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.

It seems like a lot more people are beginning to discover the suggested edits functionality. That's awesome. However, it seems like some people are editing just to be editing.

For instance, I saw a perfectly fine answer that had a suggested edit that changed this line

Demo here: http://jsbin.com/foobar

to this line

Demo [here](http://jsbin.com/foobar)

I've heard that the "too minor" reason should only used when there are other things that could be improved, but this answer was a text book example of a good answer, aside from using a raw link.

Should an extremely minor edit like this be approved when it doesn't really make the content any better? (in my opinion anyway)

share|improve this question
3  
it seems like some people are editing just to be editing Took you a while to notice... –  Yannis Jan 28 '13 at 18:30
1  
You're late to the party. We've been complaining about suggested edits and their approval for far longer. :p –  Bart Jan 28 '13 at 18:30
    
@Bart well, I don't frequent MSO much I guess :P Close as duplicate if appropriate then –  Earlz Jan 28 '13 at 18:31
1  
So the original link wasn't clickable? That seems an OK edit to me as it makes visiting said link easier for future readers. –  Martin Smith Jan 28 '13 at 18:32
3  
Short answer: No –  LittleBobbyTables Jan 28 '13 at 18:32
    
@MartinSmith no, it was clickable. It was just a raw link though, like saying example.com instead of this link –  Earlz Jan 28 '13 at 18:33
1  
@Earlz - Ah right. Agree that seems pointless then. –  Martin Smith Jan 28 '13 at 18:33
    
Related: meta.stackexchange.com/questions/164796/… although that's with links pointing to other stackexchange sites specifically –  Earlz Jan 28 '13 at 18:34
7  
Basic rules I apply: if they don't improve anything: reject. If they improve one thing, but do not address all issues: reject. If it's minor, still an improvement and there are no other issues: accept. –  Bart Jan 28 '13 at 18:34
2  
@Bart well, is something like that an "improvement"? It actually provides a bit less information. At least with the raw link you can see the domain and sometimes the URL is half readable. When they convert it to here though you have to hover over or click through to figure out what it could be –  Earlz Jan 28 '13 at 18:36
10  
I would argue that changing a clickable raw URL to a link with the text "here" (or "click" or "this", etc.) is not an improvement at all. If they'd changed it to the title of the linked page, that would be different. –  Bill the Lizard Jan 28 '13 at 18:40
1  
@Earlz In my book that's not an improvement. –  Bart Jan 28 '13 at 18:42
2  
I personally don't take the "well if there are still issues" guideline seriously at all. If an edit merely formats the code and adds a couple newlines in what would otherwise be an un-formatted ugly block of text, but leaves capitalization and spelling errors. I will approve those all day. –  Sam I am Jan 28 '13 at 18:50
1  
@SamIam Yes, there's definitely a "don't throw the baby out with the bathwater" line we don't want to cross. If they make significant improvements, but leave a few typos or capitalization errors, you're right, approve that. If they opposite is true though, they fix a few typos while leaving the code unformatted, I'd reject the edit. –  Bill the Lizard Jan 28 '13 at 18:56
3  
@SamIam It's a question of whether they made a good faith attempt to address all issues or not. If they just formatted the code but clearly never even read any of the rest of the post, then it's too minor. If the problems elsewhere in the post are not glaring errors that could be conceivably missed in a first pass, then that's fine. –  Servy Jan 28 '13 at 18:59

1 Answer 1

This edit makes the post worse: it replaces a bare URL by the word “here”. Links with descriptive text are better than links with text such as “here” or “this”. A bare URL has the URL itself as a descriptive text, which is not very nice but better than nothing (it at least gives some indication of what kind of content is to be found — an online JavaScript demo, on jsbin.com). Since this edit makes the post worse, I would reject it as “invalid edit” (an edit that makes a post worse is incorrect).

If the edit was the other way round, I'd accept it if the post was otherwise perfect, and reject it as “too minor” if there were any other obvious things to fix (formatting, spelling, etc.). “Too minor” is ok as a rejection reason for edits that neither really improve the post nor really worsen it: they're just a waste of time, which is why the “too minor” rejection reason exists.

share|improve this answer

You must log in to answer this question.

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