What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 130 Stack Exchange communities.

Several times, when a suggested edit fixes several errors, but does not fix all the errors even when they're very similar (for example, suggested edit fixes some spelling errors, some capitalisation errors, but not all), I've been trying to improve them, but the suggested edit has been approved before I can finish the suggested edits.

Should I be going and fixing the post (double-editing? rollback, then fix everything?)?

When a post has lots of errors and most-but-not-all are fixed, I could take the the view that fixing the rest is a "minor edit", and not worth the effort.

What's the communal view in this situation?

share|improve this question
6  
Sigh. Here we go again with the minor edits business. Just fix it, Spock. –  Robert Harvey Aug 14 '12 at 15:39
1  
Just continue editing, but do not rollback, unless it is a horrible suggested edit. –  nhahtdh Aug 14 '12 at 15:39

1 Answer 1

Not sure why you are looking for some sort of protocol here - there is none.

Personally, if the suggested edit was approved but there are still issues with the post that I can fix, I go in and fix them, over the suggested edit.

I see no point in rolling back just to make the same edits again.

No where does it say that an edit (suggested or otherwise) should fix all issues in a post. It is fine to have a bunch of edits each fixing bits of a post. Yes, it would be best to have less edits and more fixes in each edit, but that's not how people do things.

share|improve this answer
    
I think he's essentially asking if he should fix it if there is only one minor error remaining in the post after the suggested edit. –  Robert Harvey Aug 14 '12 at 15:41
    
@RobertHarvey - Well, if it bothers him so much, then I guess so ;) –  Oded Aug 14 '12 at 15:41
1  
There's a limit here though. If they fix one thing while leaving lots of other obvious problems it should be rejected, or Improved and marked Not Useful. –  Brad Mace Aug 14 '12 at 15:41
    
@BradMace - Sure. But at least they did go in and make an effort. I would probably go with an "improve" on such an edit. But the OP is asking about more substantive edits that have already been approved. –  Oded Aug 14 '12 at 15:43
    
@BradMace Right. So if I saw an edit fixing one or two things, I'd reject. If I saw an edit miss one or two things but be approved, I can fix it, based on the comments attached to this question, even when I'd reject the same edit if it came through on its own? –  simont Aug 14 '12 at 15:44
    
@simont you can use the Improve option in either case. There's a checkbox you can use at the bottom to indicate whether the suggestion was useful. –  Brad Mace Aug 14 '12 at 15:45
    
@simont - If you have the rep, why not? I often correct posts with a single typo. Doesn't go into the edit queue as I have enough rep to show that I know a good edit from a bad one. –  Oded Aug 14 '12 at 15:45

You must log in to answer this question.

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