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.
Should have been improved, not approved. Much to improve over the suggestion. –  Oded Apr 12 '13 at 14:28
It should have been Im proved. –  Daniel Fischer Apr 12 '13 at 14:28
I declined though. The only two things I saw changed were the renaming of a class name (!!!) and the bolding of a problem. –  Joetjah Apr 12 '13 at 14:32
Ideally it should have been improved, but failing that rejecting is the better option. It's definitely not something that should be approved as it is. –  Anthony Grist Apr 12 '13 at 14:34
Note that the OP approved it as well. –  Mysticial Apr 12 '13 at 14:39
@Mysticial I did not.. Joetjah reviewed this 18 mins ago: Reject –  Joetjah Apr 12 '13 at 14:44
@Joetjah I think Mystical meant that the OP of the edited question approved the edit. –  Caleb Apr 12 '13 at 14:47
as far as I can tell, suggested edit missed an error in code formatting (at define('pageValuesTests',...); that could make reviewer angry –  gnat Apr 12 '13 at 15:03

3 Answers 3

up vote 11 down vote accepted

Yes it should have been approved because the person who originally posted the answer voted to approve the edit, and it's their post so they can edit if they want to (providing they don't vandalize it)

But regardless of if the owner of the post voted or not, I don't see anything wrong with the edit.

The edit may have appeared minor because not many characters were changed, but in my opinion it was a worthwhile edit to make and I would not have considered it "too minor".

The edit corrected the name of the js library in the post title, and it removed some extra markup words from the post's body which improved the readability of the post. The post was less than 30 minutes old, so bumping it isn't that big of a deal.

I might have had some concern about adding bold text where there was none before to a section that doesn't appear to summarize the post, so may have clicked on Improve to remove that, however since the owner of the post approved the edit I am not concerned.

share|improve this answer
Just because the original poster approves an edit doesn't mean it was a good edit in the first place. –  LittleBobbyTables Apr 12 '13 at 14:49
@Rachel I am agreed with you..:) +1 –  Naruto Apr 12 '13 at 14:52
Is changing the name of a class a good thing to do, even though the spelling would suggest otherwise? What if it's his own class and not the standard library class? –  Joetjah Apr 12 '13 at 15:35
@Joetjah If that were the case then the person writing the post should have specified that, and such an edit would prompt them to update their post to include that information. In this case though, the js library was clearly specified in the post, and the tag for it was even used. –  Rachel Apr 12 '13 at 15:43

I always approve spelling or unambiguous grammar corrections in titles since they significant impact the presentation of the question, in particular to users coming from a site like Google, but also within SO.

My rule of thumb for grammar/spelling cleanup within a post is I approve if it made it easier to read or faster to process. Improved code formatting usually does. Changing one "recieved" to a "received" and an "i" to an "I" wouldn't.

share|improve this answer

Any edit which improves the quality of question/answer should be approved. Even if it is minor. Because the purpose of the edit was to improve the quality of asked question.

Also the edit should be meaningful and understandable to other user. Any other non-meaningful edit should be closed.

share|improve this answer
And then the point of the "Too minor" rejection choice would be...? –  LittleBobbyTables Apr 12 '13 at 14:59
@BlahBlahGrabblesnackers But the purpose was to improve the quality of question. If its not clear to other user they may vote to close the question and may be downvote the question. –  Naruto Apr 12 '13 at 15:03
Trivial edits are actually discouraged because it bumps the question to the front of the Active question list, even though the question may not actually be active. Trivial edits are also discouraged for users that have to go through the edit review queue, as it adds additional work for users approving the edit. (I personally disagree with this last reasoning - you shouldn't have two separate standards for two separate rep levels). But this edit was not one I would have counted as "trivial" as I think it improved the question's readability. –  Rachel Apr 12 '13 at 15:03
Downvoting this because there is a too trivial line, and "any edit which improves the quality" misleads against this. –  djechlin Apr 12 '13 at 15:57

You must log in to answer this question.

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