2
$\begingroup$

I've noticed that the user SnoringFrog has been editing a lot of posts today. He currently has +92 rep, just from these edits being approved. He has 10 rep from other activities and 100 from an association bonus. I'm sort of concerned about this (the active questions page is full of questions he's modified) and the intentions of this user (perhaps they are trying to fast-track their rep), but is there anything to be worried about here?

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ She may be a stickler for grammar. I am inclined to do the same thing often, but I'm aware that it alters the position of questions. $\endgroup$ – Mikey Jul 17 '15 at 8:55
10
$\begingroup$

Nah, nothing to be worried about.

As Tim B said, this issue came up on on popular WB Meta post recently (Please don't link to m.wikipedia.org). That, combined with this query someone linked on that question and my boredom here at work today led to me going a little edit happy (figured if I was just going to do a few, why not just take care of them all?).

A few edits in I started looking for anything else to fix in answers too. Assumed that if I was going to be editing things at all I should at least take the time to spruce up the grammar/spelling, fix some formatting, or add some useful links where appropriate. That way the edits were a bit more substantial and useful that just the convenience of the changed link.

Having said that this sort of mass editing spree does tend to mess up the recently active list so we don't want to encourage it too much.

That, I was unaware of. I don't search out many questions here, so I don't typically use that page to find things. If I'd realized edits bumped things up there I probably would have just done a few a day for a couple weeks or something. My bad, and I'll keep that in mind so I don't make a mess over there again in the future.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Thank you for checking to see if there are other things to fix while you're editing anyway. Because edits bump questions on the front page, it's good to make them count. $\endgroup$ – Monica Cellio Jul 16 '15 at 22:30
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ How about a checkmark for edits thatnare editorial only, not affecting the semantics of the post? That will not mark it as fresh active. Wikipedia has "minor edit". $\endgroup$ – JDługosz Jul 17 '15 at 0:01
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz .I've seen other sites use that as well (DeviantArt comes to mind). It's definitely useful. Having one here would be nice. $\endgroup$ – SnoringFrog Jul 17 '15 at 14:00
  • $\begingroup$ @JDługosz I posted a feature request for that here $\endgroup$ – SnoringFrog Jul 17 '15 at 14:32
7
$\begingroup$

I've had a quick look and it seems that he's going through changing links to the mobile version of Wikipedia to point to the desktop one and also making other minor spelling/grammar changes at the same time.

In other words they are valid edits and as such a good thing since he is improving the site. The rep being gained is being "earned" so he is not in some way gaming the system by doing this - and rep from edits is capped anyway.

You should note that this was discussed here Please don't link to m.wikipedia.org and a highly voted answer encouraged people to go through and do exactly this.

Having said that this sort of mass editing spree does tend to mess up the recently active list so we don't want to encourage it too much.

| |
$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ What is the rep cap for edits? $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jul 16 '15 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ @HDE226868 In this case, it looks like it stopped at 96. Maybe it's weighted somehow. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Jul 16 '15 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ Never mind, it just updated past 100. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Jul 16 '15 at 19:37
  • $\begingroup$ @DaaaahWhoosh I'm pretty sure he is using a bot. But there are two limitations: we can only approve of 20 edits each (ok, every 4 hours), and he can't get more than 200 in day, can he? $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Jul 16 '15 at 19:45
  • $\begingroup$ @bilbo_pingouin Still, 200 rep is a lot to a new user, especially if they're using a bot. $\endgroup$ – DaaaahWhoosh Jul 16 '15 at 19:48
  • $\begingroup$ @DaaaahWhoosh I know, but as TimB mentioned, he is actually improving the site. I haven't looked it up, but I never came across a note prohibiting to use bots. But the mods should look him up, to check he isn't doing the same everywhere. Or maybe they know of some rules which apply. $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Jul 16 '15 at 19:58
  • $\begingroup$ Sorry about messing up the recently active list, didn't consider that or I would've spaced all that out a bit more. I was more or less just bored at work today and the edits gave me something to do. In any event, they're done now. $\endgroup$ – SnoringFrog Jul 16 '15 at 19:59
  • $\begingroup$ @bilbo_pingouin Nope, no bot. That was all by hand. The other grammar/punctuation/etc fixes would be enough indicator of that, I'd think. $\endgroup$ – SnoringFrog Jul 16 '15 at 20:00
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It sure would be nice if this problem (mobile site links) was automatically fixed on a post that gets submitted by the software running the site... :) $\endgroup$ – enderland Jul 16 '15 at 20:03
  • $\begingroup$ @SnoringFrog, you have no idea what the wikipedia's bots can do :D But the tip of the hat to you if everything was done manually. You might want to put in an answer or two, to please DaaaahWhoosh... :-) $\endgroup$ – clem steredenn Jul 16 '15 at 20:12
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @SnoringFrog Thanks for doing that, it's a useful bit of cleanup. Actually in this case getting them all over and done with is the better way to do it since then the disruption to active questions is over as quickly as possible. (The alternative is something like 1 question per day being cleaned up which makes the whole process take much longer). $\endgroup$ – Tim B Jul 16 '15 at 22:43
  • $\begingroup$ @HDE226868 As I recall, you can't get more than 1000 rep in total from edits. $\endgroup$ – David Richerby Jul 28 '15 at 16:22
  • $\begingroup$ @DavidRicherby Really? I wonder why. $\endgroup$ – HDE 226868 Jul 28 '15 at 16:23
0
$\begingroup$

The problem with the bulk edits is that it upturns the "active" measurement. I am flooded with semantically empty changes and don't see real new or updated posts anywhere near the top of the list.

Please don't bulk edit without using a special silent editorial change feature.

If that is not easily available, how about limiting all such edits to be <10% of total traffic? Then I'll see some false active entries, but still mostly useful entries.

| |
$\endgroup$

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .