Automatic Assistance to Mitigate Rollback Inconsistencies in Collaborative Edits

Automatic Assistance to Mitigate Rollback Inconsistencies in Collaborative Edits | Research Square window.SnipcartSettings = { analytics: { enabled: false } }; (function() { var accessVector = localStorage.getItem('access_vector') || ''; window.dataLayer = window.dataLayer || []; if (accessVector) { window.dataLayer.push({ user: { profile: { profileInfo: { snid: accessVector } } } }); } })(); (function(w,d,s,l,i){w[l]=w[l]||[];w[l].push({'gtm.start':new Date().getTime(),event:'gtm.js'});var f=d.getElementsByTagName(s)[0],j=d.createElement(s),dl=l!='dataLayer'?'&l='+l:'';j.async=true;j.src='https://www.googletagmanager.com/gtm.js?id='+i+dl;f.parentNode.insertBefore(j,f);})(window,document,'script','dataLayer','GTM-K279D39R'); Browse Preprints In Review Journals COVID-19 Preprints AJE Video Bytes Research Tools Research Promotion AJE Professional Editing AJE Rubriq About Preprint Platform In Review Editorial Policies Our Team Advisory Board Help Center Sign In Submit a Preprint Cite Share Download PDF Research Article Automatic Assistance to Mitigate Rollback Inconsistencies in Collaborative Edits Saikat Mondal, Gias Uddin, Chanchal K. Roy This is a preprint; it has not been peer reviewed by a journal. https://doi.org/ 10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1 This work is licensed under a CC BY 4.0 License Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Abstract The success of technical Q&A sites such as Stack Overflow depends on two key factors: (a) active user participation and (b) the quality of the shared knowledge. Stack Overflow introduced an edit system that allows users to suggest improvements to posts (i.e., questions and answers) to enhance the quality of the content. However, users, such as post owners or site moderators, can reject these suggested edits by rollbacks due to unsatisfactory, low-quality edits or violating edit guidelines. Unfortunately, subjectivity bias in determining whether an edit is satisfactory or unsatisfactory can lead to inconsistencies in the rollback decisions. For example, one user might accept the formatting of a method name (e.g., getActivity()) as a code term, while another might reject it. Such inconsistencies can demotivate and frustrate users whose edits are rejected. Furthermore, several post owners prefer to keep their content unchanged and even resist necessary edits. As a result, they sometimes roll back necessary edits and revert posts to a flawed version, which violates editing guidelines. The problems mentioned above are further compounded by the lack of specific guidelines and tools to assist users in ensuring consistency in user rollback actions. In this study, we investigate the types, prevalence, and impact of rollback edit inconsistencies and propose a solution to address them. The outcomes of this research are fivefold. First, we manually investigated 764 rollback edits (382 questions + 382 answers) and identified eight types of inconsistent rollback. Second, we surveyed 44 practitioners to assess the impact of rollback inconsistencies. More than 80% of the participants found our identified inconsistency types detrimental to post quality. Third, we developed rule-based algorithms and Machine Learning (ML) models to detect the eight types of rollback inconsistencies. Both approaches achieve over 90% accuracy. Fourth, we introduced a tool, iEdit, which integrates these algorithms into a browser extension and assists Stack Overflow users during their edits. Fifth, we surveyed 16 Stack Overflow users to evaluate the effectiveness of iEdit. The participants found the tool’s suggestions helpful in avoiding inconsistent rollback edits. Software Engineering Computer Architecture and Engineering Stack Overflow inconsistent edits content quality user study tool support Full Text Additional Declarations The authors declare no competing interests. Cite Share Download PDF Status: Posted Version 1 posted You are reading this latest preprint version Research Square lets you share your work early, gain feedback from the community, and start making changes to your manuscript prior to peer review in a journal. As a division of Research Square Company, we’re committed to making research communication faster, fairer, and more useful. We do this by developing innovative software and high quality services for the global research community. Our growing team is made up of researchers and industry professionals working together to solve the most critical problems facing scientific publishing. Also discoverable on Platform About Our Team In Review Editorial Policies Advisory Board Help Center Resources Author Services Accessibility API Access RSS feed Manage Cookie Preferences © Research Square 2026 | ISSN 2693-5015 (online) Privacy Policy Terms of Service Do Not Sell My Personal Information {"props":{"pageProps":{"initialData":{"identity":"rs-5830055","acceptedTermsAndConditions":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"archivedVersions":[],"articleType":"Research Article","associatedPublications":[],"authors":[{"id":402212621,"identity":"3cd7b89a-4c56-4a39-b6f7-ca0dd9ca1991","order_by":0,"name":"Saikat Mondal","email":"","orcid":"https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1767-6392","institution":"University of Saskatchewan","correspondingAuthor":true,"prefix":"","firstName":"Saikat","middleName":"","lastName":"Mondal","suffix":""},{"id":402212622,"identity":"cdd0db3b-1878-477b-a62a-7e6fb6b9fc11","order_by":1,"name":"Gias Uddin","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"York University","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Gias","middleName":"","lastName":"Uddin","suffix":""},{"id":402212623,"identity":"993ee4a5-0df7-4d7f-8aec-300bf9013c20","order_by":2,"name":"Chanchal K. Roy","email":"","orcid":"","institution":"University of Saskatchewan","correspondingAuthor":false,"prefix":"","firstName":"Chanchal","middleName":"K.","lastName":"Roy","suffix":""}],"badges":[],"createdAt":"2025-01-14 