Timeline for Let me reward a good edit on my question/answer
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
4 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2011 at 12:05 | comment | added | j_random_hacker | With respect I think your argument is specious. Allowing (not requiring) original posters to give editors rep doesn't create any incentive to produce bad original posts -- it's still in the OP's interests to ask a question as clearly as possible so as to (a) get the answer s/he's actually looking for ASAP and (b) avoid having to "pay" any rep to accomplish this. The lazy will be lazy regardless; all the possibility of "edit-rep" will do is encourage more lazy questions to be edited well, which improves the quality of the site. | |
| Jan 22, 2010 at 9:28 | comment | added | Gnoupi | @Arjan - I would say it depends on the original poster. Sometimes it's someone who just has difficulties to correctly express what he wants, for this kind, it can be good to help. And sometimes, like the rollback you refer to, it's simply someone unpleasant, and this kind should simply deal with their questions themselves. The kind which criticizes almost every answer without providing any kind of useful feedback, I have to say "pass". | |
| Jan 22, 2010 at 9:00 | comment | added | Arjan | Agreed. Still, though I don't care about reputation for myself, I sometimes hesitate on rewriting a truly bad question because I (very childishly) do not want the original question asker to gain reputation from that. (Even more childish: recently I rolled back my edits as the question asker was not being nice to others at all.) So, editing in general might not encourage (some) original posters to make a good effort in what they write. | |
| Jan 22, 2010 at 8:35 | history | answered | Gnoupi | CC BY-SA 2.5 |