Those of you who both edit and upvote: do you ever upvote a question after you have edited it, voting up your "work" of clarifying/improving the post?

What do you think of this? Positive or negative action?

Personally, I view voting as a way to help other users on the Stack Exchange network and to encourage them...And that someone out there actually read their post and appreciated/noticed it...

Related: Editing others' posts - general etiquette

5 Answers 5


Practically speaking, I see no difference between upvoting then editing vs. editing then upvoting. Either way you are saying "this is a good post but needs a little work."

I don't do it, personally; usually if I'm editing a question it's because I think the original had some serious problems, which means that even the revised question isn't going to be great.

I have, however, edited answers to my questions immediately before accepting them, and I recommend this to anybody who receives incomplete answers and who has the privileges to do so. It's better than a self-answer in most respects, since you're giving proper credit to the one who helped you but also helping to make the answer more authoritative.

  1. If it's a question I'm interested in, I'll up-vote it.

  2. If it needs work in order to be answerable, I'll edit it. And then up-vote, if #1 applies.

  3. If, after editing according to #2, the OP rolls back my edits or otherwise screws with the text such that it's inappropriate or no longer answerable, I'll down-vote.

So really, editing doesn't affect my votes, other than forestalling down-votes in cases where the author was lazy or otherwise unable to communicate effectively.


I was going to ask this myself! Since you asked first I'll answer with what I do: If I edit a post, I only upvote it if I feel the author's original intent deserves to be upvoted. I try not to edit to change meaning, so I upvote after my edits, and my upvote means "This is a good point, question, or answer". I don't upvote (if I edited) to mean "This is (now) well written)"

I will very often upvote a question which I edited to clean up if I feel it was downvoted because the author was very unclear, for example, if they don't speak English well.


I'm sure I've done this at some point or another, but I don't remember specific instances where I have or haven't done it. Actually, it's a non-issue as far as I'm concerned. Edits shouldn't change the content or meaning of a post, and upvotes aren't about the OP's spelling/grammar skills. (Well, except on English SE, if the spelling/grammar is the content, but special cases are special.) In other words, when done right, voting and editing should be independent of each other.

  • 1
    +1: Good to know as I highly value your opinion on subjects like this. Oct 14, 2010 at 1:42
  • 2
    Well, if the language was so incredibly poor at the outset and editing makes it legible, I could see this having significance. Of course I agree that most edits are and should be minor and therefore it's largely arbitrary and unimportant whether the upvote comes before or after the edit.
    – Aarobot
    Oct 14, 2010 at 1:43

I've edited plenty of crappy posts that I wouldn't vote for, but I left them in better shape than when I found them.

You must log in to answer this question.

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