Timeline for Do we need a 'reject and improve' button?
Current License: CC BY-SA 2.5
47 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 23, 2017 at 12:35 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://stackoverflow.com/ with https://stackoverflow.com/
|
|
| Sep 20, 2012 at 15:14 | vote | accept | Yi Jiang | ||
| Jan 30, 2012 at 6:20 | history | notice removed | Mat | ||
| Jan 30, 2012 at 6:20 | history | bounty ended | Mat | ||
| Jan 30, 2012 at 5:37 | answer | added | Lucifer | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jan 30, 2012 at 5:20 | history | edited | waffles |
edited tags
|
|
| Jan 27, 2012 at 13:12 | history | notice added | Mat | Draw attention | |
| Jan 27, 2012 at 13:12 | history | bounty started | Mat | ||
| Jan 22, 2012 at 17:32 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 22, 2012 at 17:32 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Jan 14, 2012 at 15:40 | history | notice added | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | Draw attention | |
| Jan 14, 2012 at 15:40 | history | bounty started | Gilles 'SO- stop being evil' | ||
| Jan 3, 2012 at 4:34 | comment | added | Karl Knechtel | Here's a proposal: provide an interface for the high-rep user to merge proposed edits (and possibly new ones), and allocate some token amount of reputation credit as s/he sees fit. | |
| Dec 30, 2011 at 21:25 | history | notice removed | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 30, 2011 at 21:25 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| Dec 30, 2011 at 20:43 | comment | added | animuson StaffMod | Here's a great example of this happening that I just ran into. | |
| Dec 22, 2011 at 19:52 | history | notice added | Naftali | Authoritative reference needed | |
| Dec 22, 2011 at 19:52 | history | bounty started | Naftali | ||
| Oct 23, 2011 at 21:12 | comment | added | Caffeinated | Hmm, That's a very good point. I'm signed up then, Thank You So Much | |
| Oct 23, 2011 at 21:10 | comment | added | NGLN | @Adel Yes, it will teach. And if not, it would be an improvement for the site and reviewers anyway. | |
| Oct 23, 2011 at 19:35 | comment | added | Caffeinated | Are we convinced it will change the behavior though? | |
| Oct 21, 2011 at 4:23 | history | notice removed | Lance Roberts | ||
| Oct 21, 2011 at 4:23 | history | bounty ended | Lance Roberts | ||
| Oct 19, 2011 at 23:30 | answer | added | waffles | timeline score: 49 | |
| Oct 18, 2011 at 19:48 | answer | added | NGLN | timeline score: 14 | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 5:16 | history | edited | Lance Roberts |
edited tags
|
|
| Oct 15, 2011 at 5:13 | answer | added | Lance Roberts | timeline score: 13 | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 5:11 | history | notice added | Lance Roberts | Draw attention | |
| Oct 15, 2011 at 5:11 | history | bounty started | Lance Roberts | ||
| Aug 11, 2011 at 15:32 | answer | added | user159834 | timeline score: 50 | |
| Jun 5, 2011 at 22:03 | comment | added | Jeff Mercado | I thought I could reject a weak suggestion and (through some URL twiddling) jump in and make a more substantial edit. Well, it turned out, I both rejected and implicitly accepted it as it was counted as an improvement. Lame... | |
| Jun 1, 2011 at 19:45 | answer | added | clairesuzy | timeline score: 8 | |
| May 23, 2011 at 22:49 | history | bounty ended | CommunityBot | ||
| May 16, 2011 at 21:52 | history | bounty started | Michael Mrozek | ||
| May 2, 2011 at 13:23 | answer | added | Marcel Korpel | timeline score: 15 | |
| Apr 8, 2011 at 14:44 | history | bounty ended | Mia Clarke | ||
| S Apr 5, 2011 at 8:52 | history | suggested | bluish | CC BY-SA 2.5 |
title correction
|
| Apr 5, 2011 at 7:24 | review | Suggested edits | |||
| S Apr 5, 2011 at 8:52 | |||||
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:55 | comment | added | gideon | +1 @popular precisely, and I think a lot of them are users thinking they need to actively remove salutations and hi's from posts! (Forgetting other more important things) | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:47 | answer | added | gideon | timeline score: 3 | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:24 | answer | added | Mia Clarke | timeline score: 48 | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:18 | comment | added | Pops | Thanks for this question. I used to think that the site policy was to accept any improvement, no matter how small, but I can't find the post that made me think that. I've accepted several such micro-edits, all the while thinking to myself "this is silly, why did the editor fix that one blatant typo but not those five others?" | |
| Apr 1, 2011 at 15:11 | history | bounty started | Mia Clarke | ||
| Mar 18, 2011 at 12:56 | comment | added | Blorgbeard | I wasn't aware that 'Improve' implicitly accepted a suggested edit. I have been treating it as a sort of "The question needs editing, but this edit sucks, screw it I'll fix it myself" button. | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 12:56 | answer | added | randomMod | timeline score: 17 | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 12:41 | comment | added | user150926 | Being able to explain in a short sentence why it is rejected would help the editor to understand how he could improve it. I accept/reject a lot (on P.SE) and sometimes I face situation in which I want to reject but don't do it because the editor wouldn't understand without a comment and therefore loose motivation to edit posts. | |
| Mar 18, 2011 at 12:30 | history | asked | Yi Jiang | CC BY-SA 2.5 |