5,580
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 85:
Line 85: + +
Conservapedia talk:Contest4 (view source)
Revision as of 20:24, January 12, 2008
, 20:24, January 12, 2008→Double counting
:I can see where you're coming from: Endless tweaking with minor edits to boost your score isn't cool. But your suggestion seems to be quite... radical.
:I can see where you're coming from: Endless tweaking with minor edits to boost your score isn't cool. But your suggestion seems to be quite... radical.
:(Unless you meant filing the same ''edit'' under multiple categories. Then I misunderstood.) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
:(Unless you meant filing the same ''edit'' under multiple categories. Then I misunderstood.) --[[User:Jenkins|Jenkins]] 15:08, 12 January 2008 (EST)
::I don't mean that you should only keep your very first score, but I don't think it's that radical to suggest that if someone creates a QNE that they should not get any points for fixing all their own spelling, say. And if you started out with a Minor new article but later improved it, there's no problem with claiming credit for the article as a whole. The only time there's "no incentive" is when you create a quality entry, but if it's already quality, how many more points could you earn anyway? If you can earn substantial points by improving it, it probably wasn't a valid quality new entry to start with. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 15:24, 12 January 2008 (EST)
====Handicap====
====Handicap====