Mass editing of syntax highlighting - good or bad?

Question

I've noticed that this user is making a lot of edits lately, and all they do is add the <!--language: * --> syntax highlighting hint.

Now, I'm not saying this is bad (props to that user for trying to help improve the site!), but should posts be edited for only minor syntax coloring hints (which has a side-effect of bumping the posts to the front page as well)?

(I've also noticed that this user is only editing new posts, and avoiding bumping old posts, which is also a nice thing to notice, so thanks to that user for that also.)

Answer 1

I personally enjoy these syntax coloring edits. Several of my posts have been edited to include syntax coloring, and they became much more readable.

On a side note: before reading this post, I edited a large number of posts to include syntax coloring. Perhaps I should have done it at a smaller amount at a time.
Sorry.

Answer 2

I was about to write this as a comment, but to give it more relevance I'm writing this down here.

I actually appreciated it when he edited one of my answers; It made it more readable and understanding. It was a real eye-saver for anyone who wanted to give it a serious reading.

Since he's not bumping posts I don't think there's anything wrong with it. As others said, if one doesn't like the edit, he can rollback. I think that it should be done little by little, though.

While I agree with Peter Taylor, saying that's a minor edit, I disagree with the fact that's not worth an "Accept" button click. For longer posts it's really really helpful, and has a positive impact on people coming from the research engines (I actually was really surprised when I saw SO for the first time...).

Answer 3

Ok, lets enumerate some points:

1. Initially when I saw java answers, the lack of syntax coloring really makes the code horrible. By editing them it becames a lot better.

2. Quickly realized that this is not only a problem of java answers. This is a general problem. The syntax coloring is a good thing, and if no one starts that no one does that. This is a reason that I am disagreeing with @Peter Taylor. If we really want to improve the quality of this site, lets fix not only the big problems, but the small ones too.

3. I was careful to not bump old posts. I may accidentally had bumped one or two that I shouldn't, but I am really thinking to avoid this.

4. I am expecting that people follow my example. Go on people, lets improve the quality of this site. If you see something could be improved, do it. This is the way that a lot of other betas here on SE work. @Quincunx, nice that you enjoyed. Instead of stopping, I invite you to intesify this activity.

5. I am seeing now that the number of answers that already comes syntax-colored is raising (not by much, but it is). This is a sign that my strategy is starting to work. Some comes with broken syntax-coloring tags, meaning that some people are trying to experiment with them.

6. @Gareth, The Strunk & White badge is not only my objective. I already have it and I could stop after that, but I didn't. In fact I enjoy to fix other people questions and answers when I can. And frankly, it is a shame for a site that is more than 3 years in beta, that the first one to get that badge is active only in the last two months.

7. Most of my editions in fact are for adding syntax coloring and fixing small formatting stuff. But not all, by editing I already avoided some questions to be closed and made a few be reopened. I am proud of this.

8. @Jonathan Van Matre: If I see that the syntax coloring would not really improve the question/answer, I normally don't do it.

9. @Doorknob, thanks for saying that I am trying to improve the site. :)

10. I might had edited wrongly a few times, if so, sorry, I am human. But I think that in most of those edits, I did it right.

Answer 4

I think that in general syntax highlighting is too trivial to be the sole purpose of an edit. If I saw such an edit in the review queue, I would reject it on that basis.

Answer 5

I always assumed the lack of syntax-coloring here was by design. It makes more sense for a language-specific site (e.g. TeX.se, Mathematica.se, DBA.se)

It's worth noting that the way multi-language sites on SE achieve highlighting is by setting a default highlighting hint for language-specific tags. This works pretty well on SO where a questioner tags a question about C# and responses in C# are automatically highlighted. Here, with the rare exception of language-specific challenges, we have no way to use a tag to set a sensible default. That makes all syntax highlighting a manual process.

Since many of the golf answers are compressed to a single line anyway, what does syntax coloring add if 65% of it is hidden beyond the edge of the div?

On the whole, I like syntax highlighting. I just see syntax highlighting every post on PPCG as a potentially Sisyphean endeavor. If there are no sensible defaults, it leaves us with a lot of manual work.