When giving detailed answers like this, it is very easily possible to produce more than 10 edits. And this, without any disputes or other contradictory interaction with other users. In that particular answer, I was then informed of this 10 edits rule ; and thus stopped editing.

(I did already try to suggest means to reduce edits by having a better preview like this, but at that time was unaware of this 10 edits rule at all.)

So here is my suggestion: Currently revisions are directly numbered. Minor revisions of the same user (like, a couple of characters or similar) might be numbered differently. Thus 1 1.1 1.2 etc.

Edit (ha! Also here!): Better suggestions: Minor revisions by the same users should be directly marked by the user as such. In this manner, artificial "noise" for the "active"-category is avoided.

Next edit/suggestion: Writers simply mark a minor edit with m in the "Edit Summary". In this manner, unintentional abuse is minimized (no suggestive checkbox). (I am very reluctant to the current approach to contact moderators ; not everybody is in meta-talk-mood)

  • 14
    If an answer (especially a good, detailed one) turns into CW from your own edits, just flag for a moderator and ask them to revert it.
    – Adam Lear StaffMod
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 13:56
  • 2
    This rule exists to prevent users from bumping their posts with minor edits, thus putting them in the front page to get attention/upvotes without any real improvement of the post. Kind of gaming the system. What @Anna said is true though, if you have legitimate need to edit more then 10 times, let it become CW then flag for moderator to remove the CW status. Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:12
  • 2
    An extreme example of an answer becoming CW solely by own edits (which was lifted by a moderator): photo.stackexchange.com/questions/16399/…
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:17
  • 1
    I'm on board with minor edits, but it would be best to limit them so that they cannot affect more than 50 characters and do not involve the addition or removal of images.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:49
  • for "minor revisions" marking to avoid bump, there is a (status-declined) feature request already: Could we have the ability to mark a change as minor in questions or answers?
    – gnat
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:20

1 Answer 1


Every edit, even the smallest one, bumps the question to the front page and unfortunately it's not uncommon for people to do minor edits to get some cheap visibility on their questions and answers.

It's awesome that you keep improving the answer, however some of the edits you've made are extremely minor (like removing a single word on rev 11) and unfortunately it's impossible for the system to understand whether your minor edit is actually improving the answer, or if it's an attempt to game the system for some cheap rep. You'll need a human set of eyes for that, and as Anna already suggested you always have the option of flagging your answer for moderation attention and asking for the CW status to be removed.

While I'm not sure how the SO moderators will handle your request, I removed the CW status from this answer on Programmers, when it was pointed to me that it was auto-wikified due to the OP's edits. It's a tiny bit more detailed than yours, though ;)

  • What would be the right thing to do in my situation? After all: Yes, I change also minor things, as you note - which you can easily see as an attempt to game the system. So should I avoid them? Isn't flagging my answer for moderation attention then again another attempt to "game the system"? Maybe: require to classify one's edits as essential or minor? With no limit on minor edits?
    – false
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:33
  • @false The right thing would be to stop caring about reputation, your answer is good, and it will help everyone who'll face the same issue the asker has faced. I understand reputation is an incentive, however I feel your time would be better spent in writing awesome answers to other questions (which will get you a lot more rep), instead of constantly trying to improve an already good answer. If, however, for some reason you want to keep improving it (it's your time after all), then you should flag it and ask for the CW status to be removed. Mods might disagree, though.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:37
  • 1
    @YannisRizos: In my case (see my comment to the question), I continued to edit well past 10 revisions, focusing on delivering the best possible answer. The answer currently has 38 revisions, all mine, and as noted above, a moderator eventually lifted CW status on the answer. I personally did not expect the CW status to be removed (and I wouldn't have asked for it), but I guess jrista♦ had noticed that all revs were mine and saw my effort...
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:47
  • @DragonLordtheFiery Perhaps it's worth pointing out that the answer I removed CW from was brought up on Meta by another user, and not by the answerer. Didn't really affect my decision at the time, the answer is stellar and auto CW was unfair, but it certainly looks better when it's other people arguing that your post deserves all the rep it can get and not you.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:51
  • 4
    Note that: If you (1) were obviously trying to just maintain your answer (sometimes rapidly as comments come in) and (2) are the main author of the answer (beyond trivial edits) and (3) flag to have the CW status removed, we highly consider it. I'm not saying what I wrote is a concrete guideline, but if you improve your answer straight into CW status, flag it. Don't throw a tantrum like I did (note, at that time, mods could not remove the status).
    – user50049
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:52
  • @TimPost: In such a case, there should be general guidelines in a separate post on when removal of CW status will be considered, so that users aren't discouraged from performing long-term maintenance on a very long post.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 14:57
  • @DragonLordtheFiery Not really easy to get a concrete set of guidelines on these things, it's always a judgment call. And... you shouldn't be discouraged from performing long-term maintenance on a very long post, rep is just a silly incentive, at the end of the day it's worthless, just an integer on a database somewhere.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:00
  • 1
    @DragonLordtheFiery As it stands, moderators can at their discretion remove the status. I'm not sure that it's possible to codify general guidelines that would fit the variety of posts that we examine for this.
    – user50049
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:01
  • 1
    @YannisRizos: Not trying to be argumentative, but my goal was to create a comprehensive post on Canon AF limits. If I was discouraged from doing so by CW status, I would not have made nearly 40 revisions on that answer. In fact, I had expected others to start making minor corrections here and there once CW status was reached, but this never happened since the post went CW back in May (the revision history previously said that the post became CW at revision 12). In fact, I had begun to worry about the 30,000 character limit.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:09
  • @DragonLordtheFiery Hm, I didn't mean to imply you were discouraged from the CW status in that answer, I did write "you shouldn't be discouraged..." but it was a general comment. A poorly phrased one, perhaps.
    – yannis
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:16
  • 1
    @YannisRizos: My concern is for other users, who might be discouraged in cases like these. This isn't to say CW is bad--it has its place in posts which should be (and are) maintained by the community as a whole--but the fact that 10 edits by the OP will cause the post to enter CW can be discouraging.
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:20
  • 3
    @DragonLordtheFiery I'm not saying that we'll rubber stamp remove the status, but if you were just trying to maintain your answer .. there's a very good chance that we will. This needs human eyes, as we're still faced with 'change a few characters' edits just to bump a question which draws more attention to it and the subsequent answers. Benign and malicious behavior patterns are sometimes indistinguishable for machines. So, Reach out, reach out and touch someone. That's .. why moderators have the ability to remove the wiki status.
    – user50049
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 15:47
  • @TimPost: Thanks! (not to mention the video link--LOL :) )
    – bwDraco
    Commented Oct 22, 2012 at 17:01

You must log in to answer this question.

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