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 What incentives are there currently to edit and moderate? Should there be more?

Parent

What incentives are there currently to edit and moderate? Should there be more?

+3
−2

On Stack Exchange, I spent a significant portion of my time on the site editing posts, because the idea of an SE site as a repository of useful reference information has long appealed to me.

Being new to Codidact, I am currently taking it all in and trying to observe to what extent one feels naturally inclined to begin editing pre-existing posts and content into a more polished or finished form, based on the site’s current design.

So far, I do not know if there is a small reputation reward for having a suggested edit on another’s post accepted by a mod, which is one incentive. If Codidact strives even more than Stack Exchange to encourage people to constantly refine and improve the existing content, should the incentives to make quality edits here be higher, than on SE? On SE, a normal upvote is worth 10 points; an accepted edit is generally worth 2. Could Codidact reward even slightly higher; with a rep boost of 3? Or with any other system, such as points relative to the amount of accepted edit content (i.e., proportional to the number of characters added, in an edit, or soemthing?)

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

1 comment thread

Abusable (1 comment)
Post
+6
−1

Intrinsic & extrinsic motivation, and perverse incentives

It is clear that your intentions are good, but the outcomes may not be.

Intrinsic or extrinsic?

People's motivation for making edits may be intrinsic or extrinsic. That is, they may be motivated by the desire to see the site improve, or the desire for personal reward.

I would expect the best results from people who want to see the site improve. This will motivate them to make each edit the best they can.

I would expect worse results from people who want to earn a reward. It is difficult to judge the value of an edit (it is simply accepted or rejected), so the reward will be received every time an edit is not rejected. This encourages edits to many different posts that are just good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the improvements to each post that the editor would have otherwise chosen to make.

Perverse incentives

In addition to prioritising quantity over quality, a well meaning reward may also introduce perverse incentives. If there is a reward per edit then there is an incentive to split up a full edit into as many separate small edits as possible, to get the reward multiple times. Since there is also an incentive to hide this behaviour to avoid any consequences, the subsequent small edits may be left for later and potentially be forgotten and never made.

Conclusion

For these two reasons, I would much prefer to see no additional reward for making edits. There is already a small reward for suggested edits in that each one counts towards earning the "Edit Posts" ability.

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

2 comment threads

Reputation (2 comments)
Minor edits are still valuable (4 comments)
Minor edits are still valuable

This encourages many low quality edits that are good enough to be accepted, rather than making all of the possible improvements to each post.

Small edits that only partially improve a post, are still useful and good contributions, unless the post itself is useless and worthless to Codidact. To borrow a citation from Stack Exchange: «don’t polish a turd».

trichoplax‭ wrote 2 months ago

I'm not suggesting that small edits should be avoided. I'm looking to avoid introducing an incentive for an editor to make their edit smaller than they would naturally have made it without the reward.

If someone makes a single word edit because that's all they want to make, that's a useful contribution.

If someone makes a single word edit because the other changes they considered would slow down their reward gathering, then the system has prevented those other useful contributions.

trichoplax‭ wrote 2 months ago

I've edited to try and make my intention clearer.

trichoplax‭ wrote 2 months ago

As an aside: that phrase is older than Stack Exchange...