23:16:07","currentVersionCode":1,"declarations":{"humanSubjects":false,"vertebrateSubjects":false,"conflictsOfInterestStatement":false,"humanSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false,"humanSubjectConsent":false,"humanSubjectClinicalTrial":false,"humanSubjectCaseReport":false,"vertebrateSubjectEthicalGuidelines":false},"doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1","doiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1","draftVersion":[],"editorialEvents":[],"editorialNote":"","failedWorkflow":false,"files":[{"id":73928618,"identity":"2a82f97b-b01c-4dee-a752-f3461d2d1d4f","added_by":"auto","created_at":"2025-01-16 05:31:09","extension":"pdf","order_by":1,"title":"","display":"","copyAsset":false,"role":"manuscript-pdf","size":1181372,"visible":true,"origin":"","legend":"","description":"","filename":"manuscript.pdf","url":"https://assets-eu.researchsquare.com/files/rs-5830055/v1_covered_f3121c11-9af9-47ef-82b5-7dba58242537.pdf"}],"financialInterests":"The authors declare no competing interests.","formattedTitle":"\u003cp\u003eAutomatic Assistance to Mitigate Rollback Inconsistencies in Collaborative Edits\u003c/p\u003e","fulltext":[],"fulltextSource":"","fullText":"","funders":[],"hasAdminPriorityOnWorkflow":false,"hasManuscriptDocX":false,"hasOptedInToPreprint":true,"hasPassedJournalQc":"","hasAnyPriority":true,"hideJournal":true,"highlight":"","institution":"University of Saskatchewan","isAcceptedByJournal":false,"isAuthorSuppliedPdf":true,"isDeskRejected":"","isHiddenFromSearch":false,"isInQc":false,"isInWorkflow":false,"isPdf":true,"isPdfUpToDate":true,"isWithdrawnOrRetracted":false,"journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true},"keywords":"Stack Overflow, inconsistent edits, content quality, user study, tool support","lastPublishedDoi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1","lastPublishedDoiUrl":"https://doi.org/10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1","license":{"name":"CC BY 4.0","url":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/"},"manuscriptAbstract":"\u003cp\u003eThe success of technical Q\u0026amp;A sites such as Stack Overflow depends on two key factors: (a) active user participation and (b) the quality of the shared knowledge. Stack Overflow introduced an edit system that allows users to suggest improvements to posts (i.e., questions and answers) to enhance the quality of the content. However, users, such as post owners or site moderators, can reject these suggested edits by rollbacks due to unsatisfactory, low-quality edits or violating edit guidelines. Unfortunately, subjectivity bias in determining whether an edit is satisfactory or unsatisfactory can lead to inconsistencies in the rollback decisions. For example, one user might accept the formatting of a method name (e.g., getActivity()) as a code term, while another might reject it. Such inconsistencies can demotivate and frustrate users whose edits are rejected. Furthermore, several post owners prefer to keep their content unchanged and even resist necessary edits. As a result, they sometimes roll back necessary edits and revert posts to a flawed version, which violates editing guidelines. The problems mentioned above are further compounded by the lack of specific guidelines and tools to assist users in ensuring consistency in user rollback actions. In this study, we investigate the types, prevalence, and impact of rollback edit inconsistencies and propose a solution to address them. The outcomes of this research are fivefold. First, we manually investigated 764 rollback edits (382 questions + 382 answers) and identified eight types of inconsistent rollback. Second, we surveyed 44 practitioners to assess the impact of rollback inconsistencies. More than 80% of the participants found our identified inconsistency types detrimental to post quality. Third, we developed rule-based algorithms and Machine Learning (ML) models to detect the eight types of rollback inconsistencies. Both approaches achieve over 90% accuracy. Fourth, we introduced a tool, iEdit, which integrates these algorithms into a browser extension and assists Stack Overflow users during their edits. Fifth, we surveyed 16 Stack Overflow users to evaluate the effectiveness of iEdit. The participants found the tool’s suggestions helpful in avoiding inconsistent rollback edits.\u003c/p\u003e","manuscriptTitle":"Automatic Assistance to Mitigate Rollback Inconsistencies in Collaborative Edits","msid":"","msnumber":"","nonDraftVersions":[{"code":1,"date":"2025-01-16 05:07:01","doi":"10.21203/rs.3.rs-5830055/v1","editorialEvents":[{"type":"communityComments","content":0}],"status":"published","journal":{"display":true,"email":"[email protected]","identity":"researchsquare","isNatureJournal":false,"hasQc":true,"allowDirectSubmit":true,"externalIdentity":"","sideBox":"","snPcode":"","submissionUrl":"/submission","title":"Research Square","twitterHandle":"researchsquare","acdcEnabled":true,"dfaEnabled":false,"editorialSystem":"","reportingPortfolio":"","inReviewEnabled":false,"inReviewRevisionsEnabled":true}}],"origin":"","ownerIdentity":"75b11ca2-3b5f-48be-879a-c6af50e21710","owner":[],"postedDate":"January 16th, 2025","published":true,"recentEditorialEvents":[],"rejectedJournal":[],"revision":"","amendment":"","status":"posted","subjectAreas":[{"id":42870030,"name":"Software Engineering"},{"id":42870031,"name":"Computer Architecture and Engineering"}],"tags":[],"updatedAt":"2025-01-16T05:07:01+00:00","versionOfRecord":[],"versionCreatedAt":"2025-01-16 05:07:01","video":"","vorDoi":"","vorDoiUrl":"","workflowStages":[]},"version":"v1","identity":"rs-5830055","journalConfig":"researchsquare"},"__N_SSP":true},"page":"/article/[identity]/[[...version]]","query":{"redirect":"/article/rs-5830055","identity":"rs-5830055","version":["v1"]},"buildId":"8U1c8b4HqxoKbykW_rLl7","isFallback":false,"isExperimentalCompile":false,"dynamicIds":[84888],"gssp":true,"scriptLoader":[]}