What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Often I see pending edits when the editor has not removed meaningless works like “thanks”, “please”, etc. If the edit is only doing half job and is not even bothered to clean up this sort of simple problem, I tent to reject (or improve) the edit.

There is no way to inform the editor of what is wrong the edit in enough detail that they start to do full job.

share|improve this question
1  
I believe "too minor" covers that. –  Jeff Mercado Sep 30 '11 at 11:10
1  
Alternatively, allow for "Other" with free text as originally suggested in Pending approvals: allow for adding reasons to rejections. (And when allowing free text, also allow that for approvals, in case someone investigated and wants to pass that to the other reviewers.) –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 11:11
1  
But, @Jeff, that does not make explicit what is wrong? –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 11:13
2  
@Jeff, even if the change is a big change (so not too minor) we should not be aproving edits (and therefore reward rep) when the editor has not finshed the job. –  Ian Ringrose Sep 30 '11 at 11:35
6  
"You missed a lot of sh*t" or "You suck at editing" or "do you have attention deficit hyperac OMG A SQUIRREL" –  Won't Sep 30 '11 at 12:02
    
@IanRingrose If you would reject an edit that finished the job as too minor, then the edit was good enough. –  agf Sep 30 '11 at 14:18

2 Answers 2

even if the change is a big change (so not too minor) we should not be aproving edits (and therefore reward rep) when the editor has not finshed the job.

I disagree entirely. The point of editing is to improve the post. If the post is substantially improved, the edit should be approved. Keeping crap instead of good content in order to avoid giving someone a measly 2 rep is ridiculous.

There's an "improve" button if the edit isn't perfect and you want to further it. This is exactly why it's there and there isn't just "approve" and "reject".

share|improve this answer
4  
I'm conflicted on this. Substantial edits are good, but we also want to train editors to not leave the job half-finished when finishing would require practically zero additional effort. Actually, this reminds me a bit of the topic of my recent question. –  Pops Sep 30 '11 at 14:41
1  
I agree with Popular Demand. There should be a way to address editors (ie: a custom message to be attached regardless of whether a suggested edit is approved or rejected). –  NullUserException อ_อ Sep 30 '11 at 15:00
1  
One option: Comment on the post (that way everyone who sees it learns). @editorname works without them needing to comment. –  Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 15:09
    
@MatthewRead but if you want to do that, the edit has to get approved without anyone hitting "Improve" because if you improve then you are the editor. –  agf Sep 30 '11 at 15:15
1  
@agf: I wonder if it would be hard to allow @replies to be addressed to the original editor of an improved edit. That could work as a lightweight alternative to my suggestion. –  hammar Sep 30 '11 at 15:23
    
Hmm, I didn't realize it only worked for the last editor. One could approve, comment, then improve ... kind of messy. –  Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 15:30

If a user is making a good but incomplete edit, I do not think we should "punish" them by rejecting it. We want to encourage them to become better editors, not discourage them from editing at all.

So how about instead showing the original editor a message similar to the rejection message, when their edit was improved? They could then click through to the improved edit, notice that your improvement also removed the "Thanks", and learn it that way.

There could also be an "improvement reason/message", where you can explain to the original editor why you think it had to be improved.

That way, you can still teach them how to improve their editing, without rejecting an edit that, while incomplete, still improved the quality of the original post.

I think constructive feedback is a better teaching mechanism than just a plain "no, not good enough!".

share|improve this answer
3  
This could be a good idea. –  Matthew Read Sep 30 '11 at 14:48
    
This would be a lot more coding for the SE team, but I like it... –  Ian Ringrose Sep 30 '11 at 15:20

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .