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

Here's an example: object copy visual studio error pop up: std::bad_alloc

Question was six minutes ago. Edit was labelled "format correction". By the time I Rejected it had already been approved.

Editor, three reviewers, myself so far involved. My involvement was effectively time wasted. Post has all original faults, plus now says Thank You! instead of Thank.

Related: Lock questions in the review queue while being reviewed

No benefit to the site. Editor gets some rep. Reviewers progress towards their badges. Anyone trying to improve things just spends time.

I've been dipping back into the Edit Reviews queue over the past couple of days.

Nearly everything I have seen is on questions (mostly) or answers where the ink has not even had a chance to dry on the original.

Given that OP can change to their hearts' content without chewing-up reviewers' time, shouldn't the OP be doing changes at this point whilst they are still remotely aware of what they have posted?

If the OP is still around, I leave a comment. Might it be possible for the site to conceive of some way that if an attempt is made to edit (by <2k user) within x-amount-of-time that OP has (approximately) been seen, then instead of getting the chance to change the answer they are prompted to leave a comment relating to their suggested edit?

Not one of these edits I've seen today have corrected everything in the post, even.

Yes, when approaching 2,000 (OK, just over 1,800 or so) I sat on the new questions list searching for "thanks". We don't get many questions in our little corner. I did, however, change everything I could see in those posts. But this edit-as-soon-as-you-see-it is coming from users with all rep levels, and they are picking-and-choosing what they change.

I know we should edit to improve, but isn't it best if OP has first crack at it?

The FAQ says:

When should I edit posts?

Any time you see a post that needs improvement and are inclined to suggest an edit, you are welcome to do so.

If invited to edit and the OP shows no interest, perhaps it can also be an indication of the quality of the question and effort put in already that they are prepared to commit to resolving their problem?

share|improve this question
OP gets notified of suggested edit on their post, and can single-handedly approve/reject already. – Mat Dec 26 '13 at 13:20
@Mat Well, I've seen that about twice out of 700 reviews. So how is that being helpful except when the OP knows what is going on? How does it relate to this topic? – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 13:25
Honestly I don't really see where you're trying to get with this post. OP's already involved in the suggested edit business if they care to. – Mat Dec 26 '13 at 13:29
But, @Mat, the OP then gets their work done by 4 other people (editor plus at least 3 reviewers on SO), and learns little. I'd prefer leaving a hint about what they need to do, avoiding the suggested edit. – Arjan Dec 26 '13 at 13:33
Something like leave the suggested edit out of the queue (available to OP only) for X amount of time, @Arjan? I really don't see the point of not allowing suggested edits even on new posts (especially not on new questions). – Mat Dec 26 '13 at 13:35
No, @Mat, I meant telling the OP how to fix it themselves (and not doing any suggested edit at all). And I think that's also what Pompous is saying. – Arjan Dec 26 '13 at 13:37
@mat exactly as Arjan says. OP hasn't finished sweating after making the post and already its been changed, in an incomplete way, which may have marginally improved it. OP has no real way to be aware of the ability to Rollback (I didn't when I started). – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 13:41
Makes no sense to me. What needs to be fixed is robo-approvers, so that editors actually learn what to do. Preventing suggested edits is a huge step back in how SE works. – Mat Dec 26 '13 at 13:44
@Mat, it is not preventing suggested edits. Use 1hr as example. OP is not around for 1hr, edit away. OP is still sitting at their screen, get them to do the work, or learn that they are not bothered and take that into account. Cuts down on Reviewers time. Cuts down on the number of robo-editors and the effects of the robo-reviewers. – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 13:48
Since the OP has a preview of the result before posting it, he might either not be able jet to format or just not overly interested in doing so. So I don't see the point why we should wait and perhaps later forget to improve. – bummi Dec 26 '13 at 13:50
@PompousQWoodger: the suggested edit review queue is really small most of the time, it's not like we're lacking reviewers. Preventing edits for the first hours of posts, especially for questions, is a really, really bad idea for the general quality of the sites (IMO of course). – Mat Dec 26 '13 at 13:51
@PompousQWoodger: How do we know if we'll see the OP again? Some of them ask a question and disappear and never ever come back. As bummi says, they're provided with a preview-screen. Those who are new to the site may not be aware of the system / rules, so simply waiting 1 hour isn't going to be much helpful, IMO. – Amal Murali Dec 26 '13 at 13:52
If I had a dime for every time I saw a post edited and the edits did not fix glaring spelling, syntax or punctuation problems... well... I'd have a lot of dimes. – Johnny Bones Dec 26 '13 at 14:51
@JohnnyBones: And finally, you'd buy Stack Exchange! – Amal Murali Dec 26 '13 at 14:55
@AmalMurali 1hr was just a suggestion to make an example. People active in the more active tags probably are the best to suggest how long any such period should be (were it a desired thing). – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 15:09

Edits should be accepted if they are correct or helpful, and rejected if they are incorrect or spam. The length of the edit or the reputation of the user is irrelevant.

Most of the new users aren't aware how the edit system works or how to properly format their code. In such cases, a quick edit is really helpful. Especially when it's an easy question, there will be lots of activity during the first few minutes and if the code is properly formatted, then it'd help everyone.

In my experience, most of these edits are code-formatting edits. Some of the editors don't consider "thanks", "regards" etc. at the end of post to be a problem and they leave it out. If the edit isn't complete or if there's something more to be improved, another user usually comes by and edits it out. If the OP doesn't like the way their post was edited, they can always rollback the edit.

I personally don't find anything wrong with the edit-as-soon-as-you-see-it behavior as long as the edit is complete and actually improves the post.

share|improve this answer
"Most of the new users aren't aware how the edit system works or how to properly format their code." -- so: tell them in a comment, rather than doing some magical fixes for them? – Arjan Dec 26 '13 at 13:35
@Arjan: "Hi Welcome to Stack Overflow! Please format your code so it's easier for us to read and understand your code. I've done it for you this time. Cheers!" – Amal Murali Dec 26 '13 at 13:38
complete in what terms, given the rest of your post? Improves is relative.subjective. Does it improve enough to take the time of at least three (usually) and up to five Reviewers on SO? – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 13:38
Yes, Amal, such comment is <s>nice</s> great. But if your edit would be a suggested edit, then beware that at least 3 more people need to look at that. – Arjan Dec 26 '13 at 13:39
@PompousQWoodger: I'm saying it should. Tiny edits that don't improve the post substantially should be rejected outright. – Amal Murali Dec 26 '13 at 13:46
By three people. And often/mostly/sometimes (pick one relating to your own experience) doesn't happen. 3-5 people and then Even if a bad edit is applied to a post, other users will generally fix it. assumes the Help Centre. – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 13:51
@PompousQWoodger: Say the OP asked a question and left as it is. Should we wait for 1 hour checking if the OP actually comes back and edits the question? They might just don't know how to edit. – Amal Murali Dec 26 '13 at 13:55
@AmalMurali You are in the position of having a choice (>=2k). You are trusted, and trusted to make all relevant changes (subject to missing something) when you do edit. Should you edit or attempt to get OP to edit is up to you. For <2k users, who don't change as much as can be changed and who then get through the Review because they've reformatted the code or added a tag, it is different. Yes, there is an anomaly - the Reviewers are all >2k... – Bill Woodger Dec 26 '13 at 15:08

You must log in to answer this question.

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