Timeline for Editing posts: number of edits vs reputation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Aug 31, 2019 at 13:38 | vote | accept | schrodingerscatcuriosity | ||
| Aug 31, 2019 at 13:22 | history | edited | ZannaMod | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 5 characters in body; edited title
|
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:53 | answer | added | Eliah Kagan | timeline score: 7 | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:29 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | Doing something like that would be a first on SE AFAIK but it would make sense. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:28 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | OK, fair enough, so let's move away from my confusion and discuss the actual proposal. I think someone who is a prolific editor could find their self in a situation where they could never earn the right to edit freely (rep cap for edits is 1000) and that could be seen as counter productive to the site as that user could get frustrated and potentially just give up. This would be the perfect thing to lock behind some kind of badge (I never understood why badges don't get more love on SE) so when a user with <2k rep has say 250 approved edits they could unlock the privilege. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:18 | comment | added | schrodingerscatcuriosity | @MarkKirby "I'm still below the reputation to edit posts without them needed to be peer reviewed." is to be interpreted as "this is an example of (user without enough rep)". Sorry if you didn't understood it like this. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:15 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | @EliahKagan The first line "I'm still below the reputation to edit posts without them needed to be peer reviewed." is what makes me think this is a personal request based on frustration the OP has faced, combined with the over the top example, and no matter how many times I read it, it sounds like that to me. I mentioned the 23 edits out of surprise as I was expecting to see, at least hundreds of them. I don't out right dissargee with the proposal but my downvote represents my confusion at the post. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:07 | history | edited | schrodingerscatcuriosity | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 228 characters in body
|
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:07 | comment | added | Eliah Kagan | @MarkKirby This post had started by saying "Suppose that I have 1000 approved edits." So "you think because you have 23 edits total you should get the privilege?" does not seem like an accurate guess about the thought process that went into this post. Nothing here remotely supports that interpretation. Downvotes on meta are often used to express disagreement, especially in the feature-request tag, and I am absolutely not suggesting that you should change your vote, nor do you have any obligation to explain votes. But the explanation you did give really does not make sense. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 18:01 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | I clearly was asking for clarification and any, wrong or not, assumptions were made from a reading of your post. My downvote is explained in detail and was in no way something I went "straight to". If you don't want to discuss it, why even bother posting this? You even just said it was an attempt at "reductio ad absurdum" so the fact I find it absurd should be of no surprise to you. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:59 | comment | added | schrodingerscatcuriosity | @Kulfy I was trying to make kind a "reductio ad absurdum" to make my point more clear, It shouldn't be taken literally. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:51 | comment | added | schrodingerscatcuriosity | @MarkKirby You didn't ask me to elaborate, you just assumed (wrongly) what my question is about and went straight to downvoting. Anyways, this won't become an extended discussion. Unless you have a useful comment, I'm not answering anymore. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:46 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | Your post does read like that and the passive aggressive comment you just left backs that up. Sorry if you don't like my feedback, I am just trying to understand your point here but if you don't want to elaborate, so be it.. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:42 | comment | added | schrodingerscatcuriosity | @MarkKirby Sorry, but I'm not complaining and it's not personal. I don't think I should earn the privilege because my actual amount of editings. I'm not frustrated, and I don't think my question shows that attitude. Thanks for your (failed) feedback. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:37 | comment | added | Mark Kirby | This seems very personal but as you only have 23 edits I don't get what you are complaining about here, you think because you have 23 edits total you should get the privilege? I do get your frustration, we have all been there but you post is such a massive over exaggeration of your current situation and the case you present as an example would be such a massive outlier, it just comes off as silly. -1 | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:29 | comment | added | Kulfy | Editing is a part of moderation. If the user has 0 edits in first place, I don't think they'd be interested in editing even if 2k reputation is earned. | |
| Aug 30, 2019 at 17:17 | history | asked | schrodingerscatcuriosity | CC BY-SA 4.0 |