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

Dashboard
Notifications
Mark all as read
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.

Could we have a way to edit without bumping posts?

+9
−2

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. ↩︎

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

8 comments

How do you avoid abuse by people being dishonest about an edit being minor? Olin Lathrop‭ about 2 months 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. Moshi‭ about 2 months 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? Sigma‭ about 2 months 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. Moshi‭ about 2 months 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? Olin Lathrop‭ about 1 month ago

Show 3 more comments

4 answers

+2
−0

Speaking for myself and not the team (I haven't discussed this with anyone else), here are some things I'd like to consider:

  • 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.

  • However, the system should have some sort of threshold (TBD) beyond which, no matter what the submitter says, we don't treat it as minor. Even though we trust the editor's intentions, if you're overhauling most of the answer, it's good to make that visible for others to look over. Besides, it might change some votes.

  • Edits to other people's posts should always generate notifications to the author, major or minor. (I believe this is the case now at Codidact, so I'm saying: don't change that for minor edits. People should always have a chance to see what words someone else is putting in their mouths. Somewhere Else they don't notify for "minor" edits, and that's sometimes been a problem.)

  • I think we generally want edits to your own posts to bump. Vandalism happens, long-game spam happens, and if it's your own post then no one else is going to be notified. I think we could mitigate this by setting some sort of time limit -- maybe we only bump if it's been 24 or 48 or (TBD) hours since the last bumping edit? So you can do that flurry of fixes over the course of a day and only bump it once, but if you come back three weeks later and edit again, it'll bump. Or...maybe we say that if you have the edit privilege then you can make non-bumping edits to your own posts, but if your edit to someone else's post would have had to go through review, your self-edits bump? Thinking out loud here...

These are ideas for discussion; they're not ready to be proposed rules yet. That last one, in particular, needs a lot more thought.

Opinions?

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

0 comments

+0
−1

As @Lundin explained why minor edits shouldn't bump post. I will say why it has to.

For old posts :

  • There's a lot of questions haven't answered in SE sites (It will happen to Codidact when very professional people will ask question). Suppose, I am having grub-loader issue on internet. I found some unanswered question in Power Codidact (The site isn't available yet but, I am using Codidact instead of SE). If I edit title/tag only in that post. So, it will bump. For that reason new user can see that post and some of them may answer on that post. If someone answer on that post than it will be helpful for others(who are facing the issue). So, minor is good.

For new posts :

  • I found a post in Software Codidact which I can answer and, that is very hard. But I am familiar with that bug. So, no one answered on that question. But, I was very busy that moment. In Codidact there's no way to bookmark post as SE has. And, If I use Codidact than history won't be saved. I became very busy with my works that's why I couldn't answer on that post. So, when I come back again to answer on that question. I notice that I was using this site (Software Codidact) in private (also known as incognito) mode. Although I was searching that post. But, I couldn't find out. So, if you do minor edit in that post. Then, it will bump So, I can find the post easily cause, it will show in top (But, if doesn't bump. Then, it will remain unanswered). That's why minor edit is good.

While I was writing the post I was searching posts like this in SE also. I found a beautiful answer.

Minor edits can be good
1. Codidact is intended to be a top-quality Q&A site, meant not just for the OP, but for posterity. Thanks to search engines, questions and answers become authoritative for the whole Internet.
2. Spelling and grammar mistakes, even small ones, make posts more difficult to read, and negatively reflect on their quality as a whole.
3. Codidact has a very large community, who read and re-read many questions multiple times a day.

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

1 comment

I didn't downvote, but your post is hard to read in places, to the point where it's confusing what you are trying to say. Perhaps the -1 was for the bad English. Olin Lathrop‭ about 1 month ago

+0
−1

While it would be nice for minor edits to not bump posts, the problem is defining what "minor" is, and leaving it for the person who did the edit to judge. Hopefully, most people won't be subjected to the edit queue eventually, so that's not the answer.

I certainly want to know about all edit anyone makes to my posts. Most edits Elsewhere to my posts were to correct spelling and the the like. I have no problem with that. However, there were also too many cases where I wrote something a certain way quite deliberately, and someone else then changed it. The worst kind of edit is where someone "helpfully" inserts a mention of something I purposely left off because I felt it was a detail that was mostly distracting in the large scheme of things.

These sites have such low volume that currently a few bumped posts aren't much of a problem. We should leave things as they are now, and revisit this if bumped posts become a problem.

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

0 comments

+0
−4

I agree, this is a problem when the site activity is low. For example I wrote a very long answer at Software Dev the other week, then re-visited it later and corrected some typos etc. Then someone else found a typo too and edited it again. This could easily be mistaken for purposely "bumping" the post.

I really don't see why edits need to bump a post in the first place. It's almost always nothing but disruptive. The most obvious example is the issue with status tags added to bug reports here on meta.

New answers should bump a post, but I don't quite see why edits need to do so.

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

6 comments

I would want major edits to still bump, because if somebody did a major overhaul of a (previously) poor post I probably want to change my vote, which means knowing about the change. But I don't want to be directly notified of every change (i.e. following posts doesn't solve this for me), because that would be too noisy. Being able to passively notice them is great. Typos, on the other hand, are a different thing. Monica Cellio‭ about 1 month ago

@Lundin There is a reason why edits bump the posts. It helps moderate the edits. When the post is bumped, more folks will look at the edits. They can spot abuses such as editing spam into an old post, content destruction, etc. Nick Alexeev‭ about 1 month ago

@Nick Alexeev‭ I don't really buy that argument when there's a edit review system in place. Lundin‭ about 1 month ago

And no matter the arguments, the disadvantages overrule any advantages bumping might give when there is low participation. Bumping only makes the lack of new content situation worse. Lundin‭ about 1 month ago

The edit approvals cover the cases when Alice edits Bob's post. Bumping is a form of review which covers the case when Bob edits his own posts, or a moderator edits Bob's post. So, bumping is a part of the edit review system. Low participation is a temporary condition. That shall pass. Nick Alexeev‭ about 1 month ago

Show 1 more comments

Sign up to answer this question »

This community is part of the Codidact network. We have other communities too — take a look!

You can also join us in chat!

Want to advertise this community? Use our templates!