Timeline for Removing reputation for rejected edits
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
40 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 4, 2017 at 16:25 | comment | added | brddawg | Reviewer approval is key - don't approve pointless edits. I've had ~30% of my edits rejected and nearly all of them had nothing to do with the quality of work editing. In several cases my edits were superseded by someone with 2k even when my edits were substantially better in improving the material (i.e. capitalize the title and remove extra words compared with clarifying the body of the question). | |
| Jun 14, 2016 at 4:35 | answer | added | Ani Menon | timeline score: 3 | |
| May 21, 2016 at 14:24 | answer | added | The Codesee | timeline score: -1 | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 23:00 | comment | added | Andre Silva | Suggestion that might reduce possible conflicts and help your suggestion to get approved: make the -1 rep only when the decision of rejecting is unanimous and it has 3 reviewers revisions. Usually, unanimous decisions (for rejecting) do really mean it is a bad edit. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 21:22 | comment | added | Joe W | This will only stop some of the bad edits as it will do nothing to users with 2K+ rep who do not need to get edits approved. | |
| Aug 7, 2014 at 13:11 | history | edited | kviiri |
edited tags
|
|
| Aug 1, 2014 at 17:53 | comment | added | 0b10011 | I really contemplated bolding "I suggest placing a -1 or -2 reputation penalty on each rejected edit suggested by the user". I restrained myself. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 14:47 | comment | added | user3791372 | I've corrected code before only for it to be rejected by the poster. Why should I be punished as I only have a small score | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 14:01 | comment | added | Joshua Taylor | @KenWhite This accomplishes nothing except to deter people from wanting to edit in the first place. I disagree. This deters low-rep users from submitting edits for approval that have a significant chance of being rejected. So many edits are accepted today that it's unlikely that good edits will start being rejected, and after enough rep, users can make whatever edits they want. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 12:40 | comment | added | kviiri | @Holger, yes, you only get rep for approved edits - but with our sloppy reviewers, you're going to get even minor, "robo-edits" accepted, I don't know, maybe 50% of the time. You get a better "return of investment" for your time by making a ton of little edits than paying real attention to a few edits. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 12:33 | comment | added | Holger | @kviiri: I thought you get rep points for approved edits only. By making rejected edits you cannot become reviewer. And in the case bad edits are approved your suggestion doesn’t help anyway. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 12:04 | comment | added | kviiri | @Holger, the problem is not that people edit for rep points, it's that people make bad edits, and rep points reward that. And then they get to be reviewers, and start approving bad edits to get a badge. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 11:48 | comment | added | Holger | Edits are only reviewed if the user has a low rep anyway. On the other hand, regardless of how low the rep is, nothing stops a user from suggesting new edits. So the suggestion is a bit pointless. If a user really edits for rep points, (s)he will finally reach a rep level where edits gain no rep points at all… | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 10:24 | comment | added | Marco13 | The only option I can think of would be to let one edit cost 1 rep. If it is accepted, one receives +3 rep, giving him a total of +2. Otherwise, he has lost 1 rep. This could at least prevent people from "harvesting" reputation with hundreds of useless edits, and force them to really think about which edits will most likely be accepted. (I guess something similar was already proposed somewhere, but I did not find something with a quick search) | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 10:05 | comment | added | kviiri | @MarcusWigert, yep - but I think the key is immediate feedback. No edit ban days after a spree, but rather an immediate notifier that the edit wasn't accepted. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 10:01 | comment | added | Mwigs |
Harder restrictions and lower limits for review-ban should keep the "vampire reviewers" at bay, or at lest decrease the regularity their appearance. PS. Read as "backtickLing words"
|
|
