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

This is a sandbox post made solely to link to suggested edits that were accepted when they really should have been rejected.

I have been reviewing suggested edits for a long time, and I have just recently begun to look at my previous review actions to check if people agree with me. They mostly do, but there are an overwhelming amount of suggested edits that are accepted, even though they are clearly either unnecessary, wrong or just stupid.

The idea is that this post can be a future reference for an idea of a complete revamp of the entire review system. Feel free to add links to more suggested edits that should have been rejected, and if you see some that are completely wrong, do your civil duty of rolling back to the previous revision.

Note: I encourage discussion about the individual suggested edits to happen in this chat room.

share|improve this question

closed as not constructive by Mat, Martijn Pieters, BinaryMisfit, Matt, hims056 Mar 10 '13 at 18:33

As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

Or: should have been accepted? It's hard not to get into a discussion... – Arjan Mar 10 '13 at 14:04
Well, that's sort of the same. Make a new category in the answer for those, maybe? – Emil Mar 10 '13 at 14:05
@Arjan: Eh, "shouldn't have been accepted" is a rather subjective thing when it comes to minor edits. (IIRC the official stance is that reviewers have the freedom to choose what counts as too minor; not sure of this) – Manishearth Mar 10 '13 at 14:08
I'm not sure if calling out individual edits is going to be constructive. – Martijn Pieters Mar 10 '13 at 14:10
@MartijnPieters The purpose is for it to be used as a future reference. – Emil Mar 10 '13 at 14:11
I know what your purpose is, I just don't think that it's a good idea, necessarily. – Martijn Pieters Mar 10 '13 at 14:14
@Manishearth, the example I gave is not a minor edit in my book. That edit took/saves readers much more time than just fixing some formatting or grammar, still rejected. – Arjan Mar 10 '13 at 14:14
@Martijn, I rather have a single list here, than a new post for each problem people encounter, or people just not reporting issues at all. – Arjan Mar 10 '13 at 14:18
@Arjan: I rather have individuals flagged for moderator attention and us talk about the general problem. This feels too much like naming and shaming individuals than a constructive approach to improvement. – Martijn Pieters Mar 10 '13 at 14:21
@Arjan: Like I said, subjective. Exactly what consists a minor edit has never been rigorously specified, and different people have different opinions (all valid) on this. – Manishearth Mar 10 '13 at 14:22
Instead of discussing incorrectly approved edits, there should be a thread discussing how to correctly approve edits.… – AsheeshR Mar 10 '13 at 14:32
@Martijn, I don't feel this is naming and shaming at all, but if people read it like that, then that indeed is a problem. On the other hand: it's all public data, which we can learn from if public, but which we cannot learn from if all handled by moderators? Hard to discuss any general problem without examples, I feel. – Arjan Mar 10 '13 at 18:49
It doesn't really matter if this is closed or not, you can still edit it if you want to :) As I said, it is meant as a future reference. – Emil Mar 11 '13 at 9:41
Not certain, but I believe that should be "civic duty". – Asad Saeeduddin Mar 11 '13 at 18:23

Unnecessary/too minor edits

Radically changing edits


Feel free to add more categories and links.

share|improve this answer
The one titled 'changing the code' does in fact correct the original code. I'm sure the OP missed the php closing/opening tags by mistake, as his problem is unrelated. If anything, the edit is too minor, not at all radical. – SáT Mar 10 '13 at 14:17
About "A new answer in the edit, rolled back by answer's author", the explanation is potentially confusing (I'd reject it as invalid edit). It is NOT adding a new answer anyway. – nhahtdh Mar 10 '13 at 17:03

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