16

I don't know what the reviewers were thinking, but this is not the issue here:

Enter image description here

Rather, the limit was circumvented by inserting six U+200B (UTF-8 E2 80 8B, "ZERO WIDTH SPACE") at the end of the sample code:

Enter image description here

Should this be added to what is considered white space in the edit length restriction? Or does the old policy still apply?

Improve this question
17
  • 4
    This​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:01
  • 4
    also​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:03
  • 4
    works​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:03
  • 4
    in​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:03
  • 4
    comments​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:04
  • 3
    !​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:04
  • 2
    One of the reviewers was the answerer BTW. Presumably the correction from 11 to 10 and additional colon was technically correct.
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:05
  • 2
    @MartinSmith It was reverted an hour later
    – gunr2171
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:06
  • 1
    @gunr2171 Oh yes. Strange!
    – Martin Smith
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:07
  • 5
    I've seen many attempts to circumvent the six-character minimum, but this is a new one. (I'm also tempted to tear the editor a new one.)
    – michaelb958--GoFundMonica
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:10
  • 2
    It's one thing to use the zero width space in comments. But it's another to use it in edits to get around the 6-character minimum...
    – Mysticial
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:22
  • 1
    Alternate suggestion: Automatic moderator flag for suggested edits that are shorter than the length restriction after stripping out ZWSPs. :D:D:D
    – Mysticial
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:32
  • 4
    Unless there are many examples of abuse, there's little reason to act. There are lots of ways to overcome the built in rules checker, but it's generally only necessary to strengthen rules when abuse is widespread and very detrimental. Otherwise you're going to spend significant development time making the rules checking huge and obese for very little return on your time investment. Not only that, but the rules checker will run that much slower with each addition. You'll need to add many, many more examples of such abuse before it's worth acting on.
    – Pollyanna
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 21:39
  • 2
    I'm sorry, but what is the point of doing this? They'll just end up resorting to other, uglier ways to circumvent the limit.
    – NullUserException อ_อ
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 22:29
  • 1
    Related: Null bytes accepted as part of text (not really)
    – This_is_NOT_a_forum
    Commented Feb 6, 2016 at 8:52

1 Answer 1

Reset to default
8

I don't see any need for this.

Anyone using this kind of hack has probably evaluated trying to bring the edit up to 6 characters by more conventional means first and concluded that there aren't 6 such edits to be made.

I can't gauge the technical accuracy of this specific edit myself but, assuming that the missing colon was correctly added, it is difficult to see what other 5 changes they could have made to this 100% code answer.

The real purpose of this restriction is to ensure that editors fix everything in the post.

A much less exotic workaround they could also have used (apparently) is simply adding  .

Improve this answer
1
  • 1
    The difference is that you actually see  , because it isn't zero-width. And there's no promise the user has tried to bring anything up to 6 characters: already knowing this trick, they could just say "I'll correct that, then insert a bunch of zero width spaces."
    – doppelgreener
    Commented Mar 5, 2014 at 22:45

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .