Skip to main content
Meta Stack Exchange

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

11
  • 2
    Of course, these's the classic "Why are people downvoting my question?" comments. Commented May 15, 2013 at 13:54
  • 3
    @Cyborgx37: Even the more reason to prevent the OP from posting comments ;). Commented May 15, 2013 at 13:54
  • 1
    +1 for item #3. Just a count is hardly enough to motivate. Commented May 15, 2013 at 14:13
  • 5
    +1 for item 1. When you comment to ask a questioner to add more info, you don't get to find out they've done it unless they also comment. Commented May 15, 2013 at 14:24
  • 1
    +1 for 2 and 3. I don't think 1 is feasible. I'm not always commenting to ask for clarification and this would cause a lot of inbox spam. Commented May 15, 2013 at 20:34
  • 7
    I actually really like that "radical idea" of preventing OP from commenting on their own question. A bit too radical too actually be viable, I think, but I wonder if there is some way to have a less radical variation of this concept (i.e. something that encourages OP edits over comments, rather than forcing it). Commented May 17, 2013 at 18:05
  • How many “why the downvote” would we get if downvotes were required to give a reason? Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 2:31
  • If the tree structure (replies and their replies) someone else suggested were adopted, then instead of notifying two hundred commenters all at once that the question had been edited, you’d notify the five commenters on the original question. Then two of them change or delete their comments, and you send ten more notifications instead of 195. Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 2:51
  • 1
    @WGroleau: I'm not sure the "200 commenters" is a realistic scenario... most posts have <5 comments (excluding meta). Commented Mar 23, 2014 at 12:25
  • “Two hundred”is merely an arbitrary example of the “explosion” in the question. If under five is typical, then this question shouldn’t be here. Commented Mar 24, 2014 at 4:09
  • +1 for your radical idea that I came up with independently and elaborated on at meta.stackexchange.com/a/236524/215590 Commented Oct 24, 2014 at 22:26