I've done a fair amount of rejecting of edit suggestions over at Gaming lately, and I've noticed (presumably due to our recent surge of new users), a sharp uptick in invalid edits that should really be comments, or even answers.

In one case, the only answer a question has gotten, has come in the form of an invalid edit.

While I'm stuck rejecting these edits at the moment, I would love, particularly in the case of anonymous ones that make real contributions (and I've seen a few others), to have some means of flagging them for a mod to convert them to a comment or answer. It just doesn't feel right to have my best course of action being to copy an anonymous users contribution and post it myself, to claim whatever rep or kudos might accrue from such action.

To make it clear what I'm suggesting, here are a few examples from just the past month or so on Gaming.SE. Most of these are constructive and useful comments, but generally make for poor edits.


And some attempts to answer the question via an edit:

  • 2
    You could post it as community wiki to avoid unwarranted rep, couldn't you? But something better would of course be preferable. – Daniel Fischer Mar 29 '12 at 21:50
  • The only problem I see is if they don't have the ability to post comments yet, then their edit should not be allowed to be converted to a comment either. We shouldn't provide new users with the facility to circumvent the system. – animuson Mar 29 '12 at 21:58
  • @animuson but we already do this now. Mods have the ability to convert non-answers to comments as it is. The fact that Joe-Stupid McAnonymous managed to stumble onto the Edit button instead of the Answer Question button doesn't really make them any less deserving of that conversion. – LessPop_MoreFizz Mar 29 '12 at 22:00
  • @LessPop_MoreFizz: But they don't do that very often. A vast majority of the time those just get deleted. And besides, they're moderators. – animuson Mar 29 '12 at 22:04
  • 4
    @animuson And to be clear, I did say that what I'd like is the ability to flag a suggested edit for a moderator to make that conversion. Which is no different than when I flag a non-answer that's clearly intended to be a comment and it gets converted. – LessPop_MoreFizz Mar 29 '12 at 22:21
  • 6
    @animuson We're allowing low-rep and even anonymous users to change other people's posts under supervision, why would allowing comments under the same conditions be worse? – Kevin Mar 29 '12 at 23:18
  • To the same end but unrelated: I'm confused why users have to achieve a minimum rep (I think it's 20 or 50) before being allowed to post a comment. – M.Babcock Mar 30 '12 at 0:06
  • @Kevin edits are to improve content, and the workflow promotes that, not adding your own content. Anonymous comments would almost certainly mostly be chatty, me-too, spam ect. If they have an actual answer, they can give an answer unregistered – Ben Brocka Apr 24 '12 at 3:01
  • 1
    @ben The problem is that many of the invalid anonymous edits should be comments that do add something to an answer. Besides, remember these are mostly found by 5ks going through the edit queue, what makes you think they'll approve "chatty, me-too, spam etc" comments? – Kevin Apr 24 '12 at 3:18
  • 1
    why don't you simply post the answer as an anonymous user (in incognito mode)? That's the intended effect anyway, right? – Lorem Ipsum May 23 '12 at 21:33

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .