2

I found this question, where an answer had been flagged to be removed, due to low content.

As it stands, I would agree. The answer in question is half a sentence, at best. Not exactly what we strive for, here on the Arqade. But then I clicked on edit history.

The answer was originally a paragraph long. Admittedly, it looked like it may not be 100% reliable, and it needed some punctuation / grammar. However; Instead, a user deleted a majority of it, and shortened it to the half sentence that is now being flagged for low content.

What should generally be done in this case?

edit: as Unionhawk pointed out, some may not feel like jumping down a few links.

Question: How do you make a black weapon in borderlands 2? Have they patched it or is it very difficult to do. I have no clue how to make it.

Original Answer: Black weapons are hybrids. Some bottomless, others 999 or more ammo, 1,000,000,000,000,000.00 damage, fire quickly and use up infinite ammo and an infinite ammo Norfleet that fires 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 damage into ONE red orb out of 25. I love all Hybrid weapons. My answer: make one in the Borderlands 2 gun maker (i dont know its name) Theres my opinion and answer.


Edited Answer: Make one in the Borderlands 2 gun maker.

Edit summary/ reason: deleted 335 characters in body

2

2 Answers 2

3

I think we're getting hung up on the edits and who removed what without looking at the bigger picture: what does the question actually ask?

How to Make Black Weapons

How do you make a black weapon in borderlands 2? Have they patched it or is it very difficult to do. I have no clue how to make it.

There are two parts to this question, both of which should be addressed by an answer:

  1. Were 'black' weapons patched out of the game:
    • <Yes/No>, preferably <Source/Reference> as well
  2. How to make Black weapons:
    • <Process to obtain/build black weapons> or <It's not possible because: reasons>

The original version of the answer does not address the question at all:

Black weapons are hybrids. Some bottomless, others 999 or more ammo, 1,000,000,000,000,000.00 damage, fire quickly and use up infinite ammo and an infinite ammo Norfleet that fires 1,000,000,000,000,000,000.00 damage into ONE red orb out of 25. I love all Hybrid weapons. My answer: make Make one in the Borderlands 2 gun maker (i dont know its name) Theres my opinion and answer.

  • The Italicized stuff is useful info, but doesn't address the question at all. It could be edited into shape, but it can't stand as an answer on it's own
  • The striked stuff should be removed, it's fluff.
  • The bolded stuff tries to address the the question, but:
    • It doesn't address point 1: whether they were patched out of the game
    • It doesn't address point 2: the actual process of creating a black weapon
    • Hell, it doesn't even give us the name of the Save Editor!

The answer is Low Quality, and should just be removed entirely. It adds no value to the question at all.

2
  • to clarify, should the edit be undone, and then flagged, or just flagged? The second issue this original posed for me was that, if OP returned, they would likely find that their post was taken down. If they see that it was edited to the one-sentence, they might assume the reports and consequent action were based entirely off the new version, and not be corrected in how they can give a better response, in the future. Generally, with this sort of stuff, I prefer to flag it, and leave a comment to give OP tips to do better next time.
    – user106385
    Jul 27, 2015 at 2:17
  • 1
    @Timelord64 - I came across it in the 'Low Quality' review queue, so it'll be taken care of soon enough anyway. If the OP wishes to come back and make edits to the post to address the question, this can still be accomplished when it is deleted, as you can always see your own deleted posts. If the OP does this, they can also flag the answer to be undeleted by a mod. Therefore we shouldn't keep it around 'just in case' they come back
    – Robotnik Mod
    Jul 27, 2015 at 2:20
-4

There was nothing suspicious about that edit. All I did was remove all the cruft. Take a good long look at that answer, pre-edit. Go on, I'll wait.

Back? Okay. Now, take a look at the edit. That's all that actually related to answering the question. All the rest was irrelevant and had no business being part of the answer. And, really, if that's all there actually is that's trying to answer it, it should be sent to the low quality queue.

Adding extra characters to your answer doesn't make it immune to editing; we try to keep to the point, so people don't have to dig through answers to actually find the relevant information. Cleaning up content is what we do here.

On a general note, what you should do in situations like this is take a hard look at the answer pre-edit. See if the intent of the poster is still there, while preserving what they're trying to say. If it is, then you have nothing to do. If not, you can roll back the edit, but it should be used extremely sparingly.

5
  • 4
    Thats my point, though. It now only reflects half of what the OP was trying to say. A majority of the post was their attempts to explain the concept behind the weapon. The accepted answer does the same thing. And ultimately, you have edited a low quality answer, into another low quality answer.
    – user106385
    Jul 27, 2015 at 0:25
  • @Timelord64 The user was attempting to explain what black weapons were. He did so extremely badly. Regardless, that's nowhere near what was even being asked. And no, the accepted answer doesn't explain the concept behind them; it points out what they are, that they're hacks, links to the method of how to do so, and then states it's no longer possible. All of which is relevant. The answer we're discussing here doesn't do any of the above; it lists some effects black weapons can have, which has no bearing on actually making them. Which is what the question is all about.
    – Frank
    Jul 27, 2015 at 0:28
  • 1
    I have already been directly told that any relevant information should be in the body. I would consider insight into what black weapons are relative. And regardless, it is not just my call. it is not just your call. Either way, both answers could be argued as low quality; it would be up to the community to flag>close or down-vote. I dont think one of us should immediately go in and wipe out most of what the user had originally posted.
    – user106385
    Jul 27, 2015 at 0:42
  • 1
    @Timelord64 Dude. If it's junk, it is junk. It'll just get deleted anyways, so wasting all this time on something that bad is worthless. I left all the relevant information in the answer. You can edit it if you want, but the instant you start adding stuff that didn't exist, I'm going to remove it. Edits are not for changing the intent of the answer; they're for clarification and cleanup.
    – Frank
    Jul 27, 2015 at 0:43
  • 1
    Edits are not for changing the intent of the answer -- which is exactly the reason this was a bad edit. The description of black weapons was clearly intended to be there. The fact that that part is an aside and not part of the direct answer is a reason to downvote if you wish, not to unilaterally remove it. Jul 29, 2015 at 19:57

You must log in to answer this question.
https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10740/suspicious-edit
gaming.meta.stackexchange.com
CC-MAIN-2024-22
130294
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:MC7U2VDOHAV7AAXG5BIE5SPBB5OJ7CQ5
<urn:uuid:20c77ea4-e903-4f19-954f-897165201d7e>
2024-05-25T01:02:37Z
104.18.43.226
text/html
sha1:4IIQSDWWALFT6AKLHAMURA6U7MLM7EDE
<urn:uuid:9efb450b-d036-4695-8d7e-293b7592219f>
https://gaming.meta.stackexchange.com/questions/10740/suspicious-edit
response
<urn:uuid:57eb6127-9a50-4378-a5e8-4cd7f649309f>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2024-22
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for May 2024
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-96
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.5-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/