Timeline for “Is something wrong?” Yes: Too much moderation
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
20 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 1, 2020 at 18:23 | comment | added | V2Blast Mod | I don't think there's too much of an issue with small edits on a relatively low-traffic meta. The issue with small edits in other cases is that if you're fixing one issue, you should fix all the ones you see rather than making a million small edits. The other issue is that it bumps the post to the top of the post listing, so editing a bunch of posts in this way can push out other active posts (especially when done on mainsite). | |
| Jul 1, 2020 at 15:28 | comment | added | stevenjackson121 | I'm not very familiar with what problems 1 character edits caused in the past, or the mechanics of how edits are normally handled, so I don't feel very qualified to answer that. I just know that typos bother me, to the point if I find one, I often spend 5+ minutes looking for other things I can change/improve just to meet the 6 character edit limit (maybe just expanding a contraction or contracting "will not"), only to post a comment in the end most of the time because that feels like abusing the system. If a separate review/approval queue has any chance of getting traction I'd support it. | |
| Jul 1, 2020 at 15:03 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @stevenjackson121 thank you! Fixed it. I, too, wish one-character edits were acceptable. Perhaps into their own review/approval queue that, when approved, doesn't bump the post? | |
| Jul 1, 2020 at 15:02 | history | edited | nitsua60 | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 38 characters in body
|
| Jul 1, 2020 at 13:22 | comment | added | stevenjackson121 | "betraing" should be "betraying". Wish 1 character edits were more acceptable | |
| Jun 16, 2020 at 10:22 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
Commonmark migration
|
|
| Jun 1, 2017 at 3:33 | history | edited | nitsua60Mod | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 532 characters in body
|
| Apr 10, 2017 at 3:33 | history | edited | nitsua60 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
it really was a little random, I'll admit
|
| Mar 20, 2017 at 10:29 | history | edited | CommunityBot |
replaced http://meta.stackexchange.com/ with https://meta.stackexchange.com/
|
|
| Feb 25, 2016 at 5:34 | comment | added | mxyzplk Mod | In that particular case, I definitely overreacted some, I really had my back up from the continued accusations around that issue. And note that the part I objected to in dark's question was later edited out (see edit history), part of a continued insistence that "mod impropriety" was the cause of our stance on that issue, which I did and do find offensive as a claim. | |
| Feb 25, 2016 at 3:32 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @thedarkwanderer thank you for linking in your excellent post and some of the disappointing brouhaha contemporary to it. I think that's really good context for anyone reading my bordering-on-Pollyana-ish post. Do you think they're worth linking into my post as a sort of "for your consideration" self-rebuttal? | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 19:41 | comment | added | user17995 | @nitsua60: It kind of did, especially in context along mxy's answer that seemed to carry some of the same "but SE told us to keep trucking along" connotations. (I'm not sure that was intended there either, though.) | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 19:37 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @TuggyNE I think that's fair, and I hope ^^ didn't come across as "they should just truck on insensate." . I just hoped to put it in context: we've slapped diamonds onto the actions of some of our most active citizens. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 19:20 | comment | added | user17995 | Note: I disagree that, once elected, moderators should continue moderating in exactly the same way as before. The extent to which they should use a lighter touch is open to some debate, but to say that there should be no difference at all except that their votes are now binding is highly questionable. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 18:18 | comment | added | Please stop being evil | See, I tried that. It... didn't work. At all :( I agree with pretty much everything in your post ('cept the random last paragraph thingy of course), but I think maybe the mods need to be a little more open to being corrected by the community as well. The best result I've had doing this so far is being ignored, the worst is being passive-aggressively told that my post was offensive and the reason for mod lack of participation in communication. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 17:10 | comment | added | nitsua60 | @nvoigt fair question. Nope, I can't. But I've never even tried, so that's a non-signal rather than a negative signal. I have followed you with interest on meta and certainly understand (and believe) that you've felt frustrated during/by this process. And I sincerely appreciate that you have these frustrations and keep coming back to try to resolve them. (Rather than just giving up and letting the site motor on with possibly-bad things going on.) Thank you. | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 16:47 | comment | added | nvoigt | "So when they do, let's gently correct them" can you link to an instance where this worked out? | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 16:05 | comment | added | nitsua60 | well, no green check so perhaps not acceptable =) But I figure it's worth having it out there.... | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 13:22 | comment | added | KorvinStarmast | Are you sure that the voice of reason approach is acceptable in a meta discussion? :-) | |
| Feb 24, 2016 at 3:17 | history | answered | nitsua60 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |