| Oct 31, 2012 at 19:54 | history | answered | Servy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |