Timeline for Set a rep threshold for editing closed questions?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
19 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:04 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://superuser.com/ with https://superuser.com/
|
|
| Oct 15, 2016 at 7:08 | answer | added | Dragomok | timeline score: 5 | |
| Oct 7, 2016 at 14:31 | answer | added | Raystafarian | timeline score: 9 | |
| Oct 7, 2016 at 13:28 | history | tweeted | twitter.com/super_user/status/784384973696532480 | ||
| Oct 5, 2016 at 17:20 | comment | added | Máté Juhász | @jrh - that's about open question. You can really improve them that way. However for closed questions this "light edit" won't be enough to make them on-topic. | |
| Oct 5, 2016 at 13:52 | comment | added | jrh |
Related: Should we edit old, non-interesting questions?. This question kind of takes the opposite stance of the top voted answer on that question: If the question's grammar is a shambles, please rewrite the text so that the actual question is understandable. If there are small capitalization or English syntax errors, please fix them; it really doesn't take too long once you get a little practice. Hopefully this gets a clear answer so a reliable precedent is set...
|
|
| Oct 5, 2016 at 3:23 | comment | added | Máté Juhász | @fixer1234 you're right, that would also help. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 19:59 | comment | added | fixer1234 | A better solution to this problem might be a pop-up warning on clicking Edit or Improve Edit on a closed/on-hold question explaining that the edit needs to fix the hold issue. That would educate new users and alert experienced users who might not be paying enough attention. | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 19:57 | comment | added | fixer1234 | I'm not sure a rep threshold is the answer. A high rep user just did spelling cleanup on your example without thinking about the fact that it was a closed question. I've also run into the situation of reviewing a new-user edit of a closed question. The closed status doesn't appear in the edit review window. They will do an obviously incomplete fix of spelling/grammar and I click Improve Edit to finish the cleanup without checking the original post for status or reading the question for context to realize that it should be closed. (cont'd) | |
| Oct 4, 2016 at 12:44 | history | edited | Máté Juhász | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 511 characters in body
|
| Oct 3, 2016 at 23:17 | comment | added | fixer1234 | @MátéJuhász, if the question is already closed/on-hold, no edit should be approved that doesn't solve the close issue. That just creates needless work for re-open reviewers. If the question's still open, it's a judgement call. Edits that make a question more answerable, or even generally improve its quality, I usually approve unless they cherry-pick a few problems and leave the post still needing major work. If it's an old, low value question, I weigh the utility of spell-correcting a word in a dead, useless question vs. bumping it and having it steal oxygen from current questions. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 18:02 | comment | added | Ramhound | @MátéJuhász - The questions are not salvageable in your opionion. Which means if you believe the edits do not improve the question, then the proposed edits should be rejected, but users should be able to propose edits to questions regardless of their reputation. At least until their suggestions are rejected by the community to many times. One of the few ways of getting reputation, outside of answering questions or asking questions yourself, is to propose edits to existing answers and questions. If the content cannot be improved vote to delete/close and move on to the next answer/qustion | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 16:46 | comment | added | Máté Juhász | @David: yes, I know:), and also I improve edits when the question make sense, however I can't agree with "improvement" of non salvageable questions. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 16:17 | history | edited | DavidPostillMod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited title
|
| Oct 3, 2016 at 16:05 | comment | added | DavidPostill Mod | @MátéJuhász In this case it should have been rejected/improved because he missed 2 misspellings of environment. You can of course choose to improve edits ... | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 16:02 | comment | added | DavidPostill Mod | @MátéJuhász Please don't complain. That's how a lot of new users get their early rep. As long as their edits are complete (fix everything) it's OK. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 14:42 | comment | added | Máté Juhász | @JourneymanGeek: I've rejected many of his proposals as not improvement. Even if he make true corrections I don't expect new users to correct only a few typos per post and spend others' time too. | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 14:37 | comment | added | Journeyman Geek Mod | eh. Looks a lot like he's searching for specific mispellings and correcting them and other errors. A good chunk of his edits seem fine | |
| Oct 3, 2016 at 14:27 | history | asked | Máté Juhász | CC BY-SA 3.0 |