# Revision without disruption: “this is a significant revision” checkbox [duplicate]

A post of mine was recently locked, and one of the possible reasons for this is, according to one commenter, was the large number of revisions, which caused the post to be bumped each time.

In view of this, I propose to add to the "Edit post" page a checkbox labeled something "this is a significant revision", so that only those edits in which this box is checked will cause the post to be bumped in the main list.

Furthermore, if this feature is implemented, I propose that all the current rules that are based on numbers of revisions be modified to refer instead to the number of such "significant revisions". Ditto for any other possibly disruptive effects of revisions (e.g. notifications?); they would henceforth be tied to "significant revisions" instead.

SE sites places very high standards on question posts, and therefore it seems to me that SE should encourage, not discourage, revisions. The purpose of the requested feature is to reduce the potential disruptiveness of frequent revisions.

1 This is unfortunate, because the vast majority of those revisions where minor incremental improvements, all made in a good-faith effort to make the intention of my question clearer, and more specifically, to prevent the one particular misunderstanding that the earlier versions of my post had led to. In fact, at least two commenters requested that I edit my original post. Ironically, it was precisely one of these two commenters who later voted to have the question closed on the grounds that I had made too many revisions!

• No. Instead, I suggest that you meditate the wisdom in the proverb a commenter indicated on the page in question: Post in haste, repent at leisure. – Did Jul 3 '13 at 12:57
• @Did: Actually, the problem has nothing to do with haste: no amount of forethought protects me from having my post edited by others in ways that I vehemently disagree with. There's nothing I can do about it. The "repent at leisure" part is built into the SE rules. What's rich is that the sanctimonious advice you refer to was given to me by the same person who edited my post in a way I'm vehemently opposed to. So in this case it is not my mistake that I'm regretting at leisure, but that other person's rule-sanctioned distortion of what I wrote. – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 13:02
• Sorry but I count 17 edits (including a full deletion of the post with the eloquent mention "[please ignore this post -- posting it was a mistake on my part]") and 1 "rollback", all due to you, all in less than 24 hours. And now, TWO meta posts... No haste, you say? – Did Jul 3 '13 at 13:11
• @Did: Adtually, 3 meta posts. I deleted one. But, I repeat one last time, haste or no haste, it's the same thing, since others can edit my posts any way they want. It's in the rules. I point out that the same person who first voted to close that post on account of too many edits also asked, in an earlier comment, that I edit my post. What may appear to you as "haste" is in fact largely bewilderment at what, from my point of view, appear as largely capricious, inconsistent, and/or somewhat ill-conceived rules. – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 13:19
• @Did: why is the multiplicity of revisions interpreted as a sign of mere "haste"? A hasty post is one that is fired off and never revised. Most of those revisions were an attempt to make the post better. Of course, it's your prerogative to interpret this repeated efforts at getting it right as a sign of "haste" or whatever, but I think in this case it'd be merely a willful interpretation. – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 13:28
• The only edit I made to your post was to add a reference for the passage that you quoted directly in your original question. I honestly do not understand why you find this objectionable, how you could "vehemently disagree with" it, or how it is a "distortion" of what you wrote since it does not make any sort of argument; it only identifies the source of the quotation you included. – MJD Jul 3 '13 at 16:59
• @MJD: Two reasons for my strong disagreement. For the first one, this is an excerpt of what I wrote the moderators: "In my original version I had consciously omitted the reference of a sentence that I had quoted precisely because I did not want to set its author up for ridicule. MJD's edit adds this reference (with the author's name misspelled, to boot). ... In a subsequent revision (#12) of this post I replaced the citation altogether with a paraphrase, to remove all hint of an attack to the original quote's author.... I would like to request that it be reverted to this Revision 12." – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 17:33
• @MJD: The second reason, which I've said over and over, is that my interest was not modal logic per se. The connection with modal logic was incidental. I could have picked quotes from linguistics, sociology, psychology, you-name-it. It was indeed a major blunder on my part to tag this post with modal-logic. I eventually corrected this mistake, but it seems it was too late by then. But your adding the reference to the quotation only emphasized precisely what I sought to de-emphasize in subsequent revisions. – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 17:37
• @MJD: For further clarification, you're welcome to look at revisions #12 (the one that is closest to the one the post is currently locked at), and #24 (the one that most closely represent the question I originally intended, but failed to clearly convey). – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 17:39
• If adding the reference was really objectionable, then you should have removed it again, instead of blanking your entire question. You have repeatedly taken actions that are counter to your stated goals, then complained when the results weren't what you said you wanted. – MJD Jul 3 '13 at 17:44
• @MJD: First, I repeat, I think that the revision that is closest to the original and is still acceptable is Revision #12. This is not a blank revision. Second, given that anyone can edit my post however they feel like, it's not clear to me that there is a particular more rational course of action. If I had removed your citation (which, I eventually did, BTW; see Revision #12), you could have re-instated it, and on and on. – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 17:49
• @MJD: "You have repeatedly taken actions that are counter to your stated goals, then complained when the results weren't what you said you wanted." This seems to me groundless. I've repeatedly admitted that the originally post was poorly worded and poorly tagged, and have not blamed anyone but myself for this. But I don't see why admitting my mistakes should make me welcome the mistakes of others. Would you be all-accepting if I fixed your mistakes for you, and my idea of how to fix them differed radically from yours? – kjo Jul 3 '13 at 18:14