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.

Post History

66%
+4 −1
Q&A How should we approach large numbers of edits made all at once?

New information or critical edits Adding new information or making edits which need to be done as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something). -> go for it! Useful, ...

posted 4mo ago by samcarter‭  ·  edited 4mo ago by samcarter‭

Answer
#7: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T18:01:21Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or making edits which need to be don as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something).*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • For example on TopAnswers/tex, I recently wanted to update many of my answers to replace a library with a more modern fork. As this amassed to about 10 % of all post on the page, I discussed this first with the other users of the site to see if they preferred a one-and-be-done approach or spread out over time.
  • ### New information or critical edits
  • *Adding new information or making edits which need to be done as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something).*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • For example on TopAnswers/tex, I recently wanted to update many of my answers to replace a library with a more modern fork. As this amassed to about 10 % of all post on the page, I discussed this first with the other users of the site to see if they preferred a one-and-be-done approach or spread out over time.
#6: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T17:36:46Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or making edits which need to be don as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something).*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or making edits which need to be don as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something).*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • For example on TopAnswers/tex, I recently wanted to update many of my answers to replace a library with a more modern fork. As this amassed to about 10 % of all post on the page, I discussed this first with the other users of the site to see if they preferred a one-and-be-done approach or spread out over time.
#5: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T17:29:54Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or editing some dangerous information/something else which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or making edits which need to be don as soon as possible (maybe to remove dangerous information or something).*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
#4: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T17:22:13Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits
  • *Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • ### Critical edits or new information
  • *Adding new information or editing some dangerous information/something else which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
#3: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T17:03:51Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits
  • *Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • ### Critical edits
  • *Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day, busier communities like meta, can probably cope with more edits).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
#2: Post edited by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T16:56:16Z (4 months ago)
  • ### Critical edits
  • *Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is.
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
  • ### Critical edits
  • *Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*
  • -> go for it!
  • ### Useful, but not critical edits
  • *Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*
  • Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews.
  • Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is (on powerusers we recently had a case of serial tag edits and I tried to spread out my reviews to one per day).
  • ### Unnecessary edits
  • *Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*
  • While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.
  • As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.
  • ### Special cases
  • There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.
#1: Initial revision by user avatar samcarter‭ · 2024-02-17T16:44:05Z (4 months ago)
### Critical edits

*Some dangerous information or something which needs editing as soon as possible.*

-> go for it!

### Useful, but not critical edits

*Like adding tags, fixing typos in title or in other important words which will make the post easier to search for.*

Such edits should be spread out to not overwhelm the front page. This should be the responsibility of the direct and suggesting editors. If one of the suggesting editors fails to spread them out, the reviewers can also delay their reviews. 

Finding a good frequency for edits will depend on how busy a community is. 

### Unnecessary edits

*Fixing typos like `teh -> the`.*

While such edits can make a post easier to read, especially for non-native speakers, I don't think they justify serial bumping old posts to the front page. Editing a post which is anyway on the front page or a one-off is ok, but please don't serial edit such cases, that's not worth taking away attention from other questions on the front page.

As reviewer, I would reject them if I would come across several of such edits at once.

### Special cases

There can be special cases which require a large number of edits. I think they should be discussed on the per-site meta on a case-by-case basis.