10

Which hashing algorithm is best for uniqueness and speed?

Particular answer to above question has been made CW per automatic rule (quote source):

The post has been edited ten (10) times by the original owner.

Automatically applying generic rule in this particular case looks unfair.
In case of doubt, check the answer to decide whether you agree with above.

This answer looks exceptionally good

to me, and not only to me.

Is it possible to clear CW status to recognize an extraordinary contribution of the author?

http://i.stack.imgur.com/CRw3X.jpg

3
  • Some people will fundamentally argue that i should not receive any reputation for such an answer. That by continually improving the answer i keep bumping it for more and more attention. Personally i have no idea why an item should be make a wiki. i've edited the answer a lot, and will continue to edit it. But here's where a policy (that i don't understand or agree with) will meet reality.
    – Ian Boyd
    Apr 28 '12 at 19:42
  • 3
    @IanBoyd We have CW posts to allow lower rep users to curate a post (after a certain threshold). One effect of CW is indeed to protect us from people continuously bumping their own posts with small edits to get some cheap rep, but you can't expect the algorithm to identify intent behind the edits.
    – yannis
    Apr 28 '12 at 20:25
  • 4
    This automatic conversion to CW is dumb. If the concern is that a question or answer gets bumped to the front page on an edit, then that's what should be changed. That is, minor edits shouldn't put a question on the front page, and an author should feel free to edit his answer as often as he likes.
    – bmm6o
    May 27 '12 at 20:37
10

The answer is exceptional and all edits added information to it. Even if the author intended to bump the answer, he did so with significant improvements and I think in this particular instance CW feels more like a penalty than an incentive for other users to continue evolving the answer. So, I've removed the CW status from the answer.

I don't think there is a way to refund the reputation the answer gained while it was CW, but it doesn't really matter, given the quality of the answer I think it's obvious that Ian couldn't care less for reputation (and the existing bounty will award him some of the missing reputation).

For future reference, this is the kind of answer I would remove CW from without second thought, if you have an answer out there that's CW and would like the status removed, please measure it against Ian's answer before flagging it or bringing it to Meta.

1
3

I agree that Ian's answer is excellent, continues to get better, and deserves as much rep as it can gather. However, I would warn that picking winners for which the rules don't apply is probably dangerous. There are many Programmers users trying to improve the overall signal-to-noise ratio by arguing that the site's rules are well-defined and regular. When the most active users start bending the rules, that's harder to defend.

Why not consider doing away with the CW rule? If rep truly doesn't matter, who cares if a few rep-hungry users over-edit to keep their posts on the front page? If tiny edits start to dominate the front page, confront the micro-editors directly.

Consistency seems important given Programmers high close rate and the occasional contentious argument over what belongs, the site's purpose, and how we continue to improve.

4
  • 1
    CW core philosophy is that a post is owned by the community, the fact that it stops generating rep for the OP is more of a side-effect (who would get the rep?). At the time I removed the status there was only one edit by a user other than Ian, and it was a minor spelling fix, there was no significant community involvement in the answer. In that respect, no rules were bend.
    – yannis
    May 1 '12 at 15:05
  • 1
    (cont...) However the only other time I was asked to removed the status (via a flag) I didn't, although all the edits were by the OP. But they were largely insignificant and although I can't be certain they were intended only to bump the post, it did look suspicious. You may see that as inconsistent behaviour on my part, and I would gladly accept that's the case if the community agrees with you. In general I wholeheartedly agree with your points, consistency is key.
    – yannis
    May 1 '12 at 15:09
  • 1
    This was actually my concern. I actually saw this Meta post on my way out the door to the Stack Overflow Meetup, so I didn't have time to dig. The automatic conversion exists for a reason. As good as the answer was and considering that each of the edits added value, I don't have a problem with what @YannisRizos did in this case. However, this is probably something that needs to be looked at more closely.
    – Thomas Owens Mod
    May 1 '12 at 18:29
  • 1
    I think the fundamental problem is that edits bump a post. If people are concerned that editing causes a bump: then stop it from causing a bump.
    – Ian Boyd
    Mar 18 '14 at 21:22

You must log in to answer this question.

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