Timeline for Are edits performed by external, non-SE robots allowed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
17 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dec 2, 2022 at 17:32 | comment | added | JP McCarthy | I wish it was only three bumps per 36 hours. I personally find the editing and bumping from yourself, which I have no doubt is motivated with good intentions, to be extremely annoying. I am sorry but that is how I feel. | |
| Jan 23, 2019 at 10:05 | vote | accept | Alex M. | ||
| Jan 19, 2019 at 13:10 | comment | added | Glorfindel | It's two weeks later and many people have seen this thread (partly due to being a Hot Meta Question). Given the reactions and upvotes, I'm going to re-enable the bot for MathOverflow tomorrow. | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 13:19 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | thanks for the explanation; I will slowly and manually (no robots here :) make the http --> https replacement on my old posts containing inline images; hoping to avoid annoying anyone with bumps of old posts. | |
| Jan 4, 2019 at 8:23 | comment | added | Glorfindel | I don't know; it might be because you used capitalized HTML tags; it might be because it's old and 'untouched' for a long period. Here is a post with similar markup, a link which is still alive and yet an image which is not working. I've added some extra precautions to the bot to make sure it won't try to fix images like this. Pending the outcome of this discussion, I've also disabled it temporarily for MathOverflow, but I'm humbled by the support I'm getting. Thanks! | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 22:07 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | There is something that puzzles me in this connection: I have many old answers that contain an inline image referred to with http rather than https; they seem to display just fine; for example: mathoverflow.net/a/143866/11260 --- any idea why they do not suffer from the http ban? | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 16:23 | comment | added | mme | With the edit, it becomes clear that at the current rate this will be done in about a month. So is there really any harm? | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 10:49 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 100 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 9:46 | comment | added | Glorfindel | 2) you'll need a registered application on StackApps to run it; 3) you'll need that app to generate an access token to identify your account. So it's a quite convoluted process. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 9:44 | comment | added | Glorfindel | I'll think of publishing the source code. There are some problems with this: 1) when multiple users are running the program simultaneously, you'll lose control over the rate-limit (not to mention the errors which occur when you're trying to suggest an edit to a post which already has a pending edit). | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 9:40 | comment | added | Glorfindel | 95% was an estimate, it's actually 97.5%. Half of the rejections were because of "clearly conflicts with the author's intent", which says more about the reviewers not paying attention than the edits themselves. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 9:38 | history | edited | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 8 characters in body
|
| Jan 3, 2019 at 9:03 | comment | added | Alex M. | @Glorfindel: The fact that 5% of your edit attempts got rejected reinforces my thesis that this kind of massive, large-scale edit project should by performed by some other, more privileged channel, and not by regular edits (which require the users' approval). | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 8:58 | comment | added | Alex M. | @Glorfindel, given that SE is a community-centered project, why not make the code of your robot publicly available (for instance, in a GitHub repository), under some free software license? | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:54 | comment | added | mme | I think a bump every 12 hours is harmless and is doing a desirable service. I agree it would be better if SE did this (and did not bump in the process) but I do not see them champing at the bit to do so. | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:32 | comment | added | Gerhard Paseman | If instead of doing three at a time once every 36 hours, it did one at a time spaced evenly, I would prefer that. Also, if there is some minor indication that it is an automated edit (GlorfindelbotA?), I could ignore the post instead of looking for a substantial change in content, especially on questions where I am looking for fresh content. Gerhard "Willing To Coexist With Bots" Paseman, 2019.01.02 | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:20 | history | answered | Glorfindel | CC BY-SA 4.0 |