Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Welcome to Codidact Meta!

Codidact Meta is the meta-discussion site for the Codidact community network and the Codidact software. Whether you have bug reports or feature requests, support questions or rule discussions that touch the whole network – this is the site for you.

Comments on Could we have a way to edit without bumping posts?

Post

Could we have a way to edit without bumping posts?

+14
−3

Whenever a post is edited, the question is automatically bumped to the top of the category post list.

This is useful for major changes to posts because people can see that something has changed. However, it is a slight annoyance when the edit is extremely minor, such as changing the tags of a question or fixing a spelling mistake. In those touch-up cases, there isn't really a significant change that warrants the increased attention.

Also, I'm sure nobody needs to be subjected to ten posts being bumped to the top of the feed just because a new tag was created, and old posts were updated with it.

I personally have avoided editing old posts for exactly this reason; we don't have much activity as it is, so having already well-answered questions be bumped and push down more recent unanswered questions seems counterproductive.

Could we have a way to mark an edit as "minor" or something, or otherwise have an option to not bump the post? This mark would ideally be applied by the edit reviewers, who we trust to make these types of calls.

Note that other than not bumping the post, there would be no functional difference from normal edits. The edits would still have to be reviewed, would show the edited indicator that includes who edited, and would still appear in the edit history, as normal.


Possible concerns raised

It will allow malicious edits to go unnoticed

[H]ow do you get around the case where someone makes a major or malicious edit, then tries to hide that by claiming it was minor? — Olin Lathrop

The review system exists for a reason. If someone attempts to maliciously edit another's post, that should be caught by the review system.

If they are editing their own post, well, the only harm done is to themselves.

If they can edit others' posts without review, well... I'd be more concerned about how a malicious person managed to gain that ability.

Bumping gives unanswered questions attention

There are better ways of giving attention to unanswered or poorly answered questions. Since they mention SE, I will note they have a specific tab for unanswered questions. They also have a bounty system, though it wouldn't be easy to set up here due to Codidact being relatively less rep focused.

Besides, it's not like this suggestion is to remove the ability to bump; it is to add the ability to not bump. If someone wants to bump a post to give it more attention, they still have that ability[1]

Edits should notify the author regardless of how minor

Edits to other people's posts should always generate notifications to the author, major or minor. — Monica Cellio

I certainly want to know about all edit anyone makes to my posts. — Olin Lathrop

I agree.

How would the minor label be determined?

We shouldn't try to programmatically determine what a "minor" edit is; in the right context, one character is a major edit. Designation as minor needs to be human-powered. — Monica Cellio

I personally think that the label should be applied at the time of review; We already trust reviewers to be able to judge good and bad edits, so it doesn't seem much of a stretch to let them judge whether to bump due to an edit.


  1. Whether they should be doing such is another issue. ↩︎

History
Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

2 comment threads

Spam seed (1 comment)
General comments (9 comments)
General comments
Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

How do you avoid abuse by people being dishonest about an edit being minor?

Moshi‭ wrote about 3 years ago

@OlinLathrop I'm not sure what you mean by that. How exactly could one abuse this feature? The only difference between a "minor" edit and a non-minor one would be whether it bumps the post.

Sigma‭ wrote about 3 years ago

@Moshi how does the system determine whether it bumps or not? If it's the result of a human marking it (similar to Wikipedia) how do we ensure people are marking in good faith (trust level based approval)? If it's some kind of system determined level (more than X characters changed), what level triggers a bump?

Moshi‭ wrote about 3 years ago

@Sigma To answer your question, it would be a human marking it. I don't think it's feasible for there to be a system for it. As for the good faith thing... I'm sorry, I still don't understand what the concern is.

Olin Lathrop‭ wrote about 3 years ago

What I meant is how do you get around the case where someone makes a major or malicious edit, then tries to hide that by claiming it was minor?

Moshi‭ wrote about 3 years ago

@OlinLathrop Well, the edit approval process exists for a reason... (if they are editng their own post with bad intent, well, they're only sabotaging themselves).

Moshi‭ wrote about 3 years ago

If its really such an issue, the easy solution is just to make so that "minor edits" are restricted to those with the Edit privilege, who we already trust not to make bad edits @Sigma

Monica Cellio‭ wrote about 3 years ago

Asking reviewers to decide if it's a minor edit is a nice approach.

They also have a bounty system, though it wouldn't be easy to set up here due to Codidact being relatively less rep focused.

I hope Codidact never gets this. It excludes people with less reputation, those that are most in need of actually using it.