Timeline for Are edits performed by external, non-SE robots allowed?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jan 23, 2019 at 10:05 | vote | accept | Alex M. | ||
| Jan 8, 2019 at 19:01 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | ... and my recent experience with buying tickets on site of Scoot, a Singapore-based airline, which at some point started popping up captures and asking to complete them, telling me that it suspects I am a robot, as I type/click too fast... I'll go home now to check whether I'm still a human being ;-) | |
| Jan 8, 2019 at 18:56 | comment | added | Dima Pasechnik | ... it reminded me of a story told by a friend, where a manager forbade programmers working on an Y2000 porting project to use vi's macros, insisting that they must edit everything by hand... I think it smells of an Luddite approach, forbidding automated edits like this. | |
| Jan 3, 2019 at 11:04 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Probably it goes without saying, but if a post is bumped for some other reason (in this case dead link to an image), it is a good opportunity for MO users to improve also some other aspects of posts which might need improving (e.g., tags, grammar, typos, references, links to papers, etc.) At least, it is definitely better if more stuff is improved at the same time than editing and bumping the same post for some other reason a few months later. | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:37 | comment | added | Alex M. | @CarloBeenakker: If the edits are deemed useful, they should be taken over by the SE staff and be performed by the user Community (possibly on a network-wide scale), as has been done in the past in similar circumstances. | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:20 | answer | added | Glorfindel | timeline score: 34 | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 21:13 | comment | added | Denis Nardin | I agree with @CarloBeenakker: the method by which the edits were done is essentially irrelevant compared to the edits themselves. As long as the frequency is low enough to avoid flooding the front page, I don't see any problem. | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 20:46 | comment | added | Carlo Beenakker | I'm not sure I understand the issue: the "robot" is not some autonomous/anonymous agent, it's a script by a user who remains accountable for suggested edits; if these are valid edits, why reject them solely because they were carried out by a script rather than by direct human intervention? | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 20:11 | comment | added | Martin Sleziak | Just to clarify, you're asking specifically about MathOverflow right? (If not, shouldn't this be raised on Meta Stack Exchange. In fact, I'm pretty sure some related topics have already been discussed there.) | |
| Jan 2, 2019 at 19:12 | history | asked | Alex M. | CC BY-SA 4.0 |