| Aug 1, 2014 at 9:35 | comment | added | PlasmaHH | Are there actually even edits that get rejected? I cant remember anymore if there was a time where rejecting an edit would not pop up the "this edit has already been approved" box. But then again, I stopped doing any reviews a while ago... | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 7:39 | comment | added | kviiri | I'd also like to point out that giving negative reputation hasn't been deterring people from answering posts, or at least haven't made us suffer from the lack of answers. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 5:44 | comment | added | kviiri | @KenWhite, I want to deter people from editing. Specifically people who routinely make bad edits. You say people don't understand they're making - then why not tell them like we tell people their questions and answers are bad, or off-topic? Currently the site gives absolutely zero feedback to them, and the suspension of privileges happens only late and for opaque reasons. I want a form of immediate, concrete feedback. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 5:36 | answer | added | gnuanu | timeline score: 9 | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 2:03 | comment | added | Ken White | -1 This accomplishes nothing except to deter people from wanting to edit in the first place. There are already forms of deterrence that work better (the suspension of privileges). It also would have very limited effectiveness; the +2 rep for edits stops once you've reached a certain amount of rep for doing so, and then you're simply subtracting rep from people who may be honestly trying to improve the question and just not quite understand when and how to do so. | |
| Aug 1, 2014 at 1:29 | comment | added | Matthew Lundberg | I disagree with this suggestion. It would be better if the +2 rep were removed if the approved suggestion is rolled back. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 15:50 | answer | added | Ben Voigt | timeline score: 50 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 15:23 | answer | added | Kirk Woll | timeline score: 78 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 15:20 | comment | added | neminem | I would be ok with that, as long as it knows the difference between actually-rejected edits, and those that were "rejected" by Community because another edit occurred simultaneously. I have a dozen or two rejected edits, of which I believe most of them were that type. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 14:05 | answer | added | Servy | timeline score: 117 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 13:27 | history | edited | kviiri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 144 characters in body
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:28 | comment | added | kviiri | @mohacs, misjudgements happen, and that's bad. There are even review audits that have been wrongly labeled, causing people to get banned from reviewing. These can be reported and fixed, and so I believe the reject penalties if they're "awarded" in error. In any case, I believe that any careful editor would get misjudged only occasionally, and the reputation loss would be insignificant while cutting a great deal of unconstructive editing. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:19 | history | edited | user247702 |
This edit is mainly done so I can undo my downvote.
|
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:18 | comment | added | modusCell | Another case, after awhile a question posted OP edited question and added a sentence on top of the question in bold saying "39 views and still no answer?". Deleted that part from question and submitted to review q and I has rejected. Misjudgement again. Kinda agree with you, people just edit posts to change "I'll" to "I will". For my account I am only fixing code indents because I am thinking it is important. How we are going to distinguish which one proper which not. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:15 | comment | added | kviiri | @Stijn, thanks. I understand the point though, I'm very frustrated with the edit conflicts myself. I just don't have a clear picture of how it's supposed to work, lacking experience with this kind of VC myself. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:13 | comment | added | kviiri | @Stijn, I think a better edit conflict system is a technical issue that would need to be handled anyway. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:12 | comment | added | kviiri | @mohacs, so you could get a fair feedback for any mistakes you make instead of getting a seemingly random ban after making dozens of unconstructive edits. Getting rep-hounding editors to be more careful would make the work easier for reviewers as well (and thus reduce the amount of bad calls they make). | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:10 | comment | added | user247702 | -1 because sometimes edit collisions happen making a suggested edit look strange. If a 2k+ user fixes 5 problems with a post and a suggested edit fixes 4 of them, it will appear like the suggested edit introduces a bad change. These need to be rejected but the user shouldn't be punished for it. | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 12:06 | comment | added | modusCell | @kviiri the other day I have edited a question, the code was inside block quote instead of proper code block and the edit has been rejected, the reason was too minor edit which I totally disagreed with it. Why should I lose rep because of misjudgement? | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 10:48 | comment | added | Tonio | @kviiri Well honestly, I agree with you. In fact, I even suggested this recently (meta.stackoverflow.com/a/267071/3401018), however no one exactly explained to me why this was a bad idea... | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 10:27 | review | Close votes | |||
| Jul 31, 2014 at 10:49 | |||||
| Jul 31, 2014 at 10:15 | answer | added | user285oo6 | timeline score: -18 | |
| Jul 31, 2014 at 9:53 | history | edited | kviiri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 83 characters in body
|
| Jul 31, 2014 at 9:46 | history | asked | kviiri | CC BY-SA 3.0 |