Most imortant wiki editors are not rewarded nor recognized in trophy system.

XenForo has a very nice trophy system to reward our members for their contributions and to stimulate members into further efforts.
Wiki articles are very valuable contributions and we should certainly rewards and recognize those members who add good content.
Unfortunately Vaultwiki can only measure the number of contributions. Yet, with import and creation of automatic attachment pages this number is very skewed.
It also doesn't account for the fact that the best wiki articles were created with a few edits. (written in Word editor and then posted to VW)
So now my ranking shows my account at the top of the leaderboard with thousands of edits. Followed by the members who edited a mass of articles for spelling corrections and those who added our largest and best articles are at the bottom of the list mixed in with those who barely contributed.

On the Trophy points leaderboard these members who contributed so much are not even listed.

Please consider to address this issue.

https://www.vaultwiki.org/issues/5196/

The only solution I see to this problem is to give wiki moderators the ability to flag edits as "minor" after the fact. Minor edits do not increase contribution counts.

I think it would be an improvement, but I don't think its a solution. I'm not sure how to mark my 9k automatic edits as minor.
How about counting words? It should not matter if someone added 1000 words in 2 edits or in 500 edits.

Those adding a mass of small edits should also be rewarded and recognized. The XF leaderboard does not display those who made a mass of minor edits. This is logical when its only counting edits. But it does completely ignore the efforts of those members.

The problem with counting words is that adding 1000 words in 1 edit may be significant, but removing 500 words and adding another 500 words in the same edit is also significant (but would be counted as 0 words). Differencing the edits first would not even solve that problem.

There are all sorts of metrics you can use that will be flawed in some way; that is why an end user must decide whether an edit should be considered minor or significant.

In general a user will add more than they remove. Wiki articles tend to grow over time. But there are indeed flaws with any approach.
Many of my members mark their edits as minor to avoid having to fill in the reason for editing. Which explains why some of my top editors have 20 edits.

On the contribution page of a user I see white, blue and green contributions. Are these major and minor contributions? There is no legend.
Example: /wiki/?title=Special:Contributions&userid=286586
If a blue contribution means then this clearly shows that many major contributions are marked as minor. For example a minor contribution adding 27k characters should not be considered minor. Clearly the author posted a massive article in that edit.
In contrast, there are a number of consecutive edits made within a very narrow time span, which add very few characters. Clearly those are minor edits. If the number of major contributions are a method of ranking members then this should be corrected by the software.
Also: I see duplicate contributions in it.

Also consider this user: /wiki/?title=Special:Contributions&userid=49908
20 major edits. Minor edits like creating a new page with 73k characters.

Then this user: /wiki/?title=Special:Contributions&userid=50050
12 minor contributions. Only attachments are counted. No minor or major edits are in the list. They surely are there. I am not sure why the number of contributions is 12.


We have 18k edits out of which half are automatic edits to my account polluting the statistics. There is no way that my staff can evaluate 9k edits to see which are major and which are minor.
There is no distinction between automatic edits (import), attachments, minor edits. Yet, users who contribute a mass of minor edits do contribute significantly. For example the editors who spell check hundreds of articles. They are completely ignored. It would be nice to fix this, so that we have a better ranking of our members.

Without acknowledgement and reward it is really difficult to motivate people to invest significant effort to write wikis. Its not without reason that wikipedia has a mass of Awards: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Awards
Here is just one Award category: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Barnstars
Mind the Awards for fixing typos.

As it currently stands it makes very little sense to use the number of contributions as a criteria for ranking. Please consider improvements.

With XenForo and IPS Vaultwiki can simply hook into the existing Trophy framework by providing useful criteria to measure user accomplishment. I appreciate that it is not yet possible to measure article quality. (which is key)
I suggest to at least make it possible to measure quantity better. So that we know what are real minor edits and what are not real minor edits. And that we can define criteria for major and minor edits, so that massive or minute edits get the appropriate classification. There will always be flaws in this. But I hope to see a better approach which will at least provide us with a reasonable ranking. The current ranking is demotivating for my members. It leads to drama and prime editors giving up.

Blue = the current edit
Green = an edit that net added characters
Red = an edit that net removed characters
White = the first edit
Black and small = a deleted or rejected edit
Any other color, small, and muted = a minor edit
Transparent = everything else

It is definitely feasible to add other flags to edits, such as minor vs typos/cleanup vs automatic, but it would not help you for existing edits. Someone would have to evaluate the existing edits and reclassify them. Automatic edits such as "automatically converted links during import" should already be treated as minor edits. I have updated build 002 just now so that it downgrades automatic creations of imported attachments and imported categories to minor edits.

I dont see how to manually review thousands of edits. How about a batch update edits function where you can set criteria for minor or major edits and then update all edits?