Hot answers tagged

46

I don't want to be accused of superfluous editing just to bump my question. Well, I think you hit the nail on the head there. It's fine to update and improve old questions (and answers) as long as you don't do so superfluously. Provided that you don't update ten questions at a time, and your updates are meaningful, I doubt your edits will attract any ...


42

Gerry Myerson's reply is factually correct, and I do not want to dispute it, only add to it: The goal of the site is to have a repository of clear, complete, and correct answers. Those answers will last a long time and readers will continue to extract value from them far into the future. If some people are annoyed in the process of developing the archive, ...


36

Yes, making trivial edits to bump a question is considered bad etiquette. It creates noise on the front page, and it is unfair to the other users whose questions (or the questions which they answered) are pushed from the front page by the bumps. Nobody cares much if a user does it once, but doing it repeatedly is disruptive, and we will send a warning ...


26

The whole point of stack exchange is to build a high quality collection of questions and answers for a given subject. If you think of things in these terms, it is irrelevant how old a question is. If you can improve the corpora with a better answer, add it.


25

Bumping of a Question, old or not, does not of itself signify anything constructive, re the mission of Math.SE. Bumping occurs as a side-effect of editing or answering a Question and serves the purpose of bringing these changes to the Community's attention. If an Edit or Answer is worthwhile, even for an older Question, then the bumping that occurs is ...


23

If you want to write an answer, then don't worry about the bump. You thought it was interesting, maybe others will too. But if you don't find the question interesting, don't feel obligated to write an answer just for the sake of having one. If it's really dull, you can downvote it, and it will descend into oblivion.


23

There's currently no way to do that. Strictly speaking, all edits should be substantive. If you want to stay strictly above radar, try to add something useful along with your typo correction. Often it is not too difficult to find some point that you can clarify, a reference you can cite, or some way of extending or generalizing your answer in order to ...


19

I do not really see a problem with the bumps, especially not on this site. The volume is by now so high, it seems just like a drop in a bucket. But, I see various ways how having such a feature could have unwanted consequences. The proposed point threshold is really low, too. There is considerable risk of users, even in good faith, doing significant ...


16

The other answer has no upvotes. This means that it is likely a Community user bump. This sort of thing occurs from time to time to questions without upvoted answers, at least if the question's score is nonnegative. How often exactly is a trade secret, I believe, but it's very normal to see these things happen.


15

If too many questions (say 20) have to be edited, you can split the editing in separated period of time so that the main site is not disturbed. Other than that I see no problem. ADD Just looking at main it seems you didn't really over do it.


14

Answering bumps the question but (I think) only for those who have clicked the "active" option, not for those who are using "recent". Commenting notifies the person who posted the question. Commenting on an answer also notifies the person who posted the answer. Commenting may also notify a few others who have contributed to the question/answer – see the ...


14

This is exactly where bounties are for. You have just enough reputation (75 or more) to post one. The Help Center article begins to talk about your own question, but posting a bounty on somebody else's question works just as well. A bounty is a special reputation award given to answers. It is funded by the personal reputation of the user who offers it, and ...


13

Making a sufficiently large number of trivial edits on old posts is considered abuse of the system, and is grounds for a warning or suspension if the behavior continues. However, the difficulty lies in defining "sufficiently large number" and "trivial". You can definitely flag suspected abuse; in fact please do so if the behavior seem like abuse to you (and ...


13

The tag riesz-representation-theorem was created a few days ago. The tag creator added almost immediately after the creation above 60 questions to that tag. And it seems that he continues in his retagging efforts in relatively large batches. You might notice that you won't see those questions if you choose newest rather than active tab. And if you display ...


11

Subsequential edits within five minutes of the initial edit are combined into that edit. So if you post a question or answer, and then read it after posting (which for some reason may involve a different state of mind than while editing) and find a mistake, then go ahead and fix it within these five minutes. Of course, the question will get bumped to the ...


11

If it needs to be fixed, fix it. You are much better to do this as soon as possible (before people get confused by the ambiguity). If it's "close enough" that people who actually read the question will know what you mean, and it's not clickbaity, you could reasonably leave it as it is, too. It's probably better to err for clarity and efficiency, so ...


10

Naturally, those participating in the Crusade of Answers (a chatroom initiative to push back the number of Unanswered questions by drawing attention to old questions) encounter this situation quite often. The primary consideration here is: If you feel the question deserves an answer, and you want to write one, don't hesitate. If the question you're ...


10

Since it seems you only did five at once, this is alright; had you done fifty it would have been annoying. Generally, edits, also minor ones, are fine. One should only not do too many in a short time-interval.


10

Every time you edit an answer, accepted or not, you push it to the top of the front page (for those who view the site in such a way that Active questions come out on top). If you do this a lot, some of us will get annoyed and wonder why you couldn't have taken a little more care to get your answer right the first (or third, or seventeenth) time.


9

I am pretty certain that any edit to any question or answer (regardless of whether it is Community Wiki or not) will bump the associated question. The MSE bumping faq gives no indication that Community Wiki posts are treated any differently. (And because the requirements to edit (not just suggest edits to) Community Wiki posts is significantly lower than ...


8

In my role as a moderator I encounter this problem once in a while. You see, edit number 20 triggers an automatic flag for us diamond bearers to handle. My response (spread out over a sufficient number of comments) is roughly the following: It used to be the case that edit number 10 automatically turned the question into a Community Wiki. Meaning, among ...


7

Actually, a new answer bumps the question. However, it all depends a bit on the way users view the posts. If you look at the posts tagged rational-numbers, this question is on the top if you choose the active tab - which show questions that recently had some activity. However, if you choose the newest tab, the questions are displayed there depending on the ...


6

When a question gets reopened it is pushed to the top of the "active" list. This modification, the reopening, is assigned to the last (I think, or at least some) user that voted to reopen. See the question's revision history to see the reopening involving Bill Dubuque just at that time.


6

There is a dedicated way to delete tags without bumping, the jargon for this is 'burninate.' It is just that this functionality is not exposed to users and per site moderators, only SE staff can do it. This restriction is intentional, and I do not think we should introduce something that basically only works around this intentionally imposed restriction. ...


6

No, it is not alright to edit a new question every few hours for the sake of bumping it. It is alright to make edits that genuinely improve the question. However, one is expected to make a reasonable effort to post a question in final form. That is, if everything goes according to plan, there should be no reason for edits a few hours after one posted ...


6

After the clarification in the comments it seems that it is not a bug - whether you see recently active questions depends on the way you view the site. If you go to https://math.stackexchange.com/questions then you have several tabs to choose from. If you want to see the question which have some recent activity, you have to choose the active tab. IIRC ...


5

From what I have learned today editing of an answer is to be used with discretion, and is not meant to be used as a sandbox in which to develop your (half) answer over a few hours (days (weeks (months(...)))) or so. (This also applies to editing questions, but my post was essentially about editing answers.) I have been looking at some of my past posts and ...


5

My first post was quite recent, answering an OP that was about one and half years old. It got an immediate response which was quite gratifying and made me feel welcome on the site. However, my post was more of a comment, though I posted it as an answer, not knowing any better. Apparently I would not have bumped the question up to active if I'd followed the ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible