2
$\begingroup$

I am aware of the costs of editing old questions/answers as described in the question Trivial edits to old answers.

However, I'm not sure in what cases the specific edit of re-tagging an old question is worth the cost. Re-tags can an useful edit for old questions, as this would make them easier to find for people with the same problem. For the following, assume that the re-tag is both correct and substantial, such that it would be accepted without hesitation if the question was new.

So, in particular, should we re-tag an old question if:

  • The question is of decent quality, but unanswered?
  • The question is answered, but neither answer nor question have positive score?
  • The question has a few close votes. (might be different depending on the votes being for a duplicate or other reasons)
  • The question and all answer to it have negative score or are of low quality.

As for some background, the main reason I ask this because I have reviewed multiple re-tags of old questions lately, some good and some bad, made by the same user. While editing too much old posts is another issue, I have quite a lot of doubts when the edit, if good, is substantial enough.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ Myself, I only retag if a) the tagging is outrageousy wrong and made me look longer for the question than I should have had to, or b) the question is up on the frontpage anyway. Unmotivated mass edits are almost always a bad idea. $\endgroup$ – Raphael Apr 15 '18 at 19:28
  • $\begingroup$ First one seems like good idea, second not so much (without knowing the reason, if it was niche or lost in torrent of questions, why not). Third - it depends on reason and actions. If it was unclear or off-topic and was edited, but votes are still there, why not). Fourth is probably on per case basis. But is it really the case that improving old posts is not worth it? I think it is as it composes well with value for further users. If something gets closed because it is too localised, it should be well received that these passing threshold are improved. Only thing that remains is worthness. $\endgroup$ – Evil Apr 18 '18 at 0:27
  • $\begingroup$ But honestly I do not see the mass edit effect, it just do nit happen. There once was mass editer that fixed one spelling error per post, so it was bad idea, saturating the edit queue, but then, edit queue was almost empty for months. I think that consensus here or some standard would be needed. Everytime someone tries to improve more than several posts, some discussion starts of bumping posts and effort put. If someone wishes to help that way and adds something (tag, edit, meaningful title) I say yes, please do, and lets check or give feedback afterwards instead of prematurely clipping wings. $\endgroup$ – Evil Apr 18 '18 at 0:36
  • $\begingroup$ @Evil Well, this wasn't exactly 'mass' editing. Do note that I always review each edit suggestion independent of other edits made. It's just that I've had more suggestions where I was in doubt, lately. "I think that consensus here or some standard would be needed" I agree, this is the main thing I hope to gain here. I'll wait a bit, but if no one else makes a suggestion, I'll answer this by myself. $\endgroup$ – Discrete lizard Apr 18 '18 at 7:21
  • $\begingroup$ Oh, there must be some misunderstanding, I do not called you mass-editer and example is about 7+ months old anonymous person. I am 100% supporting your question and afair I have accepted your edits (not many of them though). $\endgroup$ – Evil Apr 18 '18 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ @Evil There is a misunderstanding indeed. I thought that you implied the person I reviewed was a 'mass editor' and hence said that this wasn't the case. In other words, my own edits are unrelated here and I didn't intend to relate them. $\endgroup$ – Discrete lizard Apr 18 '18 at 7:34

You must log in to answer this question.

Browse other questions tagged .