Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 158 Stack Exchange communities.

What is meta?
Here's how it works:
  1. Any Stack Exchange user can ask a question
  2. The community provides support, votes on ideas, and reports bugs
  3. Your voice helps shape the way Stack Exchange operates

(I couldn't find anything that I thought really answered this.)

E.g., this question was textified by a user who did the same to several other questions in a row. I approved the first one, noticed the others, and suddenly wasn't sure if it was too trivial.

I think textified links are more readable and usable, and have done so myself (generally as part of a larger edit, however), but I don't need my edits approved.

If the only edit is link textification, should it be approved?

share|improve this question
If it improves the post and there is nothing else (or at least not much else) to fix, why not? – Bart Aug 28 '12 at 13:31
@Bart Because of the wonderfully subjective Too Minor rejection reason we'll have questions like this trying to define concrete rules and standards. – Mike B Aug 28 '12 at 13:34
This is definitely on the borderline. I'm a lot more likely to approve such trivial edits on questions with low votes and low views. But that's just me. I would probably approve that edit on a new post, but would most likely reject it on something that has 10k views. – Mysticial Aug 28 '12 at 13:35
RE title, "is making a link clickable a good edit" - Certainly yes, -> The example you've shown is a different question, it's about "Visit"; -> "Visit Stack Overflow". I myself would never edit a post for the sole reason of "textifying" links, because it doesn't add that much value. – Rob W Aug 28 '12 at 13:37
Having just now edited the particular question you link to, I can see there was far more left to fix than this user did. If anything I would have either voted this to be "too minor" or at least improved the edit and unselected the "helpful" checkbox. But that's merely my view on this. – Bart Aug 28 '12 at 13:37
@MikeB I am arguing nowhere that this question is not a valid one. – Bart Aug 28 '12 at 13:39
@Bart Neither am I. I was more poking fun at the vague choice of words used for rejecting edits. Vagueness makes this question necessary. – Mike B Aug 28 '12 at 13:40
@Bart I didn't even know there was a "helpful" checkbox :( – Dave Newton Aug 28 '12 at 13:42
The answer to this is the same as the answer to every other "is X alone a good edit" question: is X the only thing that needs to be fixed? If so, yes; otherwise, you should've fixed everything else, too. – Pops Aug 28 '12 at 14:31
up vote 5 down vote accepted

If the only improvement made is to change a bare URL to a link with the text "this link" I'd probably reject the edit. That's not really an improvement. The page linked to has a title, so why not use it?

In this particular case, the editor did make four other minor improvements, so I probably would have hit "Improve" and left the helpful box checked. If they hadn't made any other attempt at improving the post, I would have unchecked the box. Considering the number of improvements made by a later editor, this is definitely a judgement call. If you can significantly improve the post further, you can feel free to uncheck the box.

share|improve this answer

For sure, About Drupal is a more helpful link than; with the first I know what the topic of the linked page is, while with the latter I only know the domain name for the server hosting the linked page. This is even more true when the page title uses more words, like Ways to get involved, or Let users cancel their accounts.

As for approving a suggested edit like that, it depends from the fact there are other things that should be changed. If the author of the post wrote i instead of I, kept using the comma where it should not have been used, and those things don't get changed, then I would reject the suggested edit.
If then the user would start suggesting similar edits for more than 6 posts in few time, then I would also check how much of the post gets changed. I would think the user is trying to get some reputation without answering, or asking questions.

While the change can make the post more useful, the fact the link has not been edited so far means it was not so urgent, which also means there is not a really necessity to change the link used in the post, and do it for any other post in few time. It would be different if the original link is broken, and who suggests the edit knows exactly the link to use.

share|improve this answer

It's an improvemnt to the question, and it's definitely a valid edit or partial edit.

If the editor only changed that in the post, there are two cases:

  1. That was the only thing "wrong" with the post. The rest of it is excellent, clearly worded, and free of spelling/grammar/capitalization/punctuation errors. Approve
  2. There are other issues with the post that weren't addressed by the edit, including (but not limited to) spelling errors or other links that could be textified. The editor clearly did not put much effort into this particular edit, and missed some things that should be fixed. Reject or Improve (it's up to the improver to decide whether or not the edit was "helpful")
share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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