I've just joined a Stack Exchange site that's in beta and received the usual Association Bonus of +100, for having an account with reputation above the required level on the network.

I answered a question on the beta site and decided the question could be clarified with an edit, at which point I saw this:

enter image description here

I'm mainly active on Stack Overflow, and have 9k reputation, which is above the 2k limit required for edits to be applied instantly on there.

I always try to make edits that improve the post and are relatively substantial. I'm aware that this is a different site, but if a user has passed the threshold on one site in the network, does that not imply that they understand how edits work?

I'm not making this a feature request as I guess that allowing privileges on separate sites could get messy when the required reputation threshold hasn't been met, I'm just curious on what people thought.

Are there other reasons that this wouldn't work across sites that I've not considered?

  • 11
    It is not about the feature, but about the community; what edits are acceptable differs from site to site. Commented Feb 24, 2015 at 10:25
  • @MartijnPieters that's a fair point, which I hadn't really considered. My initial thoughts were that if an edit improves clarity and readability of a question that it would be acceptable across any site in the network.
    – Tanner
    Commented Feb 24, 2015 at 10:31
  • But on English Language Learners that may be a faux pas. I don't know, I don't use that SE site, but I can imagine it could be a problem there. Commented Feb 24, 2015 at 10:33
  • 3
    And on the academic sites there may be jargon that to an uninitiated but well-meaning user sounds incorrect or overly verbose, and editing that language may be the wrong thing to do as well. Commented Feb 24, 2015 at 10:34
  • 1
    Another example: on Code Golf, we have a strict no-editing-other-users'-code policy, unlike other sites such as Stack Overflow.
    – Doorknob
    Commented Feb 24, 2015 at 16:12

3 Answers 3



We're speaking edit suggestions here. A good edit will (thank gods most of the time) be approved and applied to the question/answer.

The concern seems to be the time between when we actually post an edit and when it shows for other users.

Except for edge cases where a timely edit will salvage a question and allow it to not be deleted, edits being applied immediately versus in 30 minutes sounds like marketting (almost... it's comparable to watching your favorite show one day before everyone)

Even though I like watching shows one day before everyone it is no reason to download them from torrents because I can.

what I mean:

The added value of being able to help fresh new questions by immediately applying trusted users edits to them seems to me not high enough compared to the errors those trusted users can make by freely editing stuff in communities they don't know.


I think the 2k rep limit for unlimited editing does not only call for the experience in terms of editing functionality (which should be given if someone reached 2k on any SE page). But there is also the large component of learning which language, behaviour and standards are established in a specific SE community.

In my opinion there actually could be more privilege rewards based on your total rep aroud the SE network.


IMHO we should not forget that stackexchange is about asking questions and giving answers.

Trusted users are primarily called trusted because of the quality of their answers and/or questions. In my eyes reputation should be used to assess the general quality of answers and questions of a user. As @Martijn Pieters says, it is about the community. We need to be careful not to give too much privileges to already privileged users as these are - maybe small, but still - steps towards the rich get richer and poor get poorer phenomenon which is poison for a community based system.

You must log in to answer this question.

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