I just checked with this query how many edits I made. It is 746, so I think I should get the new CopyEditor badge.

Likewise the tag wiki page for jQuery says I have over 400 up-votes for this tag (must be already a week or so).

I haven't got any of these badges. Is there a general problem with the badge system? I know that there have been some problems with down-votes and false awarded badges but this does not apply here.

Is it just me? Is everyone else happy? :)

I confess I want to have a gold badge! It looks so nice!!! :o)


The data explorer tells me I have 394 upvotes in jQuery. The wiki page says I have 429. My actual reputation is 23,552 and not 23,632. So maybe it is just an reputation calculation problem?


So even if this is just a reputation calculation/update/whatever problem (I don't know yet), the question is whether this can be avoided somehow. I am sure others will come and wonder about their tag up-votes as well and ask similar questions.

Maybe there could be a note on the wiki page that says that this number is only approximately and that it can be off?

  • 4
    FYI: The edits Data Explorer query counts both edits and retags -- retags do not count towards the badge (nor towards Strunk & White). Since there is no post history in the data dump, retags cannot be differentiated from edits, so the query gives a best approximation, although it could be wildly off at any time. – Jon Seigel Aug 3 '10 at 16:58
  • @Jon, i think that's the answer. – jjnguy Aug 3 '10 at 16:59
  • @Jon Seigel: Ah. That is good to know. Then I probably have way less "real" edits... there is still the problem with the jQuery tag though. – Felix Aug 3 '10 at 17:01

According to that query, I have made 209 question edits and 8 answer edits on Stack Overflow.

I am sub-2k on Stack Overflow, and only have 29 questions. I have probably modified under 30 CW questions, so that means a whole lot of those edits are just retags. That means that retags are counted in the query.

Now, I can't recall where I read it, but the Strunk & White and Copy Editor badges require you to actually edit the post bodies (possibly titles) in order to qualify. Mere retagging is insufficient. So since the query includes all retag actions, it is very likely that you have a whole bunch of retags, at least 150 or so, which is tainting that number to appear much larger than it should.

Regarding the specialist badge, it was confirmed in this question that the value used to earn the badge is your score as would be shown on tag Stats, not purely upvotes as the description implies. That score is equivalent to (upvotes-downvotes) on all non-CW posts where (upvotes > downvotes).

| improve this answer | |
  • +1 because this deserves a higher score than my answer at this time – Pops Aug 3 '10 at 17:06

This is something of a long shot since you have 746 edits — rather than, say, 603 — but has it not been very long since you made your 600th edit? Some badges are not awarded in real time; instead, scripts run every few days to see if anyone has met the requirement in the time since the last batch of awards of that badge.

| improve this answer | |
  • General badge time is 2 days when no problems are around. That query ends by July 31st and it's already August 3rd, so that's been 746 edits for at least 3 days now. – Grace Note Aug 3 '10 at 16:56
  • Honestly I don't know when I did the 600th edit. I don't think I made 140 edits in the last 2 or 3 days (but who knows)... – Felix Aug 3 '10 at 16:58
  • @Grace, nice point; I don't use the data explorer unless someone links to it, so I don't know how to check the date range involved. Does it just use the last month's public data dump? – Pops Aug 3 '10 at 17:05
  • It uses the latest data dump. On the main page, it will tell you the latest date for each site so you know when it has actually been updated. – Grace Note Aug 3 '10 at 17:06

Besides the issues mentioned by Jon and Grace, that edit count query also counts all your edits.
For the edit count badges like S&W however only edits on posts by other users are taking into consideration.

To summarize the problems:

  • The query counts self-edits (over-counting).
  • There is no way to differentiate tag-only-edits from edits qualifying for S&W (over-counting).
  • There is no post-history available in the data explorer, only the last edit (under-counting).

You can either filter out your own posts from the query you linked or use one based on Jons query here - but you can't get reliable counts for edits qualifying for S&W anyway.

As for the tag-specialist - these are batched and 429 upvotes sounds like it would be rather fresh for you. Have some patience :)

| improve this answer | |
  • Two things: 1. that query wasn't written to discount self-edits -- see the one I wrote here for a better example, and 2. since the data dump does not contain post history, it's possible that real edits are buried in the history and there's no way to know. – Jon Seigel Aug 4 '10 at 4:43
  • Also, that query should probably pull the actual badge status directly from the badges table instead of "guessing" based on the calculated number of edits. – Jon Seigel Aug 4 '10 at 4:49
  • @Jon: I don't get you, #1 is just what i'm saying and wrt #2 i already pointed to the issues you and Grace mentioned (i.e. missing history and tag edits)? – Georg Fritzsche Aug 4 '10 at 14:17
  • Sorry, I must've horribly misread your answer, although my point about having edits buried in history is new in this question. Have some rep. – Jon Seigel Aug 4 '10 at 16:51
  • @Jon: Ah, no problem. I took the liberty of integrating your comments for a summary. – Georg Fritzsche Aug 4 '10 at 17:07

You must log in to answer this question.

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