My apologies if this has been asked before, and maybe I'm the only one confused by this, but according to the editing privileges page, common reasons for editing are:
- to fix grammatical or spelling mistakes
- to clarify the meaning of a post without changing it
- to correct minor mistakes or add addendums / updates as the post ages
- to add related resources or hyperlinks
"Any time you feel you can make the post better, and are inclined to do so. Editing is encouraged!"
However, it also states that:
"Try to make the post substantively better when you edit, not just change a single character. Tiny, trivial edits are discouraged."
Is there any guide or metric to be applied to determine whether I should edit something or not? Consider a post with a few misspelled words or grammar mistakes that is otherwise a good question/answer -- Reading posts here on Meta, it seems like editing that post is discouraged for various reasons, but that seems to contradict the first bullet point above. Another thing I commonly see is people editing to remove "Thanks, poster_name_here". While a "trivial" edit, removing it does make the post slightly better. If that is the only thing that I can think of to change on the post, should I edit or refrain? (Maybe more importantly, if I'm reviewing others' edits, should I accept or reject?)