1

Since that is one of the most generous deeds and helpful for everyone, are there ways to do such?

It would be great if such would have 1. Share of the answer and question reputations (1:1), if the "original" author has given his "Thanks!" or "great!" or "Right!" and 2. should earn a lot form the authors "approve" (the double of an answer reputation).

Of course upvoting is not of use.

Atma guesses that such is not only a more then earned way to give the work of those who are doing such service back, but also would encourage others to try such meritorious deeds.

| |
1

Giving 'reputation' to people who edit

According to What is reputation? How do I earn (and lose) it?, users can get +2 reputation for each edit:

suggested edit is accepted: +2 (up to +1000 total per user)

Perhaps this only happens for users who have less than 1000 reputation: because when someone has more than 1000 reputation then their edits are made immediately (before being reviewed and accepted).

There are, also, many 'badges' associated with editing: a search for the word 'edit' on this page of badge descriptions finds 11 badges including "Explainer", "Refiner", "Illuminator", etc.

Please also review Why can people edit my posts? How does editing work?

Requesting new software features

This site (Buddhism.SE) uses software from the "Stack Exchange" network.

"Stack Exchange" do the following:

  • Develop and maintain the (closed-source) web software
  • Host and run the web site[s]
  • Define network-wide policies (e.g. the Help pages)
  • Host other web sites on other topics (other than Buddhism)

Each site (including this site, Buddhism.SE) is semi-autonomous:

  • Its own topic of interest (e.g. Buddhism)
  • Its own community of users
  • Its own site-specific policies, defined by its users (including e.g. these policies)

Each site has its own meta-site (i.e. this one, https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/), to help the site's users and to discuss the site-specific policies.

On this site we can help explain what the site's existing software features are (usually using the tag); however, any topics which request new features should instead perhaps be made on the meta-site for the whole network, which is at https://meta.stackexchange.com/.

  • I say that because I'm not sure how often SE employees read this https://buddhism.meta.stackexchange.com/ meta-site -- maybe it's not very often; also a new feature request might be more likely to be implemented it it were very highly up-voted by users from all SE sites, not only by the users of this site.

  • Beware that there appear to be 20,000 topics tagged 'feature-request' on that site -- my personal opinion is that, because they already have so many new feature requests, there's probably little benefit in making many more new requests.

| |
  • Sadhu! So it does not seems that there could be a possible different way. – user7500 Dec 29 '15 at 13:46
  • How about a "fake" question. What edit did you made? And editors would give a link when made. That would be a way inside the given software frame. Of course same work, but also a way to get even feedback. – user7500 Dec 29 '15 at 13:50
  • I think you'e suggesting that people could create fake posts as a vehicle for upvoting each other in order to award increases in reputation (as a reward for editing). That wouldn't work well -- for example because each fake could only be upvoted once (if I edited 10 posts and you wanted to reward me 10 times, I would need to create 10 different fakes for you to upvote). That behaviour could, also, easily look like a voting ring to SE's automated vote fraud detection software. – ChrisW♦ Dec 29 '15 at 14:08
  • Atma made already a test question, as you have seen: meta.buddhism.stackexchange.com/questions/1888/… It should make it more clear. Its a good way to give the editor the possibility to get feedback, if wished and does in no way influence his normal possibilities. Actually nothing of it is really a fake, its quite serious and even in the frame of everything here. – user7500 Dec 29 '15 at 14:42

You must log in to answer this question.