-9

Why do we need this feature?

Sometimes community leaders (community members who care their community and its meta issues) decide to make some minor edits on a certain set of posts (which may include numerous posts) to help community visitors to find their needs more easily, for example, by removing/adding some tags or adding some keywords in the titles or bodies of a set of posts. However, making such edits would bump many posts, which leads community leaders to withdraw their decision.

The Stack Exchange community team disagree with not bumping minor-edited posts to prevent malicious edits.

What is this feature?

Let us call the edits mentioned above "organizing edits". We can add the option "organizing edit" in the editing environment of posts so that a certain group of community members, who are already selected by community moderators, can use this option to make required edits on a set of post.

Such edited posts are not bumped in the active list of posts by default. However, to satisfy the Stack Exchange community team's concern, we can add a "minor/organizing edit" option in the menu "Filter" so that any community member can see such edits in case they filter posts by that option.

PS. I think it is obvious enough that this post has nothing to do with feature requests enabling any community member to make minor edits on posts without being bumped.

9
  • 5
    I think most of your suggestion is already covered at Allow non-bumping minor edits, but review them on /review. If your suggestion is different, can you please explain what parts of that question's body are different from yours? Apr 19, 2021 at 7:06
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog Thanks for your comment. I have already seen that post. As I said in PS., this request does not suggest than any member can do minor edits. Honestly speaking, I think my post is clearly different from that post. Let me read it again.
    – Later
    Apr 19, 2021 at 7:16
  • @SonictheAnonymousHedgehog I have just read that post and it's answers carefully again. Can you and those who upvoted your comment show me what part of "my suggestion is already covered in that post? My suggestion has been stated in two small paragraphs, which I cannot find them in the post you linked.
    – Later
    Apr 19, 2021 at 7:39
  • In essence it boils down to not showing minor edits on the front page, your solution as how to implement it is slightly different then the linked post, but not fundamentally different. Your suggestion could just as well be an answer to that post, as you aim to reach the same outcome, namely minor edits not showing up on the homepage.
    – Luuklag
    Apr 19, 2021 at 7:42
  • @Rob Thanks for the link, but my post is different from that.
    – Later
    Apr 19, 2021 at 8:13
  • 3
    I know some of us are thoughtful when they sit down for editing a large number of posts. I know some of us spread those edits out over time. I can't recall anyone that publicly stated to withdraw their decision. (to edit assume). How many users are in that "withdraw" group according to your estimate and how many posts would roughly not get improved due to the reluctance to edit?
    – rene
    Apr 19, 2021 at 8:25
  • Interesting. This post has been closed as a duplicate of some posts which are obviously different from this post.
    – Later
    Apr 19, 2021 at 9:07
  • 2
    Please don't use edits to respond to / invalidate an answer. Also it was great this edit bumped your question so I could do the right thing and undo it.
    – Luuklag
    Apr 19, 2021 at 9:14
  • 2
    If they're so obviously different from this post, perhaps you'd have done better to edit your post (and bump it) to include reasoning as to why yours is so different, instead of just repeating that it is obviously different. Because apparently, it's not obvious nor different.
    – Tinkeringbell Mod
    Apr 19, 2021 at 9:15

1 Answer 1

7

However, making such edits would bump many posts, which leads community leaders to withdraw their decision.

Your leaders sound like a rogue clique that want to bypass the rest of the community. If they truly are leaders, I'd expect them to be well-versed enough in Stack Exchange etiquette (after all, they are leaders, not just any random user!) to know that any such edits should be discussed on a site's meta site first. Not only to gather input from everyone that wants to provide such, but also because sometimes, moderators or SE employees can help out with such edits.

If the wider community is aware of this effort and it is approved on the site's meta, you can go ahead and edit. There's no need to 'withdraw their decision' just based on the number of posts it would bump if people agree these are good edits to make.

Problems arise when your leaders end up being the only ones deciding whether to edit or not to edit. If they can't bring up the decency to post on a site's meta and discuss the changes, they're not really leaders, just a clique. And then yes, people will wonder why so many posts are being bumped on the frontpage, and why no one asked if this really was necessary before doing this.

The Stack Exchange community team disagree with not bumping minor-edited posts to prevent malicious edits.

Not just the community team, there are probably plenty of people out there who agree with them. Like me. If people could hide their edits, that means editing becomes much more open for abuse. Even if edits aren't outright malicious, from time to time edits do not improve the post, or the community disagrees on what should and shouldn't be in the post.

Again, if your leaders have discussed their edits with the entire community, and gotten approval to start doing these edits, there's nothing to worry about, because the community knows these posts will be bumped. But edits that bypass this process might be labelled as malicious, and all your feature does is help your clique of leaders get rid of some oversight. I don't want to have to rely on users having to keep track of edits in an extra list to see malicious, wrong, or superfluous editing to flag them. Just bump them, your leaders need oversight as well.

We can add the option "organizing edit" in the editing environment of posts so that a certain group of community members, who are already selected by community moderators, can use this option to make required edits on a set of post.

At least, this selection of users shouldn't be manual: All that does is add overhead, because you need to manually check if this person really can be trusted with this option before allowing them.

It's also not necessary if your group leaders follow the right process for these edits: Discuss them on meta first. After that, it no longer matters who makes the edits, anyone with editing privileges can do so.

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