Timeline for answer to Please don't just approve trivial suggested edits - rather improve the edit per the scope by jwg
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
Post Revisions
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 19, 2015 at 3:46 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @blujay Actually, edits correcting a handful typos in a paragraph that has to be completely rewritten anyway are a widespread problem. Or otherwise doing a cosmetic change and ignoring the big fat dump right next to (or more often containing) it. | |
| Nov 19, 2015 at 3:38 | comment | added | user712624 | Like jwg (who posted the answer I responded to), I am talking about this problem in general, not that specific edit that merely added a question mark (that didn't even belong). This problem of rejecting worthwhile changes because they "aren't worthwhile enough" is a widespread problem on SO. | |
| Nov 19, 2015 at 3:03 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @blujay: This one is an improvement? No, even hell no! The work created for the review-queue, and bumping the post for adding a single questionmark to the title, is in no way justified for that pedantery on punctuation in titles. Especially considering that the question needed lots of substantial editing (see the full revision-history), which also meant completely rewriting the title, thus discarding that change anyway! | |
| Nov 19, 2015 at 2:54 | comment | added | user712624 | @Deduplicator You are completely missing the point. Their suggested edit is worth it, because it is an improvement. Making something better is a good thing. The failure is on the part of elitists who reject others' work as "not worth it" in order to protect their elite status (which they attained by doing the same work they now reject from others). Additional failure is on the part of said elitists who fail to recognize the irony in their hypocrisy. | |
| Nov 15, 2015 at 0:02 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @blujay: If their suggested edit isn't worth it, how else would you characterize it than "failure"? | |
| Nov 14, 2015 at 7:18 | comment | added | user712624 | @Deduplicator What in the world are you talking about? Said people are not "failing while trying"--they are fixing problems! They are making improvements! They are leaving things in a state better than they found them in! "Failing"? Really?! | |
| Nov 10, 2015 at 17:32 | comment | added | Deduplicator | @blujay: No, they aren't punished for doing what the system was created to encourage. They just should not be rewarded for failing while trying (No "A" for effort), and if they fail consistently (and the reviewers don't), they are for a short time barred from keeping failing, which time they hopefully use to learn how and why they failed (Not only the mechanical part, but the intent.). If you see rep as what it is, a very rough and imperfect measure of the community's trust in your judgement, not increasing it for failing (or even decreasing it, but we won't go there) is the right thing. | |
| Oct 2, 2015 at 3:34 | comment | added | user712624 | Seriously, the paradox is mind-boggling. The system is created to award Internet Points to people who fix problems. Then when people attempt to fix problems, they are rejected and punished and shamed--for doing what the system was created to encourage. It seems that what's going on is, a certain mindset takes hold among those who reach the upper echelon, one in which they, in effect, defend their territory and status from those who would approach their level by doing what they did--that is, by doing what the system was created to reward. Internet Points are a Bad Thing. | |
| May 6, 2015 at 9:22 | history | answered | jwg | CC BY-SA 3.0 |