My question was edited so that it is no longer a question but a statement with a question mark at the end. People making edits should be editing for clarity and spelling/grammar errors, not to their personal preferences to gain "points". All edits made to my question were superfluous. I think that editing to this degree drives people away from the site as their words get changed everytime they open their mouths.

enter image description here

Link to the edits: https://gis.stackexchange.com/posts/271634/revisions

  • 4
    Although I agree with the sentiments expressed here (+1), I don't see any question: at the moment this post is just a complaint. Is there a question you would like to ask?
    – whuber
    Commented Feb 16, 2018 at 15:28
  • 8
    still looks like a question to me
    – Ian Turton Mod
    Commented Feb 16, 2018 at 16:07
  • 5
    Meta is not really for ranting or airing complaints: it's a little bit more controlled than that. I found that reviewing the help at gis.stackexchange.com/help/whats-meta was helpful. As far as your question in its current form goes, what are you trying to achieve (if anything)? Do you have a suggestion to improve our site? A question about how it works?
    – whuber
    Commented Feb 16, 2018 at 16:47
  • 7
    @whuber well my question is why is there excessive editing? as stated above. i am trying to help and improve the site by not making people feel like they are being nitpicked and that only valuable edits are made.
    – jtgis
    Commented Feb 16, 2018 at 16:49
  • 5
    I also think there is excessive editing, but disagree in this specific example. The edit made by @PolyGeo had improved question's readability and searchability, in my opinion. The excessive editing to me happens when many questions are edited in a row without them being addressed in all their aspects (title/body/tags). Have already expressed this POV in some posts in GIS Meta, e.g., here. Commented Feb 18, 2018 at 18:07
  • 6
    Agree that this drives people away from the site, but at this point I'm afraid not much can be done about it. When I see superfluous edits without explanation on my posts, I just roll them back.
    – dbaston
    Commented Feb 19, 2018 at 14:58
  • 2
    I appreciate your comment at gis.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/4818/… and that you have now adopted the edits that I made to that question. I thank you for bringing your concerns to Meta GIS SE, and hope that I have not undone our more mutual understanding of the SE model by the edits that I have just applied to this Meta question to try and remove the "rant/complaint" aspect. I perceive that you have moved away from that. Editing Meta GIS SE posts is something I do far less than editing GIS SE posts, and generally try to avoid.
    – PolyGeo Mod
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 0:27
  • 5
    @PolyGeo, I don’t think it is counter-productive. The question goes beyond you and OP. It already had 12 votes (net score +8). The edit changes the question (we should avoid radical changes and changes that alter the question’s meaning). Despite, I supported your edit in OP’s question (the one in main GIS SE) and upvoted your answer here; I don’t think editing a question as you did here in Meta is correct (as explained in previous comment). Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 2:09
  • 7
    @PolyGeo, I am not convinced; your edit changed this question. OP claimed your edit on main was superfluous; you added a “seem” where there was a “were”. Editing a question frequently in a meaningful way is different than execessively editing (in the sense of being superfluous) once. I am not discussing the merit if that edit in the main was superfluous or not, but I am defending OP’s POV here should be preserved. Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 4:06
  • 7
    You well know participation in GIS Meta is low, and chances of people re-reading posts is also low. Editing questions like this is a clear attempt to game the system; and goes against to what is recommended (radical changes/changes of meaning). Editing a question in this fashion just because he/she talked to OP in some second class citizen venue (comments or chat) does not make sense (it is not transparent). There are better ways to address such follow up conversations: the OP can accept your answer; cam edit his/her own question and add a note emphasizing a change in POV. continues... Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 13:31
  • 5
    Otherwise you are forcing/pushing a situation to overrule everybody else’s opinion with yours (peple who already voted). @PolyGeo. Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 13:33
  • 3
    maybe the question would be better served by an answer that addressed the information you passed on to me in the comments of your answer below @PolyGeo? instead of changing the original question to solve the problem? an answer that pointed out the fact that this is a wiki style site and the reasons edits are made? with that link to the tour in it?
    – jtgis
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 14:30
  • 3
    @gomapping It's late here now but I'll try to improve my answer or write a second one tomorrow. I was hoping not to spend a lot more time on this question by working from the question end first. I'd really like to try and turn this into an FAQ if we can, because editing is such an important part of SE Q&A that any misunderstanding of its purpose can act as a drag on its effectiveness.
    – PolyGeo Mod
    Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 14:45
  • 3
    @PolyGeo, I doubt this question will evolve into a faq because the answers were not so well received, specially yours (but I hope I am wrong). Despite I endorsed your answer, I think some people thinks the speech and actions are not aligned. You write about editing the entire post for clarity and improvement, but we know most times you make many partial edits in a row. continues... Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 15:01
  • 9
    To me, that is the potential root cause of perceived excessive editing in our site. Just as a comparison, in Stack Overflow you would be top #4 editor. Considering they have 163 times more questions than we do, this can't be a good statistic to GIS SE. Your user logo frequently floods the active page, and when I see only part of the post was edited I think the editing feature is being misused, because bumping questions to the active page removes time of visibility from new answers. Commented Feb 22, 2018 at 15:06

1 Answer 1


At the beginning of this site, we aimed to have full-sentence questions as titles, as described in Using questions as titles?

A good title is formulated as a question, is grammatically correct, uses consistent capitalization, occupies one line or less, and clearly indicates the main point.

Later, it was questioned if having 1000s of question starting with "How to ..." actually adds clarity to the site. (Cannot find the reference now)


You must log in to answer this question.

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