Skip to main content

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

66
  • 95
    Could you please roll out the stats on the numbers of people who'd get the badges at feature intoduction? Are we talking about dozens or hundreds Keeper badges? Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 7:31
  • 6
    @Harry Yes. But the same editing norms apply, try to fix as much as you possibly can in your edit. If it's just missing a language tag, that's fine - add the tag. But please don't leave 'error in listview' as the title. Remember, the edit has to stick.
    – user50049
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 7:42
  • 3
    @AndriyM: It is perfectly possible to add a not so useful tag without it getting rolled back mate. Somebody could go on and just add a "loops" tag to any question that remotely is about loops and not many would really want to roll it back. But I think there is not much that can be done about it. To get something positive, we have to end up accepting some negatives too.
    – Harry
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 7:46
  • 50
    For: One of the most frustrating things about SO is seeing perfectly viable questions closed by people who don't understand them. Against: everyone who answers a question will then attempt to "polish" the question in silly little ways. Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 7:51
  • 32
    Will there be an "quality controls" on the edits beyond just "not rolled back or rejected"? If I just answer and then immediately edit <!--html comments--> or zero​width​spaces into the question, will I still be eligible for the badge? (I tend to believe that such invisible edits won't be rolled back, or even really noticed.)
    – user642796
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:00
  • 12
    I think this is a fantastic idea, but I, too, share the concern that it will lead to numerous inconsequential edits for the sole purpose of achieving the badges. Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:08
  • 5
    @TimPost: Since this badge is different from the Copy Editor and is introduced with more emphasis on increasing the usefulness/searchability of the question, wouldn't adding a parameter for the no. of views (total/post edit) make sense? I think that could be a better (not the best) indicator of the usefullness of the edit.
    – Harry
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:09
  • 21
    I suggest a stronger condition: The question needs to go from negative votes to positive after the edit.
    – Mysticial
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:11
  • 27
    People rarely up-vote questions, as a general rule. People certainly don't tend to upvote questions with a negative score, even if they are now "stellar". So I'm in favour of merely the edit being enough. Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:19
  • 17
    I do not understand the "12 hour" criteria. Does it matter if a Q&A are both improved within one hour or whether the improvements are one week apart? Both improve the overall quality of the site.
    – AdrianHHH
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:40
  • 8
    I think the edit should be substantial, editing a tag or a title is not enough. Also, I think the answer should be accepted.
    – Sklivvz StaffMod
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 8:41
  • 19
    @Sklivvz Sometimes a title edit is substantial, if you completely rewrite the title based on your answer. And yeah, we're saying - normal editing guidelines apply. However, I don't want to do anything that starts up the accpet-my-answer-grrr badgering again ;)
    – user50049
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 10:08
  • 12
    Do we really want to award users for editing a question to match an answer, let alone their own? Sure, there are some cases where this is beneficial, e.g., if the asker only clarified something by accepting an answer or the asker vanished without clarifying. But many unclear questions can only be clarified by the asker and clarifying them without the asker’s consent can lead to more confusion and even disgruntle the asker, if it was against their intent. Such edits are very rare as far as I can tell and I would prefer it to stay that way.
    – Wrzlprmft
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 11:18
  • 20
    My suggestion is similar to Mysticial's, but less restrictive: add the requirement Question upvoted at least once after the edit, by someone other than the answerer. This would make badges better correlate with tangible improvement of questions, rather than with editing for the sake of the badge.
    – user259867
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 11:33
  • 8
    I want to thank everyone so far that has provided feedback, you folks are just amazing. So far, I'm pretty convinced that we'd have to drop the bronze requirements down a bit, those need to be a bit easier to earn. I need to think about concerns regarding folks gaming to get the badge (and the annoyance that can create), as well as the time window being a bit too narrow. Thank you, everyone for making this as productive as its been today - and please keep at it for any ideas or concerns that have not come up yet. I think most like the idea, I'm going to take another look at the mechanics.
    – user50049
    Commented Sep 24, 2014 at 16:15