Return to Question

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this, since apparently that is the true driving factor behind the CW flag being used after 10 edits when there is only a single editor--to discourage edits due to the "nudge" action this triggers.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use (at least not in that exact form) and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!

For the record my edits were, after the first post, in characters added unless otherwise noted: 521, 828, 270, 5670, 5670 (within 5 minutes, same content), 12, 12, adding a completely new improved query, adding headers to organize what was getting very long, 3031, 4 (typo correction) that triggered CW.

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this, since apparently that is the true driving factor behind the CW flag being used after 10 edits when there is only a single editor--to discourage edits due to the "nudge" action this triggers.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use (at least not in that exact form) and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!

For the record my edits were, after the first post, in characters added unless otherwise noted: 521, 828, 270, 5670, 5670 (within 5 minutes, same content), 12, 12, adding a completely new improved query, adding headers to organize what was getting very long, 3031, 4 (typo correction) that triggered CW.

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this, since apparently that is the true driving factor behind the CW flag being used after 10 edits when there is only a single editor--to discourage edits due to the "nudge" action this triggers.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use (at least not in that exact form) and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!

For the record my edits were, after the first post, in characters added unless otherwise noted: 521, 828, 270, 5670, 5670 (within 5 minutes, same content), 12, 12, adding a completely new improved query, adding headers to organize what was getting very long, 3031, 4 (typo correction) that triggered CW.

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!

Thanks for listening.

I would very much like to be able to edit my posts beyond 9 times without them automatically being converted to Community Wiki. I am willing to forgo the "pop to top of home page" function as many times as necessary in order to have this.

You might ask me why I would ever edit a post that many times.

Well, take this answer for example (please do not upvote unless you REALLY want to--I am not trying to use meta to cruise for votes plus it's CW anyway). In it I use two SQL query techniques that I have never seen anyone else use and that together achieve a 100 times improvement in reads over the next best query (which itself is quite respectable). After my initial post, I added a huge explanation section. I added performance testing. I corrected typos and awkward wording. I ended up posting, the next day, a complete rewrite of the query that cut its CPU time in half and is substantially simpler. Coming up with the basic idea and turning it into the best query took me literally hours of tinkering, and required some really intense thinking.

I have flagged the question for moderator attention, and requested politely for CW status to be removed, but to no avail. (Is there some way to see if a moderator has decided on an action, or whether it is still in a queue somewhere?) So it appears that any future votes on what I consider a sublime work of art will not gain any value to me. (Please forgive me for the conceit of thinking that the child of my own brain is beautiful when it may in fact be ugly--I don't imagine myself a genius or something. It's just a really cool query that I got very excited about.)

It's not the first time this has happened to me--and the other times were on similar posts where I had a crazy query idea and started posting new versions plus performance data, and even 3D surface-area charts.

I'd be very happy to forgo pops to the top of the home page if I can just avoid Community Wiki on these posts that I put such time into (and community value, or so I hope it can be called such). Could we not offer people, at editing time, the option to not have this trigger occur? I realize we probably can't broadcast the "nudge" feature blatantly, as that would make system-gaming post-editing even more prevalent.

But it would be very much appreciated, at least at the 10th edit and onward, to offer this option. Or maybe there could be some analysis of length--given that many of my edits were quite substantial and many thousands of characters. Even make the posts go to the review queue for some evaluation of whether it was a substantial improvement or not. Something. Anything!

Frankly, I think my answer is good enough that it is almost worth deleting it and reposting the current version. Over time it could probably garner more rep than I lose by this action. But I shouldn't have to do that for what could be a great answer!