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 feel that all users should be able to suggest edits for simple issues such as spelling, syntax and formatting. However, they should not be rewarded unless multiple issues (including title, tags, etc.) have been addressed as outlined by the definition.

The inequality is that users with 2k+ rep can edit without approval and are not rewarded. The edits that are mostly done by these users are actually too minor by the definition:

Suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

But, they are needed for readability and quality improvement. When I see consecutive minor edits, I feel like I must then inform the "offending" users that they are making too many minor edits and to make more substantial improvements when their edits are perfectly helpful, but are considered "too minor."

While there is an alternate proposed solution to allow users with lower rep (500+) to make edits, I think all users should be able to better the community. I don't think approving as too minor is suitable, as it still rewards edits that are too minor. My request is to see an "approve minor edit."

I also feel that users that have had a certain amount of rejected edits should be (temporarily) suspended from suggesting edits. This will help cut down the moderation effort.

share|improve this question
9  
"I also feel that users that have had a certain amount of rejected edits should be (temporarily) suspended from suggesting edits." - This already happens. –  Mysticial Mar 7 '13 at 4:32
1  
@Mysticial Did not know; but happy to hear. –  Kermit Mar 7 '13 at 4:34
    
I've started to notice that in my brief time in the review queues. Is lots of little edits a way of milking rep? –  luser droog Mar 7 '13 at 7:24
3  
The other inequality is that it takes 3-5 people to review a proposed edit. That effort is not well spent on "calender" type spelling errors. –  Bo Persson Mar 7 '13 at 8:19
    
@luserdroog yes. Saving the world, 2 rep points at a time. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 9 '13 at 17:20
    
This is in regards to low-rep users who suggest edits to others’ posts. What about people who make (very) minor edits to their own posts purely to bump them? –  Synetech Dec 24 '13 at 16:14
add comment

3 Answers 3

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Perhaps the problem isn't that the character limits are too low, but that superficial limit is in place merely to prevent minor edits. In that vein I suggest that the solution be shifted to rep requirements.

Maybe 2K is too low to allow people to garner a bunch of rep through suggested edit reviews.

I understand the rep requirement is lower to foster overall desire for well-being of the site in terms of question and answer quality. But currently it seems like this is backfiring. So maybe a different approach would be to change it so that instead of +2 for every approved edit, it is +10 for any day where you have [some number of] approved edits, but only if you also have ZERO rejected edits (or zero approvals of edits that ended up being rejected by other users). Or make rejected edits cost actual rep instead of whatever it does now, which I suspect isn't much or we wouldn't have such a rampant problem. I think bad editors will quickly learn.

share|improve this answer
2  
make rejected edits cost actual rep. Nothing gets a person's attention like negative rep! I'd be all for any of these suggestions; it would be nice to know that even if your reject vote is eventually overridden by careless users, there will still be an impact from it. That might actually bring me back to the Suggested Edit queue... –  LittleBobbyTables Mar 7 '13 at 20:46
    
@LittleBobbyTables well, that is just off the cuff, maybe it should be based on some aggregate rather than absolute numbers. Then again, maybe it is ok to have an immediate impact (just like a down-vote). If we want suggested edits and the review queue to be a good way to uphold quality on the site, let's treat this ecosystem like a first-class citizen. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 7 '13 at 20:47
add comment

I think this is a good idea. On a lot of the sites where I'm less active I want to edit posts to fix minor spelling issues or grammar errors but can't without making major changes. This is especially frustrating for the titles of questions.

share|improve this answer
add comment

I second this. Additionally it is important as a small typo in code can render the code unusable. The ability to amend code snippets even for a character or two would be very helpful.

share|improve this answer
3  
If you suspect an error in the code, you can leave a comment to the poster, who can then fix it himself. –  Bo Persson Mar 7 '13 at 8:21
    
Yes. I've consistently rejected edits that make substantive changes to code (beyond whitespace adjustments). That's the job of the poster (usually). –  luser droog Mar 7 '13 at 8:33
    
@BoPersson while true, I've often left such comments and in many cases they only end up being ignored. If the code is actually wrong, I then want to leave a down-vote so that other readers might suspect a problem, but after having commented it can often lead to activity behind the whole "why don't people explain their downvotes" mess. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 9 '13 at 13:18
1  
@luserdroog why, only the original poster has the ability to notice their own errors? You approve whitespace changes (which only affect readability, not correctness) but not correcting a typo in a variable name or actually making broken code work? That's curious. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 9 '13 at 13:19
    
@AaronBertrand no, I'm saying I am not qualified to judge whether some random code change is a correction or vandalism. But in general I can make such judgements about grammar, spelling, and formatting. Here's a reject of mine; I think it would have been better as a comment to the original author. –  luser droog Mar 9 '13 at 17:13
    
@luserdroog but that does not mean that holds true for everyone. In the tags where I lurk (e.g. sql-server), I am fairly confident that I can tell the difference between a code correction and vandalism. Why should we all be restricted to essentially grammar cops, when most of the grammar, spelling and formatting corrections don't change the message? I don't dispute that they make the post better, but they are far less harmful than incorrect code. And many of us are quite capable of determining the difference. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 9 '13 at 17:19
    
@AaronBertrand Point taken. Perhaps I should start skipping those instead of rejecting. –  luser droog Mar 9 '13 at 17:23
2  
@luserdroog I believe that makes sense. If you can't tell whether a code change is valid, you shouldn't be making a decision either way. –  Aaron Bertrand Mar 9 '13 at 17:23
    
In my view code edits should be particularly minor. Whitespace is fine. Punctuation is fine. Something like missing parentheses are fine. I get nervous with stuff beyond that becuase one gets too far into the expression of the author. But that's the point. A missing semicolon is only one character... –  Chris Travers Mar 19 '13 at 3:09
add comment

You must log in to answer this question.

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