5 ms·

99.99% of the time, rejecting a suggested edit that changes code is the right thing to to. The competence of the reviewers isn't really the issue. The author sh

99.99% of the time, rejecting a suggested edit that changes code is the right thing to to. The competence of the reviewers isn't really the issue. The author should have just used his original account to make the edit and this would have been a non-issue.

pygy_ 13y ago
He probably didn't realise he had two accounts. The incompetence of the mods is relevant because it is one of the main criticism of TFA. It's a nice example of the Pete principle. If a mod doesn't understand an answer he should just pass, not vote according to what's right most of the time. They are incompetent, both regarding LuaJIT and as moderators.
- cruise02 13y ago
  How many LuaJIT experts do you suppose there are reviewing edits on Stack Overflow?
  - pygy_ 13y ago
    He used to be there. You can't find a better expert. I'd expect mods familiar with Lua to recognize him, and he should have mod powers, to begin with.
    - cruise02 13y ago
      He doesn't even recognize that he's using two separate accounts, but other people are supposed to recognize him and his accounts should have mod powers? Again, if he had just used his original account to edit his answer, he wouldn't have needed any of that.
      - pygy_ 13y ago
        Yes. He's a world class expert in compilers and high performance, low level programming on modern hardware. This addresses the core point of the article, being that the SO "meritocracy" is badly implemented, and conflates heavy site usage with maturity and technical ability. Edit: If not a mod status, a VIP status. SO would gain a lot if its staff were to individually recruit people as talented as he is.
        dfbrown 13y ago
        This seems more like an argument that SO's "meritocracy" isn't perfect, not that it's poorly implemented. Having two accounts is an edge case.
JimDabell 13y ago
You're using the fact that he had two accounts as an excuse, but it really doesn't hold up. This was an edit with inarguable merit. Yet users rejected it because they were using the heuristic "changes to code is bad" as a substitute for understanding the edit. That's bad moderation. If you don't understand a change, you shouldn't vote on its worthiness.
- thedufer 13y ago
  So instead of taking the one in a thousand chance that its the wrong thing to do (which, from what I've seen, is generous) they should let edits languish for days or weeks until someone sufficiently knowledgable shows up? That just doesn't sound like a worthwhile tradeoff.
  - auggierose 13y ago
    If something should not be edited through another account, then the software should just not allow it. If it allows it, and delegates the check to moderators, then these moderators should either reject it if they are sure the change is wrong. In all other cases they should allow it. It's really that simple.
    - thedufer 13y ago
      You have no idea what the spectrum of edits is on SO. Why do you think your heuristic is obviously better, despite making no argument for it? The heuristic they use is something along the lines of "only accept edits that are grammar fixes, equivalent thereof, or rewordings". Content changes without the authors consent are considered poor form.

pygy_ 13y ago

He probably didn't realise he had two accounts. The incompetence of the mods is relevant because it is one of the main criticism of TFA. It's a nice example of the Pete principle. If a mod doesn't understand an answer he should just pass, not vote according to what's right most of the time. They are incompetent, both regarding LuaJIT and as moderators.

cruise02 13y ago
How many LuaJIT experts do you suppose there are reviewing edits on Stack Overflow?
- pygy_ 13y ago
  He used to be there. You can't find a better expert. I'd expect mods familiar with Lua to recognize him, and he should have mod powers, to begin with.
  - cruise02 13y ago
    He doesn't even recognize that he's using two separate accounts, but other people are supposed to recognize him and his accounts should have mod powers? Again, if he had just used his original account to edit his answer, he wouldn't have needed any of that.
    - pygy_ 13y ago
      Yes. He's a world class expert in compilers and high performance, low level programming on modern hardware. This addresses the core point of the article, being that the SO "meritocracy" is badly implemented, and conflates heavy site usage with maturity and technical ability. Edit: If not a mod status, a VIP status. SO would gain a lot if its staff were to individually recruit people as talented as he is.
      - dfbrown 13y ago
        This seems more like an argument that SO's "meritocracy" isn't perfect, not that it's poorly implemented. Having two accounts is an edge case.

JimDabell 13y ago

You're using the fact that he had two accounts as an excuse, but it really doesn't hold up. This was an edit with inarguable merit. Yet users rejected it because they were using the heuristic "changes to code is bad" as a substitute for understanding the edit. That's bad moderation. If you don't understand a change, you shouldn't vote on its worthiness.

thedufer 13y ago
So instead of taking the one in a thousand chance that its the wrong thing to do (which, from what I've seen, is generous) they should let edits languish for days or weeks until someone sufficiently knowledgable shows up? That just doesn't sound like a worthwhile tradeoff.
- auggierose 13y ago
  If something should not be edited through another account, then the software should just not allow it. If it allows it, and delegates the check to moderators, then these moderators should either reject it if they are sure the change is wrong. In all other cases they should allow it. It's really that simple.
  - thedufer 13y ago
    You have no idea what the spectrum of edits is on SO. Why do you think your heuristic is obviously better, despite making no argument for it? The heuristic they use is something along the lines of "only accept edits that are grammar fixes, equivalent thereof, or rewordings". Content changes without the authors consent are considered poor form.