Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 153 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

I'm just curious really: a little while ago I suggested some minor edits (I even gave my reason as such), and luckily they went through (3 accepts and 2 rejects), even with one rejecting it due to

This edit is too minor; suggested edits should be substantive improvements addressing multiple issues in the post.

This got me thinking. Personally I don't see how this is a valid reason when dealing with tag wiki edits. Why would you give this as a reason while reviewing? Surely anything that tries to add to or clarify a tag wiki is a good thing regardless of how major or minor it is.

share|improve this question
What if someone changed a couple of "doesn't"s to "does not"s? or change a word to a synonym of that word? or generally rephrase something in a way that is no better than the original. I'm sure there's an infinite number of edits that could be too minor. – OGHaza Mar 6 '14 at 12:44
@OGHaza But apart from the time taken to review it even edit's like those what is the issue, there's no rush to have them reviewed and plenty of people to review them. Personally unless it is blatantly wrong I don't see the issue. – Lankymart Mar 6 '14 at 13:09
Yeah that's a good point, I was going to say "well you could say the same for suggested edits on posts", but posts become CW after too many edits so it's not the same at all. Still I think if you removed the option, all that would happen is people would use a different reason for rejecting the same edits. – OGHaza Mar 6 '14 at 13:26
If you're talking about this suggested tag wiki edit, I don't think that really improved the post much. The first bit was alright, but "the Windows Server Operating System" is unnecessarily verbose. Adding code spans is okay, but not something that warrants change by itself (easily readable without). The last bit about "programming" vs "scripting" feels like nitpicking to me. – Qantas 94 Heavy Mar 6 '14 at 13:42
@Qantas94Heavy It is actually clever you! I still fail to see your point, you don't like how someones worded something go change it it's a wiki. As for Windows Server Operating system being "unnecessarily verbose" I disagree not everyone will understand what was meant by Windows Server, some may think it means any server with a copy of Windows installed on it, in this context it is the server operating system. I agree "programming" vs "scripting" probably is nitpicking (but I'd still say VBScript is more a scripting language then a programming one). – Lankymart Mar 6 '14 at 13:49
up vote 2 down vote accepted

This review response exists for the same reason that the six character minimum exists; it takes time from reviewers to review posts, so we want to make that time as efficient as possible for them. It doesn't make sense to ask reviewers to review many tiny edits on posts, so the goal of a suggested editor should be to make the post as good as they can in a single edit.

share|improve this answer
When you are talking about tag wiki edits though, surely this isn't as much of an issue? Last time I looked there isn't a drought when it comes to reviewers either. – Lankymart Mar 7 '14 at 1:09
@Lankymart: note that tag wiki edits have less reviewers as you need to have 5k from memory. – Qantas 94 Heavy Mar 7 '14 at 1:47
@Qantas94Heavy And there is how many tag wiki suggested edits on an average day? – Lankymart Mar 7 '14 at 8:43

You must log in to answer this question.

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