5 ms·

Slightly strange - I made an "anonymous edit" - well answered a question - mid way through last week after wandering over to Stack Overflow to take a look at wh

by bdfh42 16y ago

Slightly strange - I made an "anonymous edit" - well answered a question - mid way through last week after wandering over to Stack Overflow to take a look at what was going on there after reading the post here related to someone complaining that the site was somehow working against new users. As I was able to make a contribution without even joining I just concluded that the complaining poster had somehow got it all wrong. I even got some sort of SO karma. There was no "moderation" in place either - my response (well two of them as I went back with some detailed and related info later) went straight onto the question "page".

masklinn 16y ago
The complaint was, as far as I understand it, that new users can not comment on an answer, they can only add a new answer. It was also from somebody whose goal was apparently not so much to help as to get more reputation and the most highly-rated answer.
- bdfh42 16y ago
  The complaint was also that established users could post a quick reply to a question and then go back and edit that initial (highly placed) response to add detail to gain karma. I was able to post a response, go back and edit it with more detail and then return with a related response - all without joining. Perhaps that was evidence of some initial trials that have resulted in the announcement in the headline post.
  - stan_rogers 16y ago
    The complaint wasn't that established users could do that, but that they were doing that -- getting in quickly with broad-stroke, nearly content-free answers for placement, then expanding later. It's a good game strategy, but it does put the longer, more detailed initial answers either far down the list (or, if there are enough people playing that game in a particular niche, preventing them altogether). The main complaint, though, was with the inability to comment. Why add a separate answer when there's one there already that only needs a minor caveat or qualification? Not everybody who wants to contribute where they can is interested in collecting reputation points; comments require fifty rep and edits used to require 2K. Anonymous edits provides that sort of repless contribution opportunity (the rep points would go to the original contributor). [edited for grammar, perhaps inadequately]
chc 16y ago
You've always been able to edit your own questions and answers to your heart's content. It's other people's content that everybody's getting a (moderated) crack at now. The guy complaining about SO seemed to be ignoring that he was capable of this as well (I think the implication was that it requires such speed that it's only practical for nutcases who hang out at SO all day), but he certainly could have done the same.
dangrossman 16y ago
Answering a question and editing are different things. Suggesting edits means changing someone else's question or answer. If you did suggest an edit, it didn't actually take effect immediately. It just looked like it did. You see your own edit as if it occurred, but nobody else does until the edit is approved by others.

by bdfh42 16y ago

masklinn 16y ago

The complaint was, as far as I understand it, that new users can not comment on an answer, they can only add a new answer. It was also from somebody whose goal was apparently not so much to help as to get more reputation and the most highly-rated answer.

bdfh42 16y ago
The complaint was also that established users could post a quick reply to a question and then go back and edit that initial (highly placed) response to add detail to gain karma. I was able to post a response, go back and edit it with more detail and then return with a related response - all without joining. Perhaps that was evidence of some initial trials that have resulted in the announcement in the headline post.
- stan_rogers 16y ago
  The complaint wasn't that established users could do that, but that they were doing that -- getting in quickly with broad-stroke, nearly content-free answers for placement, then expanding later. It's a good game strategy, but it does put the longer, more detailed initial answers either far down the list (or, if there are enough people playing that game in a particular niche, preventing them altogether). The main complaint, though, was with the inability to comment. Why add a separate answer when there's one there already that only needs a minor caveat or qualification? Not everybody who wants to contribute where they can is interested in collecting reputation points; comments require fifty rep and edits used to require 2K. Anonymous edits provides that sort of repless contribution opportunity (the rep points would go to the original contributor). [edited for grammar, perhaps inadequately]

chc 16y ago

You've always been able to edit your own questions and answers to your heart's content. It's other people's content that everybody's getting a (moderated) crack at now. The guy complaining about SO seemed to be ignoring that he was capable of this as well (I think the implication was that it requires such speed that it's only practical for nutcases who hang out at SO all day), but he certainly could have done the same.

dangrossman 16y ago

Answering a question and editing are different things. Suggesting edits means changing someone else's question or answer. If you did suggest an edit, it didn't actually take effect immediately. It just looked like it did. You see your own edit as if it occurred, but nobody else does until the edit is approved by others.