What is meta? ×

This request/discussion is an extension to: Do you lose your +2 edit rep if the edited post is subsequently deleted?, which was a support question.

As most know, when users with less than 2000 rep (or 1000 rep on Beta sites) suggest edits, a 2 point reputation reward is given if the edit is accepted.

However, if the post in question is deleted, regardless of how old it is, the user loses the 2 points they received. Now, honestly, it's 2 points, big whoop, right? I think it's more the principle of the thing, though. Should we be punishing users for, at least in some cases, trying to clean up messy posts that could potentially be deletion fodder while they are learning the ropes of editing?

Now, I'm sure someone, somewhere could find a method to delete posts, undelete them, and edit them all over again if the +2 persisted, but I find that possibility a lot more far-fetched than most of the other situations on the site that call for checks and balances to prevent abuse.

So, I propose letting users keep their editing bonus regardless of whether the post is deleted or not. They've done their service to the site, let's not take away this token of our appreciation for editors lest we send the wrong message.

share|improve this question
Would you also propose keeping the points for answers that are deleted when their question is? I did my service, it may have even helped somebody. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:22
That's definitely a whole separate issue. I think that any question/ answer rep persists after a certain amount of time, though. –  jonsca Jan 3 '13 at 1:24
How is it a separate issue- isn't it "punishing" answerers in the same way this is "punishing" editors? –  David Robinson Jan 3 '13 at 1:26
@DavidRobinson Because I'm not opening that can of worms, you are welcome to if you would like! :) –  jonsca Jan 3 '13 at 1:27
@jonsca Separate issue, same question--I'm not sure special-casing one particular lossage would be a good ROI, aside from whether it's a good idea or not. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:41
@DaveNewton Well, there has been some headway on your "lossage" with the +3/60 days rule. No such provision exists for the edits. –  jonsca Jan 3 '13 at 1:52
The +3/60 days rule was introduced when people lost hundreds of rep when cleaning up old posts that once were on-topic. Losing 2 points is totally different. –  Bo Persson Jan 3 '13 at 7:56
@BoPersson I agree, I wasn't trying to equate the two or claim that the new policy was a complete solution. I'd really like to isolate this situation from the question/answer deletions, but it appears it didn't work out that way. –  jonsca Jan 4 '13 at 1:10
add comment

2 Answers

up vote 5 down vote accepted

You aren't being punished, you just aren't being rewarded.

While I somewhat agree with you, you shouldn't be editing for reputation; the +2 rep should just be a little bonus. It wouldn't be fair to award rep to people who just edit low quality posts before they get deleted or who only perform minor edits.

So to answer your main question: No, it is not sending the wrong message.

share|improve this answer
I'm not suggesting anyone should edit for reputation, but that bonus is there as an incentive for newer users, otherwise why have it at all? –  jonsca Jan 3 '13 at 1:31
add comment

The way I see it, if a post was deleted after a user edited it, then that edit was not sufficient to stave off deletion. If the edit improved the question, then that means that the editor took a post so bad that it would be deleted, and then after they edited it it was still bad enough to be deleted. I don't think editors should be rewarded for doing that, since an edit like that doesn't seem to add any quality to the site. And if they did not improve the post, then obviously they should not be rewarded for that either.

Either way, I don't think editors should keep the points on deleted posts.

share|improve this answer
Questions are deleted for reasons besides low quality. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:39
Yes, perhaps that was oversimplifying. The point is that the way I see it, if a post is going to be deleted and your edit doesn't change that, it's not worth editing. –  murgatroid99 Jan 3 '13 at 1:40
It's difficult to see into the future to know if a question will be deleted. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:41
As far as I can tell, in most cases when a post is deleted there is a clear problem/reason. That doesn't include self-deletions, but even those are mostly caused by quality or other visible problems. –  murgatroid99 Jan 3 '13 at 1:45
I've actually found self-deletions to be somewhat arbitrary, but there are any number of reasons. My point was that saying that there isn't necessarily any way to know if a question "isn't worth editing" except in obvious cases where there's no hope. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:46
Most deletions I've seen have been the obvious cases. –  murgatroid99 Jan 3 '13 at 1:47
Okay; my experience has been somewhat different. –  Dave Newton Jan 3 '13 at 1:52
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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