What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 128 Stack Exchange communities.

I usually see a lot of suggested edits pending, suggesting to remove a user sign or cheers from a question.

Es.

//question ...

thanks

Mark

What's the right policy, approve or reject?

share|improve this question
    
Related (not duplicate as I first thought, sorry): Should 'Hi', 'thanks,' taglines, and salutations be removed from posts? –  Pëkka Jan 23 '12 at 21:54
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 19 down vote accepted

If that's the only wart of the post, approve. If there's much more wrong with it, reject as too minor¹. If there's a tiny speck² besides, improve.

That's my policy for these suggested edits.

¹ I try to go and fix it myself afterward, but I don't always succeed with that.
² Don't take the "tiny speck" too literally, it's for dramatic effect.

share|improve this answer
    
"If there's much more wrong, reject as too minor." - really? I would approve if I don't have the patience to improve, but not reject. –  Oded Jan 23 '12 at 21:58
9  
@Oded Yes, really. If they just remove a speck of dust in a sea of dirt, I don't see the point. If you (generic you, not personal) edit a post, put some effort into it, please. –  Daniel Fischer Jan 23 '12 at 22:00
    
Your answer seems to read the exact opposite of your comment to @Oded. –  casperOne Jan 23 '12 at 22:12
    
@casperOne exact opposite? I may have tripped over a subtlety of a language not my mother tongue. –  Daniel Fischer Jan 23 '12 at 22:15
1  
@DanielFischer - Looks fine to me. "If there's much more wrong" is a tiny bit awkward; you might say "If there are many more problems" or "If there are a large amount of errors remaining" to better convey that the problem is in the ratio of remaining errors. –  Kevin Vermeer Jan 24 '12 at 0:09
    
What I do with these has changed over time; I used the existence of the "too minor" rejection reason as an excuse to reject edits that I would approve now. I approve such edits now, unless the edit was painfully ignoring other glaring, easily fixed issues, too. However, in such a case, I have to ask myself; why not just click "Improve"? (which implicitly approves the edit). –  Andrew's a Unitato Jan 24 '12 at 0:30
    
In the cases where 'thanks' is removed and nothing else improved, I usually improve, then uncheck the 'this edit was helpful' flag. –  AShelly Mar 23 '12 at 20:09
    
@AShelly Yes, now that is an easy option. That feature was implemented about a week after this question. –  Daniel Fischer Mar 23 '12 at 20:24
add comment

Approve.

Salutations should be removed - they are noise that adds nothing to the question.

See Should 'Hi', 'thanks,' taglines, and salutations be removed from posts?

share|improve this answer
    
thanks..I tried to search before asking but I didn/t used the right keywords :). –  Heisenbug Jan 23 '12 at 22:03
10  
We should be training people to fix all of the problems in posts they edit, not just the ones that are the easiest to identify and the least useful in terms of improving quality. Approving sig-removal-only edits is rewarding the wrong behavior, even though such edits technically improve quality. –  Pops Jan 23 '12 at 22:06
1  
@PopularDemand - I have always seen these as attempts to improve. If I possibly can improve, I will. –  Oded Jan 23 '12 at 22:25
1  
I've come more to this opinion, whereas I believe I used to over-use the "Too Minor" reject reason. It is helpful to remove salutations. If there's more, that's why we have the 'Improve' option. (See my comment to sarnold's answer for more nuance) –  Andrew's a Unitato Jan 24 '12 at 0:35
add comment

I agree with Daniel's answer, but I now apply a stricter policy when I see users making significant edit suggestions in a manner that I think is primarily to gain reputation.

If I don't recognize the editor's name, then I'm more likely to hit the Improve button and fix things myself. If I recognize the editor's name as likely doing the edits specifically to gain reputation, I'm far more likely to hit the Reject button and describe why I rejected the edit: it's the easiest mechanism for me to provide feedback on how future edits will have the most value. After all, there's probably another 400+ edits coming until the user hits the +1000 reputation cap from edits.

For example, a new editor has suggested 75 edits in two or three days. Hooray! Except his editing is sometimes at random, sometimes right-on but insufficient, and sometimes he gets it exactly right.

I'm glad this user is choosing to make so many edits, but some of them appear like he searched for an awkward phrase ("see the code behind") to replace it with something more idiomatic ("see the above code") and ignores the other glaring issues in the posts.

He started with simple edits. They've improved over time; I think the improvement is largely because 11 of his 75 suggestions were rejected with useful reasons.

share|improve this answer
1  
I don't begrudge anyone doing anything to legitimately earn reputation, but I have to admit that I apply a slightly higher standard to someone whose name I've seen on lots of proposed edits. If all they did was remove, "thanks", and they also ignored numerous, obvious, easily-fixed additional problems... I might start clicking reject. –  Andrew's a Unitato Jan 24 '12 at 0:32
1  
@Andrew: It certainly wasn't my intention to diminish the editing work of this user or anyone else -- it's just that I've seen some editors make many edit suggestions because it was clear they love quality writing, and those editors rarely need any guidance. :) –  sarnold Jan 24 '12 at 0:40
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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