Timeline for Should the amount of possible edit suggestions per day be limited? [duplicate]
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
40 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 17, 2019 at 9:46 | history | closed | Martijn Pieters discussion Users with the discussion badge or a synonym can single-handedly close discussion questions as duplicates and reopen them as needed. | Duplicate of Rate limit suggested edits | |
| Dec 22, 2018 at 9:51 | history | edited | reneMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
Burninate limits: https://meta.stackexchange.com/questions/316429/is-limits-useful-as-tag
|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:30 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Mar 16, 2017 at 15:43 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/ with https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Apr 24, 2014 at 13:50 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Migration of MSO links to MSE links
|
|
| S Sep 2, 2013 at 7:41 | history | bounty ended | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | ||
| S Sep 2, 2013 at 7:41 | history | notice removed | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | ||
| Sep 1, 2013 at 8:11 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @tcaswell Holy cr-p! I only checked a couple of them, but they were all more or less irrelevant whitespace changes in php questions. Though that does also confirm that too many reviewers simply wave such edits through, otherwise that user wouldn't have been Pawlow'ed into suggesting at least one hundred edits a day. In fact these edits are so close in time that I suspect they're using a script. Very suspicious. | |
| Sep 1, 2013 at 4:40 | comment | added | tacaswell | As related evidence, this guy stackoverflow.com/users/466082/arthur?tab=reputation has hit rep-cap a couple of days in a row purely on edits | |
| Aug 29, 2013 at 8:42 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | @TobiasKienzler You're welcome. Glad to see you changed it to a feature request! | |
| Aug 29, 2013 at 8:11 | history | edited | gnat |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 29, 2013 at 7:57 | answer | added | Tobias Kienzler | timeline score: 3 | |
| Aug 29, 2013 at 7:45 | history | edited | Tobias Kienzler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited tags
|
| Aug 29, 2013 at 7:38 | history | edited | Tobias Kienzler |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 29, 2013 at 7:37 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @S.L.Barth I must have missed your comment, thanks for the bounty! The current answer validly state that reviewers accepting those edits are also part of the problem, but I agree that we should limit the source of bad edits, not their "victims" | |
| Aug 28, 2013 at 22:17 | answer | added | apaul | timeline score: 6 | |
| Aug 26, 2013 at 9:45 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | @TobiasKienzler I feel this should be a "feature-request", instead of "discussion". | |
| S Aug 26, 2013 at 9:32 | history | bounty started | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | ||
| S Aug 26, 2013 at 9:32 | history | notice added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | Draw attention | |
| Aug 22, 2013 at 12:18 | comment | added | Krishnabhadra | @S.L.Barth I agree we need to educate reviewers. But they are our second line of defense against bad edits. We should educate new editors to make substantial edits from the start, and an initial -1 reputation penalty and a personal comment (just like the comment when flag is declined) telling the reason for rejection is a good way to pass the message through. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 20:44 | comment | added | S.L. Barth is on codidact.com | @Krishnabhadra As long as the robo-reviewers keep approving the majority of bad edits, I don't think that will stop the serial editors. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 13:02 | comment | added | Ciro Santilli OurBigBook.com | @Kobi I'm the guy who reached cap with edits. I don't mind if all that rep gets reverted, I agree users should not get rep like this (one could write a bot that does it). I was just trying to call attention on the fact that sub tagging + points for retagging is a hard to solve dilemma. Limiting edits per day won't solve it completely, it would just take a bit longer to reach the 2000 edit rep. If you do not give rep, many people won't retag, if you don't supertag users have to add a new ignore tag for every version of every software they don't care about. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 11:53 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @Gilles Maybe the limit should be something like "no more than 20 unapproved (i.e. either rejected or not yet reviewed) suggestions per day" instead, or, as FalconC suggested, increase for good editors | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 11:51 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | @TobiasKienzler “most good suggestions come from users who don't suggest that many edits” I'd want stats for that. In my stint as a reviewer I came to recognize both good suggestors who made a ton of improvements and bad suggestors who only ever butchered the formatting. Good point about letting the edit-ban come earlier. That, and on sites other than SO not flooding the front page, are good reasons to rate-limit suggested edits, but at a finer granularity than 1 day. Perhaps limit to N pending edits? | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 11:42 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @Gilles not necessarily - most good suggestions come from users who don't suggest that many edits, therefore by limiting suggestions those who over-suggest mostly bad edits become less in relation to the total amount of edits. Plus, a bad editors is more likely to become edit-banned by rejection before having flooded the review queue | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 11:34 | comment | added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | What problem do you hope to solve? Bad suggestions are bad and good suggestions are good, regardless of the rate at which they're made. Limiting the number doesn't do anything to improve the proportion of good suggestions. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 11:03 | comment | added | Krishnabhadra | How about adding a -1 reputation penalty for a rejected edit? Making editor think before submitting an edit | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 10:28 | comment | added | FalconC | @Kobi That guy shouldn't do that. I like that fact that he linked to a meta post as an excuse to farm reputation. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 10:14 | answer | added | FalconC | timeline score: 21 | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 10:01 | comment | added | Kobi | On the same subject: Is this OK? The user edited many posts with a single tag - and even reached the reputation cap with edits only :P | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:57 | comment | added | CRUSADER | @TobiasKienzler sorry my bad, even I meant editors.. NOthing against reviewers | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:55 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @CRUSADER Well reviews on suggested edits are limited to 20 per day as well, and reviewers don't even get rep (yeah, a crappy badge, but meh). I'm talking about limiting editors, not reviewers | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:53 | comment | added | CRUSADER | 20 suggested edit limit ... Im getting a feeling that there would be a limit for everything,now.. even helping.. Maybe in future someone would suggest have a limit for answering only 20 allowd per day b'coz he's gaining too much rep today..... NO .. I disagree, educating editors is one part but limiting them for their time and service... its bad... DISAGREE | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:47 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | Now obviously we can't go on requesting a queue to review reviews, since the review-reviewers would then also have to be reviewed in a review reviewed rewiever reviews queue and then ... I need to lie down a minute | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:44 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler |
@OldCheckmark In fact I started haunting such reviewers with an On an unrelated note, please don't [approve suggested edits](link_to_suggestion_here) using backticks for emphasis, but reject or improve them - see e.g. [here](http://meta.gaming.stackexchange.com/q/7437/88) why comment on one of their posts (unfortunately the only way to call out to them). It's not exactly model behaviour by my side I assume, but fortunately users are understanding
|
|
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:43 | comment | added | Tobias Kienzler | @Bart There's my other problem - that would trigger the correct edit-ban, but the sheer amount of suggested edits by said user caused ca. 7 out of my toady's reviews to be by him; and to be fair not all suggestions were bad. Implementing a daily limit independently of approval/rejection would encourage users to think twice whether their suggestions is really worth being suggested | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:43 | comment | added | Old Checkmark | I think we should educate reviewers that putting random keywords in backtick is not okay. For example, we can start by introducing such incorrect edits to the review audits. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:40 | comment | added | Bart | "and should have been rejected" <---- there's your problem. | |
| Aug 21, 2013 at 9:38 | history | asked | Tobias Kienzler | CC BY-SA 3.0 |