9

As I understand it, if a question is edited (from whomever for whatever reason) it will bump the question. [I don't know why that is considered to be a good idea in the first place but I don't want to go there.]

If a question is edited by others, it can happen, that it slightly changes the subject. Now if I (the op) hit the edit-button and revert some of the edits it will bump the question. But for no good reason: Nothing new has been added to the question; if anything, something old has been "added" to the question, but basically it would ask what it has been asking before the edits. So there is no justification for bumping it. But on the other hand, if the topic remains slightly changed it will draw "wrong" answers - that is answers, that are addressing the question with altered subject, and not addressing the op.

Now what I'd like to have is a checkbox that if checked prevents the system from bumping the question. Alternatively I could imagine a button that just rejects the edits that have been made that if hit, doesn't bumps the question but simply reverts it to it's previous state*.

Is there already such an option? If not this would be a feature-request.

*This would only be my second choice. As I am no native-speaker my questions tend to have some - erm... let's call them 'typos'. If those are fixed by others and I revert a question to it's previous state I'd undo the grammar-fixes too.

  • 2
    So basically you're asking for a 'minor edit' checkbox? – SQB Jun 4 '14 at 10:55
  • @SQB yeah, well - that's one way of putting it. Minor edits are discouraged and it's not really what I'd name it. It's more about edits to restore the intended meaning of the question. Some editors interpret a question differently than it was intended so semantically it's a reasonable medium sized edit. Just not one that adds something new. – Einer Jun 4 '14 at 11:07
7

The whole reason for the "bumping" can be seen as checks and balances. No edit (aside from ninja-stealth-under-the-time-limit edits when posting/commenting) should ever not be brought to the attention of the community - no matter who makes it.

Let's say you post a question. I misunderstand it, and edit it to "clarify" the language. At this point, you can either roll back my edits, or edit it again, with all-new language to hopefully clear up misunderstandings.

Now, you may be a fine upstanding person, completely above reproach and who would never do anything underhanded. You would never think of editing the question to an all new third meaning, or even make it a completely different question.

But not everyone is as virtuous as you. The community needs to see that the question has been changed to make sure that your edits are in line with the spirit and the rules of the community.

Remember, everything posted on SE has a creative commons license. You may have posted the question, but you don't own it. As a community, we defer a lot of things to the OP, but it's not an absolute rule.

  • Thanks for that clarification! But what exactly is "roll back"? I saw that there is a badge to be gained for the first Roll Back - always wondered what it meant. Is it reverting the question to it's previous state? And if so will it bump the question? – Einer Jun 4 '14 at 13:29
  • @Einer Yes, rollback = revert. I forget which term SE uses specifically. I believe it bumps, but it's been a long time since I've looked for/noticed a rollback edit. – phantom42 Jun 4 '14 at 13:33
  • As the user in the related question you posted I feel it somewhat impolite/attention-hogging to bump a question. And I recall that someone has been "banned" (or whatever) for bumping for getting attention. But it is also no great idea to undo perfectly legit changes just to restore the meaning of a post. On the third hand a wrong answer I got is now the right or at least a very good one. Some quandary... Anyhow, thanks for the answer! – Einer Jun 4 '14 at 14:11

You must log in to answer this question.

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